14 Aug 2026 07:38:12
On the subject of commercial sponsorship and our lack of a FOS sponsor, I see that we actually get more from training kit and sleeve sponsorship than most PL clubs
get from full FOS sponsorship.
The Scouse and Man Utd are in a privileged position with their huge global fanbases; they can still attract the big bucks. City are basically self sponsored, as we all know, and Spuds will have trouble keeping AIA the way they are going. The goons are the only other ones with a major FOS deal.
It's amazing how little some PL clubs are getting this season, Brentford are
getting £4m from Indeed for the season, Brighton £8m from American Express, Fulham £6m a season from Clickhouse, Leeds £12m from Red Bull, Bournemouth £5m a season from Vitality, Everton £10m a season from CWC Markets.
Others aren't published but probably similar amounts.
We get more than all of those from Bing X for sleeve sponsorship and training kits alone.
Shirt sales are also at record highs as more and more fans and "tourists" enjoy the near £100 shirt without a tacky advert all over the front of it.
14 Aug 2026 11:09:15
I rushed out to buy all my grandchildren the kit without the sponsor.
We may well be doing well, receiving top dollar for other sponsorship deals, but only having partial deals over the last few seasons has to be recognised for what it was.
I may well understand the club's desire to stick with a FOS sponsor price of £60m per season, but not having anything, and then taking on a deal midway through a season, isn't a good look.
14 Aug 2026 16:07:36
It's criminal, Tom, and shows the owners, commercial dept (that's if we still have one), are unable to read the room.
14 Aug 2026 16:47:18
Also, if you look at the bottom of the club website, the number of sponsors has doubled over the last few years. So, are we just receiving more money from these and not needed to rely on FOS as much?
14 Aug 2026 16:53:51
Or, if we also had a regular FOS, we would have even more revenue, so, in my view, no FOS is losing us revenue and is criminal.
15 Aug 2026 08:31:52
Finchy, you make a very good point, and with the betting companies now out of the picture as commercial partners, the sponsorship deals will possibly drop even more. A FOS going rate may be less than £10 million a year now, and that may well be the reason why we haven't bothered with one.
3 clubs in the Premier League will start the season with good old fashioned "pure" shirts. I'm sure the commercial team would like a deal to match the likes of Scouse and Utd, but market conditions dictate.
15 Aug 2026 09:20:15
Al, I have made the same point as you several times. There is no way the commercial department do not want a FOS sponsor and the money that goes with it.
It may well be true that they want approx £60m per season for a long term partnership, but for some reason that hasn't happened and we have taken on short term sponsors mid way through a season.
I personally don't think that is a good look or helps with our negotiations with a long term partner.
Of course we are, as usual, just guessing!!
15 Aug 2026 09:33:26
Tom, market conditions dictate, and there is a huge decline in commercial sponsorship throughout all sports, not just football. If you consider the going rate is now likely less than £10 million a year, then why would the club sign up to, say, a 10-year deal for £100 million when it can stay "pure" and concentrate on building relations with multiple sponsors to build revenue whilst waiting for the right opportunity to arise? It is not a bad look at all, in my opinion (and clearly the club's as well).
15 Aug 2026 12:22:47
Al, I can't remember the exact numbers, but we got a ridiculous amount of money from the Dubai-based property developer the season before last and I think it was £1m per game for last season's late sponsor.
So I would guess the very minimum we should be looking for is £30-£40m per season.
If the club didn't want a FOS sponsor, then why take one on halfway through the season for the last two campaigns.
15 Aug 2026 18:20:54
Tom, I am with you. If the club believes that the market for long term FOS deals is too low at present, and thinks the right approach is multi deals, that's fine with me, but the lack of communication with supporters leads to endless debate about the competence of the hierarchy.
A lack of an FOS gives the appearance of failure; more transparency from the club would assuage those concerns.
15 Aug 2026 21:21:52
Jimbo, spot on, mate. I do understand a certain reluctance to communicate, as it could lead to never-ending questions, but in this day and age they could easily set up a Q&A on the app that was mainly managed by AI.
The other side is for people like me to believe they are just arrogant with little respect for loyal supporters, and that conclusion is probably unfair.
15 Aug 2026 23:08:00
Tom, we are in the same boat as other supporters. Premier League clubs are state-owned or by consortiums of investors who are remote from the fan base. I still have issues with 5 SDs and Ben Roberts bringing in two crap keepers. That said, I see a glimmer of hope. The owners/hierarchy do seem to have reflected on their previous strategy by bringing in Alonso and giving him influence in signings and, hopefully, outgoings.
I hope they realise that success on the field is good for their investments. Leaving aside all the things we can't control, I just want some exciting football and a few trophies to add to our collection.