Breaking News Away Shirt revealed

[Jam_Man]

Yellow & black stripes is not our kit!!

Any kit we wear is our kit.

We have worn voltage cherry for petes sake, what did that have to do with SUFC? That one should have been worn far far far less.

 

[amsemp]

Actually quite like this. Pleased we stuck with the colour scheme and ditched the bloody Hull kit!

Not massively impressed with the sponsor as a matter of principle but at least it looks good on the shirt. Agree with others though, would have preferred a local charity or something instead as I doubt Martin Dawn are paying mega bucks for the sponsorship.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I love it. I love the asymmetrical appearance and it's a huge improvement on gold and black stripes and cherry voltage.

 

[The General]

Just a quick note from me in Barbados (!) and this could have been already mentioned but think everyone has missed the trick. All I'm gunna say is FFP. Just have a think. Balancing the books. Losing out on 50k maybe a small price to pay to get promotion!?! Right must dash.

 

[Shrimper]

Just a quick note from me in Barbados (!) and this could have been already mentioned but think everyone has missed the trick. All I'm gunna say is FFP. Just have a think. Balancing the books. Losing out on 50k maybe a small price to pay to get promotion!?! Right must dash.

That doesn't make sense. If we had sponsorship money we'd have more income which would help lower any potential loses. FFP is about being efficient and reducing loses.

 

[Big Bad Barry Corr]

Hate the shirt with a venom. Martin Dawn as sponsors? Jesus, have we sunk to that? The black armband gives this a tone of mourning too. Horrible. :thumbdown:

 

[Wise Head]

I actually like the shirt design.

I am more concerned with the decision on shirt sponsors as there is no commercial value for Martin Dawn and it in effect produces no extra revenue. Any business should look to maximise free revenue from sponsorship as it pure profit. The value of the shirt sponsorship deal is determined by the market and once you have disregarded any companies you do not want to be associated with, then you should go ahead with the best offer on the table, whatever it is.

If we can afford to turn our back on this revenue, then why has the club increased car parking charges at the ground to get a small amount of extra revenue. Really struggle to understand the decision making at times.

 

[Grayson]

That doesn't make sense. If we had sponsorship money we'd have more income which would help lower any potential loses. FFP is about being efficient and reducing loses.

I think he is implying that this allows RM (who has to put money in the club anyway) to put money in that is counted as club turnover, therefore increasing our spending power on wages by raising our salary cap threshold.

 

[Ricky Otto]

I think he is implying that this allows RM (who has to put money in the club anyway) to put money in that is counted as club turnover, therefore increasing our spending power on wages by raising our salary cap threshold.

If that is the case then fair enough, would be nice to know for sure though. Doesn't add up that they needed to do both home and away shirts with MD if that is the case though? Surely take money for home sponsorship and pay the rest needed to get the required budget on away sponsorship? Should brought up at q & a

 

[Eddy Melito]

all the talk of turning down the offer of 50k for sponsorship is without any context.

who's to say it wasnt offered at xmas last year when the club realistically believed they could achieve more than that and so politely turned it down? They'd probably have spent their budget for sponsorship by now whoever they were and couldnt take up the offer.

its easy to criticise without knowing anything other than someone offered 50k...

 

[Wise Head]

I think he is implying that this allows RM (who has to put money in the club anyway) to put money in that is counted as club turnover, therefore increasing our spending power on wages by raising our salary cap threshold.

This argument is irrelevant as there are a number of ways Ron is currently doing this anyway by charging rent, invoicing for consultancy charges etc etc between his various companies. Suggested ways of increasing the club's revenue rather than through the internal shirt sponsorship deal could include invoicing Martin Dawn for a corporate box each game if there is one empty (they don't have to use it), charging rent for using Roots Hall premises, and invoicing them for using the club's staff etc.

The shirt sponsorship deal should be for extra money into the pot rather than shuffling funds round to inflate revenue.

 

[Jam_Man]

I think he is implying that this allows RM (who has to put money in the club anyway) to put money in that is counted as club turnover, therefore increasing our spending power on wages by raising our salary cap threshold.

Do you really believe we are anywhere near salary caps for that to be anywhere near relevant?

all the talk of turning down the offer of 50k for sponsorship is without any context.

who's to say it wasnt offered at xmas last year when the club realistically believed they could achieve more than that and so politely turned it down? They'd probably have spent their budget for sponsorship by now whoever they were and couldnt take up the offer.

its easy to criticise without knowing anything other than someone offered 50k...

For context:

The discussions regarding the 50k were very recent and were still ongoing when decision was made to go with Martin Dawn. There was even an offer for just home or away kit but decision was made to go with MD on both.

If that is the case then fair enough, would be nice to know for sure though. Doesn't add up that they needed to do both home and away shirts with MD if that is the case though? Surely take money for home sponsorship and pay the rest needed to get the required budget on away sponsorship? Should brought up at q & a

Personally as long as the club isn't under embargo or failing to pay bills I'm not sure I care what the reason was. If we are financially stable enough not to accept 50k then I don't really know why we need to demand answers. The club made a commercial decision and that's their prerogative, however odd it seems to us.

Run into salary problems anytime soon then that's a different story.

 

[Grayson]

Do you really believe we are anywhere near salary caps for that to be anywhere near relevant?

It is not my theory or my belief, I was just explaining to another poster what was being implied.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Do you really believe we are anywhere near salary caps for that to be anywhere near relevant?

We were under Sturrock, and I can't imagine the squad we have now to be much cheaper.

 

[Jam_Man]

It is not my theory or my belief, I was just explaining to another poster what was being implied.

The other question to ask is why didnt we take the 50k for an away shirt and MD put in their share (if there was one) which increases the income even more.

That theory doesnt really hold up, whoever it was suggested it :smile:

We were under Sturrock, and I can't imagine the squad we have now to be much cheaper.

Really?

We had players on really low wages back then, thats not something I ever heard.

Lets go with the fact that we were, MD put in 100k, isnt it 60% of income ? Thats then 60k, its hardly going to make much of a difference and as I said above by utilising the other 50k would give us more.

Theory doesnt make a lot of sense

 

[southendkid]

Can someone clarify if the 'home only option' this other sponsor offered was for 50k? It seems unlikely that they would offer 50k for the whole season, get told no and then offer the same amount for only one shirt. I wouldn't start a witchhunt without knowing what this deal involved, they may have wanted a long term deal for example, which Ron may think isn't worth it if he can somehow attract a better offer for next year's shirt.

Edit: Also sponsorship entitles you to free VIP treatment on match days doesn't it? That must cost a bit to run.

 

[sufc_dave]

Could be worse......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28448643

 

[kentblues]

Unless I am mistaken there is a cap we can spend on wages based on turnover. Sponsorship counts as turnover. I wonder if the inter co support is being channeled through sponsorship to boost rev and keep within the cap? That would explain why you would turn down 50k if you needed a bigger revenue to maintain anticipated wage bill- probably the Martin Dawn sponsorship will show as significantly bigger than 50k even if the total from Ron' companies is the same.

If so people should either stop complaining or identify which of our higher earners they would like to see go..

I realize this may be a rather positive scenario (and hence probably strictly verboten) but I believe I am allowed a positive post under the forums rules :-)

 

[Kenny]

Nice design but not nice to see MD back on the shirts.

Evokes too many memories of the Rob Newman season for starters.

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

Unless I am mistaken there is a cap we can spend on wages based on turnover. Sponsorship counts as turnover. I wonder if the inter co support is being channeled through sponsorship to boost rev and keep within the cap? That would explain why you would turn down 50k if you needed a bigger revenue to maintain anticipated wage bill- probably the Martin Dawn sponsorship will show as significantly bigger than 50k even if the total from Ron' companies is the same.

If so people should either stop complaining or identify which of our higher earners they would like to see go..

I realize this may be a rather positive scenario (and hence probably strictly verboten) but I believe I am allowed a positive post under the forums rules :-)

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Steve Kavanagh will probably explain as much at the Q&A