Anyone know much about kit sponsorship?

[aaronmcguigan]

Is there any line from the club or any reasoned rationale why we don't take advantage of the back of shirt sponsorship? I'm assuming it's as to not devalue the front sponsor or that the main sponsor own both areas and only choose to advertise in one space.

Alternatively it may be the clubs choice not to advertise here but in all honesty, I don't see why the club don't maximise every possible revenue stream. May not look the Best But it may pay someone's wages for a year??

Next season , don't know if you've seen this, in the premier league, on one arm instead of the premier league logo, clubs can put a sponsor here. Yesterday Man City announced a deal with NEXEN TIRES. It's apparently worth up to 20% of their main sponsor.
Which in turn leads us back to: if every club are doing everything to make themselves richer from sleeve sponsor to official tractor partner, official noodle partner, no joke, why don't we do the same thing? 
The club want to market itself as londons original, but are they doing anything to capitalise on branding itself as such. I know it's been mentioned many times but a brand positioning like that would lead perfectly into partnerships with brands like Londons pride or anything which promotes london.

I thought these owners were experts in that, but they seem to have just advertised their state on our kit and the roof of the stadium. Not very london original.

Would be great to hear anyone with insight or anyone with a bit of marketing and branding knowledge to see where you think Fulham are at and where we should go from here! Or just what you think about our sponsorship and brand positioning in general / compared to how the big clubs do it

[ffcbulgaria]

Its also interesting to know how much we are getting in sponsorship from VisitFlorida (no idea if it was a last minute backup or we intended to go with it) and how much the rest of the league receive in sponsorship deals. There use to be some sort of rankings published before but haven't seen any for a while?

[cmg]

It really is quite pathetic the way so many potential sources of advertising revenue remain untapped. After all, we know the general public just can't get enough adverts.

The pitch itself is just a dull, green expanse. Just the place for some of those clever '3d' looking adverts that so enhance cricket fields around the world.

Many of the players have broad, plain foreheads especially when fully exposed by Zlatan-style 'Croydon face-lift' haircuts. A nifty tattoo in this area could provide the impoverished players with some sorely needed cash.

With all the diving that goes on, the soles of the players' boots should not be overlooked.

The advertiser's mantra, "There's a fool born every minute...thank God most of them live." should never be forgotten.

[Holders]

I was going to write something lamenting how sad it is that our players have to have their shirts soiled by advertising from some pretty unappealing organisations much of the time but cmg has summed it up much better.

[MJG]

Less is more

[Snibbo]

It really is quite pathetic the way so many potential sources of advertising revenue remain untapped. After all, we know the general public just can't get enough adverts.

The pitch itself is just a dull, green expanse. Just the place for some of those clever '3d' looking adverts that so enhance cricket fields around the world.

Many of the players have broad, plain foreheads especially when fully exposed by Zlatan-style 'Croydon face-lift' haircuts. A nifty tattoo in this area could provide the impoverished players with some sorely needed cash.

With all the diving that goes on, the soles of the players' boots should not be overlooked.

The advertiser's mantra, "There's a fool born every minute...thank God most of them live." should never be forgotten.

Quite. I always thought Paul Konchesky's bonce was a great untapped advertising resource. It could have been emblazoned with "Go to work on an egg"

[Holders]

It really is quite pathetic the way so many potential sources of advertising revenue remain untapped. After all, we know the general public just can't get enough adverts.

The pitch itself is just a dull, green expanse. Just the place for some of those clever '3d' looking adverts that so enhance cricket fields around the world.

Many of the players have broad, plain foreheads especially when fully exposed by Zlatan-style 'Croydon face-lift' haircuts. A nifty tattoo in this area could provide the impoverished players with some sorely needed cash.

With all the diving that goes on, the soles of the players' boots should not be overlooked.

The advertiser's mantra, "There's a fool born every minute...thank God most of them live." should never be forgotten.

Quite. I always thought Paul Konchesky's bonce was a great untapped advertising resource. It could have been emblazoned with "Go to work on an egg"

Yes, E for B and Paul Konchesky doesn't quite scan.

[MikeW]

Having worked in the area of sponsorship it is very rare for a club or sponsor to reveal the value.  Often it covers much more than shirt imaging and covers branding on web sites / programmes etc plus items (as in our case) like branding the clappers.

So it's unlikely the cost will be revealed but I do agree that secondary branding on shirts and shorts is lucrative.  Is the Riverside roof 'Florida' branded.  Haven't flown into Heathrow for a few years?

[MJG]

Club policy is aimed at quality not quantity. So don't expect the shirts emblazoned with labels all over it.

[westcliff white]

and for me MJG thats wrong, its ok it the quality is paying top dollar to cover the income we could get from the short sponsorship or arm sponsorship but if it isnt then we miss a revuenue stream that could help with FFP. Now I know someone will say sponsor ship outside the prem is a lot smaller etc, but its irrelevant as everythig helps in that cause to allow more freedom, however marginal that maybe, in what ee=ver area that needs it.

[Holders]

It's a travesty that people flying into Heathrow get told to visit Florida. Must look tacky too, I wonder if they needed planning permission for that.

[rweller86]

It's a travesty that people flying into Heathrow get told to visit Florida. Must look tacky too, I wonder if they needed planning permission for that.

I think we have had our sponsor on the roof of the Riverside for many years now, even going back to Pipex if not before! Well over 10 years anyway. Only an eyesore to those flying past, doesn't bother me.

As for the extra kit sponsors, I agree with MJG, one large sponsor for me.

[westcliff white]

It's a travesty that people flying into Heathrow get told to visit Florida. Must look tacky too, I wonder if they needed planning permission for that.

I think we have had our sponsor on the roof of the Riverside for many years now, even going back to Pipex if not before! Well over 10 years anyway. Only an eyesore to those flying past, doesn't bother me.

As for the extra kit sponsors, I agree with MJG, one large sponsor for me.

Yes the roof sponsoir ha sbeen the for many many years now.

I agree with the one shirt sponsor option, I htink it lokos awaful with loads of sponsor logos as seen in other european leagues (France I think for instance)

Having said that, the fact we can utilise this and aiists with finances and ease FFP (even if it is a small amount compared to main shirt sponsoiship) it surely has to be looked at.

[Holders]

I think that once you've taken the decision to contaminate the look of a shirt by putting sponsorship on it, it doesn't really matter how much. Might as well go the whole hog and make it a patchwork of adverts if it brings in more dosh overall.

[AlexW132]

I have no problem, in fact I prefer to have a sponsor on the front of a shirt as long as it's a decent company/logo. I liked Pizza Hut, Pipex, LG and VisitFlorida, not such a fan of the betting ones.

[Burt]

It's a shame it has got so money-oriented as an unsullied white shirt is the way to go :)

[westcliff white]

agree BUrt, no sponsorship is the way it should be but it is all about the money these days, so that being the case and so we dont get left behind we have to consider it i would guess

[ffcwickford]

Harking back to the 1980s and I used to sponsor the whole of John Marshall's kit for the season- and you had your primted against his in the programme for which part of the kit you had sponsored - for a number of seasons and my brother did Lee Harrison's and maybe Big Jim's during that time.

I also sponsored the ball for the Fulham vs Southend game, in 1990 I think, we were 3-0 down by half-time and I half wanted to have my money back. However, my son Robert who will be 29 in August got to play football in the boardroom with Jimmy Hill, which was, and still is, one of my proudest moments!

I know it was on a much smaller scale, but that, Fulham 2000 and a number of other initiatives at the time, are why we are still called Fulham Football Club and play at Craven Cottage.

Funny how times have changed!

[MJG]

and for me MJG thats wrong, its ok it the quality is paying top dollar to cover the income we could get from the short sponsorship or arm sponsorship but if it isnt then we miss a revuenue stream that could help with FFP. Now I know someone will say sponsor ship outside the prem is a lot smaller etc, but its irrelevant as everythig helps in that cause to allow more freedom, however marginal that maybe, in what ee=ver area that needs it.

Depends what's in it for both parties. Just taking a few thousand pounds to put a badge on socks might be ok on the bottom line but what do we get apart from that? What do the sponsor get? Does it devalue the amount you can get from a shirt sponsor?
I know myself from events I'm involved in that one main sponsor works for me better than five different ones.

[WhiteJC]

here are some examples of multiple sponsor shirts...