Manchester United
- Thread starter Jenks
- Start date
Kerrybai
New member
Plenty. Ask guys like Falcao, Hulk, Etoo. Money talks.
Unbiased United
New member
You obviously have a point and I'm sure it will put some players off.... but throw enough money at most players and as we've all seen in the last few years, they'll play anywhere.
One thing is for sure though we have to make waves this summer in the transfer market. Sadly, I just don't think Moyes will be able to have us competing if not.
Unbiased United
New member
Yeah I agree. A Mourinho or a Pep type figure as our manager and we'd be much more appealing. However, my original point stands strong I think...give them silly money and they'll still join for the most part.
ammarfcb
ze special one
incentives don't gurantee great players perform great.
S7_MUFC
New member
Even if we assume RVP is leaving and Cavani is a CF what would that mean for Mata and Kagawa? Rooney will play as the no 10 and Mata will be wasted on the wings......If Van Persie leaves Rooney/Mata pairing is the way forward IMO.....I have to assume you misunderstood me because there's nothing funny in what I've said................He said, and I repeat "I'm surprised so many people want Cavani, we have enough players who are good at the number 10 role"
So, Number 10, meaning somebody who plays behind the main CF.
Think Ozil/Mata/Hazard. Why would Cavani signing mean he'll play numer 10? crazy talk. I don't care if PSG are misusing the lad now, he's a CF nothing more nothing less.
Dropping back? Doesn't drop back more than any other striker does.
I know Kroos can play CM. But visit the Bayern website, you can check the formations and which player is playing where. 9 times out of 10 Kroos starts as the CAM.
http://www.bayernforum.com/bundesliga-f3/ Heres a link to all their Bundesliga fixtures this season.
H
Haruko The Goon
Guest
Van P's the most devastating player United have, no way they'll let him leave, just no way at all.
H
Haruko The Goon
Guest
a hell of a lot if they can get enough in wages per week lol
Martindn
New member
Dont know how i feel about all these big money deals, and not just where players are concerned (Offering Kroos 250,000 a week better be bullshit.) I know its better than just being bought outright by an oil sheikh, but £60/£72m a season just for a sponsor on a shirt? Its almost financial doping game wont be fun to watch anymore, lets hope Moyes sticks around to keep us on a level field 
S7_MUFC
New member
I think it's more fun than watching City and Chelsea sign all the top players.....and How is it financial doping when we're being paid what these brands believe is the right price for these deals.....Ed Woodward looks clueless in the transfer market but when it comes to marketing he's a genius.....I'm just a little worried that he's going to copy Real's Galactico policy to further our marketing potential..................Dont know how i feel about all these big money deals, and not just where players are concerned (Offering Kroos 250,000 a week better be bullshit.) I know its better than just being bought outright by an oil sheikh, but £60/£72m a season just for a sponsor on a shirt? Its almost financial doping game wont be fun to watch anymore, lets hope Moyes sticks around to keep us on a level field
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
You only get that full amount depending on success on the pitch. It's not all up front.
Also there is a reason why we turned down Nike in 2012.
Adidas was out kit sponsor. They came in with an improved offer fully expecting to continue the relationship. And by improved..it was barely. Their problem was we had owners (FSG) who were novices and wondered why LFC wasn't getting top deals like Man Utd and some other clubs.
Out of a conversation grew the chance for Warrior to go where they've never gone before. Warrior took a huge risk entering a new market, Football/Soccer as an unknown. Warrior paid to get into the market. That's the only reason LFC got the deal they did. So being out of the CL was costly.
Adidas wanted to continue their "deal" where we received a set amount. The only profit LFC saw was for sales in Country through the club shops. Anything sold outside the Country Adidas was in control.
Warrior and New Balance had no experience. Adidas thought that Warrior would never be able to get the merchandize made and be able to stock LFC at such a late date. So they stuck to their guns.
Nike then became alerted that there was a chance at getting another world renown club into their portfolio. So they did their homework and came in with an offer higher than Warrior. But when you go to the Nike..they take 100% control.
FSG looked the offers over and determined the greatest chance for profits was to go with the Warrior deal. It meant LFC received less money upfront. There was a risk that we'd get less. But that deal paid off and in the end LFC made more through merchandizing. We exceeded targets.
Adidas CEO had to explain why their annual profits were down and what impact losing LFC had at their annual meeting. Not to mention why they let a competitor into the football market.
Nike didn't want Warrior in either. But they felt like they could withstand another competitor because they have the top clubs in their portfolio. So they will overpay to keep them, not wanting to risk an Adidas.
Your current deal was signed in 2003, and gives "Nike" a complete control over the sales of all Manchester United merchandise. If the new contract is under the same conditions, £60 million per season for 10 years is a pretty average deal.
Warrior's deal only includes Warrior branded items. All other merchandise the club sells is through their own negotiations with suppliers and generates it's own profit.
Nike made a run at LFC, had a slightly higher offer than Warrior, but the club turned them down. The reason being is that, Like Man Utd, Nike takes 100% control of all merchandizing at your shops and internet sales. The shop employees at Man Utd's club shops are Nike employees. They are not paid by Man Utd.
Our club figured by taking the Warrior offer and still having control over the club shops and internet sales, that we would make more money on Non Warrior branded items. Plus Warrior also had incentives that should LFC achieve X amount of sales of Warrior branded merchandise the club would receive further monies. Win-win for LFC.
The 60 mil is incentive based. Not guaranteed. There are targets to hit. And it's not for the Kit shirt. It's for every damn thing you lot sell in the shops and on the internet.
Liverpool's deal with Warrior is only for the kit shirt and anything branded Warrior. Everything else is up to the club.
So it's never comparing apples to apples. Yours is all inclusive.s.
Also there is a reason why we turned down Nike in 2012.
Adidas was out kit sponsor. They came in with an improved offer fully expecting to continue the relationship. And by improved..it was barely. Their problem was we had owners (FSG) who were novices and wondered why LFC wasn't getting top deals like Man Utd and some other clubs.
Out of a conversation grew the chance for Warrior to go where they've never gone before. Warrior took a huge risk entering a new market, Football/Soccer as an unknown. Warrior paid to get into the market. That's the only reason LFC got the deal they did. So being out of the CL was costly.
Adidas wanted to continue their "deal" where we received a set amount. The only profit LFC saw was for sales in Country through the club shops. Anything sold outside the Country Adidas was in control.
Warrior and New Balance had no experience. Adidas thought that Warrior would never be able to get the merchandize made and be able to stock LFC at such a late date. So they stuck to their guns.
Nike then became alerted that there was a chance at getting another world renown club into their portfolio. So they did their homework and came in with an offer higher than Warrior. But when you go to the Nike..they take 100% control.
FSG looked the offers over and determined the greatest chance for profits was to go with the Warrior deal. It meant LFC received less money upfront. There was a risk that we'd get less. But that deal paid off and in the end LFC made more through merchandizing. We exceeded targets.
Adidas CEO had to explain why their annual profits were down and what impact losing LFC had at their annual meeting. Not to mention why they let a competitor into the football market.
Nike didn't want Warrior in either. But they felt like they could withstand another competitor because they have the top clubs in their portfolio. So they will overpay to keep them, not wanting to risk an Adidas.
Your current deal was signed in 2003, and gives "Nike" a complete control over the sales of all Manchester United merchandise. If the new contract is under the same conditions, £60 million per season for 10 years is a pretty average deal.
Warrior's deal only includes Warrior branded items. All other merchandise the club sells is through their own negotiations with suppliers and generates it's own profit.
Nike made a run at LFC, had a slightly higher offer than Warrior, but the club turned them down. The reason being is that, Like Man Utd, Nike takes 100% control of all merchandizing at your shops and internet sales. The shop employees at Man Utd's club shops are Nike employees. They are not paid by Man Utd.
Our club figured by taking the Warrior offer and still having control over the club shops and internet sales, that we would make more money on Non Warrior branded items. Plus Warrior also had incentives that should LFC achieve X amount of sales of Warrior branded merchandise the club would receive further monies. Win-win for LFC.
The 60 mil is incentive based. Not guaranteed. There are targets to hit. And it's not for the Kit shirt. It's for every damn thing you lot sell in the shops and on the internet.
Liverpool's deal with Warrior is only for the kit shirt and anything branded Warrior. Everything else is up to the club.
So it's never comparing apples to apples. Yours is all inclusive.s.
S7_MUFC
New member
Our kit deal has always bee all inclusive but it doesn't include the sales made by the club megastore....and our sponsorship deals rarely include any performance related clauses and I'd be really surprised if we agreed to any such clause with Nike......I agree the 60 million figure will look average towards the end of the contract but we desperately need cash now to rejuvenate the squad and to overcome the loss of champions league revenue and 60 million a year is a lot for a kit deal considering the fact that Liverpool's entire commercial revenue was around 98 million last season.........
Unbiased United
New member
Lol, yeah okay Ed, almost doubling the current highest deal is 'average'.
I mean I know you don't like United, but trying to deny our global marketing position is just plain stupid. As S7 above says, towards the end of the deal it might be looking 'average' but for now it's a very, very impressive deal, and you can come out with as much detail as you want to try and convince yourself otherwise, but it's a fantastic deal for United, and I'm very happy with it.
I mean I know you don't like United, but trying to deny our global marketing position is just plain stupid. As S7 above says, towards the end of the deal it might be looking 'average' but for now it's a very, very impressive deal, and you can come out with as much detail as you want to try and convince yourself otherwise, but it's a fantastic deal for United, and I'm very happy with it.
Home of Barca Fans
