Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Why Not Have a Sponsorless Shirt While in League One?

NapaAddickNapaAddick
edited April 2017 in General Charlton
I don't think any club in League One gets much revenue at all from their shirt sponsorship. I think we get less than a million and maybe far less, per year. This is for the name on the shirt I am talking about, not the kit maker.

So why not just eliminate the shirt sponsor and enlarge the emblem?

If we had a badge 50% larger and did not clutter up the shirt with a sponsor, I suspect it would look very cool and shirt sales would make up for the lost money from the sponsor. No?
«1

Comments

  • SDAddickSDAddick
    edited April 2017
    Money.

    I imagine the margins on individual shirts is very small compared to what a sponsor pays.
  • NapaAddickNapaAddick
    Not much money. Very little, I believe.
  • HalixHalix
    According to your logic we would need to sell at least 50-60000 shorts EXTRA to make up for a loss of a million pounds sponsorship, and as a lot of fans like shirts with sponsors, no chance.
  • stackitstevestackitsteve
    Doesn't matter how little the revenue is. It's still revenue. No league 1 club can afford to turn money down
  • Siv_in_NorfolkSiv_in_Norfolk
    A million pounds will pay a lot of club employee wages
  • BeardfaceBeardface
    edited April 2017
    If we were in a position to drop the sponsorship money (which we're not) then I'd rather have Demelza House on the front of it for free. Or take the sponsorship and donate it to them.
  • Cardinal SinCardinal Sin
    I don't think there's a queue of sponsors to be fair. We ended up with University of Greenwich because of that before we did the deal with Betfair. Unfortunately, no shirt sponsor looks like you can't attract one.
  • Karim_myBagheriKarim_myBagheri
    I'll be very happy if we didn't have a sponsor cos they make nearly every football shirt look tacky. I wouldn't make the badge bigger though.

    West brom went without a couple of years back and it made their shirt obviously look very retro. Also Lazio and Roma don't have sponsors.
  • jonseventyfivejonseventyfive
    Revenue is revenue at the end of the day but a friend who supports Villa said many supporters really liked having the Acorns charity on their shirt, I would welcome something on those lines.
  • RedroboRedrobo
    Never mind the club shirt, when are CARD announcing this years shirt.
  • Sponsored links:


  • IdleHansIdleHans
    stackitsteve said:

    Doesn't matter how little the revenue is. It's still revenue. No league 1 club can afford to turn money down

    We can. Gate receipts dont matter. Katrien said so.
  • GarrymanilowGarrymanilow
    NapaAddick said:

    Not much money. Very little, I believe.

    Do you use fivers as napkins?
  • rinarina
    NapaAddick said:



    If we had a badge 50% larger and did not clutter up the shirt with a sponsor, I suspect it would look very cool and shirt sales would make up for the lost money from the sponsor. No?

    not allowed. club logos cannot be more than 100cm squared on shirts
  • smudge7946smudge7946
    What if the shirt was sponspered by Charlton Athletic?
  • WestCountryAddickWestCountryAddick
    This is a 'unique' idea...
  • blackpool72blackpool72
    Napa you been in your wine cellar: )
  • NapaAddickNapaAddick
    Halix said:

    According to your logic we would need to sell at least 50-60000 shorts EXTRA to make up for a loss of a million pounds sponsorship, and as a lot of fans like shirts with sponsors, no chance.

    That's IF our sponsorship is 1 mil. What if it is 250k? Which it might be. Then we would have to sell just 12,500-15,000 shirts to break even. I think we would do that EASILY.

  • NapaAddickNapaAddick
    edited April 2017
    Those who are saying "clubs can't turn down revenue".... what about reducing season ticket prices?

    Because it is the very same argument.

    In fact, match day is 2/3 of turnover and thus the argument to keep prices high to maximize revs is exactly the same.

    I contend we can lose the shirt sponsor and not lose turnover. And I also believe we could cut season ticket prices and not lose turnover.

    Same argument. And for the very same reason... increased sales will offset the loss.

    Not sure why many of you can't consider the potential upside of it yet complain with the very same argument and reasoning for season ticket prices, whose importance to the club absolutely dwarfs the importance of shirt sponsorship mired in the lower reaches of L1.
  • sam3110sam3110
    NapaAddick said:

    Those who are saying "clubs can't turn down revenue".... I dont ever want to hear any of you complain about season ticket prices again.

    Because it is the very same argument.

    In fact, match day is 2/3 of turnover and thus the argument to keep prices high to maximize revs is exactly the same.

    I contend we can lose the shirt sponsor and not lose turnover. And I also believe we could cut season ticket prices and not lose turnover.

    Same argument. And for the very same reason... increased sales will offset the loss.

    Not sure why many of you can't see the potential upside of it yet complain with the very same argument and reasoning for season ticket prices.

    Because it's a stupid idea. There's a reason even teams like Barcelona have conceded and now have a shirt sponsor.

    We wouldn't sell that amount of shirts extra, just because they are sponsorless. In fact, it's even more reason to buy a teamwear one online for 12 quid
  • Sponsored links:


  • NapaAddickNapaAddick
    edited April 2017
    Barceona and ManU and ManC make 120-250 million dollar shirt deals! Ours is literally .001 that size. 1/10th of 1% the size. To compare us to that is non-sensical. Apples and oranges.
  • kentaddickkentaddick
    Why not make season tickets free. Why not give out the club shirts for free.

    Why doesn't Tesco give out bread for free?

    It all adds up to the bottom line.
  • NapaAddickNapaAddick
    edited April 2017
    kentaddick said:

    Why not make season tickets free. Why not give out the club shirts for free.

    Why doesn't Tesco give out bread for free?

    It all adds up to the bottom line.

    Nice straw man argument. And not at all my point. But okay, fine, be that way.

  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    It's not a straw man argument it's argument ad absurdum.

    You logic, maths and business case as well as your understanding of the rules on badge sizes are all badly flawed.
  • Powell Is PleasantPowell Is Pleasant
    I don't understand why you think having no sponsor would make thousands and thousands more people buy the shirt.
  • HalixHalix
    edited April 2017
    NapaAddick said:

    Halix said:

    According to your logic we would need to sell at least 50-60000 shorts EXTRA to make up for a loss of a million pounds sponsorship, and as a lot of fans like shirts with sponsors, no chance.

    That's IF our sponsorship is 1 mil. What if it is 250k? Which it might be. Then we would have to sell just 12,500-15,000 shirts to break even. I think we would do that EASILY.

    EXTRA shirts.

    If having shirt sponsorship means we can sign or retain another player, no one would support turning it down.
  • redmanredman
    Can't believe we get anywhere near a million pounds from our shirt sponsor. Personally hate having it. but the business case is undeniable that it can't be turned down by any sensible CEO - now there's a thought!
  • smudge7946smudge7946
    What's a straw man argument
  • smudge7946smudge7946
    That wurzel gummage is a tw@t
  • jamsjams
    There's some weird old threads on here
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!