Blackstone surely?
Which future sponsor would suit United the best?
- Thread starter Rezyuz
- Start date
Blackstone surely?
United Airlines hands down.
And Coca-Cola would look sick. Especially if we had a black kit and the sponsor was red. We could have Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola Zero and Diet Coke themed jerseys
And Coca-Cola would look sick. Especially if we had a black kit and the sponsor was red. We could have Coca-Cola, Coca-Cola Zero and Diet Coke themed jerseys
United Airlines would be horrible, with all its bad publicity.
Tesla, Lego or Nvidia , would be good to get on board.
Tesla, Lego or Nvidia , would be good to get on board.
Last edited:
Please not Apple, there are way better tech companies out there. I vote for something like Asus RoG or Corsair (the ship could be a throwback to the old United badge)
Lego would be amazing.
Lego would be amazing.
We've got uber as one of our sponsors, wouldn't mind their logo on our shirt instead of that big ugly chevrolet logo.
Goldman Sachs?
Vodafone 
I think something like 'penetration without end product' would be more suited to United last season, tbh.
Not that it would ever happen, but it would be a very good deal for both Apple and United. But that Apple logo would look like crap on a United shirt.
Btw, how are the companies you mentioned better than Apple?
Because Apple makes overpriced hipster tech. I generally use a custom PC, however I have to use an Apple at work and my PC runs faster and more reliably, plus it was about 1/2 the cost.
My opinions on Apple aside, the logo would look bad on the kit (not that it's a bad logo in general). Though it would probably look better than the gold plated chevy logo.
Rockstar Games, they're loaded. Grand Theft Auto or Red Dead Redemption on the training tops !
I doubt GS, MS, or any of the other upper tier, multinational financial institutions would glean the necessary utility from paying gobs of money to slap their name on our kits -- Bx or any of the PE firms listed would be especially silly, as their LPs are even less likely to be swayed by ads on kits than are clients of financial, non-banking firms (let alone everyday users of depository institutions). A JPM or a Citi would probably come closest, as they have a balance sheet as well, though it seems they aren't all that interested in this avenue of promotion at the moment.
In terms of non-financial firms, there's a very limited intersection between companies with the requisite market cap, and the need for such high profile ad placement -- (maybe, as they've been shuffling their advertising strategy) GE, AB InBev, Coke / Pepsi, and a few select automakers fit the bill and that's about it. Possibly big oil or telecomm if they decide to shift gears a bit?
In terms of non-financial firms, there's a very limited intersection between companies with the requisite market cap, and the need for such high profile ad placement -- (maybe, as they've been shuffling their advertising strategy) GE, AB InBev, Coke / Pepsi, and a few select automakers fit the bill and that's about it. Possibly big oil or telecomm if they decide to shift gears a bit?
Last edited:
Budweiser... Pissing all over the league.
I'd love Mercedes a classy outfit for a classy club. By the way how long do we have left of the chevy deal?
2021
Oh fantastic....
Is love any of the McLaren / Ferrari / Porsche sponsor. Don't know why but it would make such a statement for some reason. That or Virgin/Microsoft.
It will go quickly and the negotiations will probably take a year or two as well given the figures. So starting in 2019 is only 2 summers away. Chevy aren't a bad deal either
Playboy
One thing that always intriques me is do these companies get back the 'value' compared to what they paid for?
I mean I understand there's exposure, prestige, image etc but does it actually make financial sense? Does paying Utd £5m equal that much in 'more' revenue in the years after having that advertising?
I mean I understand there's exposure, prestige, image etc but does it actually make financial sense? Does paying Utd £5m equal that much in 'more' revenue in the years after having that advertising?
United are in negotiations with a number of companies and look likely to get in excess of 20m per season.
In these instances it's often better to let others get in first so you can use their fees as leverage.
Apple is the best at hardware company there is though. No one can touch the quality of their products.
UEFA
If this electric car stuff becomes mainstream, Tesla wouldn't be half bad.
Redcafe. Get it sorted Niall.
I hear what your saying from a business perspective. If that is more or less the fee quoted then Ed is definitely a negotiating genius.
Hopefully we never see shirt sponsors by a celebrity, imagine seeing Kanye West's mug plastered on a sleeve.
I've got a tenner on it being Google. They don't need the advertising per se, but it demonstrates global reach with dominant brand.
I always used to buy Yamaha synths and other hi-tech gear over the years. Used to love their stuff. Still do. Would love to see Yamaha emblazoned on the United shirt.
You can for the prices they charge, plus I think they are guiltier than most when it comes to planned obsolescence.
I would never buy an apple product. Why advertise to the world that you are an insecure tech-geek wannabe?
Often wondered that myself. I'll hold my hands up and say a lot of the sponsors in the Prem, I have no fecking clue what the company actually is and I can't be the only person. Or to use a few older examples, Carlsberg for Liverpool and Sharp for United, I knew both of those but wouldn't ever drink Carlsberg as it's rat piss and wouldn't ever buy Sharp electronics as they were a slightly better Alba, so who do the sponsorships actually entice? Have United fans suddenly started buying crappy American cars? Cos I doubt it, and if they're advertising Chevrolet because united have a big American fan base I'm pretty sure the septics are well aware of that company anyway.
Must be a money maker somehow though or they wouldn't pay so much, I just can't for the life of me imagine how.
Taedonggang Brewing Company
Right so despite the fact I am a software engineer at a fortune 50 company I am a "tech-geek wannab"?
No you cannot. That is the irony with people who bash apple products. They ridicule costumers overpaying because that know nothing about technology. Yes, some of it is kind of overpriced but there is a very valid reason for that. If you're a developer or programmer like me nothing beats their products, especially their operating system.
Of course if you're just going to be the average joe and browse the internet you're going to be confused as to why it's priced so high.
Bayer-Monsanto.
The anti-Apple circle jerk in this last page is one of the most cringeworthy (and pretty much irrelevant to the point of the thread) exchanges I've seen on this forum.
The neckbeards are out in force.
The neckbeards are out in force.
Ooohh.. software engineer... what makes you think I know nothing about technology or the industry?
Watch.
I can't watch a 14 min video. I work with all three platforms day and night. If you truly believe it's best to avoid apple because you'll look like a tech geek wannabe you don't know much about technology (or the actual software part of it anyway).
A vast majority of serious software developers use Apple products. Linux distros can be hit and miss, windows plain sucks for development work but OSX is always stable and never lags. The premium you pay for an apple product is 100% worth it. Now like I said, if you're the average joe that just browses the CAF on any device they have you wont notice much of a difference.
Nah. If you're talking laptops, then yes Macbooks are probably the most popular option (though dwindling). But developers [at least at Google and Nvidia] generally use Linux for coding work, and windows otherwise. Obviously if you're developing for another platform you'll use that one too.