[The Exiled Heretic]

Rangers have announced a new sponsorship deal with Umbro that will net them a guaranteed £6.5m a season. That is £1.5m more per season that Celtic are getting from Nike.

Rangers will dump Diadora and unveil a new home kit for the 2005/06 season on May 12th 2005.

Good news with the debt falling too. The future looks bright.

 

[Angle_eyes]

It sounds a great deal. I take it we'll still be making the strips ourselves, with Umbro's name appearing on the jersey? If so, we should be making even more money :greed:

 

[Teddy Bear]

seems like a reasonable deal, although i'd have preferred someone like adidas (but they would never agree to us making the strips and them just sponsoring it i imagine)

hopefully the quality of the new tops are better than the current

 

[Angle_eyes]

I've heard loads of people complain about the quality of our current tops What's wrong with them? I've had mine for about a year and a half, and it's still pretty much the same as it was. I've played 5-a-sides in it plenty of times as well.

 

[The Exiled Heretic]

Rangers are still making the strips so the quality probably won't change. I've not bought one in years so can't comment on the quality but have heard they are not as good as others.

 

[Marco Negri]

I think the current home strip is beautiful. Everyone else seems to hate it though.

 

[mincecfc]

Rangers have announced a new sponsorship deal with Umbro that will net them a guaranteed £6.5m a season. That is £1.5m more per season that Celtic are getting from Nike.

Rangers will dump Diadora and unveil a new home kit for the 2005/06 season on May 12th 2005.

Good news with the debt falling too. The future looks bright.

LOL - you've fallen for the old Murray smoke and mirrors act again.


Rangers Umbro deal, more about what is not said than what is said

Rangers have not revealed the value of their four year merchandise deal with Umbro announced today. The £6.5million figure you will hear being quoted is Rangers Retail Brand Director Nick Peel's suggestion of what the deal could potentially be worth.

This is a bit like me saying that the Celtic Nike deal could be worth £13million per annum. It could be, but that is not what Celtic are guaranteed, and £6.5million is not what Rangers are guaranteed.

It is unprecedented for a football club not to announce the guaranteed value of a shirt sponsorship deal. As Rangers will be judged directly with Celtic on this matter, I have no doubt that the Rangers deal does not match the Celtic Nike deal.

CELTIC PLC

21 September 2004

NEW KIT SUPPLY DEAL

Celtic plc ('Celtic') announces that on the expiry of its current kit supply
contract at the end of June 2005, a new agreement with NIKE will come into effect.

The agreement, between Celtic's wholly owned subsidiary, Celtic F.C. Limited and NIKE European Operations Netherlands B.V. ('NIKE'), will commence on 1 July 2005 and is for a term of 5 years.

In return for the grant by Celtic to NIKE of exclusive worldwide rights as
official supplier of kit and certain ancillary products to Celtic Football Club, NIKE will pay royalties to Celtic on NIKE'S sales of Celtic branded products. A MINIMUM royalty of £5 million is payable in each year of the agreement together with further bonus and royalty payments, depending on football success and sales, which Celtic believes are capable of being achieved given the worldwide status of NIKE, who are best suited to meet the global aspirations of Celtic. In financial terms the new contract is the largest commercial licensing transaction entered into by Celtic.

END

 

[Laddie]

Are Rangers still not making massive profits here? We are having two sponsors paying us a small fortune to put their names on our shirts, while making the shirts ourselves, making huge profits on those and only letting UMBRO distribute abroad, where they have are one of the top 3 sports brands?

Celtic saying they will receive 5 mil minimum is supposed to be far better than having projections of 6.5 million? Again, I could be off the mark here, but is this deal with Umbro not just about their Sponsorship deal and what they sell abroad and doesn't take into account the profits we make from producing and selling the shirts here?

 

[mincecfc]

Laddie, to be honest, I'm not sure the exact terms of the deal - nobody apart from insiders are as the deal is not being made totally public. I wonder why that is.

Celtic say £5m, so Rangers have to say more - it's just typical oneupmanship from Murray. For every £5... etc.

 

[Marco Negri]

It's good news I suppose. I don't care about Celtic's deal.

 

[King_Henrik]

How can a 4-year deal worth "a 7-figure sum" amount to a guaranteed £6.5m per annum pray tell?

Admittedly it's been a while since higher maths, but from my estimation the figures don't quite add up. :dielaugh:

 

[The Exiled Heretic]

How can a 4-year deal worth "a 7-figure sum" amount to a guaranteed £6.5m per annum pray tell?

I might be wrong on this but my reading of "This deal, for an undisclosed seven-figure sum.." is nothing to do with the yearly shirt sales over the 4 years but an initial payment Umbro are paying Rangers to carry their name. It's my own interpretation of that so it could be wrong.

The £6.5m per year is not a high figure as Rangers are already supposed to be making £5m-£7m per annum since making their own shirts. As Mince said though no one outside the parties involved know the true figures so we can only go on what we are told.

 

[Angle_eyes]

LOL - you've fallen for the old Murray smoke and mirrors act again.


Rangers Umbro deal, more about what is not said than what is said

Rangers have not revealed the value of their four year merchandise deal with Umbro announced today. The £6.5million figure you will hear being quoted is Rangers Retail Brand Director Nick Peel's suggestion of what the deal could potentially be worth.

This is a bit like me saying that the Celtic Nike deal could be worth £13million per annum. It could be, but that is not what Celtic are guaranteed, and £6.5million is not what Rangers are guaranteed.

It is unprecedented for a football club not to announce the guaranteed value of a shirt sponsorship deal. As Rangers will be judged directly with Celtic on this matter, I have no doubt that the Rangers deal does not match the Celtic Nike deal.

Did you copy and paste that from somewhere?

 

[annax]

Why do Celtic fans care so much what Rangers are getting (or not getting)? I agree that the Rangers deal will not match the Celtic deal in what Nike and Umbro are paying but as both companies are not paying for the same thing a comparision can't be made. Umbro's role is closer to that of Carling as a sponsor rather than shirt maker!

I liked how Diadora (or Rangers) offered a female version of the top which fitted better, I hope that continues!

 

[King_Henrik]

I might be wrong on this but my reading of "This deal, for an undisclosed seven-figure sum.." is nothing to do with the yearly shirt sales over the 4 years but an initial payment Umbro are paying Rangers to carry their name. It's my own interpretation of that so it could be wrong.

The £6.5m per year is not a high figure as Rangers are already supposed to be making £5m-£7m per annum since making their own shirts. As Mince said though no one outside the parties involved know the true figures so we can only go on what we are told.

If the figure is a seven-figure sum, ie under £10m, then i'm sorry to shatter your illusions, but that's nowhere near the guaranteed £5m that Celtic are making from Nike per annum before a shirt is even sold - not to mention the potential worldwide marketing strategies that exist for Celtic through a sponsorshp deal with a worldwide brand such as Nike.

Annax, if chivo hadn't falsely claimed that Rangers were guaranteed an extra £1.5m from a deal with a small brand like Umbro than the minimum that Celtic were due from someone like Nike then there'd be no need for Celtic fans to infiltrate the thread to set the record straight.

 

[Angle_eyes]

Why do Celtic fans care so much what Rangers are getting (or not getting)? I agree that the Rangers deal will not match the Celtic deal in what Nike and Umbro are paying but as both companies are not paying for the same thing a comparision can't be made. Umbro's role is closer to that of Carling as a sponsor rather than shirt maker!

I've been thinking the same thing. It might be because they can't gloat over league positions just now.

 

[The Exiled Heretic]

That's not what I said. I said Umbro will give Rangers a one off payment each season which will be 7 figures. As it turns out it Umbro will give Rangers £1.5m per season- that is the seven figure sum.

Before you say that doesn't add up to £6.5m a season and is £3.5m less than Celtic there is a big difference. Rangers control their own retail and that is why it is estimated they will bring in £6.5m per season based on the sales of other seasons. Rangers make their own kits and profit directly from the sales.

The Evening Times tonight reports that "Rangers raked in £18m from their retail arm last year", "They are second in the UK market- behind Manchester United- in terms of revenue earned from retail sales" and "also in the top 5 clubs in Europe".

Hope that clears that up. Hands up though I did type "guaranteed" which was wrong so let me correct that now by saying "estimated".

 

[Laddie]

Umbro are hardly a small company King Henrik. Although they are not a match for Nike and Adidas now, they are the third biggest sportswear company involved in football. Bit of an exaggeration I think.

 

[King_Henrik]

That's not what I said. I said Umbro will give Rangers a one off payment each season which will be 7 figures. As it turns out it Umbro will give Rangers £1.5m per season- that is the seven figure sum.

Before you say that doesn't add up to £6.5m a season and is £3.5m less than Celtic there is a big difference. Rangers control their own retail and that is why it is estimated they will bring in £6.5m per season based on the sales of other seasons. Rangers make their own kits and profit directly from the sales.

The Evening Times tonight reports that "Rangers raked in £18m from their retail arm last year", "They are second in the UK market- behind Manchester United- in terms of revenue earned from retail sales" and "also in the top 5 clubs in Europe".

Hope that clears that up. Hands up though I did type "guaranteed" which was wrong so let me correct that now by saying "estimated".

So in the space of 24 hours the figure has changed from a "guaranteed £6.5m per season" to £1.5m per season. So long as the difference in figures isn't too substantial eh?...

Celtic have a guaranteed £5m per annum from Nike, and that's before taking into account profit from strips sold, both in Scotland, Ireland and further across the world due to the worldwide brand enjoyed by both Celtic and Nike.

No matter how you try to twist it, or lie about figures, Celtic have the more lucrative merchandising deal.

 

[The Exiled Heretic]

So in the space of 24 hours the figure has changed from a "guaranteed £6.5m per season" to £1.5m per season. So long as the difference in figures isn't too substantial eh?...

No you are not listening. I used the wrong wording which I outlined in my last post. Rangers will get £1.5m from Umbro just for having their logo appear on the shirt not £5m for manufacturing those shirts. That's why Rangers will make in the region of an additional £5m in profits through the manufacturing and sale of those shirts without a middle man. That is the difference.

Celtic have a guaranteed £5m per annum from Nike, and that's before taking into account profit from strips sold, both in Scotland, Ireland and further across the world due to the worldwide brand enjoyed by both Celtic and Nike.

The difference is the markup on each shirt sold is significantly higher for Rangers because they are making their own kits. That's why Rangers are doing it and that's why they are making a bigger profit in shirt sales.

No matter how you try to twist it, or lie about figures, Celtic have the more lucrative merchandising deal.

I'm twisting nothing and lying about nothing. If you want to say Celtic have "the more lucrative merchandising deal" look at the Evening Times article I posted which clearly states "They [Rangers] are second in the UK market- behind Manchester United- in terms of revenue earned from retail sales and also in the top 5 clubs in Europe". Now who is twisting or lying?