TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
*OUTSIDER* wrote:Manchester United and Adidas in £750m deal over 10 yearsSportswear giant Adidas has signed a £750m deal to make Manchester United's kit for 10 years from next season.
It comes after US rival Nike decided to end its association at the end of the 2014-15 season.
Nike has been paying United £23.5m a year, and the new deal is worth a world record-breaking £75m ($128m) a season to the Old Trafford club.
Champions League winner Real Madrid's £31m-a-year deal with Adidas was previously the biggest club deal.
Adidas will provide training and playing kit to all the club's teams and will have the exclusive right to distribute dual-branded merchandising products worldwide.
The huge sum involved is only £40m less than the Glazer family paid for the club in 2005.
Adidas chief executive Herbert Hainer said the deal would help the firm "to further strengthen our position in key markets around the world".
He added: "We expect total sales to reach £1.5bn during the duration of our partnership."
Adidas has not given any details about the design of the new strip but said they may look to the Manchester United kits of the 1980s and early 1990s for inspiration.
It will be the first time Adidas has made the Premier League's team's strip in 23 years, since the 1991-92 season.
The announcement comes a day after the German firm, a Fifa World Cup sponsor, provided the kit for 2014 finalists Germany and Argentina.
In trading on the German stock exchange on Monday, the firm's shares closed up by 2.73%.
Adidas also supplies Bayern Munich, Chelsea, AC Milan and Flamengo. From the 2015-16 season, they will also provide kit for Juventus.
Sean Hamil, director of the Sport Business Centre at London's Birkbeck College, said that the Glazers had put in place "an exceptional marketing and sponsorship team", although they had taken flak for the way they had put debt onto the club's books and for increasing season ticket prices.
He said: "They have been able to secure this landmark deal in the sector, against the background of no Champions League football next season. This is clearly a major vote of confidence in the Manchester United brand.
"Also, it shows that leading English clubs are sufficiently robust in terms of global appeal that sponsors are making value decisions based on the long term and not just around one season."
Dr Leah Donlan, a marketing expert at Manchester Business School, said the deal will give Adidas "a significant competitive advantage" over Nike.
She added that Adidas could "strengthen its global brand position" by adding Manchester United to its portfolio of teams.
Nike had been given a period of exclusivity to negotiate an extension with United and also retained the right to match any other offer.
But the company decided against exercising either option, claiming the terms "did not represent good value for Nike's shareholders".
Manchester United suffered their worst Premier League finish to date last season after manager Sir Alex Ferguson left following 26 years in the job.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28282444
£53 million a year from Chevrolet
£75 million a year from Adidas
£20 million a year from AON for the training ground + training kit.
£148 million a year just from 3 sponsors alone. Ed Woodward = King Of Marketing !
desifemlove wrote:So Rio, van Nistlerooy, Rooney, cost small money...lulz.. whatever dude...
It took money to get from mid-table relegation team to beating United....United also had a good youth system in place, hence Beckham, Scholes, the Nevilles and them..... over the long term, no reason City can't get a youth system in place.
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:desifemlove wrote:So Rio, van Nistlerooy, Rooney, cost small money...lulz.. whatever dude...
It took money to get from mid-table relegation team to beating United....United also had a good youth system in place, hence Beckham, Scholes, the Nevilles and them..... over the long term, no reason City can't get a youth system in place.
How long did it take utd? Believe it or not utd would lose transfers under fergie because they didn't have buying power e.g. Losing Gascogne to spurs. The key wasn't a sugar daddy though. Utd used stadium revenue and results on the pitch to change that I would say.
I don't think people really are saying the players you named didn't cost money but look at the time period over which they were bought. They weren't bought in the same year and after they were bought there weren't huge signings each season after that in succession either.
Ronaldo95163 wrote:Doh feel too special
Galaxy is tewts
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 51 guests
