Shirt Sponser going bust

Hey, I did a quick search on the forum and wondered why no one had picked up on it....

XL - the shirt sponser of west ham went bust. Now they don't have a sponser and they will be without the X millions they would have otherwise got from them. Anyone know if this is likely to happen in the game? I'm not saying it would be a good idea - I like getting money for my club () but it would add that realism everyone wants?

Newcastle and Northern Rock anyone?

Anyhow, as shirt sponsors aren't named, I don't think it would matter, and anyway, West Ham will simply get a new sponsor.

I always liked the fact that West Ham were wearing XL shirts

Could be Man U and AIG soon.

I think most of these deals are paid up front, like Northern Rock with Newcastle.

I'm not so sure, West Ham certainly didn't get their money up front hence the shortfall in their budget.

West Ham had hastily sewn patches over their shirt sponser name when they played last so it was obviously a different issue to Newcastle, but I think the Northern Rock stuff was different anyway. There is a whole Northern Rock foundation that gives money to support a whole range of projects and that is still going along with their sponsorship of Newcastle Utd, Durham County Cricket (I think) and the Newcastle Rugby Union club and probably others too.

Like has been said though there is no point in this happening in FM because West Ham will presumably get a new sponsor and if they don't (for this year) it will just be a very rare occurance not worth adding randomly into FM.

Could be Man U and AIG soon.

Indeed it could. Although United would have no problem finding a new shirt sponsor.

This would add realism, but I'd rather see things like weather postponements and more international competitions prioritised.

Nice idea though.

I think most of these deals are paid up front, like Northern Rock with Newcastle.

nah there paid every 6 moths as west ham only recieved 2.5m out of 7.5 mil cuz it was a 18 month contract iirc

doesnt one of the West Ham directors acually own or have alot of shares in XL?

there are currently 2 teams with no sponcers. West Ham and West Brom

nah there paid every 6 moths as west ham only recieved 2.5m out of 7.5 mil cuz it was a 18 month contract iirc

3 year deal here

doesnt one of the West Ham directors acually own or have alot of shares in XL?

there are currently 2 teams with no sponcers. West Ham and West Brom

Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson is the chairman of the bank which has loaned XL money I think. He also owns shares in the company that guaranteed the loan.

AIG are going bust soon aswell, I hear, Hmm..

I think it would be reflected in FM for realism but they would probably just get a new sponsor if this was the case anyway.

AIG won't go bust, but for those in need of some quick cash, go and buy as many shares in AIG as you can, they're down to just over $1 at the moment, one year ago, they were at $70 a share.

While they won't hit those heights, maybe ever again, they're still going to recover somewhat.

I'm not so sure, West Ham certainly didn't get their money up front hence the shortfall in their budget.

West Ham have received payment for this season, but not for the further two seasons that were part of the agreement.

Essentially, they have the rest of this season to find a shirt sponsor for next season. They won't be losing anything if they don't have a shirt sponsor for the remainder of this season.

West Ham have received payment for this season, but not for the further two seasons that were part of the agreement.

Essentially, they have the rest of this season to find a shirt sponsor for next season. They won't be losing anything if they don't have a shirt sponsor for the remainder of this season.

So why have they removed the sponsor from the shirt when they have received the money and the company is not liquidated yet?

lol heard if AIG go bust it will actually benifit man u as they could probably get another sponser on a better deal to that AIG have with them.

Notice how Newcastle and west Ham both had sponsors collapse financially? Then note which two teams managers resigned? Conspiracy theories abound.

I would have thought any team without sponsors will have this reflected in the game, but i wonder if this type of thing will make it in, affecting the game in later years. Don't know if there's any legal implications, but if you were playing in 2020, looking to sign a few players in the summer, only for your sponsor, Johnny Jones's Jumpsuits, to go bust (costing the club, and your transfer kitty, millions), it would be a realistically bitter pill to swallow.

P.S. Johnny Jones's Jumpsuits rock. Probably.

Why didn't West Brom have a sponsor on their shirt?

Why didn't West Brom have a sponsor on their shirt?

They couldnt get anyone to pay the price they wanted.

So why have they removed the sponsor from the shirt when they have received the money and the company is not liquidated yet?

I was of the understanding they (XL) have been declared bankrupt, therefore have ceased trading. If that is the case, then West Ham are completely within their rights to have done what they have done.

If I am wrong and XL are still trading then it's a different kettle of fish and West Ham (might) have breached their contract with XL.

According to their site, they are in administration and havent been wound up yet. Just like any football club in admin are still running as a business.

I think WH jumped the gun and could be in trouble.

I noticed Liverpool's kit didn't have their usual Carlsberg sponsors during the CL match against Marseille, and for a moment I thought they'd gone bust too!

"Carlsberg don't do bankruptcies. But if they did, they'd probably be the best bankruptcies in the world.."

doesnt one of the West Ham directors acually own or have alot of shares in XL?

there are currently 2 teams with no sponcers. West Ham and West Brom

Aston Villa don't have a commercial sponsor either, but that is by choice.

I noticed Liverpool's kit didn't have their usual Carlsberg sponsors during the CL match against Marseille, and for a moment I thought they'd gone bust too!

That'll be because you're not allowed to advertise alcohol in France.

Charlton changed sponsers a couple of years back as All:sports got taken over by JJB, seeing as Dave Whealan owns JJB and Wigan was a conflict of interest and so Charlton had to find a new sponsor pronto and found llanera or omething like that.

So i guess shirt sponsors could change through the game mid season but it wouldnt really bother me if it was completly ignored

Aston Villa don't have a commercial sponsor either, but that is by choice.

They have Acorn Hospice on their shirt, which Villa paid money to them to have their logo on their shirt, like Barcelona did first with Unicef.

All credit to them I say.

They have Acorn Hospice on their shirt, which Villa paid money to them to have their logo on their shirt, like Barcelona did first with Unicef.

All credit to them I say.

Couldn't agree more, would be nice if more clubs did this.

That'll be because you're not allowed to advertise alcohol in France.

Thanks for that, was wondering why, thought it would be something along those lines though.

Anyone else think shirts looked better without sponser sprawled across the shirt.

Man U's shirt when they played Man City last season without sponsers, looked a lot classier.

Thanks for that, was wondering why, thought it would be something along those lines though.

Anyone else think shirts looked better without sponser sprawled across the shirt.

Man U's shirt when they played Man City last season without sponsers, looked a lot classier.

Yeah, I love the old school style shirts. I usually hate Man Utd shirts (because I don't like the team no doubt) but those shirts were well cool.

Thanks for that, was wondering why, thought it would be something along those lines though.

Anyone else think shirts looked better without sponser sprawled across the shirt.

Man U's shirt when they played Man City last season without sponsers, looked a lot classier.

The French are twats. A cycling team ceased to exist last year because they were sponsored by a gambling website (Unibet.com) and the French refused to let them race in their country because of the gambling sponsorship.

Of course, France has the biggest stage race and biggest one day race, so missing out on those two was a big thing for the sponsors and they pulled the plug.

Twats isn't censored.

i read today that West Ham are looking into getting the Bobby Moore foundation on their shirts til they find a new sponsor, which I think is great. I agree that shirts look classier without sponsors (barring dodgy patches lol), and i'd be more likely to get a fulham shirt if there wasn't a big pink / red smily face on the front. we should bring back pizza hut lol

The French are twats. A cycling team ceased to exist last year because they were sponsored by a gambling website (Unibet.com) and the French refused to let them race in their country because of the gambling sponsorship.

Of course, France has the biggest stage race and biggest one day race, so missing out on those two was a big thing for the sponsors and they pulled the plug.

I agree with your 1st point but arent the team slightly ******** knowing they wouldnt be allowed to race?

No breach of contract with XL by West Ham I don't think:

http://www.whufc.com/page/News/0,,12562~1391114,00.html

I agree with your 1st point but arent the team slightly ******** knowing they wouldnt be allowed to race?

The sponsors are the be all and end all in cycling. Every team is named after their main sponsor. Unibet.com were granted licence to race in the Pro Tour, but the organisers went over the Pro Tour's governence and barred them from racing. It was very heated between French race organisers and the UCI for a long time.