Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, room0035 said:

DC put in £1.2m to have his name on the shirt, the stadium, the seats, the stands and also a lot of the match day advertising hoarding as per the last filed accounts from 2017/18 season (August 2018) had he filed any account since we might have been able to see if this figure has risen.

 

Do you think £1.2m is the going rate to sponsor a team's shirt, stadium, stands and advertising hoardings in the 5th most watched league in world football.

 

It is an area of football that is very loosely controlled by the governing bodies.  I mention Stoke in the past because they are owned and run by the Coates family who also own and run Bet365, The same way we are own and run by the Chansiri family who also own (a majority share) and run Thai Food Group who in turn own John West. It would be a very easy way to inject some money into the club but for what ever reason that has never happened though I had been told at one point advertising was up for them at Hillsborough a while back.

 

As has been discussed, the Stoke sponsorship is much higher because they did so in the PL where the restrictions are at a higher level. You've still not been able to give a comparison of any other club sponsorship at this level.

 

How do you know it was £1.2M for everything? Again, how does this compare to others? It has been said that the limit at this level for shirt sponsorship is around £400,000. 

How do you equate for the £10M+ increase in revenue under Chansiri? It can't all have come from tickets & merchandise, if it has then I am sure you will praise him for that significant impact.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, room0035 said:

DC put in £1.2m to have his name on the shirt, the stadium, the seats, the stands and also a lot of the match day advertising hoarding as per the last filed accounts from 2017/18 season (August 2018) had he filed any account since we might have been able to see if this figure has risen.

 

Do you think £1.2m is the going rate to sponsor a team's shirt, stadium, stands and advertising hoardings in the 5th most watched league in world football.

 

It is an area of football that is very loosely controlled by the governing bodies.  I mention Stoke in the past because they are owned and run by the Coates family who also own and run Bet365, The same way we are own and run by the Chansiri family who also own (a majority share) and run Thai Food Group who in turn own John West. It would be a very easy way to inject some money into the club but for what ever reason that has never happened though I had been told at one point advertising was up for them at Hillsborough a while back.

 

The most expensive shirt sponsorship was Leeds and Derby at 400k and the EFL use this as a limit to stop owners taking thepiss which ours was found not guilty of doing.

 

Let it go. You’re like the band. Banging a drum that nobody is listening to.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, room0035 said:

DC put in £1.2m to have his name on the shirt, the stadium, the seats, the stands and also a lot of the match day advertising hoarding as per the last filed accounts from 2017/18 season (August 2018) had he filed any account since we might have been able to see if this figure has risen.

 

Do you think £1.2m is the going rate to sponsor a team's shirt, stadium, stands and advertising hoardings in the 5th most watched league in world football.

 

It is an area of football that is very loosely controlled by the governing bodies.  I mention Stoke in the past because they are owned and run by the Coates family who also own and run Bet365, The same way we are own and run by the Chansiri family who also own (a majority share) and run Thai Food Group who in turn own John West. It would be a very easy way to inject some money into the club but for what ever reason that has never happened though I had been told at one point advertising was up for them at Hillsborough a while back.

 

Mainly because that was the maximum amount allowed, but don't let that spoil your vendetta :biggrin:

Edited by Hookowl
spelling
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8 September 2020 at 13:15, YesWeCrann said:

 

We're still waiting for kit delivery , poor again this season. We may get them for xmas WTF:

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hookowl said:

 

Mainly because that was the maximum amount allowed, but don't let that spoil your vendetta :biggrin:

No vendetta what so every if we wanted more money into the club we could find a way

 

The championship is the 5th most watch league in the world - 15 or 16 of the teams are ex premier league teams. When shirt and stadium deals in the top league in the world go for £50-100m then for a team to say they have signed a naming rights deal and shirt sponsorship deal for £5-10m, for me this does not seem too much of a stretch.

 

I am not saying for the chairman to put this money in but what I am saying is we need to find ways around the flimsy laws of the EFL to get money into the club.

 

Other team in the league are finding ways to circumvent the rules Derby with the player apportionment rules for contracts, Villa and other selling the stadium to avoid big losses, Watford, Cardiff and others loan players or clubs owned by their chairman and paying a faction of the price, or team such as Leeds/West Brom bringing in £10-15m players on loan with deals to sign them permanent if they are promoted.

 

Ever team is finding ways to bend the rules the problem with us is, we balls up on the stadium sale and the only source of income is the fans, we have scared off all the sponsorship, corporate entities and advertisement. If DC can only put £1.2m in then great. But if we can then get someone else to put their name on the stadium or the shirts, or the stands, or the seats then DC can still put £1.2m in and the other put in how ever much more into the club.

 

This is what I am asking for not a £10m deal from a non trading company with no employees. But if DC dad or uncle who own over 20% between then the biggest fish company in the world want to help out their son by advertising/ sponsorship for a few million quid is this really that wrong.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sonofbert2 said:

 

The most expensive shirt sponsorship was Leeds and Derby at 400k and the EFL use this as a limit to stop owners taking thepiss which ours was found not guilty of doing.

 

Let it go. You’re like the band. Banging a drum that nobody is listening to.

Don't think it is, but forget it we cannot get anymore money into the club, it a wonder that 23 other teams in the league are able to survive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep let’s slag chansiri for paying over a million for sponsorship. It was much better when DA was paying 100k to advertise his casino or we were giving it away to the SCH. You lot don’t half confuse me 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Don't think it is, but forget it we cannot get anymore money into the club, it a wonder that 23 other teams in the league are able to survive. 

 

Specific to shirt sponsorship - it is.

 

I’ve pulled you up before when you were quoting shirt sponsorship deals for Premier clubs - the gap is astounding in terms of the numbers.

 

The EFL set the limit for owners at around 350-400k which was the most expensive average shirt sponsorship deal.

 

In relation to other stuff on the commercial side, boxes etc, I think DC put the prices up for those who’d been there paying below market rate for years.  A sort of invest with me and you’ll be looked after when we go up.  They said no, their choice, and I think he’s weighed up the costs facilitating them and just put in the money himself.

 

There is no denying that he has cut corners but it is costing him millions just to keep us ticking over and the situation has been made worse with the current crisis.

 

He’s made a lot of mistakes but the main one is naivety and we should give him a bit of a break.

  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, room0035 said:

No vendetta what so every if we wanted more money into the club we could find a way

 

The championship is the 5th most watch league in the world - 15 or 16 of the teams are ex premier league teams. When shirt and stadium deals in the top league in the world go for £50-100m then for a team to say they have signed a naming rights deal and shirt sponsorship deal for £5-10m, for me this does not seem too much of a stretch.

 

I am not saying for the chairman to put this money in but what I am saying is we need to find ways around the flimsy laws of the EFL to get money into the club.

 

Other team in the league are finding ways to circumvent the rules Derby with the player apportionment rules for contracts, Villa and other selling the stadium to avoid big losses, Watford, Cardiff and others loan players or clubs owned by their chairman and paying a faction of the price, or team such as Leeds/West Brom bringing in £10-15m players on loan with deals to sign them permanent if they are promoted.

 

Ever team is finding ways to bend the rules the problem with us is, we balls up on the stadium sale and the only source of income is the fans, we have scared off all the sponsorship, corporate entities and advertisement. If DC can only put £1.2m in then great. But if we can then get someone else to put their name on the stadium or the shirts, or the stands, or the seats then DC can still put £1.2m in and the other put in how ever much more into the club.

 

This is what I am asking for not a £10m deal from a non trading company with no employees. But if DC dad or uncle who own over 20% between then the biggest fish company in the world want to help out their son by advertising/ sponsorship for a few million quid is this really that wrong.  

 

I asked if you could reference the section in the accounts where it specifically says he has put £1.2M in for this purpose, please let me know. I also asked how he has managed to increase revenue by £10M+, again no reply.

 

You now go on to praise clubs for working their way around the rules like stadium sales and ownership/payment of players yet in numerous other posts you have had a go at us for trying to circumvent the rules like this.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s nice to go down the traditional route and have a company name or logo on the shirt as it adds something different to the mix. Having the name Chansiri on is fine but If we can get the same revenue stream in by going externally then I’m all for that. 
 

We need to get the club heading in a positive direction again to get anyone seriously interested in sponsoring us though and by the sound of things it will be Chansiri on the shirt again for another season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2020 at 12:33, westy365owl said:

I wonder why we haven't had any involvement from John West or TUF? With them being family owned companies 

Because it is not family owned. It is a public listed company and therefore not in a position to waste shareholder funds on subsidising the business ineptitude of the Chairman‘s son.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I asked if you could reference the section in the accounts where it specifically says he has put £1.2M in for this purpose, please let me know. I also asked how he has managed to increase revenue by £10M+, again no reply.

 

You now go on to praise clubs for working their way around the rules like stadium sales and ownership/payment of players yet in numerous other posts you have had a go at us for trying to circumvent the rules like this.

 

 

The £1.2m is the The related parties more of I remember rightly. It been a while since I look for SWFC accounts. It tells you he put in the amount

 

I cannot be arsed  to explain my post again used your eyes to read what I put.

 

I never praise anyone for breaking the rules what I stated was so many teams are abusing the system in my different ways, the EFL lacks proper leadership and teams get away withit.

 

Look the rules need redoing from scratch the whole system it broken and current very useless people are destroying the game and football clubs with there mismanagement, but if the rules don't change. Then if you can't beat them join them mentality and all the then at least have the same fate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2020 at 11:19, room0035 said:

Or and this is a little out there so bare with me, we get a proper company to sponsor us so we can get some income into the club to help with the P&S rules we have to abide by. Stoke who still get parachute payments also get £9m a season for the naming rights to their stadium and their shirts could we not do the same for lets say a company run and owned by member of DC family. who could legitimately put in anything up to £5m a season without the EFL being overly bothered.

 

I am all for charity but lets have that sponsorship when we are getting £100m a season for taking part in the premier league. 

 

We don't own the stadium so any naming rights wouldn't go to the club.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mike84 said:

 

We don't own the stadium so any naming rights wouldn't go to the club.

Not necessarily so.

SWFC has a long term lease agreement to operate the stadium so depending on the terms of the agreement could possibly sell the naming rights. Surely even Chansiri wouldn't go through the hassle of selling the ground just to make the clubs figures look better, only to then screw the club in the terms of the lease...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kobayashi said:

Not necessarily so.

SWFC has a long term lease agreement to operate the stadium so depending on the terms of the agreement could possibly sell the naming rights. Surely even Chansiri wouldn't go through the hassle of selling the ground just to make the clubs figures look better, only to then screw the club in the terms of the lease...

 

Who knows what the situation would be. I can't see how the club could sell a sponsorship deal for a building they don't own.

 

With how rushed the sale of the ground appears who knows if sufficient detail was put in the leaseback agreement re sponsorship, naming rights etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2020 at 18:42, Swiss Toni said:

Don’t mind either way but it would be nice to go down the traditional route once more like every other team.

 

A random Chinese Betting Company?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...