Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

What the actual fug?

Ja Rhule

By Ja Rhule,
in Charlotte Football Club

Recommended Posts

Ja Rhule Grand Master

Ja Rhule

Posted
Posted

 

Sportswear giant Adidas has signed a £750m deal to make Manchester United's kit for 10 years from next season.

It comes after US rival Nike decided to end its association at the end of the 2014-15 season.

Nike has been paying United £23.5m a year, and the new deal is worth a world record-breaking £75m ($128m) a season to the Old Trafford club.

Champions League winner Real Madrid's £31m-a-year deal with Adidas was previously the biggest club deal.

Adidas will provide training and playing kit to all the club's teams and will have the exclusive right to distribute dual-branded merchandising products worldwide.

The huge sum involved is only £40m less than the Glazer family paid for the club in 2005.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28282444

 

That doesn't make any sense... why would Adidas pay so much more?  Thats 320% increase...  Now Manchester United got extra  £75m in transfer fees every season.  I honestly think FIFA should open an investigation, you got a faul play written all over this deal just like Manchester City and  £400m Etihad deal. 

 

Manchester United started to slide.  Multiple sponsors dropped them and players do not want to join them and out of the blue they announcing this crazy deal that will make Manchester United stay copetitive in EPL for at least another 10 years.

 

That is so unfair to teams like Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Everton, and Newcastle.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ja Rhule Grand Master

Ja Rhule

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Apparently, Real gets £25m and Barca about the same.

Arsenal signed new record deal with Puma last year worth £34m a year.

Good thing Puma is only 5 year deal. 4 years left. Arsenal will ask for £75m a year in 4 years.

Can't wait until jerseys cost $350.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ja Rhule Grand Master

Ja Rhule

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Weren't they already?

I thought it was them then the Cowboys?

Sent from my XT1080 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

They are 3rd. Real Madrid and Barcelona are 1 and 2.

Someone injected heavy finances into ManU through Adidas. ManU was about to become new Leeds United but someone have a lot of stake to let it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ja Rhule Grand Master

Ja Rhule

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I can't believe Adidas would agree to pay that. I mean, it's over 1 billion USD over 10 years. Something doesn't smell right.

That's what I said. A clear faul play. Someone is trying to save Manchester United from collapse.

Look at what Manchester fans are saying..."We got money, now players will join us"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DirtyMagic97 Newbie

DirtyMagic97

Posted
Posted

That's what I said. A clear faul play. Someone is trying to save Manchester United from collapse.

Look at what Manchester fans are saying..."We got money, now players will join us"

 

Now Adidas has put themselves in an interesting position. Real Madrid and Bayern are going to want substantially more than they are currently receiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ja Rhule Grand Master

Ja Rhule

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Now Adidas has put themselves in an interesting position. Real Madrid and Bayern are going to want substantially more than they are currently receiving.

 

Real got 7 more years before new contract...  Adidas just opened a flood gate.  So glad Arsenal signed only 5 year deal.  Chelsea got screwed, they signed 300m 10 year deal last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ja Rhule Grand Master

Ja Rhule

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So Adidas expects 1.5% of their total anual sales to be Manchester United products... Such a horseshit.  I have a feeling Glazers will put a club up for sale. This Adidas deal completely pays off Glazers debt and is now lucrative to potential buyers.  I think Glazers borrowed money, gave it to Adidas to sign that deal.  Now Manchester United looks very lucrative and projected to yelled good returns for next 10 years. They will sale it for way more than a club that looks like it about to collapse and cannot attract good players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • toldozer
      Canales is holding us back

      By toldozer · Posted

      I don't think Dave touches the defense. That might be a mark against him but definitely a huge red flag for evero. He refuses to run anything other than soft zone and when you don't get pressure that's an awful scheme
    • frankw
      This Bryce Guy (General BY Discussion)

      By frankw · Posted

      You don't have to convince me. I think not picking up the option should absolutely be firmly on the table but I just do not see Tepper and Morgan doing that for previously stated reasons. Therefore I'm not going to bother entertaining the notion. Just hoping we actually get real viable competition. If that doesn't happen at the minimum then my perception of that is complete and utter professional malpractice.
    • Bama Panther
      NFL admits the TMac catch should not have been overturned

      By Bama Panther · Posted

      It was absolutely a catch, and I can’t believe how many folks were stating, before the NFL’s apology, that the overturn was the right call.  The ultimate question in this case is this: can a player complete a catch with only one hand? Of course, we all know the answer to that question, and it is an emphatic “Yes.” T-Mac maintained complete control with one hand (believe it was the right) while the other came off when the ball hit the ground. The ball was in the same position in the one hand (watch T-Mac’s fingers in relation to the NFL shield on the ball) after touching the ground as it was when it first went to the ground. Going back to the question above, if one hand can establish control, then there was no need for the other to stay on the ball, so long as the ball doesn’t move in that one hand that stays on it   It blew my mind that they overturned this in the first place. This should not be a “We got it wrong on the replay because there wasn’t clear and convincing evidence.” This should have been, “That was absolutely a catch.”
×
×
  • Create New...