NUFC kits & merchandise

[TheBrownBottle]

22 minutes ago, Harry 209 said:

Essentially we are sponsored by a vape and chewing tobacco corporation 

We’re owned by PIF, any sense of ethics was consigned to the scrapheap long ago

[r0cafella]

5 hours ago, AngelofTheFourth said:

 

Companies connected to the club owners have to gp through fair market value. Ours this season was around 2

15 million so that would have been the max or we would have been in trouble.

This isnt true, we don't know what the assessed fair market value is as that information isn't published plus I find it extremely hard to believe we couldn't argue we were worth more than our old deal given our increase in profile. 

 

The club can try and spin this as a success (as if this was just pushed onto them and they didn't know the old seal was expiring  ) but in reality this is a failure, we had an opportunity to close the revenue gap and ended up going backwards. 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

This isnt true, we don't know what the assessed fair market value is as that information isn't published plus I find it extremely hard to believe we couldn't argue we were worth more than our old deal given our increase in profile. 

 

The club can try and spin this as a success (as if this was just pushed onto them and they didn't know the old seal was expiring  ) but in reality this is a failure, we had an opportunity to close the revenue gap and ended up going backwards. 

It would definitely be interesting to hear from those who thought we’d have perpetual commercial growth until we caught up.  I think it’s a decent deal in the current market, but not at all indicative of an ownership looking to be competitive at the highest level. 

[Harry 209]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

This isnt true, we don't know what the assessed fair market value is as that information isn't published plus I find it extremely hard to believe we couldn't argue we were worth more than our old deal given our increase in profile. 

 

The club can try and spin this as a success (as if this was just pushed onto them and they didn't know the old seal was expiring  ) but in reality this is a failure, we had an opportunity to close the revenue gap and ended up going backwards. 

I don't think your taking into account the current market for front of shirt sponsorships tho.....everything I've read suggests it's a declining source of income since last season and anyone renewing this season will take a hit.

[r0cafella]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

It would definitely be interesting to hear from those who thought we’d have perpetual commercial growth until we caught up.  I think it’s a decent deal in the current market, but not at all indicative of an ownership looking to be competitive at the highest level. 

Yeah to clarify before people come at me for being negative and not factual, the context of all of my posts will always be using the yardstick the offered up to measure them by. At the time I said the growth numbers aren't particularly relevant it's all about the gap between us and the cartel ...

[r0cafella]

Just now, Harry 209 said:

I don't think your taking into account the current market for front of shirt sponsorships tho.....everything I've read suggests it's a declining source of income since last season and anyone renewing this season will take a hit.

Oh no, I am don't worry. 

 

I think some folk aren't taking into account who owns us and how many people want to carry favour with them. If they wanted we could have Goldman Sachs as front of shirt no bother

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Yeah to clarify before people come at me for being negative and not factual, the context of all of my posts will always be using the yardstick the offered up to measure them by. At the time I said the growth numbers aren't particularly relevant it's all about the gap between us and the cartel ...

Yep - I’ve lost count of the number of times we’ve been told ‘they’re biding their time on the Man City case’ or ‘they’ve grown commercials by X% p.a. so by 2030 we’ll have caught up’. 
 

There is nothing at all wrong with the deal struck under the circumstances - it just doesn’t align with the narrative pushed by the ownership nor by those who buy it. 

 

Just now, r0cafella said:

Oh no, I am don't worry. 

 

I think some folk aren't taking into account who owns us and how many people want to carry favour with them. If they wanted we could have Goldman Sachs as front of shirt no bother

This is the one I’ve never understood - they’ve got fingers all over the planet, in every market.  It wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to do these sort of deals.  The fact that there is no permanent PIF representative on the board at the club tells a story.  

[r0cafella]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep - I’ve lost count of the number of times we’ve been told ‘they’re biding their time on the Man City case’ or ‘they’ve grown commercials by X% p.a. so by 2030 we’ll have caught up’. 
 

There is nothing at all wrong with the deal struck under the circumstances - it just doesn’t align with the narrative pushed by the ownership nor by those who buy it. 

 

This is the one I’ve never understood - they’ve got fingers all over the planet, in every market.  It wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to do these sort of deals.  The fact that there is no permanent PIF representative on the board at the club tells a story.  

Honestly, I think originally the goal was to be PSG/city esque but the PSR stuff basically relegated us to low value equity investment which will be run more as a portfolio company to grow and be sold down the line. 

 

They were walking about training grounds, multi club, new stadiums, biggest club in the world before, all of that is in the long grass from the looks of it. 

[JT24]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep - I’ve lost count of the number of times we’ve been told ‘they’re biding their time on the Man City case’ or ‘they’ve grown commercials by X% p.a. so by 2030 we’ll have caught up’. 
 

There is nothing at all wrong with the deal struck under the circumstances - it just doesn’t align with the narrative pushed by the ownership nor by those who buy it. 

 

This is the one I’ve never understood - they’ve got fingers all over the planet, in every market.  It wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to do these sort of deals.  The fact that there is no permanent PIF representative on the board at the club tells a story.  

you mean we aren't going to takeover world football by 2030 with no new training ground and/or stadium and with declining sponsorship numbers and with a shit website?

 

 

Edited Monday at 22:59 by JT24

[BlueStar]

1 hour ago, RS said:

Fake. This however:

 

Ryan Reynolds staggering in from the left like "Why am I in this AI, I'm not dead... am I?"

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Honestly, I think originally the goal was to be PSG/city esque but the PSR stuff basically relegated us to low value equity investment which will be run more as a portfolio company to grow and be sold down the line. 

 

They were walking about training grounds, multi club, new stadiums, biggest club in the world before, all of that is in the long grass from the looks of it. 

‘Imminent’ I thought  

Just now, JT24 said:

you mean we aren't going to takeover world football by 2030 with no new training ground and/or stadium and with declining sponsorship numbers?

Just believe.  If you book them, they will come. 

[JT24]

7 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

‘Imminent’ I thought  

Just believe.  If you book them, they will come. 

I’m sure they’re just waiting for everything to be perfectly aligned and not, in fact, just shit owners. 

[gdm]

honking 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 09:47 by gdm

[TBG]

[Nobody]

27 minutes ago, gdm said:

honking 

 

 

 

I really like it 

[Fak]

Its nice but again it would be elevated a lot more purely by giving it the full colour crest of arms.

[TK-421]

Commercial dept at the club going well then?

That's the home shirt on sale in Adidas stores (Far east/Aus) ahead of its official launch by the club, and now JD selling the training gear before launch too?

[Unbelievable]

12 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We’re owned by PIF, any sense of ethics was consigned to the scrapheap long ago

And before that we were owned for over a decade by Mike Ashley, so it’s not like we had much to start with.

[Menace]

12 hours ago, Harry 209 said:

I'm not one to be negative, but.......it seems KNOX hydration is part of this lot:

 

https://ignite.co/

 

These seem like total douches. 

 

Is this not Dan Bilzerians dodgy company?

[Harry 209]

3 minutes ago, Menace said:

 

Is this not Dan Bilzerians dodgy company?

Yes! He's not there now but still........

 

Just waiting for the Andrew Tate partnership now.

[Nucasol]

1 minute ago, Harry 209 said:

Just waiting for the Andrew Tate partnership now.

New merch line incoming, Dominate like Tate.

[Unbelievable]

12 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It would definitely be interesting to hear from those who thought we’d have perpetual commercial growth until we caught up.  I think it’s a decent deal in the current market, but not at all indicative of an ownership looking to be competitive at the highest level. 

You called..?

 

The way I see it is we managed to get a company unaffiliated with our owners to sponsor our training ground and take on our shirt sponsorship for a little more revenue than we got from the affiliated company we had before, and seemingly in a challenging marketplace.

 

That’s a positive and will contribute to our continued rapid commercial revenue growth. It is quite clear that PIF see us primarily as an investment and are seeking to make this club self sufficient and the best version of itself without bankrolling it with stupid amounts of money. To be honest, that’s all I’ve ever wanted, so I am happy with these recent developments. This way the day they leave the club will be in an infinitely better position than how they found it.

 

Not at all surprised however to see the usual four or five miserable posters put a negative spin on the very thing they have criticised the club and its owners for not doing before, in reference to for example training ground sponsorship and also not having a shirt sponsor earlier this year.

[JT24]

1 minute ago, Unbelievable said:

You called..?

 

The way I see it is we managed to get a company unaffiliated with our owners to sponsor our training ground and take on our shirt sponsorship for a little more revenue than we got from the affiliated company we had before, and seemingly in a challenging marketplace.

 

That’s a positive and will contribute to our continued rapid commercial revenue growth. It is quite clear that PIF see us primarily as an investment and are seeking to make this club self sufficient and the best version of itself without bankrolling it with stupid amounts of money. To be honest, that’s all I’ve ever wanted, so I am happy with these recent developments. This way the day they leave the club will be in an infinitely better position than how they found it.

 

Not at all surprised however to see the usual four or five miserable posters put a negative spin on the very thing they have criticised the club and its owners for not doing before, in reference to for example training ground sponsorship and also not having a shirt sponsor earlier this year.

Why should I be happy about this when we’re owned by some of the most reprehensible people on Earth?

 

They’re also clearly not making the club the “best version of itself” when you see the lack of progress in so many areas of the football club. 

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

You called..?

 

The way I see it is we managed to get a company unaffiliated with our owners to sponsor our training ground and take on our shirt sponsorship for a little more revenue than we got from the affiliated company we had before, and seemingly in a challenging marketplace.

 

That’s a positive and will contribute to our continued rapid commercial revenue growth. It is quite clear that PIF see us primarily as an investment and are seeking to make this club self sufficient and the best version of itself without bankrolling it with stupid amounts of money. To be honest, that’s all I’ve ever wanted, so I am happy with these recent developments. This way the day they leave the club will be in an infinitely better position than how they found it.

 

Not at all surprised however to see the usual four or five miserable posters put a negative spin on the very thing they have criticised the club and its owners for not doing before, in reference to for example training ground sponsorship and also not having a shirt sponsor earlier this year.

I was talking generally rather than aiming it at anyone in particular, but I’ll happily respond.  We took less for our FOS sponsorship than the last deal.  £10m this season for FOS.  
 

You weren’t claiming that this is what would happen - you were consistently claiming that the club’s commercials would continue growing at the same rate.   Because as was repeatedly pointed out to you, this is the club’s ’natural’ ceiling - ie any owner could get us to this point.  And they wouldn’t be the slush fund for one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth in all likelihood. 

[Unbelievable]

1 minute ago, JT24 said:

Why should I be happy about this when we’re owned by some of the most reprehensible people on Earth?

 

They’re also clearly not making the club the “best version of itself” when you see the lack of progress in so many areas of the football club. 

The bit in bold is the prism through which you and the other four consider any development at NUFC though, isn’t it..? Did you allow yourself to be happy when we qualified for CL (twice), or when we lifted the Carabao Cup, or did the fact we are owned by people whose values do not match your own prevent you from enjoying anything NUFC related?

 

I am all for you guys having your circle jerk in the special SA ownership thread about how bad the Saudis are, but what has that got to do with criticising the club for growing its organic commercial revenue successfully?