weeyin

So less tika-taka and more chicken tikka?

So, as I mentioned earlier, if a sponsor offers 150k for a logo to be put on the shirts, or (generously) 120k if the shirts are sold in the summer without it, how many sales would need to be made to compensate for that 30k difference? (Remembering it's profit that needs to be calculated, not turnover). Also, if your mates are buying it later then it is still a sale - the club will still get a cut, so factor that into the calculation. And if they were my mates I'd be suggesting that if they can afford a holiday in Portugal, they can afford a nice shirt. The club shop sells some smart golf shirts if they want to keep it MFC related.

Apart from our double cup final season, I don't suppose we are all that attractive to sponsors as far as exposure is concerned. The bigger deals that teams like Accies end up with tend to come from fans with money to burn (or money laundering outifts ) rather than companies worrying about return on investment.

His last 3 seasons at Hibs he scored 21 goals, 25 goals and 23 goals. So not that much of a waster. However, there is zero chance of him moving to Fir Park, so doesn't really matter.

Ross County have been the form team in the first two rounds so far. A win on Friday would put us in good shape for qualifying ahead of the other Premiership teams. (I took the day off on Friday, in part to watch our game, so we better win).

I'm not saying people wouldn't buy them. Just that if we lost even, say, £10k from a £150k sponsorhip deal by selling without a logo, that is a lot of extra shirts we'd need to sell to make up the difference.

If he comes back north I presume Hibs would be favourites, but wouldn't mind seeing him at Fir Park.

Seedorf is from an EPL side and Cole fom a Championship side, so they must be casting the odd glance in that direction.

My point is that if they don't buy them for the holiday they aren't lost sales. Those people are almost always going to buy them later.

I see the "missing the summer" argument most years, but I'm not sure I buy it. Is there anyone that wants a new top that ends up not buying it in late July or early August? And if any 'Well fan buys their kid a Rangers or Celtic top instead, they should have an immediate Fir Park banning order imposed

I doubt they'd be able to recoup the loss from the inevitable cut in sponsorship revenue (unless we have a particularly benevolent sponsor waiting in the wings).

I bet they wouldn't roost on a grass pitch.

If it is, it's a really really bad one. I'd expect someone looking for sponsors to at least say "sponsorship deal available"

I don't know, but apparently the most recent deal with BetPark was supposedly our most lucrative in the past 10 years.

The last audited accounts show sponsorship and adversting brought in £453,639. Of course, that's not all shirt logos, but it's a fair chunk of change,

Minor niggle that wasn't going to be risked on plastic, apparently.

According to this page this page they say the shirt sponsorship started in Feb 1984. Given we switched to Skelly in the 84/85 season, looks like it could have been as short as 4 months. So we would have been allowed to wear on televised matches (as that rule was relaxed in 1983), but any of those we did play in between August 1983 and January 1984 would have been without the logo.

I'd be surprised if there was any significant loss of overall sales due to a delay of a few weeks. It's not like someone will go out and buy an Accies top instead. (Why people feel the need to wear them when they go away for the Fair fortnight is a thread all on its own).

Always has to be a balance between giving time to players that need it, resting the guys with any minor niggles, and fielding a team that is capable of winning.

I've never been into this "find someone to replace X" theory. When we sign new players, we need to play to the strengths of those guys, not try and make them play like their predecessors. Of course you need a basic shape, but as we showed in the 2nd half of last season, that shape should be dictated by the personnel. Many a good player has been wasted by trying to play them out of position.

A few more clues from historicalkits.co.uk

Just makes it more special that we were there to see it I've always said that I'll be delighted if we win another Scottish Cup in my lifetime. But if we don't, I'm even more delighted I was there when we won it the last time.

If we had a new owner that wrote us a blank cheque to pay off our debt and invest in the club, and we had as many paying fans as Hibs, we might be able to afford that too. I suspect, however, it's a sop thrown to the fans who were led down the community ownership path.

Seedorf seemed quite chuffed about that in his post-match interview. He was buzzing (to use Twitter's favourite expression) about scoring his first professional goal and having the fans chant his name. A great recruitment ad for the club.

To be fair, the club (and the Trust) already does a fair amount of promotion of mens' mental health and suicide prevention. It would be nice to be in a position where we could turn down a chunk of money for sponsorship, but we aren't a Hearts (or a Barcelona) and don't have that luxury. (I also have doubts about the effectiveness of shirt sponsorship, but that's a different debate - I can safely say, however, I have never used any of the products or services of any of our shirt sponsors ever). There's certainly a discussion to be had about beer or gambling sponsors, but that is a wider social issue. I'm a believer that education and awareness is always much more effective than banning things.