Natafelen met Kees #3 Koffie door je beeldscherm

quote:

Op maandag 23 mei 2016 22:58 schreef Tagliano het volgende:
Weghorst wordt nu gebasht zoals Haller gebasht moet worden

quote:

Op maandag 23 mei 2016 22:59 schreef opperkleurder het volgende:

[..]

Haller is veel talentvoller, die kan nog wel stappen maken.

quote:

Den Haag en ADO, ze zijn leuker dan iedereen denkt.

quote:

The shirt sales alone will pay for the new superstar’s transfer fee

No club has ever directly recouped a player’s transfer fee through shirt sales.

adidas, Nike, Puma, and other kit suppliers get 85-90% of shirt sale revenue and this is the industry standard.

While there are some exceptions – a club like Bayern Munich, which is part-owned by adidas, may get a slightly more favourable revenue share, and generally, once a certain (very large) number of shirts are sold, the revenue split on additional sales will skew more favourably to the club – these are the exceptions to the general rule.

As an example, Manchester United have a ten-year kit deal with adidas worth £750 million. This is one of the largest kit deals in football (behind only Barcelona’s deal with Nike and Real Madrid’s new adidas deal, which has yet to be formally announced), and easily the largest in the Premier League.

However, the primary reason adidas is paying Manchester United £75 million per year is not simply to have a tiny logo emblazoned on United’s kit and use the club for marketing purposes. Of course, being associated with one of the few truly global clubs in football helps adidas to capture market share in emerging markets and further solidify its presence in existing markets. But for the supplier, kit deals are licensing deals, and that’s where the real value lies to adidas.
Football clubs are, by nature, football clubs. They’re meant to do football things. They don’t have the infrastructure required to manufacture and distribute millions of kits. Many can’t even handle running online shops, the logistics of which they outsource to third parties.

For any cynical readers who may not be so inclined to take our word for it – after all, it is a popular myth – just have a look at both United’s and adidas’ July 2014 announcements of the deal, where the partnership is described, quite clearly, as a licensing package.

In fact, adidas CEO Herbert Hainer triumphed the deal as a “collaboration [that] marks a milestone for us when it comes to merchandising potential. We expect total sales to reach £1.5 billion during the duration of our partnership.”

Despite the nonsense you may have heard about Zlatan Ibrahimovic shirt sales generating £50 million for Manchester United, which would far exceed his wages, it’s simply not true. In fact, United don’t even automatically receive the 10-15% industry-standard royalty payment, no doubt because the up-front £75 million annual payment is so large. United’s royalty payment only kicks in once a certain number of shirts are sold.

Just under three million Manchester United shirts were sold last season. As a case in point, let’s assume that Ibrahimovic helps sell an additional 300,000 shirts. A 10% increase is a very optimistic projection, especially considering Ibrahimovic is a Nike athlete and won’t be engaging in any adidas promotional activities on his own. His image rights deal with United will almost certainly allow the club to feature him in adidas promotional activities, as long as he appears with at least two other United players and the activity does not imply that Ibrahimovic is giving a personal endorsement to adidas.

Additionally, while many United fans may choose to buy an Ibrahmovic shirt, over, say, a Chris Smalling shirt, those fans were already going to buy a shirt in the first place.
Let’s also assume that United’s royalty kicks in after three million shirts are sold, and the club receive a 15% royalty on each subsequent shirt sold. Assuming a price of £70 per shirt, that’s an additional £21 million in gross sales from 300,000 shirts. Manchester United’s cut of that would be just over £3 million. Now, £3 million is certainly not an insignificant amount, but it offsets less than 20% of what Ibrahimovic will likely cost the club this season (wages, agent fee, signing bonus, image rights deal).

So, at best, United are likely to see around £3 million in additional revenue. While certainly not a paltry sum, it doesn’t come close to covering his costs, let alone help United earn an additional £50 million.

Put simply, there’s a reason why adidas has earned more in the last six months than Manchester United, one of the highest-earning football clubs in the world, has earned in its 138-year existence.

quote:

Op maandag 22 augustus 2016 22:25 schreef Caland het volgende:
Ik vind dat die man in dat lichtblauwe colbertje best zinnige teksten heeft.

quote:

Op maandag 22 augustus 2016 22:29 schreef GGMM het volgende:
Wat een saai programma. Het gaat alleen maar over voetbal en helemaal geen poep en plas grappen.

quote:

Op maandag 22 augustus 2016 22:30 schreef onlogisch het volgende:

[..]

Wanneer het een beetje niveau haalt, haak je snel af. Logisch, maar jammer

quote:

Op zondag 21 augustus 2016 20:39 schreef Wazaaaaa het volgende:
Algemeen klassement

9 IkeDubaku99

8 Ajacied422
8 Bonobo11
8 chroestjov
8 GGMM
8 napoleonfour

7 Bolasie
7 Johan Derksen
7 Wazaaaaa

5 ChevyCaprice
5 haags_kwartiertje
5 Karina
5 onlogisch

quote:

Op maandag 22 augustus 2016 22:32 schreef Ajacied422 het volgende:

[..]

Dit vind ik een raar argument.

quote:

Op maandag 22 augustus 2016 22:31 schreef GGMM het volgende:

[..]

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 22 augustus 2016 22:34 schreef onlogisch het volgende:
Treurig om precies de week te pakken dat ik de toto vergeten ben in te vullen.

quote:

Op maandag 22 augustus 2016 22:35 schreef GGMM het volgende:

[..]

Vorig jaar kreeg ik dit wekelijk om m'n oren terwijl ik hem nooit invulde.

NIET ZO FIJN OM AAN DE ANDERE KANT TE ZITTEN HE???

quote:

Op maandag 22 augustus 2016 22:38 schreef onlogisch het volgende:

[..]

Verschil is dat ik je met een paar weken weer voorbij ben.