BlueStar Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 It's definitely not Nike then. Shame, going from one business built on a solid foundation of child exploitation to another would have been good for the ground's brand cohesion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 It's definitely not Nike then. Shame, going from one business built on a solid foundation of child exploitation to another would have been good for the ground's brand cohesion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showpost.php?p=13550037&postcount=1 So they wont have a black cat on thier shirts anymore? Read more: http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?p=13550037#post13550037#ixzz288H1n6vr Have we ever? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam1 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 @EE: @adamwardle , hi. We have not heard anything about this. Thank you. No denial! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Has an air of 'shit they're onto us' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoSelecta Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sounds like we had a clause in the contract that if we agree a sponsorship with someone else for the strip and the naming rights for the ground the contract could come to an early end. Maybe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sounds like we had a clause in the contract that if we agree a sponsorship with someone else for the strip and the naming rights for the ground the contract could come to an early end. Maybe? There was a clause for both us and Virgin to the end deal early if either wanted to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Not SD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I doubt it's going to be EE, just people linking a newly re-branded company to us, like adding 2+2 and coming up with 5. The guys on twitter won't know any advertising information, probably wouldn't even be able to give you the number for the advertising team, so naturally they can't confirm or deny it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gleebals Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Blatantly Sports Direct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUFC_Chris Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Naaa won't be Sports Direct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodneyCisse Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 http://www.saint-james.biz Hopefully its these guys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 http://www.saint-james.biz Hopefully its these guys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mackem Logic Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Blatantly Sports Direct. I don't think even Ashley would terminate a paying sponsorship deal a year early, just to put SD.com (or any other of his companies) on the shirts for free. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Blatantly Sports Direct. I don't think even Ashley would terminate a paying sponsorship deal a year early, just to put SD.com (or any other of his companies) on the shirts for free. Don't let logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingcrofty Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 The only way I could see it being one of Ashley's companies on the shirt would be if he was planning a massive rebrand as part of his purchase of the JJB stores and wanted to publicise the link between SD.com and whatever the newly branded company would be... [/longshot] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mackem Logic Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 The only way I could see it being one of Ashley's companies on the shirt would be if he was planning a massive rebrand as part of his purchase of the JJB stores and wanted to publicise the link between SD.com and whatever the newly branded company would be... [/longshot] But surely he'll just going to convert the JJB stores he has bought, into additional Sports Direct branches? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 The only way I could see it being one of Ashley's companies on the shirt would be if he was planning a massive rebrand as part of his purchase of the JJB stores and wanted to publicise the link between SD.com and whatever the newly branded company would be... [/longshot] But surely he'll just going to convert the JJB stores he has bought, into additional Sports Direct branches? You'd think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 The only way I could see it being one of Ashley's companies on the shirt would be if he was planning a massive rebrand as part of his purchase of the JJB stores and wanted to publicise the link between SD.com and whatever the newly branded company would be... [/longshot] But surely he'll just going to convert the JJB stores he has bought, into additional Sports Direct branches? You'd think He will, whoever buys those JJB stores will want them rebranding as JJB as a brand is completely dead in the water and broken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JS Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Blatantly Sports Direct. I don't think even Ashley would terminate a paying sponsorship deal a year early, just to put SD.com (or any other of his companies) on the shirts for free. He bought the club for that sole purpose - he blazed it on the roof, the name and all over the ground, even on the training kit. Im 99% sure SD makes him more money then NUFC does - as long as he's at least breaking even it's all a huge push for sports direct that effectively costs him nothing. Don't under estimate the bloke Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Blatantly Sports Direct. I don't think even Ashley would terminate a paying sponsorship deal a year early, just to put SD.com (or any other of his companies) on the shirts for free. He bought the club for that sole purpose - he blazed it on the roof, the name and all over the ground, even on the training kit. Im 99% sure SD makes him more money then NUFC does - as long as he's at least breaking even it's all a huge push for sports direct that effectively costs him nothing. Don't under estimate the bloke Ashley has paid around the £175m mark to buy the club pay off its debts, he won't make a profit from that ever till he sells up. SD are making shitloads at the moment hence the rumours of him wanting to take it back into private ownership. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Blatantly Sports Direct. I don't think even Ashley would terminate a paying sponsorship deal a year early, just to put SD.com (or any other of his companies) on the shirts for free. Don't let logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory mate What about Ashley putting SD on the front of our shirts would constitute a conspiracy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JS Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Blatantly Sports Direct. I don't think even Ashley would terminate a paying sponsorship deal a year early, just to put SD.com (or any other of his companies) on the shirts for free. He bought the club for that sole purpose - he blazed it on the roof, the name and all over the ground, even on the training kit. Im 99% sure SD makes him more money then NUFC does - as long as he's at least breaking even it's all a huge push for sports direct that effectively costs him nothing. Don't under estimate the bloke Ashley has paid around the £175m mark to buy the club pay off its debts, he won't make a profit from that ever till he sells up. SD are making shitloads at the moment hence the rumours of him wanting to take it back into private ownership. What are you face palming for? If his sole purpose was to milk NUFC for money then he wouldn't have had SD all over the place. Quotes from SJH on his intentions for the club when buying it tell you all you need to know. SD is making him money and he's making the most of publicity it can gain. The debt he paid off for the club is still owed back to him over time, it's not exactly wiped out - just transferred to his pockets instead of a banks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Blatantly Sports Direct. I don't think even Ashley would terminate a paying sponsorship deal a year early, just to put SD.com (or any other of his companies) on the shirts for free. Don't let logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory mate What about Ashley putting SD on the front of our shirts would constitute a conspiracy? I was saying that people actually believe it could happen constitutes as a conspiracy..... I personally can't understand why people would think it can happen, ok he did the Stadium thing but he wasn't giving up a 10m a year deal to advertise his company. He would be basically throwing away 10m, smart business man like Ashley does not throw away money in any situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 The debt he paid off for the club is still owed back to him over time, it's not exactly wiped out - just transferred to his pockets instead of a banks As the sole owner, the fact there is a loan on our books is utterly irrelevant and he can take whatever money is knocking around whenever he wants. However it has proved to be a useful PR device for expectations management. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts