Dr Spectrum Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 It was from here: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2006/490/ Is this numbers reliable? Not in the slightest. The Everton figure constantly amuses me. Ya, seems low. And the Chelsea one seems way too high - Unless this was a survey of 5000 14 year old fickle cockney glory hunting schoolkids. Don't know owt about how reputable this Roy Morgan is...I don't suppose anyone here is an expert on the worlds various market research companies and the accuracy of their findings? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 It was from here: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2006/490/ Is this numbers reliable? Not in the slightest. The Everton figure constantly amuses me. Ya, seems low. And the Chelsea one seems way too high - Unless this was a survey of 5000 14 year old fickle cockney glory hunting schoolkids. Don't know owt about how reputable this Roy Morgan is...I don't suppose anyone here is an expert on the worlds various market research companies and the accuracy of their findings? That was my point. Should ask 25-45 year olds or something. For example: When compared to the average UK football supporter: Manchester United supporters are: * 81% more likely to be aged between 14 and 17. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spectrum Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 It was from here: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2006/490/ Is this numbers reliable? Not in the slightest. The Everton figure constantly amuses me. Ya, seems low. And the Chelsea one seems way too high - Unless this was a survey of 5000 14 year old fickle cockney glory hunting schoolkids. Don't know owt about how reputable this Roy Morgan is...I don't suppose anyone here is an expert on the worlds various market research companies and the accuracy of their findings? That was my point. Should ask 25-45 year olds or something. For example: When compared to the average UK football supporter: Manchester United supporters are: * 81% more likely to be aged between 14 and 17. Uh huh, I get where you're coming from. So I would say that without knowing who was surveyed (For all we know, they could have asked 5000 kids, or 5) its pretty safe to dismiss this in the main. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeToon Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 In general, surveys are only as accurate as their methodology. Without knowing where their answers came from, whether it was weighted to accurately reflect age and population distribution, etc, it's hard to tell. Plus, remember that these surveys are only made up of the people who actually bothered to take time and answer a long, boring string of neverending survey questions, so... make of that what you will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I think only an idiot could suggest those figures are reliable. For one I guarantee we have double the support Spurs do in this country, and Middlesbrough at least double Sunderland's support We'd be above Chelsea for definite, and in this country probably Rangers too, and obviously Tottenham. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FlapjackJoe Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Why are City in bold? And why are we getting less money than no-mark clubs like Bolton and Fulham? Didn't the previous shirt sponsors of Man Citeh go bankrupt? And Thomas Cook stepped in with a deal that's probably not worth the same as the original deal. Same as Charlton where AllSports went bankrupt and Llanera stepped in, they probably would've gotten a worse deal from their second choice sponsor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 the reason spurs' deal is so large is because it was agreed with the new tv deals in mind, plus Mansion's desperation to get into football after being rejected by man utd. before that their sponsorship deal was miniscule while we'd had quite a large deal for a good few years. i imagine if we re-negotiated we'd be able to get more money in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Spectrum Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Why are City in bold? And why are we getting less money than no-mark clubs like Bolton and Fulham? Didn't the previous shirt sponsors of Man Citeh go bankrupt? And Thomas Cook stepped in with a deal that's probably not worth the same as the original deal. Same as Charlton where AllSports went bankrupt and Llanera stepped in, they probably would've gotten a worse deal from their second choice sponsor. Yes they did. But their was no desperate panic to replace them as we played out the season with the defunct sponsor on our shirts. I think we just got a bum deal cos no-one cares about us outside of Manchester. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Triglett Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 The Mansion deal with Spurs is a minimum of £34m over the 4 years btw. With CL qualification, the deal would break into the top 5 of: Man Utd, Juventus, Bayern, Chelsea, Real Madrid 8) Amazing, considering our previous deal with Thompson was just £5m over 2 years 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