JCONA Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I dont believe that. Photos needed.. although I don't want to see them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Maybe potential advertisers just weren't impressed enough with what was already there and this will spur them on Positive spin ha, theres no way he'll flog the advertising rights, Sports direct is absolutely everywhere in st james'. Everywhere!!! Its just not necessary now Actually I'm wrong, it's the stadium naming rights they're trying to sell http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/nov/04/newcastle-united-naming-stadium-rights Might all still be bollocks though I know its an old article. But this Lambias quote man... "In our reign, absolutely, it's just adding to the name. If this brings in a good chunk of money to the club, that goes straight to the team, so it's a revenue we should look at." Straight to the team? Aye areet then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 How long ago was it since they announced trying to sell the naming rights. Obviously there has been no interest unless they intended it to be SP@SJP all along. Bit by bit, they are destroying our heritage and as I have said before, the longer they stay and the more they continue to alienate supporters in a one town club where most of the supporters are based, the more irrepairable the damage will be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Clearly not true. They're not insane enough to it surely?! Aww christ it's all going to kick off if they do. Anyone seen the Metro one he's on about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't know who is more brainless, Ashley or Wraith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Anyone honestly surprised by this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I fail to believe this like....how many signs does he need in sight at any one time...be painting them on the fucking pigeons net if this true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It's all right, they give us shitloads in advertising, they just won't give us any indication how much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Anyone honestly surprised by this? It's probably bollocks tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It's all right, they give us shitloads in advertising, they just won't give us any indication how much. They don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't know who is more brainless, Ashley or Wraith. Ashley isn't brainless, he's an evil, calculating pile of puss. Wraith is an imbecile Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEJ Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 They can't be this daft man can they? Ah... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. But he gets free advertising for his company. Highly valuable advertising at that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. He subsidises gambling establishments more than he does Newcastle United. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. "During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. But he gets free advertising for his company. Highly valuable advertising at that. It's not free. It's at market price, but is a way of reducing tax burdens across different companies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. But he gets free advertising for his company. Highly valuable advertising at that. It's not free. It's at market price, but is a way of reducing tax burdens across different companies. I've also been fed this rubbish by an Ashley mouthpiece. Proof please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. "During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250." Guess £42k isn't that much, I would have thought the highly-visible advertising was worth more than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. "During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250." Guess £42k isn't that much, I would have thought the highly-visible advertising was worth more than that. Isn't that the cost to the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. "During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250." Guess £42k isn't that much, I would have thought the highly-visible advertising was worth more than that. Isn't that the cost to the club? Oh, is it? May have missed the point totally then! What I was wondering is how much we could have got for the advertising on the open market, and if Sports Direct is paying us anything for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Manchester City have announced a 10-year agreement with Etihad Airways – the airline owned by the Abu Dhabi government – which includes the immediate renaming of their stadium. The deal, which extends Etihad's shirt sponsorship as well as covering other joint commercial enterprises, could be worth up £100m. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-stadium-etihad-airways What do we have to show from our relationship with Sports Direct... with the exception of its logo being plastered all over our stadium? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It would seem to be self-defeating if Ashley is giving Sports Direct free advertising at the expense of charging other advertisers for it. Less money for the club means bigger losses and more that he has to subsidise himself. "During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr MJW Ashley, the ultimate shareholder of the company's parent company, St James' Holdings limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250." Guess £42k isn't that much, I would have thought the highly-visible advertising was worth more than that. Isn't that the cost to the club? Oh, is it? May have missed the point totally then! What I was wondering is how much we could have got for the advertising on the open market, and if Sports Direct is paying us anything for it. That extract (presumably from the previous accounts) reads to me that the club provided advertising and promotional services for Ashley's other companies (primarily Sports Direct, surely) and received no money for it. In fact it actually cost the club £42,250 - probably for the planning applications, architect services etc and signage erection itself. Sure someone will clear this up like, I'm just guessing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Guess £42k isn't that much, I would have thought the highly-visible advertising was worth more than that. The club paid 42,250 to advertise SD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 That extract (presumably from the previous accounts) reads to me that the club provided advertising and promotional services for Ashley's other companies (primarily Sports Direct, surely) and received no money for it. In fact it actually cost the club £42,250 - probably for the planning applications, architect services etc and signage erection itself. Sure someone will clear this up like, I'm just guessing. Nobody can clear up what we paid the money for but it will probably be for at least some of the things you mention. The published accounts don't go into enough detail to specify where the money went. It covers two sets of accounts as it says 'During the current and prior year.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now