• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

New Kit?

Sandman said:
The rumour with Nike makes a lot of sense. They have Emirates Marketing Project but have lost Man Utd and the Filth so need a better presence in the EPL as its big in the US. Also the NFL kits are all made by Nike so again it would make sense with that coming up. Would it lead to the naming of the stadium? I would say with us having televised NFL games back in the US it would seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Plus their kits and their gear is mint. So i hope its true :)
Click to expand...

It definitely does make sense [for nike] for the club shop and branding etc to have big nike ticks everywhere when the tourists show up to watch NFL.
 
spursfan1976 said:
Had to pop into the club shop in Harlow yesterday to pick up a present for my dog, and noticed they're making a big thing of selling the "Klinsmann year" kits, fairly prominently. I'm used to reproductions of kits being sold, but anyone know why these particular ones? unlike the usual reproductions these include the Umbro logo, and actually look identical to the originals.
Click to expand...

It just means that whoever is making the kits has decided it's worth paying licencing fees to both the club and Umbro. Part of deal with the club might include placement in the official stores, hence the prominence.

It also relies on our current kit deal not having any conflicting exclusivity clauses... or they've paid UA as well.
 
An extra £20m per season is huge on the context of the stadium. People talk about the interest costs of financing a new stadium however this £20m would finance £400m of debt if you assume a 5% interest rate!! Let's say we borrowed £200m (I have no idea) then the kit deal will be able to pay down the capital on teh stadium, and thats before you add on whatever we get from the naming rights for the stadium and from the increased gate receipts.

This should therefore mean that we are in a far better financial position next season
 
Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised by the fact that we managed to wrangle 30m a season out of Nike. It's half what Chelsea get, true, but it's on par with what Arsenal get from Puma, and it's significantly more than what City get, at least for now.

If we end up playing at the Nike ArenA, that also wouldn't be the worst thing in the world - might be quite nice, actually, given that Nike is (at least) a sports company and would have more of an incentive to plaster us and the new Lane all over their advertising. Sure, they use teenagers and young women with few labour rights to manufacture their gear in sweatshops...but that's a deal with the devil that is marginally less off-putting than shacking up with Gazprom/A.N.Other Russian oligarch-owned company, or becoming a billboard for any Middle Eastern monarchy looking to tidy up its PR image while abusing labourers, immigrants, foreigners and anyone else not fitting the ethnic minority in charge of overseeing the oil revenues on that particular day.
 
Last edited:
DubaiSpur said:
Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised by the fact that we managed to wrangle 30m a season out of Nike. It's half what Chelsea get, true, but it's on par with what Arsenal get from Puma, and it's significantly more than what City get, at least for now.

If we end up playing at the Nike ArenA, that also wouldn't be the worst thing in the world - might be quite nice, actually, given that Nike is (at least) a sports company and would have more of an incentive to plaster us and the new Lane all over their advertising. Sure, they use teenagers and young women with few labour rights to manufacture their gear in sweatshops...but that's a deal with the devil that is marginally less off-putting than shacking up with Gazprom/A.N.Other Russian oligarch-owned company, or becoming a billboard for any Middle Eastern monarchy looking to tidy up its PR image while abusing labourers, immigrants, foreigners and anyone else not fitting the ethnic minority in charge of overseeing the oil revenues on that particular day.
Click to expand...


Massive generalisations there sorry
 
Gazza said:
Massive generalisations there sorry
Click to expand...

Which ones? Nike use sweatshop labour, I wouldn't want a Russian oligarch-owned company to take over our naming rights and Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are all extremely suspect places when it comes to labor rights and the treatment of immigrants and ethnic groups from places like South Asia and Africa. The first one is a verifiable fact (although they've apparently shifted the practice out to more and more subcontractors now), the second is an opinion I have based on how those oligarchs appropriated state assets for private gain, and the last is based again on verifiable reports and my personal experiences living in the UAE for a decade and a half.

Out of all three, Nike's the least off-putting, because at least they tried to deal with their sweatshop problems in the early-to-mid 2000s, with at least some success, and they're a sportswear company, which is a fairly banal industry to participate in when compared to being, say, a Gulf monarchy or a Russian company immeshed in the sistema networks that emerged post-privatization.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Which ones? Nike use sweatshop labour, I wouldn't want a Russian oligarch-owned company to take over our naming rights and Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are all extremely suspect places when it comes to labor rights and the treatment of immigrants and ethnic groups from places like South Asia and Africa. The first one is a verifiable fact (although they've apparently shifted the practice out to more and more subcontractors now), the second is an opinion I have based on how those oligarchs appropriated state assets for private gain, and the last is based again on verifiable reports and my personal experiences living in the UAE for a decade and a half.

Out of all three, Nike's the least off-putting, because at least they tried to deal with their sweatshop problems in the early-to-mid 2000s, with at least some success, and they're a sportswear company, which is a fairly banal industry to participate in when compared to being, say, a Gulf monarchy or a Russian company immeshed in the sistema networks that emerged post-privatization.
Click to expand...


Behind most conglomerates is a very very murky history. Look hard enough and it's all one and the same.
 
I have said it many times but I really like UA, they make quality stuff and are getting massive. In the US they aren't far behind Nike at all and have got some top people on their books like Murray, Spieth, Joshua etc which should help them grow a fair bit in Europe over the next few years.
 
Could be real, could be fake.

16194990_1185464804882323_4171812370280935588_n.jpg
v
16174384_1185464831548987_4020565507987465604_n.jpg
 
I agree with those who think it ties in with the NFL deal

getting NFL games is a masterstroke, it's a license to print money
 
Jordinho said:
I don't see how Nike ties in any more than our current sponsor.
Click to expand...

having nike logos strewn all over the stadium for two NFL games which will be shown live in the US is probably worth more to them than an entire seasons worth of football coverage
 
galeforce said:
having nike logos strewn all over the stadium for two NFL games which will be shown live in the US is probably worth more to them than an entire seasons worth of football coverage
Click to expand...

UA have a huge involvement in the NFL. Wouldn't they want the same?

Unless you're talking stadium name. NFL games will probably most existing signage covered up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back