Double Standards

I understood the article fully though I concentrated on it's core issue - kit deals - untill everyone start taking about airlines and owners' cousins etc.

My spelling is excellent, I'm struggling with a faulty keyboard at the moment.

watching Boris twist this way and that all the time hurling off churlish insults is hilarious, keep it up Boris

city are such a 'small brand' that umbro are paying a miserly £26M or so per season for the pleasure of making their shirts for them. That is about the figure they pay for the England national team shirts.

I think it is highly plausible that the market value of any city deal will be at the top end of what any club in england would receive for a similar deal.

I am surprised about Adidas as Liverpool were the biggest grossing footy team for them (in terms of total merchandise, not replica shirts)

Not Effluent Just Batter MUFC

Check my good man, I didn't start the insults.

"last I heard Etihad had never turned a profit."

Yeah, funny that. Considering the company will be nine years old in July and that it's initial fleet order of 64 brand new planes cost in excess of $8 billion, that's an awful lot of bums on seats needed to compensate. Especially considering they also sponsor Harlequins, the Melbourne Stadium, the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and the Ferrari F1 team, and some other stuff as well. Yep, big sponsors of sport in order to become known worldwide and increase revenues when all other airlines are losing money hand over fist.

Now pitch that against Easyjet, who spent their first 13 years in operation flying nothing but rented planes and knackered old Boeing 737s that they acquired from buying out failing airlines at knockdown prices and it took them 5 years to turn a profit.

I know I'm comparing Fortnum and Mason with Lidl here, but if a budget airline can't cut a profit inside 5 years by using their planes as flying billboards and selling their image rights to TV, then it's reasonable to assume that an airline blowing billions up front on brand new aircraft and further millions on sponsorship isn't likely to turn a profit in any reasonable timescale.

So I was right then?

No, no you weren't.

Warrior get two bites of the cherry - whereas Etihad Airways don;t get off the starting blocks (oops, I;ve mixed my metaphors!)

Shirt sales (700,000-900,000) a year will recoup money and then the advertising will be extremely beneficial. At the moment it is all about "Warrior , who are they?", but soon we'll all know them - sports fans buy sports gear, so it could be a good investment.

In the other hand, Etihad have to recoup their costs from people who watch Man City games and who might also fly the routes of eithad. Can anyone believe that Etihad will increase profits by 40m from such advertising?

In the other hand, Etihad have to recoup their costs from people who watch Man City games and who might also fly the routes of eithad. Can anyone believe that Etihad will increase profits by 40m from such advertising .

Yes. Warrior concentrate on niche sports products at the moment and I can't see an imminent, worldwide clamour for lacrosse equipment at the moment.
Etihad have dozens of routes linking Europe with Africa and the Far East and the exposure they''ll receive by having their name on a PL clubs shirt is well worth the investment in a very competitive business.

hang on, warrior aren't sponsors, they are making the kit so they'll hope to get the money back from selling shirts etc. standard chartered sponsor liverpool's shirts and they are aiming ti get their money back from fans in the far east sticking their money in their bank. can't see it myself.