Shirt Sponsorship

[Ryan]

From The Times June 25, 2009

Carlsberg's last orders for Liverpool deal
James Ducker

Carlsberg is running out of time to negotiate a new shirt sponsorship deal with Liverpool as the Merseyside club hold out for a bumper contract amid interest from a host of leading international companies.

Liverpool are looking to strike a deal similar to the £80 million, four-year arrangement that Manchester United secured this month with Aon, the American insurance giant, but Carlsberg is offering only about half that sum.

The Danish brewer has been Liverpool's main sponsor since 1992, but while talks are continuing and both parties would like their long association to continue, Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr, the co-owners, believe that the club have been undersold commercially for too long and want a deal that reflects their position as one of the most recognisable brands in world football.

The present deal with Carlsberg, which was signed in February 2007 in the wake of the Americans' takeover at Anfield, is worth £7.2 million a year and expires next summer. Carslberg has until the end of July to negotiate a new contract exclusively with Liverpool but thereafter the club will be able to explore other options.

Related Links
Benítez hopes Johnson will avert exodus
Gillett to sell Canadiens to help Liverpool
Benitez set to lose Mascherano
Liverpool believe that United's agreement with Aon has set the benchmark and that it is only right that they seek a comparable deal as the most successful club in English football history with an enormous worldwide fanbase.

Although Liverpool would like to conclude a deal sooner rather than later, they do not want to “get into bed†with the wrong partner and are prepared to take their time.

Chelsea will also be in the hunt for a new shirt sponsor should they not reach a new agreement with Samsung. Their present five-year deal with the Korean electronics company is worth £10 million a year and expires in June 2010, but with reports suggesting that Chelsea believe that a new contract is worth double that, it remains to be seen if Samsung is prepared to cough up the funds.

Put us on your shirts

£80 million The four-year deal Manchester United signed with Aon takes effect from next summer
£75 million Juventus have a five-year contract with Tamoil, the international oil company
£68 million Bayern Munich's four-year deal with T-Home
£50 million Chelsea signed a five-year contract with Samsung in 2005
£38 million Real Madrid's three-year deal with Bwin.com, the Austria-based online gaming company

 

[bkwitche2]

Well if Fiddlesticks and Fuckface are truly behind this, then kudos to them for doing at least one thing right. I would be pissed if we accepted 40m from Carlsberg. That is a paltry sum compared to what similar brands are drawing.

 

[Morse]

Fantastic news ONLY if another company is willing to put big money into us at this time of financial crisis.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

[quote author=The Times link=topic=34370.msg894668#msg894668 date=1245895436]

Although Liverpool would like to conclude a deal sooner rather than later, they do not want to “get into bed†with the wrong partner and are prepared to take their time.


[/quote]

Oh the irony.

 

[Ryan]

Ha!

 

[kenny]

who's the knob who said we had a new deal signed at £60m to be announced within the next two weeks, everyone was sucking him off for his info saying how reliable he is.

 

[Ryan]

[quote author=kenny link=topic=34370.msg894697#msg894697 date=1245908827]
who's the knob who said we had a new deal signed at £60m to be announced within the next two weeks, everyone was sucking him off for his info saying how reliable he is.
[/quote]

Herr_Onceared I think.

 

[Rosco]

haha

 

[keniget]

Strange that Real Madrid's deal is poor in comparison to some of the others.

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=bkwitche link=topic=34370.msg894671#msg894671 date=1245895790]
Well if Fiddlesticks and Fuckface are truly behind this, then kudos to them for doing at least one thing right. I would be pissed if we accepted 40m from Carlsberg. That is a paltry sum compared to what similar brands are drawing.
[/quote]

Dont believe the SoS bandwagon of hate when it comes to everything about the owners, under their guidance our commercial revenue has been boosted despite our relative lack of success on the pitch during that same period.

99% of Liverpool fans will think that's bollocks, but you only have to check the figures.

 

[Squiggles]

Fair play to them

Shit clubs like Spurs have negotiated better shirt sponsorship deals in the past which is particularly grating.

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=34370.msg894797#msg894797 date=1245918497]
Fair play to them

Shit clubs like Spurs have negotiated better shirt sponsorship deals in the past which is particularly grating.
[/quote]

Spurs were incredibly fortunate.

Utd publicly knocked back Mansion for reasons related to gambling image, Mansion needed to combat that, the only other decent club open for sponsorship was Spurs, so for once the club had the sponsor over a barrel.

It wont happen again & shouldnt be used as a yard stick.

 

[Squiggles]

Didn't know that - fair enough.

 

[LarryHagman]

I know Madrid are state sponsored but how do Barca, and fair play to them like, get by on zilch from a sponsor like Unicef?

 

[Squiggles]

Aston Villa manage it too.

I s'pose you've got to have a charitable owner.

Barca always used to say that they generate more interest being the only club without a sponsor, so it made the arrangement worthwhile and added to the 'special nature' of their club. Being the first club to freely endorse a charity served only to enforce that point, not to mention making Madrid look all evil and commercial in comparison.

 

[6TimesaRed]

I dunno quite fond of carslberg as a sponsor.. but if needs must... possible sponsors..? I like the google one...

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=34370.msg895154#msg895154 date=1245954014]
Aston Villa manage it too.

I s'pose you've got to have a charitable owner.

Barca always used to say that they generate more interest being the only club without a sponsor, so it made the arrangement worthwhile and added to the 'special nature' of their club. Being the first club to freely endorse a charity served only to enforce that point, not to mention making Madrid look all evil and commercial in comparison.
[/quote]

Who was it last season had no sponsors in the Prem? It pisses me right off they didnt get a charity on their shirts. The charity would've paid for shirts for them, & it'd have been a lovely gesture at zero loss to the club. Arseholes.

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=jono@home link=topic=34370.msg895205#msg895205 date=1245962883]
I dunno quite fond of carslberg as a sponsor.. but if needs must... possible sponsors..? I like the google one...

[/quote]

Virgin, too many jokes.

Google, very good, but too many 'searching for' puns from that.

Hoover, too many blowjob jokes.

LG, meh, but at least no obv jokes or puns.

Coca-Cola, disgusting corporation with zero ethics, great logo & very few puns though.

 

[leftpeg]

[quote author=jono@home link=topic=34370.msg895205#msg895205 date=1245962883]
I dunno quite fond of carslberg as a sponsor.. but if needs must... possible sponsors..? I like the google one...

[/quote]

I like Google.

 

[6TimesaRed]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=34370.msg895208#msg895208 date=1245963009]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=34370.msg895154#msg895154 date=1245954014]
Aston Villa manage it too.

I s'pose you've got to have a charitable owner.

Barca always used to say that they generate more interest being the only club without a sponsor, so it made the arrangement worthwhile and added to the 'special nature' of their club. Being the first club to freely endorse a charity served only to enforce that point, not to mention making Madrid look all evil and commercial in comparison.
[/quote]

Who was it last season had no sponsors in the Prem? It pisses me right off they didnt get a charity on their shirts. The charity would've paid for shirts for them, & it'd have been a lovely gesture at zero loss to the club. Arseholes.
[/quote]

WBA

 

[6TimesaRed]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=34370.msg895209#msg895209 date=1245963129]
[quote author=jono@home link=topic=34370.msg895205#msg895205 date=1245962883]
I dunno quite fond of carslberg as a sponsor.. but if needs must... possible sponsors..? I like the google one...

[/quote]

Virgin, too many jokes.

Google, very good, but too many 'searching for' puns from that.

Hoover, too many blowjob jokes.

LG, meh, but at least no obv jokes or puns.

Coca-Cola, disgusting corporation with zero ethics, great logo & very few puns though.
[/quote]

lol, yup sums them up... btw LG stand for Lucky Gold .. I imagine their would be one or two puns with that...

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=jono@home link=topic=34370.msg895216#msg895216 date=1245963521]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=34370.msg895208#msg895208 date=1245963009]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=34370.msg895154#msg895154 date=1245954014]
Aston Villa manage it too.

I s'pose you've got to have a charitable owner.

Barca always used to say that they generate more interest being the only club without a sponsor, so it made the arrangement worthwhile and added to the 'special nature' of their club. Being the first club to freely endorse a charity served only to enforce that point, not to mention making Madrid look all evil and commercial in comparison.
[/quote]

Who was it last season had no sponsors in the Prem? It pisses me right off they didnt get a charity on their shirts. The charity would've paid for shirts for them, & it'd have been a lovely gesture at zero loss to the club. Arseholes.
[/quote]

WBA
[/quote]

Them's the ones. Classless cunts. I honestly cant believe they didnt do that.

 

[6TimesaRed]

At least West Ham managed to have a temporary charity sponsor on their shirts from time to time after XL went bust (Bobby moore foundation - i think)

 

[rebel23]

the voda logo is tailor made (white on red) and they're a global company

 

[rurikbird]

[quote author=jono@home link=topic=34370.msg895217#msg895217 date=1245963677]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=34370.msg895209#msg895209 date=1245963129]
[quote author=jono@home link=topic=34370.msg895205#msg895205 date=1245962883]
I dunno quite fond of carslberg as a sponsor.. but if needs must... possible sponsors..? I like the google one...

[/quote]

Virgin, too many jokes.

Google, very good, but too many 'searching for' puns from that.

Hoover, too many blowjob jokes.

LG, meh, but at least no obv jokes or puns.

Coca-Cola, disgusting corporation with zero ethics, great logo & very few puns though.
[/quote]

lol, yup sums them up... btw LG stand for Lucky Gold .. I imagine their would be one or two puns with that...

[/quote]

I wouldn't mind Google or LG. Hoover or Coke would be the worst.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

[quote author=rebel23 link=topic=34370.msg895222#msg895222 date=1245964000]
the voda logo is tailor made (white on red) and they're a global company

[/quote]

You are having a fucking giraffe aren't you Rebel

regards

 

[Vlads Quiff]

[quote author=rebel23 link=topic=34370.msg895222#msg895222 date=1245964000]
the voda logo is tailor made (white on red) and they're a global company

[/quote]

You are having a fucking giraffe aren't you Rebel?

regards

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Silly Rebel.

*Tuts*

 

[Avmenon]

I'm sure we're anxious thave sponsors of the 'right' sort of image; but to paraphrase Jimmy Greaves, if they were putting a ton of money in I wouldn't care if it was Durex.

 

[HC]

I always though LG stood for Lifes good.