Commercial revenues

[Will]

Sponsorship

"The 13% increase in sponsorship revenue is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the season's overall picture. [£17.308m to £19.623m] In May, Carlsberg re-signed the kit sponsorship deal for the 2005/06 season. We very offer our thanks and appreciation to them for extending the agreement. The delay in securing a shirt sponsor led to contractual difficulties with Reebok."

 

Retail merchandise

"The delay in securing a sponsor has limited the revenue increase to only 5% [£11.701m to £12.312m]. The new away shirt (planned for launch in June) was delayed until August. The revenue for this will fall within next year's accounts. As expected, Champions League success has increased the level of merchandise demand throughout the Clubs shops. We are confident that this will also provide a significant revenue improvement next year"

 

Balance sheet

"The small increase in net debt [£15.384m to £17.141m] relates largely to the dispute with Reebok. They have deferred their payments, necessitating a higher level of overdraft facility than that originally planned for. Strict borrowing control remains a key prerequisite in the overall financial management of the Club."

 

Notes to the accounts

"The current year additional costs charge of £2,500,000 relates to a provision made for potential costs arising as a result of the delay in securing a shirt sponsor. The Directors have taken advice and consider provision to be sufficient to fully discharge any potential liability to Reebok as a result of the delay."

[Scally the Wag]

Shouldn't companies have been lining up to sponsor us?

 

What was the reason for the delay?

[Anfield Fox]

Shouldn't companies have been lining up to sponsor us?

 

What was the reason for the delay?

 

Last season we were struggling in the Premiership and it looked like we were a club going nowhere. Even when we knocked Chelsea out most people had us down as having no chance of lifting the CL and thus we wouldn't have been in the following season's competition. By the time we had won the cup it was too late for potential interest as shirts would have had to have been on sale 6 weeks later. Furthermore, at that time entry to this seasons CL wasn't assured. We wre left with little choice but to extend with Carlsberg for 2 more years. The good thing however was that Carlsberg had been dragging their heals with an offer of £3-4m a season which was well below the £5m we were getting previously. Our CL win meant that we held the aces and managed to keep that £5m a year deal going for 2 more years. The reason it was so short is because we are expected to get a joint shirt/stadium deal in 18 months time should something happen on that front.

[fyds]

Last season we were struggling in the Premiership and it looked like we were a club going nowhere. Even when we knocked Chelsea out most people had us down as having no chance of lifting the CL and thus we wouldn't have been in the following season's competition. By the time we had won the cup it was too late for potential interest as shirts would have had to have been on sale 6 weeks later. Furthermore, at that time entry to this seasons CL wasn't assured. We wre left with little choice but to extend with Carlsberg for 2 more years. The good thing however was that Carlsberg had been dragging their heals with an offer of £3-4m a season which was well below the £5m we were getting previously. Our CL win meant that we held the aces and managed to keep that £5m a year deal going for 2 more years. The reason it was so short is because we are expected to get a joint shirt/stadium deal in 18 months time should something happen on that front.

Yep - nicely summarised.

[aka Dus]

Scuse my ignorance, but what was the dispute with Reebok exactly?

[Kahnee]

Scuse my ignorance, but what was the dispute with Reebok exactly?

 

Their kits look gash and they have the marketing sense of a bean?

[ricflairandy]

Their kits look gash and they have the marketing sense of a bean?

 

One thing you cannot accuse them of is their kits looking , as you put it , "GASH".

 

The current 3 kits rebok have designed look fantastic and are amongst our best ever. With our current league home one being the best for years.

[Guest wembley78]

The dispute with Reebok was caused by the delay in finding and naming a sponsor for this season. Reebok (as do all shirt manufacturers) require 5-6 months lead time to make all the shirts and get them shipped back for the Far East. The current White away shirt was scheduled to be launched last June and therefore Reebok had to know who the sponsor was by January at the latest. That didn't happen and as a result Reebok missed out and wanted compensation.

 

 

So there is a genuine commercial dispute that will be sorted out eventually

[fyds]

The dispute with Reebok was caused by the delay in finding and naming a sponsor for this season. Reebok (as do all shirt manufacturers) require 5-6 months lead time to make all the shirts and get them shipped back for the Far East. The current White away shirt was scheduled to be launched last June and therefore Reebok had to know who the sponsor was by January at the latest. That didn't happen and as a result Reebok missed out and wanted compensation.

So there is a genuine commercial dispute that will be sorted out eventually

They also didn't pay us their requisite fees and win bonuses as a result.

[Guest Cisse's mate]

Shouldn't companies have been lining up to sponsor us?

 

What was the reason for the delay?

 

 

Shouldn't we have had them lined up, another foul by Parry, it looks as if we had to pay Reabok a default over the new shirt or something, there is a dispute anyway and it about the sponsors name on the shirt. Good money after bad me old fella used to say.