Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 there seems to be a lot of bollocks being posted around the place about Belgravia coming in and improving the team, as it naturally leads to increased tickets/ merchandising / Sky money Does this add up? Who honestly thinks there are more tickets to be sold? (considering the already full take up year on year) how much more merchandising gets sold if we are 5th? (someone post the robson year's figures if they have them) how much more TV money comes with success? IIRC we lost £2m max due to fewer cup games. Also, the majority from Sky is fixed collectively no? and if there is, does this increase cover the proposed investment? I don't think it does. Belgravia are looking at something else to recoup their investment, possibly the casino or individual media/TV contracts when Sky finishes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theunis Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Think these people get dont want to say bored but try a new venture and go in to footy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 What about getting into the Champions League? That's where the real money is. Alternatively, they could just be looking at cutting costs and increasing profit margin that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 there seems to be a lot of bollocks being posted around the place about Belgravia coming in and improving the team, as it naturally leads to increased tickets/ merchandising / Sky money Does this add up? It *can* add up. Who honestly thinks there are more tickets to be sold? (considering the already full take up year on year) There's more money in tickets the further we get in Europe -- i.e. the more successful we are. Season tickets maybe not, but maybe they'll expand the stadium and recoup some there. How much more per year exactly I don't know. How much more merchandising gets sold if we are 5th? (someone post the robson year's figures if they have them) More, but overseas like. Barring your friends the Singaporean ladyboys, Newcastle United doesn't have a big foothold in foreign merchandising markets. Here in Atlanta it's impossible to find a shirt in a non-specialty store that isn't ManU, Chelsea or Arsenal. Increased success and increased marketting by Belgravia could turn us into a more major "Brand", aka what's been done with Chelsea in the past few years. In my opinion this is the area with the largest amount of potential and growth. and if there is, does this increase cover the proposed investment? Not in the space of one year, no, of course not. But then that's not how they plan these things. If you look at it spread out across 10 years, I would think very much so. Bringing in £10-15m more a year for 10 years? Easily. I don't think it does. Belgravia are looking at something else to recoup their investment, possibly the casino or individual media/TV contracts when Sky finishes Maybe. I don't think a casino or improved TV contract would be the end of the world either though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jai Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Theres a new TV deal that has been negotiated with Sky, it will come in next summer, thats why every man and his dog are trying to buy premiership clubs. Not sure on the figures but it is something like a 25% increase in TV revenue..More for the Champs league clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Not that we'd get anywhere near this much, but Real Madrid are about to sign a 7 year £700m ($1.1billion) dollar TV deal ontop of the Champions League TV money. (in todays FT) £100million a year, even at 10% I'd have some of that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Belgravia can improve their revenue within NUFC by working (over time) to reduce the mistrust between the club and the fans and to reverse the attitude that we're funnelling cash into players pockets with little in way of return. That can only be acheived by sensible management of the wage bill and the small matter of winning more games (easy, eh?). They clearly have plans to redevelop land around SJP- very probably co-inciding with the developments on the Brewery site (anyone know when that's likely to go ahead?). Finally the future revenues from foreign TV deals are finally looking up. That's a gravy train they won't want to miss. What's not going to happen is coming in and cutting costs straight away. Costs may go down over time- but hacking away at the wage budget now would cost more in the long term as we'd be sitting a division lower. It will probably take 3 years to get a better wage structure in place and the abandonment of our policy of buying big-hitters. The finances just can't keep up with the outflow. The only way they'll make cash is by making us better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Belgravia can improve their revenue within NUFC by working (over time) to reduce the mistrust between the club and the fans and to reverse the attitude that we're funnelling cash into players pockets with little in way of return. That can only be acheived by sensible management of the wage bill and the small matter of winning more games (easy, eh?). They clearly have plans to redevelop land around SJP- very probably co-inciding with the developments on the Brewery site (anyone know when that's likely to go ahead?). Finally the future revenues from foreign TV deals are finally looking up. That's a gravy train they won't want to miss. What's not going to happen is coming in and cutting costs straight away. Costs may go down over time- but hacking away at the wage budget now would cost more in the long term as we'd be sitting a division lower. It will probably take 3 years to get a better wage structure in place and the abandonment of our policy of buying big-hitters. The finances just can't keep up with the outflow. The only way they'll make cash is by making us better. Most, if not all of the Brewery site has gone, I think it went for £40 million in total and the amount of land is far more than they'll get through buying the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 there seems to be a lot of bollocks being posted around the place about Belgravia coming in and improving the team, as it naturally leads to increased tickets/ merchandising / Sky money Does this add up? Who honestly thinks there are more tickets to be sold? (considering the already full take up year on year) how much more merchandising gets sold if we are 5th? (someone post the robson year's figures if they have them) how much more TV money comes with success? IIRC we lost £2m max due to fewer cup games. Also, the majority from Sky is fixed collectively no? and if there is, does this increase cover the proposed investment? I don't think it does. Belgravia are looking at something else to recoup their investment, possibly the casino or individual media/TV contracts when Sky finishes Improving the team would increase revenue in all sorts of ways. Television revenue gets bigger. The Champions League brings loads of cash. The brand becomes more valuable which means more sponsorship and more shirts etc are sold outside of home territory. I'm sure they can bring in a brand-manager/marketing type who can do a better job than Dougie sodding Hall. But yes, they would also look for revenue in new ways. There have been articles posted on here that mention plans for a hotel or two, and the hope of a casino (though they stressed that no plans depended on the casino). If a hotel on the site would prove to be a solid revenue stream, increasing the wealth of the club and stability of its finances, and they have the investment needed to build it, then as far as I'm concerned they should go right ahead. (Pure speculation, but combine a hotel and whatever at the Gallowgate end with an expansion of stadium capacity and what's not to like?) For sure, the club under Fat Fred probably doesn't have the vision and evidently couldn't muster the cash for that sort of development. We're still paying for the stadium and he's scrabbling around for funds to buy players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 there seems to be a lot of bollocks being posted around the place about Belgravia coming in and improving the team, as it naturally leads to increased tickets/ merchandising / Sky money Does this add up? Who honestly thinks there are more tickets to be sold? (considering the already full take up year on year) how much more merchandising gets sold if we are 5th? (someone post the robson year's figures if they have them) how much more TV money comes with success? IIRC we lost £2m max due to fewer cup games. Also, the majority from Sky is fixed collectively no? and if there is, does this increase cover the proposed investment? I don't think it does. Belgravia are looking at something else to recoup their investment, possibly the casino or individual media/TV contracts when Sky finishes Improving the team would increase revenue in all sorts of ways. Television revenue gets bigger. The Champions League brings loads of cash. The brand becomes more valuable which means more sponsorship and more shirts etc are sold outside of home territory. I'm sure they can bring in a brand-manager/marketing type who can do a better job than Dougie sodding Hall. But yes, they would also look for revenue in new ways. There have been articles posted on here that mention plans for a hotel or two, and the hope of a casino (though they stressed that no plans depended on the casino). If a hotel on the site would prove to be a solid revenue stream, increasing the wealth of the club and stability of its finances, and they have the investment needed to build it, then as far as I'm concerned they should go right ahead. (Pure speculation, but combine a hotel and whatever at the Gallowgate end with an expansion of stadium capacity and what's not to like?) For sure, the club under Fat Fred probably doesn't have the vision and evidently couldn't muster the cash for that sort of development. We're still paying for the stadium and he's scrabbling around for funds to buy players. thats exactly the wishy washy bollocks i'm on about - no-one has any figures for this, or even proof it happens. Everyone is taking it as fact. We already have massive sponsorship contracts. We already have international fans. Exactly how many Malaysians went out and bought merchandise during our last campaign? IIRC absence of the champions league matches brought in £5m in one year - is that a big enough return for someone to invest however many 100 mill and GAMBLE on the fact they can build a team that will get into the top 4? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 There's a couple of ways Belgravia can bring extra cash into the St James' Park Coffers: 1. The renaming of St James Park, however steeped in tradition would be one way of bringing in an initial lump sum of money. It might prove unpopular in some quarters but would it be a price worth paying if that money was put straight into team strengthening. Arsenal got quite a big wedge upfront from Emirates for the stadium naming rights. If they came in and gave Roeder (or whoever they replace him with) the 25 million that has been suggested in many quarters for team strengthening in January, it's not beyond reason to think a similar amount of money could be ploughed straight into the coffers in time for the summer transfer window even if it means playing at "The Rock" or whatever. With that sort of money, plus whatever they budget to spend anyway, with the right man buying the players, we should be there or there abouts again. Plus the SJH and Milburn Stands could be auctioned off to the highest bidder as well 2. The creation of a Newcastle TV station. The operators of the current Newcastle World site, premium TV are a part of NTL, who have just merged with Telewest, who provide the Cable Network in the North East, and obviously nationally now. Cable Television is a lot more amenable to most people compared to the internet, so a monthly subscription channel similar to MUTV would attract a lot of interest. All friendly/reserve perhaps even academy games could be shown live, whilst the club could have the fallback of televising UEFA cup games should they not be taken up by one of the mainstream channels. Add to that interviews, classic games from the past, it wouldn't be too bad a station to have. Then when premiership clubs get to negotiate their own TV deals the basic framework would be in place to show these games too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 There's a couple of ways Belgravia can bring extra cash into the St James' Park Coffers: 1. The renaming of St James Park, however steeped in tradition would be one way of bringing in an initial lump sum of money. It might prove unpopular in some quarters but would it be a price worth paying if that money was put straight into team strengthening. Arsenal got quite a big wedge upfront from Emirates for the stadium naming rights. If they came in and gave Roeder (or whoever they replace him with) the 25 million that has been suggested in many quarters for team strengthening in January, it's not beyond reason to think a similar amount of money could be ploughed straight into the coffers in time for the summer transfer window even if it means playing at "The Rock" or whatever. With that sort of money, plus whatever they budget to spend anyway, with the right man buying the players, we should be there or there abouts again. Plus the SJH and Milburn Stands could be auctioned off to the highest bidder as well I think a lot of clubs will look at selling stadium naming rights, however, the figures Arsenal got for their naming rights aren't a good yardstick to use. Arsenal were selling naming rights of a brand new stadium, which has never been known as anything else. Selling rights for an established stadium won't bring in anything like the same amount. We're having this discussion on some of our boards, and the general consensus is "so long as they pay up, they can call it what they like, we'll still call it villa park" - sponsors know this, and the price will be lower accordingly. Things are going to get interesting with the West Ham takeover and now tonight they're talking about George Gillet buying Liverpool, with 4 CL places to go for, there's going to be a lot of pissed off billionaires not getting the return they want on their money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 thats exactly the wishy washy bollocks i'm on about - no-one has any figures for this, or even proof it happens. That's not how you argue or prove something though. You can't say "because no one has proven me wrong I must be right". If I bang on with some nut theory about all Venezuelans being trained to invade mexico in 2012 I'm not right just because no one's proven me wrong. If you believe there is no correlation between success and TV money then back that up with something. However the TV revenue on http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profits2.htm in our 4,3,5 th placed years really blows the 13,13,11,11 years out of the water. Now granted I'm sure there's been reworking of deals but I fail to see how you can go on and say there's no proof that more success brings more TV money in light of those stats. Add to that the quote at the bottom: The 2006 results contained the statement "The FA Premier League recently announced new broadcasting agreements, commencing in 2007/2008 season, in which overall income levels will be significantly higher than the current contract. To fully benefit from these additional revenues the Club must seek to compete in the upper regions of the FA Premier League". and it becomes even more clear that money, least of all TV, is clearly tied into success on the pitch. And that's just the league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 thats exactly the wishy washy bollocks i'm on about - no-one has any figures for this, or even proof it happens. That's not how you argue or prove something though. You can't say "because no one has proven me wrong I must be right". If I bang on with some nut theory about all Venezuelans being trained to invade mexico in 2012 I'm not right just because no one's proven me wrong. If you believe there is no correlation between success and TV money then back that up with something. However the TV revenue on http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profits2.htm in our 4,3,5 th placed years really blows the 13,13,11,11 years out of the water. Now granted I'm sure there's been reworking of deals but I fail to see how you can go on and say there's no proof that more success brings more TV money in light of those stats. Add to that the quote at the bottom: The 2006 results contained the statement "The FA Premier League recently announced new broadcasting agreements, commencing in 2007/2008 season, in which overall income levels will be significantly higher than the current contract. To fully benefit from these additional revenues the Club must seek to compete in the upper regions of the FA Premier League". and it becomes even more clear that money, least of all TV, is clearly tied into success on the pitch. And that's just the league. There is about 12% chance that that will get through but nevertheless, well said Thomas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 there seems to be a lot of bollocks being posted around the place about Belgravia coming in and improving the team, as it naturally leads to increased tickets/ merchandising / Sky money Does this add up? Who honestly thinks there are more tickets to be sold? (considering the already full take up year on year) how much more merchandising gets sold if we are 5th? (someone post the robson year's figures if they have them) how much more TV money comes with success? IIRC we lost £2m max due to fewer cup games. Also, the majority from Sky is fixed collectively no? and if there is, does this increase cover the proposed investment? I don't think it does. Belgravia are looking at something else to recoup their investment, possibly the casino or individual media/TV contracts when Sky finishes Improving the team would increase revenue in all sorts of ways. Television revenue gets bigger. The Champions League brings loads of cash. The brand becomes more valuable which means more sponsorship and more shirts etc are sold outside of home territory. I'm sure they can bring in a brand-manager/marketing type who can do a better job than Dougie sodding Hall. But yes, they would also look for revenue in new ways. There have been articles posted on here that mention plans for a hotel or two, and the hope of a casino (though they stressed that no plans depended on the casino). If a hotel on the site would prove to be a solid revenue stream, increasing the wealth of the club and stability of its finances, and they have the investment needed to build it, then as far as I'm concerned they should go right ahead. (Pure speculation, but combine a hotel and whatever at the Gallowgate end with an expansion of stadium capacity and what's not to like?) For sure, the club under Fat Fred probably doesn't have the vision and evidently couldn't muster the cash for that sort of development. We're still paying for the stadium and he's scrabbling around for funds to buy players. thats exactly the wishy washy bollocks i'm on about - no-one has any figures for this, or even proof it happens. Everyone is taking it as fact. We already have massive sponsorship contracts. We already have international fans. Exactly how many Malaysians went out and bought merchandise during our last campaign? IIRC absence of the champions league matches brought in £5m in one year - is that a big enough return for someone to invest however many 100 mill and GAMBLE on the fact they can build a team that will get into the top 4? I think we can take it as fact that an investment group capable of putting upwards of £150 million into taking over the club is at least confident that they're not throwing all that money away. Now, whose judgement do we reckon is more firmly based in a consideration of the various financial realities? Theirs? Or yours? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 There's a couple of ways Belgravia can bring extra cash into the St James' Park Coffers: 1. The renaming of St James Park, however steeped in tradition would be one way of bringing in an initial lump sum of money. It might prove unpopular in some quarters but would it be a price worth paying if that money was put straight into team strengthening. Arsenal got quite a big wedge upfront from Emirates for the stadium naming rights. If they came in and gave Roeder (or whoever they replace him with) the 25 million that has been suggested in many quarters for team strengthening in January, it's not beyond reason to think a similar amount of money could be ploughed straight into the coffers in time for the summer transfer window even if it means playing at "The Rock" or whatever. With that sort of money, plus whatever they budget to spend anyway, with the right man buying the players, we should be there or there abouts again. Plus the SJH and Milburn Stands could be auctioned off to the highest bidder as well I think a lot of clubs will look at selling stadium naming rights, however, the figures Arsenal got for their naming rights aren't a good yardstick to use. Arsenal were selling naming rights of a brand new stadium, which has never been known as anything else. Selling rights for an established stadium won't bring in anything like the same amount. We're having this discussion on some of our boards, and the general consensus is "so long as they pay up, they can call it what they like, we'll still call it villa park" - sponsors know this, and the price will be lower accordingly. Things are going to get interesting with the West Ham takeover and now tonight they're talking about George Gillet buying Liverpool, with 4 CL places to go for, there's going to be a lot of pissed off billionaires not getting the return they want on their money. Agreed - This is where the selection of a REALLY good Manager becomes crucial.Only clubs who have really top guys are going to make it to the promised land, REGARDLESS of oney spent on players(we don't have to look too far to know that, do we...!!??). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TampaToon Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 as the numbers that outrage toon fans show, freddy and the hall family are minting money out of this club...it's a healthy cash-flowing investment that isn't going to sputter to a stop anytime soon even if it remains status quo. they could just be riding the wave of negative popular opinion regarding fat fred and counting on the fans to pressure him out of his seat. the only time newcastle looks bad is when you add in what fred and the halls pull in salary and dividends. my guess, though, is they will look at stadium improvements, overseas merchandising, and the upcoming TV contracts as additional opportunities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Just plucked a few figures from the internet of other clubs revenue. Man Uniteds new sponsorship dael was for £56.5m over 4 years (£14.1m per year). Chelseas is worth £20m pper year. We are currently 5th in the Premier league sponsors at around £5m per year with Northern Rock Man Uniteds Nike deal was worth £300m over 13 years, Nike pay Brazil £7m per year for their contract. Our Adidas contract is currently worth about £5m per year. Our TV money is around the £30m mark, Real Madrid have just agreed a £700m TV deal over 7 years (£100m per year) on top of their Champions league money. Man United brought in £20m in merchandising in 2002/03 (no definition of merchandise). In the same year we brought in £8m So there's some obvious ares for growth before even looking at sponsoring the stadium etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 there seems to be a lot of bollocks being posted around the place about Belgravia coming in and improving the team, as it naturally leads to increased tickets/ merchandising / Sky money Does this add up? Who honestly thinks there are more tickets to be sold? (considering the already full take up year on year) how much more merchandising gets sold if we are 5th? (someone post the robson year's figures if they have them) how much more TV money comes with success? IIRC we lost £2m max due to fewer cup games. Also, the majority from Sky is fixed collectively no? and if there is, does this increase cover the proposed investment? I don't think it does. Belgravia are looking at something else to recoup their investment, possibly the casino or individual media/TV contracts when Sky finishes Improving the team would increase revenue in all sorts of ways. Television revenue gets bigger. The Champions League brings loads of cash. The brand becomes more valuable which means more sponsorship and more shirts etc are sold outside of home territory. I'm sure they can bring in a brand-manager/marketing type who can do a better job than Dougie sodding Hall. But yes, they would also look for revenue in new ways. There have been articles posted on here that mention plans for a hotel or two, and the hope of a casino (though they stressed that no plans depended on the casino). If a hotel on the site would prove to be a solid revenue stream, increasing the wealth of the club and stability of its finances, and they have the investment needed to build it, then as far as I'm concerned they should go right ahead. (Pure speculation, but combine a hotel and whatever at the Gallowgate end with an expansion of stadium capacity and what's not to like?) For sure, the club under Fat Fred probably doesn't have the vision and evidently couldn't muster the cash for that sort of development. We're still paying for the stadium and he's scrabbling around for funds to buy players. but it would take £70m+ to make us better than Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I don't think it does. Belgravia are looking at something else to recoup their investment, possibly the casino or individual media/TV contracts when Sky finishes Agreed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Just plucked a few figures from the internet of other clubs revenue. Man Uniteds new sponsorship dael was for £56.5m over 4 years (£14.1m per year). Chelseas is worth £20m pper year. We are currently 5th in the Premier league sponsors at around £5m per year with Northern Rock Man Uniteds Nike deal was worth £300m over 13 years, Nike pay Brazil £7m per year for their contract. Our Adidas contract is currently worth about £5m per year. Our TV money is around the £30m mark, Real Madrid have just agreed a £700m TV deal over 7 years (£100m per year) on top of their Champions league money. Man United brought in £20m in merchandising in 2002/03 (no definition of merchandise). In the same year we brought in £8m So there's some obvious ares for growth before even looking at sponsoring the stadium etc. You compare us to Man U The only team that has driven up those income streams in a short space of time is Chelsea and they are still making £200m losses. You can't get more advertising, sponsorship unless you are successful, unless Belagravia are going to put in hundreds of millions into the team itself (you can kid yourself it would take less by all means but we are light years behind the top 3) , we can whistle in the wind for the levels that Man U achieve, certainly over the short erm. Long term goals are another matter but I would be strongly sceptical as to the long term goals of Belgravia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Just plucked a few figures from the internet of other clubs revenue. Man Uniteds new sponsorship dael was for £56.5m over 4 years (£14.1m per year). Chelseas is worth £20m pper year. We are currently 5th in the Premier league sponsors at around £5m per year with Northern Rock Man Uniteds Nike deal was worth £300m over 13 years, Nike pay Brazil £7m per year for their contract. Our Adidas contract is currently worth about £5m per year. Our TV money is around the £30m mark, Real Madrid have just agreed a £700m TV deal over 7 years (£100m per year) on top of their Champions league money. Man United brought in £20m in merchandising in 2002/03 (no definition of merchandise). In the same year we brought in £8m So there's some obvious ares for growth before even looking at sponsoring the stadium etc. You compare us to Man U The only team that has driven up those income streams in a short space of time is Chelsea and they are still making £200m losses. You can't get more advertising, sponsorship unless you are successful, unless Belagravia are going to put in hundreds of millions into the team itself (you can kid yourself it would take less by all means but we are light years behind the top 3) , we can whistle in the wind for the levels that Man U achieve, certainly over the short erm. Long term goals are another matter but I would be strongly sceptical as to the long term goals of Belgravia. It wasn't a case of comparing us to ManU - or indeed Real Madrid. It was just a case of showing how far behind we are. I can see a more open market for our next shirt sponsorship deals if Fred leaves - if a casino opens by St James expect to see MGN or similar splashed on the front of our shirts and Nike are always looking for new clubs. And whilst we may be 'hundreds of millions' behind the top 3, the immediate aim is to get back into the top 4. Spurs and Everton have shown that any team can get into the top 4 on a given season without huge investment, its staying there that will be the tricky part Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Just plucked a few figures from the internet of other clubs revenue. Man Uniteds new sponsorship dael was for £56.5m over 4 years (£14.1m per year). Chelseas is worth £20m pper year. We are currently 5th in the Premier league sponsors at around £5m per year with Northern Rock Man Uniteds Nike deal was worth £300m over 13 years, Nike pay Brazil £7m per year for their contract. Our Adidas contract is currently worth about £5m per year. Our TV money is around the £30m mark, Real Madrid have just agreed a £700m TV deal over 7 years (£100m per year) on top of their Champions league money. Man United brought in £20m in merchandising in 2002/03 (no definition of merchandise). In the same year we brought in £8m So there's some obvious ares for growth before even looking at sponsoring the stadium etc. You compare us to Man U The only team that has driven up those income streams in a short space of time is Chelsea and they are still making £200m losses. You can't get more advertising, sponsorship unless you are successful, unless Belagravia are going to put in hundreds of millions into the team itself (you can kid yourself it would take less by all means but we are light years behind the top 3) , we can whistle in the wind for the levels that Man U achieve, certainly over the short erm. Long term goals are another matter but I would be strongly sceptical as to the long term goals of Belgravia. It wasn't a case of comparing us to ManU - or indeed Real Madrid. It was just a case of showing how far behind we are. I can see a more open market for our next shirt sponsorship deals if Fred leaves - if a casino opens by St James expect to see MGN or similar splashed on the front of our shirts and Nike are always looking for new clubs. And whilst we may be 'hundreds of millions' behind the top 3, the immediate aim is to get back into the top 4. Spurs and Everton have shown that any team can get into the top 4 on a given season without huge investment, its staying there that will be the tricky part Fair enough, but to get to the revenue streams that Man U etc have, we have to show we can stay there and as you say, that will be the tricky part and the costly part. I just can't see Belgravia coming in with the view of spending a vast amount of money on getting the team to become a top 3 side. I agree that we should be looking at incremental steps, but that's a long term plan and I am not sure if Belgravia are looking at it that way, in fact I would be gobsmacked if they are. I fear the angle is other things such as the Casino. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Just plucked a few figures from the internet of other clubs revenue. Man Uniteds new sponsorship dael was for £56.5m over 4 years (£14.1m per year). Chelseas is worth £20m pper year. We are currently 5th in the Premier league sponsors at around £5m per year with Northern Rock Man Uniteds Nike deal was worth £300m over 13 years, Nike pay Brazil £7m per year for their contract. Our Adidas contract is currently worth about £5m per year. Our TV money is around the £30m mark, Real Madrid have just agreed a £700m TV deal over 7 years (£100m per year) on top of their Champions league money. Man United brought in £20m in merchandising in 2002/03 (no definition of merchandise). In the same year we brought in £8m So there's some obvious ares for growth before even looking at sponsoring the stadium etc. You compare us to Man U The only team that has driven up those income streams in a short space of time is Chelsea and they are still making £200m losses. You can't get more advertising, sponsorship unless you are successful, unless Belagravia are going to put in hundreds of millions into the team itself (you can kid yourself it would take less by all means but we are light years behind the top 3) , we can whistle in the wind for the levels that Man U achieve, certainly over the short erm. Long term goals are another matter but I would be strongly sceptical as to the long term goals of Belgravia. So how do you think Belgravia are looking at it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 spurs, a team with a lower profile than us, signed a 4 year £34m sponsorship deal, that rises even further in the event of champs league qualification. our deal over the same period yields £14m less. a simple renegotiation of the shirt sponsor would perhaps double our income from that source. when we were in the champs league under Bobby, less than $10m separated the annual incomes of Us, Arsenal and Liverpool. Now that we've dropped out of that competition and Arsenal and Liverpool have had good runs in it, arsenal are $43m ahead while liverpool are $53m ahead in annual income. and these teams both had much smaller stadiums than us. 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