Commercial ineptitude

Now I am not comparing us to Man Utd and I am well aware that their global appeal is at a completely different level but.....

Kit manufacturer - £75m

Shirt sponsor - £30m

Compared to us, where we get nothing for kit manufacturer and maybe about £1m for the shirt sponsor. £105m vs £1m!!! As I say, I am not expecting to rival Man U, but surely we can do better than £1m (this figure is a guess but given their turnover it won't be much more). We were told that as a club we were going to be a lot more commercial and exploit avenues that were available. Are we really that unattractive as a club that we cannot get more than £1m?

Listening to talkSport, Christian Purslow was saying that in the world of FFP that this (Man U deals), coupled with their £100m gate receipts and TV revenue, gave Utd a huge advantage over everyone else. I know we are at a different level, but if we are to grow as a club and ever be serious about challenging the dominance of those at the top, then we cannot accept £1m per year from the kit and sponsorship.

I'm sure we accepted the least we could get. And didn't bother looking elsewhere.

Sheesh

Crazy stat, but Man Utd will make more from Adidas, Chevrolet and Aon than the complete turnover of 14 of the PL clubs.

Insane advantage, and shows why for players like Shaw it is a complete no brainer to join these type of clubs.

I'm sure we accepted the least we could get. And didn't bother looking elsewhere.

 

Sheesh

While Oscar Wilde was only half right about sarcasm, I guess you don't see the irony in your reply.

Man Utd apparently have 659million worldwide supporters, we have a couple of hundred thousand?

They have 3250 times more appeal than us and they only get 105 times the sponsorship money? Useless clowns that ManU commercial department.

We don't get 'Nothing' for the kit, the club gets all the profit from shirt sales. Adidas have paid £75m for the potential of shirt sales and they make the money off of every shirt sold. Who's to say that if Manchester united were to supply their own kit that they wouldn't make more than £75m per annum, its a chance they're not willing to take I guess.

http://www.givemesport.com/370980-top-10-premier-league-shirt-sponsorship-deals

The 10 lowest shirt sponsorship deals in 2013/14 can be seen below, then click through the tabs to see the Premier League's 10 most lucrative annual agreements.

 

20. Cardiff City - £500k

19. Crystal Palace - £750k

18. Hull City - £1m

17. Southampton - £1m

16. Norwich City - £1m

15. West Brom - £1.5m

14. Swansea - £2m

13. West Ham - £3m

12. Stoke City - £3m

11. Everton - £4m

Then there is Sunderland, Fulham, Villa @ £5m, Newcastle at £6m, Chelsea at £18m, Spurs @ £19m, ManC/U & L'pool @ £20m, Arsenal @ £30m

Crazy stat, but Man Utd will make more from Adidas, Chevrolet and Aon than the complete turnover of 14 of the PL clubs.

 

Insane advantage, and shows why for players like Shaw it is a complete no brainer to join these type of clubs.

Bloomin heck that is insane. Must also be true as MLG has not disputed

I heard that we had a bigger offer on the table than what Veho were offering but that Rogers opted to go with Veho (which was a deal he'd lined up independently of the Sales and Marketing team). I don't have all the facts so there may be more to it, but I know we didn't accept accept the highest offer on the shirt deal.

As I said, I am not expecting us to get the same as ManU, but maybe some of the other non- top 6/7 sides.

I heard that we had a bigger offer on the table than what Veho were offering but that Rogers opted to go with Veho (which was a deal he'd lined up independently of the Sales and Marketing team). I don't have all the facts so there may be more to it, but I know we didn't accept accept the highest offer on the shirt deal.

Maybe it was from one of those loan shark companies or betting companies and we didn't want to be associated with them.

If accepting less means that we don't have a payday loan shark (Newcastle) or betting company (Villa, Sunderland, West Ham, Swansea) on our shirts I'm all for taking a bit less money. We'll never make up the difference between us and the top 5/6 clubs on any financial comparison, but it's always 11 v 11 running after a bag of air and we've proved we can still beat them on several occasions.

I quite agree support a local company and maintain some integrity rather than having someone like Bet Fred ,Wonga etc .

Maybe it was from one of those loan shark companies or betting companies and we didn't want to be associated with them.

This. I'd like to think we did turn down any loan sharks/web casino/betting brands.

Why does it bother you so much? Has our commercial revenue stopped us buying or selling anyone since Surman? I sometimes wonder what people can knock the club on next. All that matters surely is that the owners and manager are happy.

Now I am not comparing us to Man Utd and I am well aware that their global appeal is at a completely different level but.....

 

Kit manufacturer - £75m

Shirt sponsor - £30m

 

Compared to us, where we get nothing for kit manufacturer and maybe about £1m for the shirt sponsor. £105m vs £1m!!! As I say, I am not expecting to rival Man U, but surely we can do better than £1m (this figure is a guess but given their turnover it won't be much more). We were told that as a club we were going to be a lot more commercial and exploit avenues that were available. Are we really that unattractive as a club that we cannot get more than £1m?

 

Listening to talkSport, Christian Purslow was saying that in the world of FFP that this (Man U deals), coupled with their £100m gate receipts and TV revenue, gave Utd a huge advantage over everyone else. I know we are at a different level, but if we are to grow as a club and ever be serious about challenging the dominance of those at the top, then we cannot accept £1m per year from the kit and sponsorship.

Veho have paid circa £2m per season. I know of another company that were offered the sponorship and that was the asking price.

I quite agree support a local company and maintain some integrity rather than having someone like Bet Fred ,Wonga etc .

Totally agree at this stage. I think we need more than 2 solid premiership seasons to start attracting some decent big name sponsors.- not saying Veho aren't decent btw just that they have probably got the better end of the deal. If we find ourselves scrapping mid table to the bottom end of the table then we will probably end up attracting the likes of payday co's & betting firms, but 10th & above on a regular basis should start attracting better sponsors.

Also, as a side thought, payday firms are going to be capped on what they can charge which reportedly will halve their profits. I wonder if this will have an impact on some sponsors not being able to fulfill their obligations?

Now I am not comparing us to Man Utd and I am well aware that their global appeal is at a completely different level but.....

 

Kit manufacturer - £75m

Shirt sponsor - £30m

 

Compared to us, where we get nothing for kit manufacturer and maybe about £1m for the shirt sponsor. £105m vs £1m!!! As I say, I am not expecting to rival Man U, but surely we can do better than £1m (this figure is a guess but given their turnover it won't be much more). We were told that as a club we were going to be a lot more commercial and exploit avenues that were available. Are we really that unattractive as a club that we cannot get more than £1m?

 

Listening to talkSport, Christian Purslow was saying that in the world of FFP that this (Man U deals), coupled with their £100m gate receipts and TV revenue, gave Utd a huge advantage over everyone else. I know we are at a different level, but if we are to grow as a club and ever be serious about challenging the dominance of those at the top, then we cannot accept £1m per year from the kit and sponsorship.

Quite simply yes. Adidas pay huge money to Man united because of their global reach - they are one of the most recognized brands in the world, supported by millions. Chelsea is the same to a lesser extent. When I went to Bangkok last year, Chelsea and United players were plastered all over the place advertising all manner of crap. Each one wearing their kit. therefore their kit becomes advertising real estate in itself. Not once did I see a saints kit.

United are the biggest club in the world, we not the biggest club within a hundred miles radius

Totally agree at this stage. I think we need more than 2 solid premiership seasons to start attracting some decent big name sponsors.- not saying Veho aren't decent btw just that they have probably got the better end of the deal. If we find ourselves scrapping mid table to the bottom end of the table then we will probably end up attracting the likes of payday co's & betting firms, but 10th & above on a regular basis should start attracting better sponsors.

 

Also, as a side thought, payday firms are going to be capped on what they can charge which reportedly will halve their profits. I wonder if this will have an impact on some sponsors not being able to fulfill their obligations?

I think the point of having someone like Veho I'd they will support us wherever we are in the table.

If we are scrapping at the bottom end of the table then we would still have that local firm proud to be involved.

For as long as we have the current owners I think we can say no to the Wongas of this world.

More like inept posting! How would you calculate the value of Southampton FC's Shirt sponsorship?

On what basis is £2m for shirt sponsor + profits from shirt manufacture and sale commercial ineptitude???

Maybe look at our peers and see what they are doing and how far behind them we are?

...and while we are at it, and this is not any criticism aimed at the current regime as it has been going on for ever and a day, you go to many a local sports shop and whose kits do they have on sale? I was at one the other day and you had the usual suspects but no Saints, Bournemouth or Portsmouth. Walk around nearby towns, and while you might see the occasional local shirt, most are the Top 6 + Barca/Madrid. If you can't even appeal to the locals, what chance is there of gaining any wider support?

Gosh, an outbreak of common-sense and moderation seems to have fallen over the mong board.

Could Saints have got more than £1m for their shirt sponsor? Almost certainly yes, but that may well have involved going with a casino/online betting/money-sharking payday loans company. The silent majority seem to think that for a marginal couple of extra £m they would rather not besmirch our shirts with that type of tat. I expect the owner's values may well come into this side of things too.

Are the new Carlos Kickaballs 'better than Lambert and Lallana?' - it seems most people are going to forsake the you-tube option and wait until they've a) seen them play, and b) seen them play at least a good few times. I can guarantee that this question would have had a completely different answer one or two summers ago.

I likt VEHO as a sponsor

their logo on the away shirt is pretty smart

they are a local brand very much on the rise and to be fair, they look like they do some smart kit

much better than having SUPERCASINO.com on our shirts

what is there not to like.

unless we go mental and get in a mega sponsor, I like the VEHO's of this world.

we are SUPPOSED to be a family club and all that, right?

Are the new Carlos Kickaballs 'better than Lambert and Lallana?' - it seems most people are going to forsake the you-tube option and wait until they've a) seen them play, and b) seen them play at least a good few times. I can guarantee that this question would have had a completely different answer one or two summers ago.

I disagree. I think the balance of knee-jerk spuds who will believe everything they see in clip form and reasoned posters is pretty much exactly the same as it has been for years. We still have an infestation of The Stupid mixed with a few who can sustain a reasoned argument.

I think our sponsoraship deal should be increased, but the practicalities of doing that were pretty evident when we touted ourselves around in winter 2012/13 and Cortese ended up backtracking into another year of aap3 due to the lack of viable options.

Now I am not comparing us to Man Utd and I am well aware that their global appeal is at a completely different level but.....

 

Kit manufacturer - £75m

Shirt sponsor - £30m

 

Compared to us, where we get nothing for kit manufacturer and maybe about £1m for the shirt sponsor. £105m vs £1m!!! As I say, I am not expecting to rival Man U, but surely we can do better than £1m (this figure is a guess but given their turnover it won't be much more). We were told that as a club we were going to be a lot more commercial and exploit avenues that were available. Are we really that unattractive as a club that we cannot get more than £1m?

 

Listening to talkSport, Christian Purslow was saying that in the world of FFP that this (Man U deals), coupled with their £100m gate receipts and TV revenue, gave Utd a huge advantage over everyone else. I know we are at a different level, but if we are to grow as a club and ever be serious about challenging the dominance of those at the top, then we cannot accept £1m per year from the kit and sponsorship.

This was the hidden purpose in FFP. Protect the elites investments in a game where anything is possible result wise, and rule out the chance of massive players like emirates or other oil rich owners coming and throwing cash to get to the table. All the seats are taken time to shut the door lads.

This was the hidden purpose in FFP. Protect the elites investments in a game where anything is possible result wise, and rule out the chance of massive players like emirates or other oil rich owners coming and throwing cash to get to the table. All the seats are taken time to shut the door lads.

It wasn't really very well "hidden", tbf, and given that he planned on spending Liebherr's money, was why Cortese voted against it.

We've benefitted quite nicely from the other top club initiative to allow them to stockpile academy players from pretty much anywhere, though.

It wasn't really very well "hidden", tbf, and given that he planned on spending Liebherr's money, was why Cortese voted against it.

 

We've benefitted quite nicely from the other top club initiative to allow them to stockpile academy players from pretty much anywhere, though.

True this, we are in a much better position than near all of the other clubs outside the rich 4/5.

Maybe the OP should change the word 'ineptitude' to 'reality'.

Man U get more in programme sales then we do in ticket sales.

Maybe the OP should change the word 'ineptitude' to 'reality'.

Yep this, except where the OP says we are getting nothing from the kit manufacture!

...and while we are at it, and this is not any criticism aimed at the current regime as it has been going on for ever and a day, you go to many a local sports shop and whose kits do they have on sale? I was at one the other day and you had the usual suspects but no Saints, Bournemouth or Portsmouth. Walk around nearby towns, and while you might see the occasional local shirt, most are the Top 6 + Barca/Madrid. If you can't even appeal to the locals, what chance is there of gaining any wider support?

Wow, more people support Man U, Scouse, Gooners, City Chelsea than saints!!!! Living in Bath I am often surprised by the number of SFC shirts I see around. That they are not on sale in the sports shop chains is club policy. s to barca etc I know many fans of english clubs who also own these types of shirt, they are alomost accepted as neutral.

Yep this, except where the OP says we are getting nothing from the kit manufacture

And that one's down to the previous Chairman.

...and while we are at it, and this is not any criticism aimed at the current regime as it has been going on for ever and a day, you go to many a local sports shop and whose kits do they have on sale? I was at one the other day and you had the usual suspects but no Saints, Bournemouth or Portsmouth. Walk around nearby towns, and while you might see the occasional local shirt, most are the Top 6 + Barca/Madrid. If you can't even appeal to the locals, what chance is there of gaining any wider support?

The nearest sports shop to my home is probably SportsDirect (either Eastleigh or Whiteley), and they stock Portsmouth shirts. This is only because Sondico is Mike Ashley's latest "pet brand". I say "stock" not "sell" because as a quick check online will show, they still have every kit in every adult size for £9.59.

Saints choose to control their distribution to online and two stores in Southampton (no idea if there's still one on IoW?) and I don't see how them (e.g.) selling Saints shirts in the one private sports shop in Winchester would help matters, other than to maybe annoy some locals who don't want to pay a likely £5 mark up from Wild's.

There's clearly a financial reason they want to control supply, and as we've now done this under Lowe, Wilde, Crouch, Cortese and the current lot, I'd think that was pretty sound financially. If plastics want a shirt, they can get one through the post.

I seem to remember Cortese turning down a much better offer from an Asian gambling website when the deal with App3 was signed.

As long as it doesn't hamper the clubs ambitions I think its nice to see smaller local companies on our shirts.

Maybe the OP should change the word 'ineptitude' to 'reality'.

 

Man U get more in programme sales then we do in ticket sales.

That is surely not true.

Couldn't we have gone down a route similar to Athletico Madrid, having a country sponsor us... that must be worth a few £££?

Man U get more in programme sales then we do in ticket sales.

United Review sells for £3, that means they must flog over 250,000 per game.

That's pretty good going TBF

The commercial side (sponsorship, hospitatility, venue hire, loyalty products etc) was one of Cortese's biggest failings and it wont be turned around in 6 months. You need 18 months to really make a difference. That said we will never attract the kind of money the top clubs do until we have their profile.

Maybe the OP should change the word 'ineptitude' to 'reality'.

 

Man U get more in programme sales then we do in ticket sales.

As I wrote in the OP (yet which a lot people seem to have over looked), I was not comparing us to Man U or any of the other top 6 or 7, Juve, Barca, Real, Bayern. I was merely asking whether £1m (which transpires to probably be £2m) is all we can expect from sponsorship. Maybe the thread title should have a question mark. Further on, I did say a measure would be against clubs of a similar stature - maybe the likes of Stoke, WBA, Fulham etc Commercial revenue of £6.7m in 2012/13 surely can be improved on, as after all we are told that the PL is the most watched league in the world.

As I wrote in the OP (yet which a lot people seem to have over looked), I was not comparing us to Man U or any of the other top 6 or 7, Juve, Barca, Real, Bayern. I was merely asking whether £1m (which transpires to probably be £2m) is all we can expect from sponsorship. Maybe the thread title should have a question mark. Further on, I did say a measure would be against clubs of a similar stature - maybe the likes of Stoke, WBA, Fulham etc Commercial revenue of £6.7m in 2012/13 surely can be improved on, as after all we are told that the PL is the most watched league in the world.

So the "ineptitude" accusation can be nicely squared at.....

I don't think Saints have ever been adept at it, do you?

I really like the Veho sponsorship, especially if they paid the going rate. Nice logo, local firm and not some loan shark either. Excellent.

Looking at the ManU deal the kit manufacturer seems to be paying more than the shirt sponsor. Is that the same for all football clubs in the top flight?

I don't know how much Veho are paying, £2m is mentioned on here. That would be roughly 45,000 shirts sold at £50 (assuming £45 profit per shirt).

I don't think Saints have ever been adept at it, do you?

Do you mean that not being adept means they are inept?

Compare with our peers? who are they? We have been back in the top flight for two seasons and it has just been announced that we will be televised three times in the first half of the season. This possibly correlates in this context to our peers and marketing worth at this time.

As others have said and as I think the club understand - it takes time and a long term strategy to build value.

We have couple of hundred thousand true fans, their 659m are all plastic

Man Utd apparently have 659million worldwide supporters, we have a couple of hundred thousand?

 

They have 3250 times more appeal than us and they only get 105 times the sponsorship money? Useless clowns that ManU commercial department.

Looking at the ManU deal the kit manufacturer seems to be paying more than the shirt sponsor. Is that the same for all football clubs in the top flight?

Dunno. With kit sponsorship you get a headline sponsorship figure but make much less from shirt sales - because you have to buy them from the manufacturer at inflated prices. With own label you obviously don't get the sponsorship but do have a much higher profit margin, so the apparent income from the kit sponsor may not be as high as it first appears.

United Review sells for £3, that means they must flog over 250,000 per game.

 

That's pretty good going TBF

It looks like I have just regurgitated a fact without stress testing it. Maybe it was wrong or maybe it was the Dell Days (not the poster, although he does talk a load of nonsense). The point remains our match revenue dwarfs Man Us, let alone our respected goal revenues.

With shirt sponsorship I guess you get some money up front but make much less from shirt sales - because you have to buy them from the manufacturer at inflated prices. With own label you obviously don't get the sponsorship but do have a much much higher profit margin.

We're not likely to be making £750m in shirt sales even with a higher profit margin, so I think Man U should be pretty happy with their record-breaking deal.

I'm also not sure that the £750m isn't inclusive of all the recharging for sponsorship, player image rights, cost of shirts to club and everything else that means it's not £750m profit, but you can guarantee it'll be considered £750m profit as far as their ability to spend money under FFP is concerned.

Dwarfed by Man Us

We're not likely to be making £750m in shirt sales even with a higher profit margin, so I think Man U should be pretty happy with their record-breaking deal.

Yep I dont think we're going to be going head to head with them for a while yet My point was more about the fact that for clubs like Saints which have a mostly local, or at least UK fanbase making and selling your own kit direct can be more profitable. Clubs like Man U with a global market need the worldwide distribution only a big name can offer - hence the huge headline figure.