I think that it went to the High Court in a dispute with NB contributed to it getting more attention than usual.Kinda mad how much fuss there was over switching to Nike but didn't seem like it had any big payoff
Kinda mad how much fuss there was over switching to Nike but didn't seem like it had any big payoff
I would suggest that there's the whiff of corruption in that deal.@Beamrider any idea how much we made from Nike deal please? I heard one Reddit commentator say £109m and the Echo was saying about £60m which is kind of shit when you think the Arse are making £75m before they've sold a shirt. Look at PSGs deal, which has a significantly smaller fan base but closer to $90m a year
I found this but PSG figures seem low considering how much Nike pushes themI would suggest that there's the whiff of corruption in that deal.
Short answer is no. The club doesn't publish that level of detail in their accounts.@Beamrider any idea how much we made from Nike deal please? I heard one Reddit commentator say £109m and the Echo was saying about £60m which is kind of shit when you think the Arse are making £75m before they've sold a shirt. Look at PSGs deal, which has a significantly smaller fan base but closer to $90m a year
@Beamrider any idea how much we made from Nike deal please? I heard one Reddit commentator say £109m and the Echo was saying about £60m which is kind of shit when you think the Arse are making £75m before they've sold a shirt. Look at PSGs deal, which has a significantly smaller fan base but closer to $90m a year
Given it says it's UEFA sourced then those numbers should be legit, but I wasn't aware UEFA published this kind of stuff.I found this but PSG figures seem low considering how much Nike pushes them
Great point this.I would be putting this in evidence in the 115 trial as proof that the Etihad and other deals are massively over-priced.
Using the figures in public domain the 2022 - 23 commercial can be broken down as followsShort answer is no. The club doesn't publish that level of detail in their accounts.
The only indication is commercial income, which moved as follows:
2018-19 (pre Nike) £188m
2019-20 (pre Nike) £217m
2020-21 (with Nike) £217m
2021-22 £246m
2022-23 £272m
So, in the first year of the deal, commercial income didn't move at all, but it did go up by £29m the year before, which may have been a one-off, the hole for which was then filled by Nike the following year. But I'm speculating.
Needless to say, there'll be loads of other stuff in there, so you can't put those figures down to Nike alone.
Kinda mad how much fuss there was over switching to Nike but didn't seem like it had any big payoff
This looks plausible to me.Using the figures in public domain the 2022 - 23 commercial can be broken down as follows
Total Commercial income (published accounts) - 246m
Nike Kit & Merchandise (UEFA report) - 113m
Standard Chartered (media reports) - ~50m
AXA (media reports) - ~20m
Expedia (media reports) - ~9m
The above 4 deals add upto between 190 - 195m. On LFC website there are another 18 partners listed (a few of them were signed after 2022-23), which means an average of 3m per deal for the rest of them. Does that sound plausible given your experience?
I would suggest that there's the whiff of corruption in that deal.