johnny the fox Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 stoke and wba bigger than us ? foook off... thought we were one place below coventry city.. I would be happy with that...gives us status..
Izzy Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 I don't care Great post. You're welcome. It's all meaningless bollux. I mean, who gives a sh1t? Does it really matter?
themistocles Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 stoke and wba bigger than us ? foook off... thought we were one place below coventry city.. I would be happy with that...gives us status.. Stoke and wba have been in the Prem for the past 7 years.. ofcourse they're more marketable than Leicester City you deluded idiot
Freesolo Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 Stoke and wba have been in the Prem for the past 7 years.. ofcourse they're more marketable than Leicester City you deluded idiot Not more marketable, there is a buzz about Leicester right now I think we are on a high, how long it lasts who knows but we just pulled off the greatest escape in Prem history.
Rich Fox Posted 13 June 2015 Posted 13 June 2015 Stoke and wba have been in the Prem for the past 7 years.. ofcourse they're more marketable than Leicester City you deluded idiot And look how long Wigan and Bolton were in the premier league for, bet you were saying they were more marketable than us. Stoke are just having there peak and they deserve it but it doesn't make them more marketable than LCFC
HitchinFox Posted 13 June 2015 Posted 13 June 2015 But what does it all mean?? How is our 'brand' calculated as being worth £62m... whilst Hamburg is £61m. Who decides this? Brand Finance have been doing this for a while now and – alongside the likes of Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers – the firm is seen as a trustworthy analyst. So one thing is certain: they have done their homework and actually looked into a plethora of factors to come up with the figures. If you read through the full report, you get an idea of the breadth of it. http://www.brandfinance.com/images/upload/brand_finance_football_50_2015_the_world_s_most_valuable_football_brands_1.pdf The only slightly odd aspect of it is that they are prepared to give it out for free. Deloitte and PwC usually make you pay for full reports. Any list like this, however, is at least partly conjecture. While it is a very good guide on where clubs are on a global scale, it ultimately has little impact on crucial elements – where players want to play their football and how many fans a club can attract. Somebody said that Stoke aren’t bigger than us, despite the report saying that they are. It has to be said that, on a global scale, Stoke are a much more recognisable brand than LCFC and that is what this report is all about – the brand. Look at the clubs below us. Sao Paolo, Werder Bremen, PSV, Sevilla, Lazio...All bigger clubs with larger fan bases than ours, but with a less-valuable brand. Why? Because we are Premier League. The “EPL” (god I hate that moniker) is beamed to every corner of the world. The Bundesliga, Serie A and the Dutch league much less so. Not to mention the Brazilian league. The fact that we beat Man Utd infront of a potential Sunday audience of around 4.7bn people (not making that up, see here: http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/about/the-worlds-most-watched-league.html) alone has probably contributed around £10m on our “brand value”. Whether that actually means anything, that’s another manner, but the methodology used here should be pretty sound.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 June 2015 Posted 15 June 2015 Brand Finance have been doing this for a while now and – alongside the likes of Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers – the firm is seen as a trustworthy analyst. So one thing is certain: they have done their homework and actually looked into a plethora of factors to come up with the figures. If you read through the full report, you get an idea of the breadth of it. http://www.brandfinance.com/images/upload/brand_finance_football_50_2015_the_world_s_most_valuable_football_brands_1.pdf The only slightly odd aspect of it is that they are prepared to give it out for free. Deloitte and PwC usually make you pay for full reports. Any list like this, however, is at least partly conjecture. While it is a very good guide on where clubs are on a global scale, it ultimately has little impact on crucial elements – where players want to play their football and how many fans a club can attract. Somebody said that Stoke aren’t bigger than us, despite the report saying that they are. It has to be said that, on a global scale, Stoke are a much more recognisable brand than LCFC and that is what this report is all about – the brand. Look at the clubs below us. Sao Paolo, Werder Bremen, PSV, Sevilla, Lazio...All bigger clubs with larger fan bases than ours, but with a less-valuable brand. Why? Because we are Premier League. The “EPL” (god I hate that moniker) is beamed to every corner of the world. The Bundesliga, Serie A and the Dutch league much less so. Not to mention the Brazilian league. The fact that we beat Man Utd infront of a potential Sunday audience of around 4.7bn people (not making that up, see here: http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/about/the-worlds-most-watched-league.html) alone has probably contributed around £10m on our “brand value”. Whether that actually means anything, that’s another manner, but the methodology used here should be pretty sound. I don't agree. Brand Finance have just taken an arbitrary set of financial statistics from each club, conducted a mysterious calculation, and come up with a figure that has no relevance to anything but itself. It’s no different to doing something like calculating your attractiveness to the opposite sex. Take your age, multiply it by the amount of money you spend on clothing, times the hours you spend exercising. Divide by the number of units of alcohol and fags you consume per week, then square that by the amount of hours a day you spend on personal grooming. You’ll arrive at a pointless number. This is exactly how this list has been calculated! To measure brands, it would be much easier to simply choose a single stat that applied fairly equally to all clubs, such as the revenue gained each year through shirt sponsorship. The amount that a company is prepared to pay to have their logo on a club’s shirt is surely a much better metric to calculate ‘brand’ than anything these chumps could have come up with? You say the methodology is sound, but the fact that Southampton’s brand is apparently worth more than Inter Milan’s suggests to me that the methodology is very deeply flawed! Let’s put this in a real-life context. Imagine a new US franchise wants to set up a new football club, but instead of building their own brand they decide they want to buy a traditional European brand. It could happen. Would they really be prepared to spend more on calling themselves “Swansea City” than “Ajax”? I seriously doubt it!
HitchinFox Posted 16 June 2015 Posted 16 June 2015 I don't agree. Brand Finance have just taken an arbitrary set of financial statistics from each club, conducted a mysterious calculation, and come up with a figure that has no relevance to anything but itself. It’s no different to doing something like calculating your attractiveness to the opposite sex. Take your age, multiply it by the amount of money you spend on clothing, times the hours you spend exercising. Divide by the number of units of alcohol and fags you consume per week, then square that by the amount of hours a day you spend on personal grooming. You’ll arrive at a pointless number. This is exactly how this list has been calculated! To measure brands, it would be much easier to simply choose a single stat that applied fairly equally to all clubs, such as the revenue gained each year through shirt sponsorship. The amount that a company is prepared to pay to have their logo on a club’s shirt is surely a much better metric to calculate ‘brand’ than anything these chumps could have come up with? You say the methodology is sound, but the fact that Southampton’s brand is apparently worth more than Inter Milan’s suggests to me that the methodology is very deeply flawed! Let’s put this in a real-life context. Imagine a new US franchise wants to set up a new football club, but instead of building their own brand they decide they want to buy a traditional European brand. It could happen. Would they really be prepared to spend more on calling themselves “Swansea City” than “Ajax”? I seriously doubt it! Fair enough. Let me try and convince you. The methodology is sound, in my mind, because it takes into account the ridiculous amount of "value-add" that the Premier League proposes (although I couldn't but help starting to count my own "attractiveness to the opposite sex" marker using your excellent formula). We could take any two clubs to test it, but for the sake of argument, lets take the two you've mentioned. I dare say that there would be every chance that the scenario you describe would play out exactly opposite to the way you expect – a US company looking to invest in a European football team would, quite probably, be more likely to buy Swansea than Ajax. It might appear bizarre to you and me, but that is what having Premier League status means. You only need to look at the financials. Year over year (2014), Ajax has seen net income shrink from €18.2m (£13m) to €16.6m (£12m) despite relatively flat revenues (source: Bloomberg). Meanwhile, Swansea recorded the largest pre-tax profits of any club in the Premier League (£21m) in 2013. When you compare the stadium sizes (Ajax 53,000 - Swansea 20,000) you get an idea of just how much broadcast deals and other brand-related commercial deals are worth (sponsorship deals, merchandise etc.). Now, lets take one of those commercial deals – the shirt sponsorship that you mention as being an accurate barometer. Swansea agreed a two-year sponsorship deal with Goldenway Global Group last year for £4m - equaling £2m a year. Meanwhile, last year, Ajax signed a five-year deal with Ziggo for €8m (£5.75m) – which equates to around £1.15m a year. Not a lot in it, but enough to give validity to the view that Swansea is the more valuable brand. So while only an idiot, or perhaps somebody from South Wales, would argue that Swansea is a bigger club than Ajax, the truth is that when it comes to the current brand value of the two clubs, Swansea wins. This is purely because they are a Premier League club and are in no immediate danger of losing that status. I'm not looking at this with tinted glasses either, as I don't subscribe to the view that the Premier League is the "best league" in the world (because but simply: It's not). But I do hold the opinion that the sheer success of the Premier League as a brand is so phenomenal and its reach so wide, that any entity associated with it is immediately elevated to a status far beyond its "normal" worth. EDIT - just corrected some typos in my post that I found infuriating!
shailen Posted 16 June 2015 Posted 16 June 2015 In terms of our brand, we are a big club. The current owners have done a good job promoting us in the Far East and Asia. This season has put us on the map either in a good or bad way. The 5-3 win against United, the f**k off and die incident, the Mcarthur strangle, the greatest ever escape and finally the ostrich saga. We have had almost as much exposure as any other club this season. It also helps that we play the best football outside the top 10 imo. The likes of Stoke and WBA go about their business quietly. We certainly have not. Added to that the marquee signing of Cambiasso, gives us worldwide attention. If we continue to grow in the same way and turn into a top 10 club like Stoke we will easily become a bigger brand than them. We have a bigger fanbase, a more global identity and better marketing strategy. Everything here is in place to become a top club and I mean one challenging for Europe. With the right management and investment, we will get that. Looking around the country, I can't think of a club run better than the way our owners have done so. Since Pearson has come back, everything has been done well.
fuchsntf Posted 16 June 2015 Posted 16 June 2015 Fair enough. Let me try and convince you. The methodology is sound, in my mind, because it takes into account the ridiculous amount of "value-add" that the Premier League proposes (although I couldn't but help starting to count my own "attractiveness to the opposite sex" marker using your excellent formula). We could take any two clubs to test it, but for the sake of argument, lets take the two you've mentioned. I dare say that there would be every chance that the scenario you describe would play out exactly opposite to the way you expect – a US company looking to invest in a European football team would, quite probably, be more likely to buy Swansea than Ajax. It might appear bizarre to you and me, but that is what having Premier League status means. You only need to look at the financials. Year over year (2014), Ajax has seen net income shrink from €18.2m (£13m) to €16.6m (£12m) despite relatively flat revenues (source: Bloomberg). Meanwhile, Swansea recorded the largest pre-tax profits of any club in the Premier League (£21m) in 2013. When you compare the stadium sizes (Ajax 53,000 - Swansea 20,000) you get an idea of just how much broadcast deals and other brand-related commercial deals are worth (sponsorship deals, merchandise etc.). Now, lets take one of those commercial deals – the shirt sponsorship that you mention as being an accurate barometer. Swansea agreed a two-year sponsorship deal with Goldenway Global Group last year for £4m - equaling £2m a year. Meanwhile, last year, Ajax signed a five-year deal with Ziggo for €8m (£5.75m) – which equates to around £1.15m a year. Not a lot in it, but enough to give validity to the view that Swansea is the more valuable brand. So while only an idiot, or perhaps somebody from South Wales, would argue that Swansea is a bigger club than Ajax, the truth is that when it comes to the current brand value of the two clubs, Swansea wins. This is purely because they are a Premier League club and are in no immediate danger of losing that status. I'm not looking at this with tinted glasses either, as I don't subscribe to the view that the Premier League is the "best league" in the world (because but simply: It's not). But I do hold the opinion that the sheer success of the Premier League as a brand is so phenomenal and its reach so wide, that any entity associated with it is immediately elevated to a status far beyond its "normal" worth. EDIT - just corrected some typos in my post that I found infuriating! It still seems fishy to me...Is that to say its the financial equivilant to the D/L method in cricket...
Fox Ulike Posted 17 June 2015 Posted 17 June 2015 Fair enough. Let me try and convince you. The methodology is sound, in my mind, because it takes into account the ridiculous amount of "value-add" that the Premier League proposes (although I couldn't but help starting to count my own "attractiveness to the opposite sex" marker using your excellent formula). We could take any two clubs to test it, but for the sake of argument, lets take the two you've mentioned. I dare say that there would be every chance that the scenario you describe would play out exactly opposite to the way you expect – a US company looking to invest in a European football team would, quite probably, be more likely to buy Swansea than Ajax. It might appear bizarre to you and me, but that is what having Premier League status means. You only need to look at the financials. Year over year (2014), Ajax has seen net income shrink from €18.2m (£13m) to €16.6m (£12m) despite relatively flat revenues (source: Bloomberg). Meanwhile, Swansea recorded the largest pre-tax profits of any club in the Premier League (£21m) in 2013. When you compare the stadium sizes (Ajax 53,000 - Swansea 20,000) you get an idea of just how much broadcast deals and other brand-related commercial deals are worth (sponsorship deals, merchandise etc.). Now, lets take one of those commercial deals – the shirt sponsorship that you mention as being an accurate barometer. Swansea agreed a two-year sponsorship deal with Goldenway Global Group last year for £4m - equaling £2m a year. Meanwhile, last year, Ajax signed a five-year deal with Ziggo for €8m (£5.75m) – which equates to around £1.15m a year. Not a lot in it, but enough to give validity to the view that Swansea is the more valuable brand. So while only an idiot, or perhaps somebody from South Wales, would argue that Swansea is a bigger club than Ajax, the truth is that when it comes to the current brand value of the two clubs, Swansea wins. This is purely because they are a Premier League club and are in no immediate danger of losing that status. I'm not looking at this with tinted glasses either, as I don't subscribe to the view that the Premier League is the "best league" in the world (because but simply: It's not). But I do hold the opinion that the sheer success of the Premier League as a brand is so phenomenal and its reach so wide, that any entity associated with it is immediately elevated to a status far beyond its "normal" worth. EDIT - just corrected some typos in my post that I found infuriating! Hmmm. To me though you're just describing each club's capacity to generate revenue. Is that the same thing as a brand? In my example I wasn't talking about a US franchise buying Swansea or Ajax as clubs, I’m talking about them buying the club’s brand, and exporting it to the MLS. So, hypothetically of course, you get a Miami-based club who want to call themselves something old and famous. So they decide to buy the rights to brand themselves after a European club. So is this MLS franchise really gonna pay more money for the right to brand themselves “Swansea City” than they would to brand themselves as “Ajax”? According to the definition of the authors of this report, the brand value for each club is “"What the owner would have to pay for the use of the brand if it wasn't already owned". OK. So let’s take that at face value. Imagine there’s been a huge cock-up in our Marketing Dept, and it transpires that we don’t actually own the right to the name “Leicester City”; nor do we have copyright on the badge design. Are our owners really going to stump up £62m to reclaim the name and badge? The cost of two new stadiums?? I find that highly unlikely. Instead, we would surely change the name (“Leicester Fosse”) and re-design the badge? OR, we’d negotiate a much smaller sum to buy back our brand assets. So would Swansea, who would probably just rebrand themselves as "FC Swansea". For Ajax, however, a change of name is less likely. So they would clearly be willing to pay more "for the use of the brand" than Swansea City. would be. It's a cast-iron rule of Economics that something is only worth what another person is willing to pay for it. So. How can our brand be valued at an amount that no-one is realistically willing to pay for it? Value exists in the club: The players, the stadium, facilities etc. And, as you say, in our Premier League status. There is some value in brand assets true, but certainly not £62m. This report measures something, but it clearly isn't brand value.
HitchinFox Posted 17 June 2015 Posted 17 June 2015 Hmmm. To me though you're just describing each club's capacity to generate revenue. Is that the same thing as a brand? In my example I wasn't talking about a US franchise buying Swansea or Ajax as clubs, I’m talking about them buying the club’s brand, and exporting it to the MLS. So, hypothetically of course, you get a Miami-based club who want to call themselves something old and famous. So they decide to buy the rights to brand themselves after a European club. So is this MLS franchise really gonna pay more money for the right to brand themselves “Swansea City” than they would to brand themselves as “Ajax”? According to the definition of the authors of this report, the brand value for each club is “"What the owner would have to pay for the use of the brand if it wasn't already owned". OK. So let’s take that at face value. Imagine there’s been a huge cock-up in our Marketing Dept, and it transpires that we don’t actually own the right to the name “Leicester City”; nor do we have copyright on the badge design. Are our owners really going to stump up £62m to reclaim the name and badge? The cost of two new stadiums?? I find that highly unlikely. Instead, we would surely change the name (“Leicester Fosse”) and re-design the badge? OR, we’d negotiate a much smaller sum to buy back our brand assets. So would Swansea, who would probably just rebrand themselves as "FC Swansea". For Ajax, however, a change of name is less likely. So they would clearly be willing to pay more "for the use of the brand" than Swansea City. would be. It's a cast-iron rule of Economics that something is only worth what another person is willing to pay for it. So. How can our brand be valued at an amount that no-one is realistically willing to pay for it? Value exists in the club: The players, the stadium, facilities etc. And, as you say, in our Premier League status. There is some value in brand assets true, but certainly not £62m. This report measures something, but it clearly isn't brand value. I take your points - especially the bit about something only being worth what another person is willing to pay for it. Was trying to avoid just taking revenue generating as the single denominator, but it's hard to find empirical evidence (as an office bound keyboard warrior) of what this index is supposed to measure. If I could, I'd go and take a random sample of youngsters across South America, South Asia and Africa and ask them about football. For me, it is more likely that they've seen Swansea play Man Utd/Arsenal/Liverpool on TV (and therefore recognise the brand) than Ajax play a Dutch league game. That is impossible to prove, of course, and I must concede that the report fails to do that too – but still arrives at a conclusion that supports that view. I included the shirt sponsorship example as you said it would be a more accurate sign of a brand's value. So you must give me that point! I also agree that putting an exact value on a brand, such as estimating LCFC as being worth £62m, is slightly dubious. However, if you do want to start to rank teams (or products) then you have to come up with some sort of formula in order to do so. For me the actual value that this report puts on clubs/brands is secondary (whether it's £62m or £2m) – but I'd agree very much with the way it has been calculated. The MLS club buying into a brand - rather than the club itself - is, for me, a red herring. Of course, if a Miami club would want to buy its prestige, calling it something like Ajax would be a much more sounder option than Swansea. But that is slightly misleading as all Premier League teams (bar Arsenal) are named after a geographical location. Ajax is a character in Greek mythology. So Ajax Amsterdam is much more in kind with the American method of naming a club after something like Chargers, Patriots or Giants. Miami Swansea or Ajax Miami? No contest. My point is that for me, this list seems accurate and the way they've measured it makes perfect sense. The key, for me, is that this is a global index. I stick to my guns that Premier League clubs carry a disproportionate value with them due to the strength of the Premier League's reach across the globe. I've seen it myself. I've been to an isolated mountaintop village with no electricity and no roads in Asia and greeted by kids running around in Man U and Everton shirts. In the Middle East, Liverpool shirt-wearing Peshmerga fighters are firing rockets at ISIS lunatics (that, admittedly, I saw on CNN - rather than being there myself). The only non-English clubs that have that kind of reach are the likes of Barça, Real, Bayer and Juve – which is reflected in the report.
Aus Fox Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 Not sure where to put this, but the we're massive thread seemed as good a place as any. So a mate sent me this video today. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=34nxfgwSLdE It's a couple of guys from Australia who have their own gaming channel on YouTube. I'm not a gamer and have very little interest in you tubers. Anyway my mate sent it to me saying watch this, you will love it. It's an Oasis parody, I like Oasis, it's ok I thought don't really get the references in the song but ok, thanks. But at the end I noticed the guy who made the video talking about 4 mins in, if you want to skip the song. Look what he is wearing! We are massive, where else has anyone randomly spotted leicester city merchandise?
filbertstreet Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 Not sure where to put this, but the we're massive thread seemed as good a place as any. So a mate sent me this video today. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=34nxfgwSLdE It's a couple of guys from Australia who have their own gaming channel on YouTube. I'm not a gamer and have very little interest in you tubers. Anyway my mate sent it to me saying watch this, you will love it. It's an Oasis parody, I like Oasis, it's ok I thought don't really get the references in the song but ok, thanks. But at the end I noticed the guy who made the video talking about 4 mins in, if you want to skip the song. Look what he is wearing! We are massive, where else has anyone randomly spotted leicester city merchandise? when I was in Germany there was a bloke with an Ulloa shirt on, saw my Vardy one and shouted summat German at me, that was cool
Babylon Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 We are massive, where else has anyone randomly spotted leicester city merchandise? Seen no end of Americans on twitter saying that they want a Leicester "Jersey" and that they now support us. Weird.
lgfualol Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 Seen no end of Americans on twitter saying that they want a Leicester "Jersey" and that they now support us. Weird. There is a growing number on Reddit as well. I think a lot of Americans seem to like our fighting spirit. All we need to do now is sign an American player and we'll gain about 100 million fans.
RoboFox Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 There is a growing number on Reddit as well. I think a lot of Americans seem to like our fighting spirit. All we need to do now is sign an American player and we'll gain about 100 million fans. We've got a bit of a cult following in the US from the MON days, when we had Kasey Keller. This new lot are nothing more than glory supporters...
Guest Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 Who would ever have thought that Leicester would have glory hunters and bandwagon fans? We are MASSIVE!
Fox_in_a_Box Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 The timing of our rise into and up the premier league couldn't of been better. Football is growing rapidly is the USA and if we keep playing well we will gain a shit load of fans oversees. Can only be good for the club.
johnny the fox Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 all we need now is for donald trump to buy us..
TrentFox Posted 15 September 2015 Posted 15 September 2015 Nowhere near as exotic as some here, but drove into Nottingham this morning via West Bridgford and followed a silver Nissan Almera. For no reason that I can think of, flying proud out of the rear window. Was one of those flags from the QPR game!! I weaved in and out to get alongside to show solidarity - only to find a car full of old boys who all must have been at least 70 if they were a day!! (If one of you is reading this and you're only 60, my sincere apologies).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.