Benitez Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) £21m sponsors deal for RedsFeb 9 2007EXCLUSIVE by Chris Bascombe, Liverpool Echo LIVERPOOL are on the verge of sealing their first multi-million pound sponsorship deal of the new American era with a £21.6m agreement with Carlsberg. The Reds had already decided to renew their arrangement with the brewing giants prior to the takeover of George Gillett and Tom Hicks. However, the terms are a massive improvement on the disappointing £5m over two years which was agreed in 2004, just before Liverpool won the Champions League final. The new deal represents £7.2m a year for the next three seasons - virtually trebling Liverpool?s income from this source per annum. Carlsberg have been Liverpool?s sponsors since 1992, but although the latest deal is the most lucrative between the pair yet, it still doesn?t compare favourably with those of Manchester United and Chelsea. ere Edited February 9, 2007 by Benitez
Serko Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 dissapointing if true. I would have thought Hicks and gillet would have enticed a major US brand to sponsor us at a much higher price than that.
Murphman Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 That's bloody rubbish it doesn't even match poxy old Spurs. No wonder we're skint.
KD07 Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Was expecting much better, and a different sponsor to boot.
alias75 Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Surely we can do better than that, especially given the timing of the takeover you'd expect a few big companies to be interested now. Theres also the problem of having a company that sells alcohol as a sponser when we're looking to market the team in certain countries where alcohol advertising is prohibited or where its forbidden as part of their religions.
Maldini Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 The new deal represents £7.2m a year for the next three seasons - virtually trebling Liverpool?s income from this source per annum.Where's he getting that from? The short term deal was for £5m per year and the previous deal was for £6m per year. This is bizarre if true.
Huyton_Red Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 (edited) Rubbish peice of business, seriously will someone kick their f'ckin backsides into gear for god sake Spurs got more from Mansion for god sake. Edited February 9, 2007 by Huyton_Sissoko
Roscoe Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 a relatively short term deal to bridge the gap between now and the new stadium when a different typpe of deal will be done possibly involving naming rights?
liverbird04 Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 How come this could be agreed too when the top brass knew new people were going to come in ? just doesn't make sense.
Maldini Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 a relatively short term deal to bridge the gap between now and the new stadium when a different typpe of deal will be done possibly involving naming rights?United and Chelsea's are only 5 years and Spurs' is 4 years
Coyler Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Theres also the problem of having a company that sells alcohol as a sponser when we're looking to market the team in certain countries where alcohol advertising is prohibited or where its forbidden as part of their religions.That and the fact that the jerseys are helping to hock the hooch in the first place.
Boca Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 That and the fact that the jerseys are helping to hock the hooch in the first place. Yeah, it's a bit of a dilema when buying childrens kits as well.
jon_hall Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Yeah, it's a bit of a dilema when buying childrens kits as well. Sell the children.
Boca Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Sell the children. I'll sell them for a couple of these
jon_hall Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 That is pants. Fosters twist or the deal. Or both?
Boca Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Fosters twist or the deal. Or both? Come on Jon. He's got to be talking about the deal. Fosters twist is quality.
Benitez Posted February 9, 2007 Author Posted February 9, 2007 How come this could be agreed too when the top brass knew new people were going to come in ? just doesn't make sense. length of time it's taken to get new owners in, they probably reckoned it'd be another couple years yet
boohog Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Fosters twist or the deal. Or both? Presumably Fosters twist has alcohol in it. I like alcohol. ergo it is cannot be pants.
Billy Dane Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 If true, helps explain why we need a dedicated commercial department. Be interesting to see if the Americans step in and assert their authority.
KD07 Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Just remembered something posted by a usually reliable poster on RAWK that our 'custodians' have secured a very good sponsor for the club, or something along those lines just after the takeover announcement. Maybe there's still hope that this Carlsberg deal will not be ratified by G&T?
Red Lecter Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 Just remembered something posted by a usually reliable poster on RAWK that our 'custodians' have secured a very good sponsor for the club, or something along those lines just after the takeover announcement. Maybe there's still hope that this Carlsberg deal will not be ratified by G&T?It was ShanksLegend who mentioned it. He's been the inside man on the takeover for all RAWK posters and lurkers.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now