Front Of Shirt sponsor, or lack thereof... | Vital Football

Front Of Shirt sponsor, or lack thereof...

Strett

Strett

Vital Football Hero
There is an FFP allowance of £10m for a sponsor. You get this allowance even if you don't have one.
If the income from the sponsor is less than £10m, then your FFP allowance is only for the amount of sponsorship you are receiving.

For example, a team that gets £5m for a sponsor, only gets £5m allowance; which is good if you don't have a rich benevolent dictator.

If you do have one of these owners, that doesn't mind pumping in the extra money themselves, it makes financial sense to have no sponsor than to have one for less than £10m.

We cannot, as yet attract a sponsor willing to pay the £10m, so this explains why we are full-frontal naked again.
 
Last edited:
Strett said:
There is an FFP allowance of £10m for a sponsor. You get this allowance even if you don't have one.
If the income from the sponsor is less than £10m, then your FFP allowance is only for the amount of sponsorship you are receiving.

For example, a team that gets £5m for a sponsor, only gets £5m allowance; which is good if you don't have a rich benevolent dictator.

If you do have one of these owners, that doesn't mind pumping in the extra money themselves, it makes financial sense to have no sponsor than to have one for less than £10m.

We cannot, as yet attract a sponsor willing to pay the £10m, so this explains why we are full-frontal naked again.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Totally accepted that when I found out.

And contrary to my initial views of the new shirt when it leaked, having seen it on and worn it, I think it is one of the smartest we've ever had. The players looked really smart in it on Friday and it looks particularly good without a sponsor; which the last shirt did not.

Surprised that more PK sides don't do the same since it's not that easy to get a £10m sponsorship deal
 
I didn't realise that - it makes sense to go this way - luckily we have an owner that is prepared to continue using his own money to give us the maximum investment he can.

And you are right - the shirt looks so much better without a sponsors name on it
 
I don't understand the financial sleight of hand in this
I see how being allowed, in accounting terms, to assume something you haven't been paid.
But surely clubs with sponsors actually receive that money, so the problem is partially solved without further debt.
 
Strett said:
There is an FFP allowance of £10m for a sponsor. You get this allowance even if you don't have one.
If the income from the sponsor is less than £10m, then your FFP allowance is only for the amount of sponsorship you are receiving.

For example, a team that gets £5m for a sponsor, only gets £5m allowance; which is good if you don't have a rich benevolent dictator.

If you do have one of these owners, that doesn't mind pumping in the extra money themselves, it makes financial sense to have no sponsor than to have one for less than £10m.

We cannot, as yet attract a sponsor willing to pay the £10m, so this explains why we are full-frontal naked again.
Click to expand...
I wonder if our useless Commercial Team are aware?
 
Strett said:
There is an FFP allowance of £10m for a sponsor. You get this allowance even if you don't have one.
If the income from the sponsor is less than £10m, then your FFP allowance is only for the amount of sponsorship you are receiving.

For example, a team that gets £5m for a sponsor, only gets £5m allowance; which is good if you don't have a rich benevolent dictator.

If you do have one of these owners, that doesn't mind pumping in the extra money themselves, it makes financial sense to have no sponsor than to have one for less than £10m.

We cannot, as yet attract a sponsor willing to pay the £10m, so this explains why we are full-frontal naked again.
Click to expand...
£10 million chap! That would possibly explain the lack of interest in "Bert's parsnips" alleged sponsor proposal of a fortnightly free sack as payment.
 
Feco said:
I wonder if our useless Commercial Team are aware?
Click to expand...
Give it a rest you plum. The role of the club is to ensure that they seek partnerships which will deliver more than this. Clearly you're not in business, don't understand business, so I won't engage directly with you on matters like this as it will be above your head
 
Strett said:
There is an FFP allowance of £10m for a sponsor. You get this allowance even if you don't have one.
If the income from the sponsor is less than £10m, then your FFP allowance is only for the amount of sponsorship you are receiving.

For example, a team that gets £5m for a sponsor, only gets £5m allowance; which is good if you don't have a rich benevolent dictator.

If you do have one of these owners, that doesn't mind pumping in the extra money themselves, it makes financial sense to have no sponsor than to have one for less than £10m.

We cannot, as yet attract a sponsor willing to pay the £10m, so this explains why we are full-frontal naked again.
Click to expand...
Thanks Strett. Seems a very weird policy, but if it means our price for front of shirt is a minimum of 10.5m for example then makes sense.

I would hope in year 2, in a weaker league, that we can attract a 10m + front of shirt sponsor
 
i
finbar70 said:
Give it a rest you plum. The role of the club is to ensure that they seek partnerships which will deliver more than this. Clearly you're not in business, don't understand business, so I won't engage directly with you on matters like this as it will be above your head
Click to expand...
think feco was being sarcastic ?
 
hasn't this thread explained why no sponsor isn't a bad thing, it's another 10m we can invest in the team effectively
 
finbar70 said:
Give it a rest you plum. The role of the club is to ensure that they seek partnerships which will deliver more than this. Clearly you're not in business, don't understand business, so I won't engage directly with you on matters like this as it will be above your head
Click to expand...
No never worked in Football ownership/management.
I did sell Forest Lottery tickets years ago if that helps.
Think it was the 100 club or something. Wasn’t very good at that either.
 
I think FA should adopt the ideal that sponsors with charitable or humanitarian causes be allowed on as a prioritised club sponsor and clubs can receive full funding and some tax breaks to promote or lend voice to their missions.

These are better than some 123 456 bet sites as sponsors (which are root causes for monetary and sometimes money laundering crimes etc).
 
Spydee said:
I think FA should adopt the ideal that sponsors with charitable or humanitarian causes be allowed on as a prioritised club sponsor and clubs can receive full funding and some tax breaks to promote or lend voice to their missions.

These are better than some 123 456 bet sites as sponsors (which are root causes for monetary and sometimes money laundering crimes etc).
Click to expand...
100% agree, although the irony of having William Hill Vegas advertising directly below your comment as I read it says it all really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.