' LAST SEASON'S SHIRT SPONSORSHIP DEAL '

Just seen this on twitter, not sure how accurate the information is but it shows the huge gap in investment clubs in the PL receive through shirt sponsorship.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Always thought the Malaysia deal was low. I was strongly rumoured when they started it that they turned down bigger offers from local'ish' firms

Whilst ours is lowest there is obvious reason (tans company) others are very low considering the clubs involved been in premier for several seasons and more!

Whilst ours is lowest there is obvious reason (tans company) others are very low considering the clubs involved been in premier for several seasons and more!

But what benefit is it to the club when they accept lower agreements than others on the table ? Even if it is part of tans empire they still should pay the going rate surely ?

Whilst ours is lowest there is obvious reason (tans company) others are very low considering the clubs involved been in premier for several seasons and more!

But what benefit is it to the club when they accept lower agreements than others on the table ? Even if it is part of tans empire they still should pay the going rate surely ?

Agree with you was only putting reason for low deal! But look at sund/ncastle big clubs but peanuts deal really considering status as clubs ! seems need be top 6 to get the money
Think norwich is worst deal as aviva is norwich based!

Whilst ours is lowest there is obvious reason (tans company) others are very low considering the clubs involved been in premier for several seasons and more!

But what benefit is it to the club when they accept lower agreements than others on the table ? Even if it is part of tans empire they still should pay the going rate surely ?

Agree with you was only putting reason for low deal! But look at sund/ncastle big clubs but peanuts deal really considering status as clubs ! seems need be top 6 to get the money
Think norwich is worst deal as aviva is norwich based!

I agree that we are talking peanuts but it brings up other questions then doesn't it. One for example is that even through Tan says that he is no longer charging the club interest for his loan then could shite deals like this between the club and Tan be another way of charging the club for the borrowing ?

Whilst ours is lowest there is obvious reason (tans company) others are very low considering the clubs involved been in premier for several seasons and more!

But what benefit is it to the club when they accept lower agreements than others on the table ? Even if it is part of tans empire they still should pay the going rate surely ?

Agree with you was only putting reason for low deal! But look at sund/ncastle big clubs but peanuts deal really considering status as clubs ! seems need be top 6 to get the money
Think norwich is worst deal as aviva is norwich based!

I agree that we are talking peanuts but it brings up other questions then doesn't it. One for example is that even through Tan says that he is no longer charging the club interest for his loan then could shite deals like this between the club and Tan be another way of charging the club for the borrowing ?

Yes very true but he is not and will not be last owner to do similar thing. Pompey classic case
do

Is the article right Carl ? Thought it was around 5 m million over two years

Whilst ours is lowest there is obvious reason (tans company) others are very low considering the clubs involved been in premier for several seasons and more!

But what benefit is it to the club when they accept lower agreements than others on the table ? Even if it is part of tans empire they still should pay the going rate surely ?

Agree with you was only putting reason for low deal! But look at sund/ncastle big clubs but peanuts deal really considering status as clubs ! seems need be top 6 to get the money
Think norwich is worst deal as aviva is norwich based!

I agree that we are talking peanuts but it brings up other questions then doesn't it. One for example is that even through Tan says that he is no longer charging the club interest for his loan then could shite deals like this between the club and Tan be another way of charging the club for the borrowing ?

Yes very true but he is not and will not be last owner to do similar thing. Pompey classic case
do

Agreed and to be honest I have more of a problem of him trying to cover the truths of what he is really doing rather than the value of the deal/s itself. Although I didn't like it to start with I would feel better knowing that the club was borrowing at a 6% rate rather than a 0% rate because it's repaying through shit deals that we may or may not ever know about!!! Let's be honest even through it was a strong rumour at the time, this is the first real figure which we have ever know about with this particular sponsorship deal and now we know it we find out just how low it is compared to others. So low that the second weakest deal in the whole league last season was still double the amount of City's.

Is the article right Carl ? Thought it was around 5 m million over two years

I don't think a proper figure was ever published: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/foot ... rs-1828035

Is the article right Carl ? Thought it was around 5 m million over two years

Wez, I am really not sure.

I even had my doubts about this back then!!! viewtopic.php?f=2&t=119322

I wonder if it could be stadium sponsorship as well the 5 million

I wonder if it could be stadium sponsorship as well the 5 million

Are you suggesting Stadium AND shirt sponsorship for £5 million ?

I wonder if it could be stadium sponsorship as well the 5 million

Are you suggesting Stadium AND shirt sponsorship for £5 million ?

the banners around t be stadium yes not the stadium name

Tan is just using to promote his pretty country.

I wonder if it could be stadium sponsorship as well the 5 million

Are you suggesting Stadium AND shirt sponsorship for £5 million ?

the banners around t be stadium yes not the stadium name

I can't see that as it would mean the banners then being worth £4.5 million if the shirt sponsorship was just £500,000 and it's the shirt sponsorship which is seen by a much wider audience

It was £7million according to a Malysian MP...

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/prem ... parliament

It was £7million according to a Malysian MP...

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/prem ... parliament

It does say £3 million through for last season, So 'if' these two bits of information are correct then for last season that would mean the shirts being worth £500,000 and the sponsorship round the ground at £2.5 million. Now the Visit Wales sponsorship of the one stand was worth £110,000 and if you can try and compare the amount of advertising between the two then would I be far off the mark if I suggested that Malaysian Taxpayers money is actually paying for ecosway advertising ? Because there's no way the Visit Malaysia advertising is worth £2.5 million for last season alone if the Visit Wales deal was worth £110,000 ?

It was £7million according to a Malysian MP...

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/prem ... parliament

It does say £3 million through for last season, So 'if' these two bits of information are correct then for last season that would mean the shirts being worth £500,000 and the sponsorship round the ground at £2.5 million. Now the Visit Wales sponsorship of the one stand was worth £110,000 and if you can try and compare the amount of advertising between the two then would I be far off the mark if I suggested that Malaysian Taxpayers money is actually paying for ecosway advertising ? Because there's no way the Visit Malaysia advertising is worth £2.5 million for last season alone if the Visit Wales deal was worth £110,000 ?

Visit Wales is only on one stand ,Malaysia is plastered everywhere over the stadium

It was £7million according to a Malysian MP...

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/prem ... parliament

It does say £3 million through for last season, So 'if' these two bits of information are correct then for last season that would mean the shirts being worth £500,000 and the sponsorship round the ground at £2.5 million. Now the Visit Wales sponsorship of the one stand was worth £110,000 and if you can try and compare the amount of advertising between the two then would I be far off the mark if I suggested that Malaysian Taxpayers money is actually paying for ecosway advertising ? Because there's no way the Visit Malaysia advertising is worth £2.5 million for last season alone if the Visit Wales deal was worth £110,000 ?

Visit Wales is only on one stand ,Malaysia is plastered everywhere over the stadium

Yeah but Visit Wales has sponsored the stand too hasn't it rather than just banner advertising

I'd imagine there is a lot more to the deal than just a figure

I remember when we were sponsored by Communications Direct, right bunch of rip off merchants! I should know I sold for them briefly and we used to butter people up saying we sponsored Cardiff City. Means bugger all just that they must have been pretty good at riping prople off!

In fairness to Tan and I don't say that often he could have said it was 10 million if he wanted, he put the cash in in other ways after all. What did man city do? Half a billion in and then said it was sponsorship or something?

Surely it would be in VT interest to have a higher price tag on the sponsor deal so he could greater claim tax relief?

In what way is this a big deal? A previous topic stated tan was putting in £2mil a month to keep the club afloat (a damning incitement of our predicament if one was needed). So his 'sponsorship' is £24million this year.

In what way is this a big deal? A previous topic stated tan was putting in £2mil a month to keep the club afloat (a damning incitement of our predicament if one was needed). So his 'sponsorship' is £24million this year.

Huh ? How do you work this out? The previous topic if I remember correctly was that Tan was putting in 2 mil a month to cover over heads, thats got absolutely nothing to do with sponsorship.

In what way is this a big deal? A previous topic stated tan was putting in £2mil a month to keep the club afloat (a damning incitement of our predicament if one was needed). So his 'sponsorship' is £24million this year.

It's bollocks tan was not putting 2 million a month in last year ,the club are saying a 12 million profit