Wrexham AFC - Ryan Reynolds/Rob McElhenney

[Mark Albrighton]

55 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I think if Wrexham weren't owned by McElhenney/Reynolds, they'd be generally disliked by the clubs in the same league and no-one else would really care.  Like Salford City.  No-one likes Salford City.  @Demitri_C doesn't give a shit about the fairytale of Salford City coming up through the non league system because it's not been made into a PR success the way that Wrexham have been.

They also have ridiculous sponsorship deals that no other club can compete with which, again, elsewhere is seen as a bad thing - so, personally, I find the hypocrisy over it a little bit grating.  Man City being sponsored by Etihad?  Boooo, unfair.  It's just their owners.  Wrexham being sponsored by TikTok and United Airlines?  Oh, fair play Hollywood actors.

Ultimately, any team with a level of money that is vastly higher than those around them will be disliked by those clubs around them.  They're a stumbling block to success for the others.

Wrexham just have a PR machine along with the money.

I don’t disagree with most of that.

Although them having Tik Tok sponsors I don’t quite equate to Man City and Etihad  Airways as the latter is a lot, lot murkier.

If M&R were owners or shareholders of Tik Tok or United Airlines, I’d be happy to equate them. Maybe they are and I don’t realise it. 

As it is, I can see the merit in it being labelled unfair, but it’s not obvious to me what size company they “should” be sponsored by. Would Londis be too big a sponsorship company and therefore unfair? Where’s the line?
 

[Zatman]

11 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I don’t disagree with most of that.

Although them having Tik Tok sponsors I don’t quite equate to Man City and Etihad  Airways as the latter is a lot, lot murkier.

If M&R were owners or shareholders of Tik Tok or United Airlines, I’d be happy to equate them. Maybe they are and I don’t realise it. 

As it is, I can see the merit in it being labelled unfair, but it’s not obvious to me what size company they “should” be sponsored by. Would Londis be too big a sponsorship company and therefore unfair? Where’s the line?
 

pretty sure they still have a sponsorship with Aviation Gin, Reynolds doesnt own it anymore but he still promotes it whenever he can so its also a conflict of interest

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I don’t disagree with most of that.

Although them having Tik Tok sponsors I don’t quite equate to Man City and Etihad  Airways as the latter is a lot, lot murkier.

If M&R were owners or shareholders of Tik Tok or United Airlines, I’d be happy to equate them. Maybe they are and I don’t realise it. 

As it is, I can see the merit in it being labelled unfair, but it’s not obvious to me what size company they “should” be sponsored by. Would Londis be too big a sponsorship company and therefore unfair? Where’s the line?

Have a look at the rest of the League Two sponsors and then let me know what obvious advantage TikTok and now United Airlines have in sponsoring a side that rarely even has it's matches televised - let alone compete in the same market as those sponsors.  The deals have only come about because of their owners.  The Etihad deal has only come about because of Man City's (having the same) owner.  The latter certainly murkier, but no-one would give a shit if the sponsorship fee was the same as, say, BK8 for Aston Villa.  It's because it's at such a high, unattainable level that it's an issue.

But I'm sure OneCall, Echo Laser, John Pye, Pure Vans et al are providing similar deals for their respective clubs and there's no inflated fee or anything going on with the American sponsors of Wrexham.

[Mark Albrighton]

Just now, Zatman said:

pretty sure they still have a sponsorship with Aviation Gin, Reynolds doesnt own it anymore but he still promotes it whenever he can so its also a conflict of interest

Then fair enough, that sponsorship I would consider sufficiently questionable.

[Mark Albrighton]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

Have a look at the rest of the League Two sponsors and then let me know what obvious advantage TikTok and now United Airlines have in sponsoring a side that rarely even has it's matches televised - let alone compete in the same market as those sponsors.  The deals have only come about because of their owners.  The Etihad deal has only come about because of Man City's (having the same) owner.  The latter certainly murkier, but no-one would give a shit if the sponsorship fee was the same as, say, BK8 for Aston Villa.  It's because it's at such a high, unattainable level that it's an issue.

But I'm sure OneCall, Echo Laser, John Pye, Pure Vans et al are providing similar deals for their respective clubs and there's no inflated fee or anything going on with the American sponsors of Wrexham.

So what size company are they allowed to have as sponsors not to provoke criticism from yourself?

[bobzy]

Just now, Mark Albrighton said:

So what size company are they allowed to have as sponsors not to provoke criticism from yourself?

It's about the deal rather than the company, no?  Would Man City's shirt sponsorship be an issue if it was for £10m/season?

[Mark Albrighton]

Just now, bobzy said:

It's about the deal rather than the company, no?  Would Man City's shirt sponsorship be an issue if it was for £10m/season?

Ok, what size deal are they entitled to in your mind?

[LondonLax]

8 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Have a look at the rest of the League Two sponsors and then let me know what obvious advantage TikTok and now United Airlines have in sponsoring a side that rarely even has it's matches televised - let alone compete in the same market as those sponsors.  The deals have only come about because of their owners.  The Etihad deal has only come about because of Man City's (having the same) owner.  The latter certainly murkier, but no-one would give a shit if the sponsorship fee was the same as, say, BK8 for Aston Villa.  It's because it's at such a high, unattainable level that it's an issue.

But I'm sure OneCall, Echo Laser, John Pye, Pure Vans et al are providing similar deals for their respective clubs and there's no inflated fee or anything going on with the American sponsors of Wrexham.

No that’s not at all the same scenario. 

It is obviously true that TikTok et al have only wanted to get involved with a lower league side because of the owners but they want to be involved because the owner’s management of the club is giving those sponsors perceived value for their advertising spend. 

Man City (and seemingly now Newcastle’s) sponsors are not getting market value. They are paying market price and then essentially donating extra money on top of that, simply because it is the same person transferring money between the entities and it is a way to negate FFP requirements. 

[bobzy]

8 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Ok, what size deal are they entitled to in your mind?

I'm not au fait enough with all League Two shirt sponsorship deals to be able to answer this.

I'd also say that I'm not particularly criticising their sponsorship deals or anything the owners have done.  It's just that for me, personally, I enjoy it when a "rich" club doesn't do well.  Wrexham are undoubtedly a "rich" club in League Two and have income streams far beyond those of the other clubs solely because of their owners.  I just find it grating that so many people are up in arms over inflated sponsorships in the Premier League, but seemingly no issue with it here...

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

No that’s not at all the same scenario. 

It is obviously true that TikTok et al have only wanted to get involved with a lower league side because of the owners but they want to be involved because the owner’s management of the club is giving those sponsors perceived value for their advertising spend. 

Man City (and seemingly now Newcastle’s) sponsors are not getting market value. They are paying market price and then essentially donating extra money on top of that, simply because it is the same person transferring money between the entities and it is a way to negate FFP requirements. 

I didn't say it was the same scenario.  I said no-one would give a shit about Man City (and Newcastle) having sponsors that are the same as their owners if the amount of money being received was "normal".  You're talking about it being beyond that, which is a problem - which I think we all agree with.

But maybe Wrexham are much bigger in the United States so United Airlines being sponsor of a League Two club makes sense.  Or maybe the deal is actually a trivial amount of money.

[MrBlack]

If the sponsorship isnt independent then there's no way to know if its fair value. I'm sure the Saudi's would be happy to have Sony sponsor Newcastle, but the fact is they (and any other free thinking company) would never pay what Sela do.

TikTok are free thinking and pay what they think the exposure Wrexham will generate for them is worth it.

The two bigger issues here are that this is only an issue because FFP is a thing,  and owners aren't allowed to put endless sums of their own money into the club.

And that itself wouldn't be an issue if the FA came up with a genuine sustainability based fair play model, and didn't let States own football clubs. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by MrBlack

[Mark Albrighton]

17 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I'm not au fait enough with all League Two shirt sponsorship deals to be able to answer this.

I'd also say that I'm not particularly criticising their sponsorship deals or anything the owners have done.  It's just that for me, personally, I enjoy it when a "rich" club doesn't do well.  Wrexham are undoubtedly a "rich" club in League Two and have income streams far beyond those of the other clubs solely because of their owners.  I just find it grating that so many people are up in arms over inflated sponsorships in the Premier League, but seemingly no issue with it here...

Yeah I get your position, I do. I share similar sentiments on rich clubs simply buying success.

They undoubtedly have a significant advantage which can be legitimately considered unfair to other clubs they’re competing against. 

But it’s not clear to me at what point it becomes unfair or unacceptable. They pay their keeper six grand a week or whatever it is and that’s far in excess of the league average. Would a two grand a week have been ok, or maybe paying 25% more than the league average. It’s not obvious to me how much they’re allowed to push the envelope as it were.

I don’t expect you or anyone to have an answer. I don’t have an answer for it.

I think with Man City it’s the state ownership, it’s the cheating…and yes it is the fact that we’re having to deal with them. They’re in our orbit, we play them, they buy our players.

And as I think someone has previously pointed out, if Wrexham get promoted ok the clubs who missed out will be annoyed, but at least from those clubs perspective Wrexham have pissed off now and they’re someone else’s problem. Man City, they go about their business this season, outspend, cheat, win…and we’ve got to endure again next season.

[Rds1983]

29 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I just find it grating that so many people are up in arms over inflated sponsorships in the Premier League, but seemingly no issue with it here...

People won't care until it directly affects them. Until then they'll happily buy the Hollywood fairytale. Opinions will change when they're in the Championship and getting bigger sponsorship deals than we do.

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

because they didnt do a glitzy fancy documentary showing the good they are doing  

Salford have had a bigger rise than Wrexham and have more detestable owners but havent spent as much in recent seasons

No one is stopping them doing a  glitzy documentary 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Mark Albrighton said:

So what size company are they allowed to have as sponsors not to provoke criticism from yourself?

Probably some chicken farm in a little village in preston. But they would probably find something to complain about.

Wrexham are not breaking any rules so its just hating for no reason

[HanoiVillan]

(musing)

Something that I think connects this discussion with the discussion of Saudi loans to Newcastle last night is it's just hard to prevent the transfer of money or equivalent assets between two parties that want to do a deal. 

In the case of Newcastle, if Al-Whoever 'want' to loan Neves to Newcastle, there's not much that can be done. If you banned the loan, they'd sell him for a notional fee. If you came up with a complicated formula that mandated a 'fair market price', they could charge Newcastle that, and then pay an absurd amount of money for Dummett or Hendrick or Manquillo or some youth player. And on and on it goes. 

In the case of Wrexham, it's different because instead of 'wanting' to be rinsed, TikTok (or whoever) are probably getting a great deal in product placement terms, since their logo is plastered all over and throughout a popular and feel-good Netflix documentary series. But if it wasn't shirt sponsorship, it would be something else - the people involved are good at this, they could find a way to monetise the interest and funnel it to the club somehow, no matter what. 

So in the end all you're left with, if you don't buy the romance, is the schadenfreude of hoping they fail and laughing if and when they do. And that's fine, not everyone has to buy the dream. 

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, Rds1983 said:

People won't care until it directly affects them. Until then they'll happily buy the Hollywood fairytale. Opinions will change when they're in the Championship and getting bigger sponsorship deals than we do.

Some people will care then but I wouldn’t personally. If they are earning it then fair play.

I also don’t have a problem with Man U or Liverpool pulling in more cash than we do. The sponsors are willing to pay them for the extra exposure the club is generating. 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Rds1983 said:

People won't care until it directly affects them. Until then they'll happily buy the Hollywood fairytale. Opinions will change when they're in the Championship and getting bigger sponsorship deals than we do.

Id rather have it a 'wrexham' way than a citeh or newcastle way any day

[VillaAlex]

Comparing Wrexham with Salford is laughable. Two completely different clubs, history, fanbase.

It's be like comparing us to Bournemouth when we eventually outspent our way out the Championship.

 

[luckyeddie]

10 minutes ago, VillaAlex said:

Comparing Wrexham with Salford is laughable. Two completely different clubs, history, fanbase.

It's be like comparing us to Bournemouth when we eventually outspent our way out the Championship.

 

Didn't Bournemouth get fined when they first got promoted to the Premier League?

[Demitri_C]