New kit deal: it is NIKE

[Triggaaar]

Donations may not be allowable as a positive figure in the FFP P&L but every pound donated would still mean £1 less that TB will have to pay from his own pocket

So? Our limitation is the amount we can spend of players etc. Donations would not increase that limit, but profit from merchandise sales would.

FFP doesn't limit the amount TB spends on the club

Yes it does.

- it merely states which parts don't count towards FFP calculations, which parts have to be by purchase of equity rather than loans and which will attract a penalty.

There is a maximum loss allowable, and then an extra loss allowable if the owner(s) puts money in. We reached the limit of that. TB buying even more equity would not allow us to spend more than we already were/are under FFP (here it comes again), but profit from merchandise sales would.

'Why should TB sell the club to other people?' - absolutely no reason at all, likewise no reason why he shouldn't.

So it's ok for the club now to sell shares to all the fans. Great.

 

[DNB_Seagull]

I made this a few weeks ago and popped it in another thread but it's pretty much what you're after.

NB Athletico Madrid kit avec photoshop.

View attachment 54368

Basically yeah. If you could just getta job with Nike. That'd be great.

 

[Dan Aitch]

Can we get the same boots too? I can't stand all that multi-coloured rubbish. Whatever colour(s) we choose, the whole squad should wear the same coloured boots. The NFL have set a good standard with this.

All this pink/yellow/green/red/orange rubbish looks absolutely appalling.

Humph...

 

[Creaky]

So? Our limitation is the amount we can spend of players etc. Donations would not increase that limit, but profit from merchandise sales would.

No - our limitation is how much TB is willing to continue pouring into the club - you seem to expect him to continue to do so. I say that is unreasonable and not fair on someone who has already been generous beyond any reasonable expectation.

Yes it does.
There is a maximum loss allowable, and then an extra loss allowable if the owner(s) puts money in. We reached the limit of that. TB buying even more equity would not allow us to spend more than we already were/are under FFP (here it comes again), but profit from merchandise sales would.

You talk as though these losses are just a figure on a piece of paper rather than real money! - The £3M allowable loss still has to be covered by someone - every £1 donated could go towards that loss rather than expecting TB alone to pay it.

I'm not suggesting donations nor equity purchase would allow the club to spend more under FFP regulations - we shouldn't be looking to spend money we haven't got! - that's the whoe idea of FFP - you are saying it's better the club receives money it can then go out and spend rather than receiving money that will reduce the amount TB has to subsidise the club by. That's just wrong by any standard.

So it's ok for the club now to sell shares to all the fans. Great.

Well at least I agree with you on that - it would be great.

 

[Triggaaar]

No - our limitation is how much TB is willing to continue pouring into the club - you seem to expect him to continue to do so.

I don't expect him to at all. If he said he didn't want to put any more in, and that we could no longer expect to compete for promotion, that would be fine with me. All we know is that up until now, he's been willing to spend. And you're completely wrong about that being the limitation. The club have stated that they intend to stick to FFP, and they have been spending up to the FFP limit.

You talk as though these losses are just a figure on a piece of paper rather than real money! - The £3M allowable loss still has to be covered by someone - every £1 donated could go towards that loss rather than expecting TB alone to pay it.

I'm well aware it's real money. I don't expect TB to pay, but he chooses to. And no, every £1 donated couldn't go towards the loss, because FFP doesn't allow it. FFP allows a few million loss, and a few more if covered by the owner - it doesn't allow the last few million if covered by donations.

I'm not suggesting donations nor equity purchase would allow the club to spend more under FFP regulations - we shouldn't be looking to spend money we haven't got! - that's the whoe idea of FFP

But it's money that the owner has got, and chooses to spend.

you are saying it's better the club receives money it can then go out and spend rather than receiving money that will reduce the amount TB has to subsidise the club by.

If you want to reduce the amount TB has to subsidise the club by, you're welcome to make donations to him. We all can if we want. But is anyone sending him money? Nope. And yes I'd like the club to receive money it can spend, because that's how clubs are supposed to work. Footballers don't play for free.

TB has decided he wants to help fund the club, and you seem to have a problem with that. Which is a bit weird.

 

[JBizzle]

Well, I for one am very excited by the prospect of the new kit. I think we have had some excellent kits over the years, which means that whomever is doing the "Kit-picking" has been doing a very good job thus far.

My only preference is that it's more blue than white. I see us as blue and white stripes, not white and blue... The kit posted earlier (modeled on the gorgeous Athletico Madrid kit) would suit me (mentally, not physically) very nicely. It would be AMAZING is we had an away kit similar to the "Inter Milan" or the "AC Milan" ones of the 90's.

 

[Creaky]

I don't expect him to at all. If he said he didn't want to put any more in, and that we could no longer expect to compete for promotion, that would be fine with me. All we know is that up until now, he's been willing to spend. And you're completely wrong about that being the limitation. The club have stated that they intend to stick to FFP, and they have been spending up to the FFP limit.

I'm well aware it's real money. I don't expect TB to pay, but he chooses to. And no, every £1 donated couldn't go towards the loss, because FFP doesn't allow it. FFP allows a few million loss, and a few more if covered by the owner - it doesn't allow the last few million if covered by donations.

But it's money that the owner has got, and chooses to spend.

If you want to reduce the amount TB has to subsidise the club by, you're welcome to make donations to him. We all can if we want. But is anyone sending him money? Nope. And yes I'd like the club to receive money it can spend, because that's how clubs are supposed to work. Footballers don't play for free.

TB has decided he wants to help fund the club, and you seem to have a problem with that. Which is a bit weird.

The first £3M of 'allowable' losses can be covered by 'any means' - donations, loans, equity purchase.

I have no problem at all with TB subsidising the club all the time he is willing and able to do so but are clubs really supposed to work in such a way that they can make losses and carry on spending beyond their means!

What is the difference between the club increasing the price of shirts etc beyond their market value, (and fans knowingly buying them at the inflated price), to raise extra 'FFP' revenue and a club increasing the cost of sponsorship beyond the market value and an owner/fan paying the inflated cost? - my answer would be that there is very little other than a matter of scale.

 

[Triggaaar]

The first £3M of 'allowable' losses can be covered by 'any means' - donations, loans, equity purchase.

Ok, fair enough. So you can donate away then, up to £3m. Are you going to? Is anyone you know going to? I know people who will buy shirts, and thus help fund the footballers we all want to see.

What is the difference between the club increasing the price of shirts etc beyond their market value, (and fans knowingly buying them at the inflated price), to raise extra 'FFP' revenue and a club increasing the cost of sponsorship beyond the market value and an owner/fan paying the inflated cost? - my answer would be that there is very little other than a matter of scale.

I think the point is that the price of shirts isn't above market value. Being that they sell so many, as do other clubs, whatever they're selling at is, by definition, the market value. Fans buying a shirt, do tend to want the shirt, at the price it's available at. Ideally they'd like to spend less. That's not the case with an owner gifting money to a club by way of a dodgy sponsorship deal.

 

[Creaky]

Ok, fair enough. So you can donate away then, up to £3m. Are you going to? Is anyone you know going to? I know people who will buy shirts, and thus help fund the footballers we all want to see.

I know people who would buy shares at a price above their real value.

I think the point is that the price of shirts isn't above market value. Being that they sell so many, as do other clubs, whatever they're selling at is, by definition, the market value. Fans buying a shirt, do tend to want the shirt, at the price it's available at. Ideally they'd like to spend less. That's not the case with an owner gifting money to a club by way of a dodgy sponsorship deal.

So what you are saying is that 'market value' is what someone is willing/has to pay - but of course not when it comes to sponsorship or shares - ok

 

[Triggaaar]

I know people who would buy shares at a price above their real value.

That's not donating. It's also not a way of providing funds in the long term.

So what you are saying is that 'market value' is what someone is willing/has to pay - but of course not when it comes to sponsorship or shares - ok

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. But I expect you realise that, you're just trying to argue a point that has no merit.

 

[crowborough seagull]

Does anyone know when the shirt will be revealed?

 

[Dan Aitch]

Own up - who's been saying it wrong?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...hairman-brand-confirms-responding-letter.html

 

[Commander]

I know people who would buy shares at a price above their real value.




So what you are saying is that 'market value' is what someone is willing/has to pay - but of course not when it comes to sponsorship or shares - ok

Why are you so desperate to buy such a tiny piece of the club that would give you no voice or say whatsoever, and would make absolutely no difference to anything at all, apart from the fact that you'll be a little bit poorer. It seems an odd position to take when you are so anti paying an extra few pounds for a garment of clothing that you will get endless hours of use out of.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Roma have just announced their 'beautiful new Nike home and away kits'. Each is completely different, even with different club badges. Can we hope for this much loving care in the design?

 

[Creaky]

Why are you so desperate to buy such a tiny piece of the club that would give you no voice or say whatsoever, and would make absolutely no difference to anything at all, apart from the fact that you'll be a little bit poorer. It seems an odd position to take when you are so anti paying an extra few pounds for a garment of clothing that you will get endless hours of use out of.

I guess it all comes down to circumstances.

I'm not sure that as a 65 year old supporter I would get "endless hours of use" from a replica shirt. I would be pleased though to have a framed share certificate of the football club I support hanging on the wall. A totally different perception I accept to the way a 20 or 30 year old would see it.

I'm not against the sale of club merchandise as a revenue stream, far from it, over the years I've bought my fair share. What I am against is the idea put forward that it's fine to add on an extra £5, £7, £10 or whatever to a realistic sale price on the basis that fans will pay whatever they are asked. I can't think of a better definition of a 'rip-off' than that.

I accept that for many fans the additional cost maybe neither here nor there but for many it is - I put forward the idea of donations or share sales as an alternative, more honest way, for the club to raise the revenue it blatantly needs unless we are to continue to rely on the generosity of TB.

I really don't understand the level of support there appears to be for the sale of overpriced goods whilst at the same time howling down any suggestion of more open and honest ways of raising money.