DippyDon wrote:
Magpie wrote:
DippyDon wrote:
Mike Ashley’s rebrand went so well he got hounded out and it all reverted back almost instantly afterwards… and even then it was mainly just the stadium, let alone complete identity rebrands and shirt sponsors etc.
Mike Ashley owned Newcastle for 14 years. Hardly fly by night and was unpopular from the off. But it happened anyway. Commercially there is a strong argument that he was very good for Newcastle and no doubt they for him. Emotionally much less so but emotions dont generate profit.
It happened, but it was relatively gradual and miniscule compared to a Red Bull transition and even then it was hated and protested and reverted instantly after the fact.
Red Bull coming in and doing what they do with globally established teams is a ridiculous notion and even if it were allowed, you can bet the protests and campaigns against it would be ferocious. That wouldn't happen here.
If you think that then you dont understand the nature of corporate portfolio. Lets use Man Utd as a point. Its likely that in this case Redbull wouldnt seek to rename the club for the reasons stated. Thats fine. However, leverage, branding, promotion, market exposure, emerging markets and commercial sponsorships would all be 100% exploited. You woulnt be able to move without the brand being exposed at any given point, whether it be on football operations, corporate operations or financial operations.
Or you could replace Redbull with Ineos and the same would occur. These acquisitions arent undertaken for the good of the entity, the good of the sport or the good of the fans, who would largely be considered a captive audience anyway. Taking the fans into account, those that attend the actual matches are more or less an irrelevance its the extended reach in overseas less exploited markets that matters. I think during the Pandemic, it was only Old trafford and the emirates where have non attending fans made a material difference to a clubs revenue.
For fans its emotional, for business its profit.