If its less then thats a huge pro RD tick in the box for me.
Benefits such as the provision of free education for our football scholars is also highly laudable.
All the evidence seems to be for long term community based thinking from the Chairman. Id almost be disappointed if it turns out to be financially attractive.
If its less then thats a huge pro RD tick in the box for me.
Benefits such as the provision of free education for our football scholars is also highly laudable.
All the evidence seems to be for long term community based thinking from the Chairman. Id almost be disappointed if it turns out to be financially attractive.
Let's wait and see.
Financially attractive means more to spend on renewing player contracts.
All the community benefits you mention are good but it shouldn't be either/or.
In my deference, I was aping for a coca cola rather than a mrs miggins pie shop/some crappy AC company but I'd be happy with a University of Greenwich or even a National Maritime Museum or the fooking Cutty Sark, you'd just expect that all of them would have better things to spend their money on...... The devil will be in the detail aye
Millwall gave their 2013/14 shirt sponsorship to prostate cancer UK (credit where credit's due) maybe this is a bit similar, not a charity donation, but an attempt to have something more worthwhile than Wonga on the front.
If its less then thats a huge pro RD tick in the box for me.
Benefits such as the provision of free education for our football scholars is also highly laudable.
All the evidence seems to be for long term community based thinking from the Chairman. Id almost be disappointed if it turns out to be financially attractive.
Let's wait and see.
Financially attractive means more to spend on renewing player contracts.
All the community benefits you mention are good but it shouldn't be either/or.
Agree we will have to see. However, Im not a fence sitter and whats a FF without a nice bit of speculation. I dont take a tweet from a SU president as proving anything, but I would still comment on what that would involve should it occur.
Disagree on the either/or viewpoint though. Best prem sponsorship was Villa' s Acorns charity freebie job. Thats class. Wonga or Bet365 or Razzle would pay us a premium because they have a job with many clubs putting that crap on their shirts.
Id much rather have a long term partnership with Greenwich Uni than an extra 500k for wages which would get me one fairly decent champ player. Its my speculation and hope that long termism is RDs motivation, which is completely the opposite to 90% of clubs in the top 2 leagues.
I like the idea of Greenwich Uni or a local company but it has to bring in some money. 500k would pay two wages for a season at 5k pw. We are a business after all, not a charity.
I don't want a Wonga or bet365 either but 500k is huge to us.
Andrews was 220k and the 180K. So more than 1000 A Block STs.
Shirt sponsorship is a huge part of the commercial income so it matters.
Sure and we are already seeing a policy on tickets that might drop net income to boost bums on seats. I think that is great.
Given the turmoil of the last owners and your detailed knowledge of the margins of club finances, I can understand the trepidation.
But Id argue that the non playing spend by RD has been substantial. Benefits will be felt over years to come.
Whose to say such a partnership wont help us attract young players? More attention on education, you might appeal to exactly the kind of parents you would want to appeal to, those with a sensible heads that are not easily turned by a 100k upfront from a Chelski.
I admit that the previous owners have made me overly optimistic about any one that invests in long term projects that dont involve the first team squad. Their business plan was undone by an overspend on players and a drop in tv revenue they didnt anticipate.
RD aint gonna do a bunk if he is investing in the pitch, the training ground and youth football generally and trying to attract more supporters at short term loss IMO. It is interesting how people see things because of it turns out we are only being paid on services by GU I would see that as an extremely positive step.
Could well be a supplementary second sponsor on the neck of the shirt? Like where you see "Blackthorn" on Bristol Rovers' away kit from the season just gone in the picture here:
And there was I expecting Interbrew to become the sponsors. Leffe on the shirts, fine Belgian beers available at the ground and the tasteless Fosters replaced by Stella Artois.
Millwall gave their 2013/14 shirt sponsorship to prostate cancer UK (credit where credit's due) maybe this is a bit similar, not a charity donation, but an attempt to have something more worthwhile than Wonga (credit where credit's unaffordable) on the front.
Charlton is in Greenwich. Greenwich is a university. It is not a dodgy lending company. Whats not to like ?
Universities are one of the most corrupt institutions. And student loans are 'a dodgy lending company'.
Re the first statement: I don't have an opinion either way, but any evidence?
Re the second statement: as it looks like an awful lot of student loans will end up being written off, they're dodgy for the Exchequer. I guess that's not what you meant, though.
Comments
What's a contra deal?
Nothing to do with these fellas, I hope:
Benefits such as the provision of free education for our football scholars is also highly laudable.
All the evidence seems to be for long term community based thinking from the Chairman. Id almost be disappointed if it turns out to be financially attractive.
Financially attractive means more to spend on renewing player contracts.
All the community benefits you mention are good but it shouldn't be either/or.
I'm so underwhelmed, I'm gonna send back my ST and demand my £150 back..................
The devil will be in the detail aye
Disagree on the either/or viewpoint though. Best prem sponsorship was Villa' s Acorns charity freebie job. Thats class. Wonga or Bet365 or Razzle would pay us a premium because they have a job with many clubs putting that crap on their shirts.
Id much rather have a long term partnership with Greenwich Uni than an extra 500k for wages which would get me one fairly decent champ player. Its my speculation and hope that long termism is RDs motivation, which is completely the opposite to 90% of clubs in the top 2 leagues.
Andrews was 220k and the 180K. So more than 1000 A Block STs.
Shirt sponsorship is a huge part of the commercial income so it matters.
NEW AWAY KIT
Given the turmoil of the last owners and your detailed knowledge of the margins of club finances, I can understand the trepidation.
But Id argue that the non playing spend by RD has been substantial. Benefits will be felt over years to come.
Whose to say such a partnership wont help us attract young players? More attention on education, you might appeal to exactly the kind of parents you would want to appeal to, those with a sensible heads that are not easily turned by a 100k upfront from a Chelski.
I admit that the previous owners have made me overly optimistic about any one that invests in long term projects that dont involve the first team squad. Their business plan was undone by an overspend on players and a drop in tv revenue they didnt anticipate.
RD aint gonna do a bunk if he is investing in the pitch, the training ground and youth football generally and trying to attract more supporters at short term loss IMO. It is interesting how people see things because of it turns out we are only being paid on services by GU I would see that as an extremely positive step.
Grrrrrrrrr not oi
I need to lie down in dark room.
Andrews
Recycled
Silicon
Electronics
Re the second statement: as it looks like an awful lot of student loans will end up being written off, they're dodgy for the Exchequer. I guess that's not what you meant, though.
I was distracted by the font.
For that logo to go on a shirt, it will need a big white background.