What's new

ENIC...

Status
Not open for further replies.

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,986
81,917
The furlough decision is saving us how much per month? Let’s say £1.5million at a stretch.

Let’s say we furlough for 3 months.

We save £4.5million

Now....

We come to finalise a deal for the stadium...

The value of this deal will be reduced by MORE than £4.5million.

I know, because it’s my profession.

This alone proves my point. Without all the other negatives associated with the decision.

Fortunately there are more sensible people on here that have agreed with me, but not going to bother arguing with people who don’t have the knowledge of this area of business to understand.

If you want some example reports of what we use at to assess the value of sponsorship deals when processing bid management, let me know.(y)
The "I'm an expert defence." Problem with these posts is you assume you are more of an expert than Levy and his advisers when I highly doubt you are.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
Completely contradicted yourself.

Yes, money talks. When signing sponsorship deals these brands will use this saga against us (with bundles of data) in order to pay us less money for sponsorship.

Overall we will lose more than we are saving.

Really I am not going to waste any more time on this now.

I will come back once we have some further developments, press releases or data on this.

Strange response...

Please enlighten me where I've contradicted myself, also whilst you're there you might want to explain to me why this is spam when it's completely on topic?

You've been given countless examples from people in here that lay contrary to your claims that business and brands will be put off by what Levy has done and still you're sitting there defiantly protesting that this won't be the case, well either you know something that we don't or you're just being super stubborn not wanting to accept you may be actually wrong on this one...
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
773
4,061
The "I'm an expert defence." Problem with these posts is you assume you are more of an expert than Levy and his advisers when I higlhy doubt you are.

Haha... you think Levy is an ‘expert’ in all areas of business?

You really do have no idea, then. Levy is surrounded by advisers who know WAY more about specific areas of business than he does. Of course, this decision would have gone to a DRC. I work advising DRC about areas such as this, they pay me for the expertise - so yes, I am confident I know more than most.
 

Wheeler Dealer

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2011
6,863
12,282
The furlough decision is saving us how much per month? Let’s say £1.5million at a stretch.

Let’s say we furlough for 3 months.

We save £4.5million

Now....

We come to finalise a deal for the stadium...

The value of this deal will be reduced by MORE than £4.5million.

I know, because it’s my profession.

This alone proves my point. Without all the other negatives associated with the decision.

Fortunately there are more sensible people on here that have agreed with me, but not going to bother arguing with people who don’t have the knowledge of this area of business to understand.

If you want some example reports of what we use at to assess the value of sponsorship deals when processing bid management, let me know.(y)
Maybe Levy is from the school that is scrambling round picking pennies from the shit on the floor, whilst £50 notes are flying past his ears above.. I have had the privilege or displeasure of working for organisations that behave like this.
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
773
4,061
Strange response...

Please enlighten me where I've contradicted myself, also whilst you're there you might want to explain to me why this is spam when it's completely on topic?

Sorry I must have clicked ‘spam’ by mistake. Will remove for you.

I can‘t waste any more time arguing the point. I feel my posts back up why saving £4.5million on wages is counter productive.

We will lose more than £4.5m in sponsorship value going forwards.

If money talks, there is your answer shouting right back at you.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,356
3,330
I would estimate this would wipe at least 20% off what we can sell stadium rights for. AT LEAST!
I completely disagree with you and think the Tiger Woods example is in no way comparable, but fair play for putting your neck on the line and making a quantifiable prediction.

By some way of reply I would bring up the sex scandals surrounding John Terry and Ryan Giggs. They both lost out on their personal sponsorship deals but I don't remember seeing an exodus of sponsors from their respective clubs. And that's a juicy sex scandal, not a boring financial decision.

And when we look at companies like Apple and Starbucks who are heavily associated with tax dodging. It got wide news coverage and I'm sure there were many millions on Twitter who were all outraged (far more than about the furlough decision) but the public in general continue to buy their products. A more recent example would be the outrage after Caroline Flack's death; there were all sorts of calls for a tabloid boycott but life moves on and people consume products. It's a tale as old as time.

I think this is yet another example of "armchair experts" making posts on the Internet that have little validity, and it's annoying because it encourages people to just post their gut reaction rather than trying to find out the real truth. Many people think that all 550 staff are furloughed which simply isn't true. Many people think that the club has control over player wages which isn't true.

I would be interested to see those example reports you mentioned. I'm also still interested in your general assessment of when furlough would become appropriate. For example, if a company had £100m in the bank, monthly outgoings of £40m and monthly incomings of £5m, what would be your advice to them? I appreciate each situation is different (something not appreciated by many posters here it seems) but there must be certain financial indicators that can be applied generally.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
Sorry I must have clicked ‘spam’ by mistake. Will remove for you.

I can‘t waste any more time arguing the point. I feel my posts back up why saving £4.5million on wages is counter productive.

We will lose more than £4.5m in sponsorship value going forwards.

If money talks, there is your answer shouting right back at you.

That doesn't make any sense but okay. :LOL:
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,986
81,917
Haha... you think Levy is an ‘expert’ in all areas of business?

You really do have no idea, then. Levy is surrounded by advisers who know WAY more about specific areas of business than he does. Of course, this decision would have gone to a DRC. I work advising DRC about areas such as this, they pay me for the expertise - so yes, I am confident I know more than most.
Lol, learn to read. I said "Levy and his advisers." Not that Levy is an expert in everything.

We'll revisit your posts once the repercussions of the virus and us deciding to furlough are clear. I am confident your predictions will amount to shit.
 
Last edited:

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
773
4,061
I completely disagree with you and think the Tiger Woods example is in no way comparable, but fair play for putting your neck on the line and making a quantifiable prediction.

By some way of reply I would bring up the sex scandals surrounding John Terry and Ryan Giggs. They both lost out on their personal sponsorship deals but I don't remember seeing an exodus of sponsors from their respective clubs. And that's a juicy sex scandal, not a boring financial decision.

And when we look at companies like Apple and Starbucks who are heavily associated with tax dodging. It got wide news coverage and I'm sure there were many millions on Twitter who were all outraged (far more than about the furlough decision) but the public in general continue to buy their products. A more recent example would be the outrage after Caroline Flack's death; there were all sorts of calls for a tabloid boycott but life moves on and people consume products. It's a tale as old as time.

I think this is yet another example of "armchair experts" making posts on the Internet that have little validity, and it's annoying because it encourages people to just post their gut reaction rather than trying to find out the real truth. Many people think that all 550 staff are furloughed which simply isn't true. Many people think that the club has control over player wages which isn't true.

I would be interested to see those example reports you mentioned. I'm also still interested in your general assessment of when furlough would become appropriate. For example, if a company had £100m in the bank, monthly outgoings of £40m and monthly incomings of £5m, what would be your advice to them? I appreciate each situation is different (something not appreciated by many posters here it seems) but there must be certain financial indicators that can be applied generally.

I don’t want to drag this out.

Again, you are just further proving my point.

If we have furloughed LESS staff, we are saving LESS money.

The opportunity cost of this is even greater!

I will just keep telling you the bad PR = millions less sponsorship value.

I’m not going to go over any other points.

That point alone proves I am correct, here.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
I don’t want to drag this out.

Again, you are just further proving my point.

If we have furloughed LESS staff, we are saving LESS money.

The opportunity cost of this is even greater!

I will just keep telling you the bad PR = millions less sponsorship value.

I’m not going to go over any other points.

That point alone proves I am correct, here.

1667382.main_image.jpg


Have a day off mate and enjoy the sun

Feel free to mark this as spam ;)
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
773
4,061
One last analogy for those who don’t get this.

Jimmy runs a local business. He approaches his local football team and offers them £1000 to sponsor the club shirts next year.

The owner of the football club goes on Facebook and posts some comments that go down badly with local people. There are over 100 comments on his post calling for him to resign.

The football club owner goes back to Jimmy to ask for payment of his £1000 sponsorship money.

Does the business owner still want to pay £1000 for this privilege? Will it be a good value sponsorship deal at this time?
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,986
81,917
One last analogy for those who don’t get this.

Jimmy runs a local business. He approaches his local football team and offers them £1000 to sponsor the club shirts next year.

The owner of the football club goes on Facebook and posts some comments that go down badly with local people. There are over 100 comments on his post calling for him to resign.

The football club owner goes back to Jimmy to ask for payment of his £1000 sponsorship money.

Does the business owner still want to pay £1000 for this privilege? Will it be a good value sponsorship deal at this time?
Here's something that is not an analogy for you. Individuals such as Tiger Woods are not the same as top level football clubs. Small local football clubs are not the same as top level football clubs.
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
773
4,061
Here's something that is not an analogy for you. Individuals such as Tiger Woods are not the same as top level football clubs. Small local football clubs are not the same as top level football clubs.

So maybe we are somewhere in between and so no logical rules apply?

Right. (y)
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
773
4,061
The "I'm an expert defence." Problem with these posts is you assume you are more of an expert than Levy and his advisers when I highly doubt you are.
Lol, learn to read. I said "Levy and his advisers." Not that Levy is an expert is everything.

We'll revisit your posts once the repercussions of the virus and us deciding to furlough are clear. I am confident your predictions will amount to shit.

So, by the same token - the advisers at Arsenal, Man City, Man Utd and any other PL who followed the same advice I have given must all be wrong too?

You can’t have it both ways, champ.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,986
81,917
So, by the same token - the advisers at Arsenal, Man City, Man Utd and any other PL who followed the same advice I have given must all be wrong too?

You can’t have it both ways, champ.
Your comprehension skills aren't so good.

I didn't say Levy and his advisers are right or wrong, it is too early to tell. Previous misconduct by top levels clubs has not affected their sponsorship so history doesn't support your assertion that it will happen this time.

At no time have I said all experts are right. You deem yourself an expert and I believe, in time, you will be proved wrong.

Lets just leave it there though.
 

pelayo59

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2019
1,035
4,588
One last analogy for those who don’t get this.

Jimmy runs a local business. He approaches his local football team and offers them £1000 to sponsor the club shirts next year.

The owner of the football club goes on Facebook and posts some comments that go down badly with local people. There are over 100 comments on his post calling for him to resign.

The football club owner goes back to Jimmy to ask for payment of his £1000 sponsorship money.

Does the business owner still want to pay £1000 for this privilege? Will it be a good value sponsorship deal at this time?

Jonh runs a American multinational corporation. He approaches English football team with a lot of worldwide recognition and offers them £30 milion to sponsor the club shirts next year.

The owner of the football put on furlough ~200-250 people. There are over 10000 comments on his post calling for him to resign.

The football club owner goes back to John to ask for payment of his £30 million sponsorship money.

Does the business owner still want to pay £30 million for this privilege? Will it be a good value sponsorship deal at this time?

The answer is yes, because the 99% of their fanbase don't give a fuck about that.
 

SpunkyBackpack

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2005
7,831
9,372
One last analogy for those who don’t get this.

Jimmy runs a local business. He approaches his local football team and offers them £1000 to sponsor the club shirts next year.

The owner of the football club goes on Facebook and posts some comments that go down badly with local people. There are over 100 comments on his post calling for him to resign.

The football club owner goes back to Jimmy to ask for payment of his £1000 sponsorship money.

Does the business owner still want to pay £1000 for this privilege? Will it be a good value sponsorship deal at this time?

Im calling doubt on your 'expert' claim but anyway. If you have a team of 100+ people doing research on marketing link-ups and you can convince your boss not to fire you for massively wasting money then more power to you.

Using your analogy this is more like it-

Jimmy runs a local business. He approaches his local football team and offers them £1000 to sponsor the club shirts next year.

The owner of the club wont approve time off to Sandra from the ticket office even though she has a holiday booked and she put in for it ahead of time. She is upset and her family are upset, also some of her friends are pissed off too and post on facebook.

The football club owner goes back to Jimmy to ask for payment of his £1000 sponsorship money.

Jimmy gives the money because its a small thing, nobody was racist and most of his target market have no idea what the issue was anyway.


And now i actually am done. You can spam rate my post now.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top