TeamViewer looking to review current deal | Snapdragon/Qualcomm will be the new sponsor

To be honest I was kinda surprised that they could afford the deal back then, their product isn't bad but their licensing model doesn't seem to be the best, considering that my old company just kept on using their free version of the product.

On top of that it was clear that their revenue was severely boosted due to the increase in remote work due to the pandemic, so an increase that resulted from a crisis and would probably go down a bit once the crisis was over.
 
horsechoker said:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ster-united-teamviewer-shirt-sponsor-25559961

Manchester United shirt sponsor TeamViewer wants to review £235m deal

A stakeholder in the company slammed the sponsorship arrangement TeamViewer has with Man United and the firm has said it would like to 'amend the existing contract'
Click to expand...

A company that ultimately need a global shutdown to afford these type of monster deals struggling to make ends meet should be a surprise to no one. A massive chunk of their customer base went back to the office. How the board thought this was a good idea is beyond me. Sure, it was a massive opportunity, but maybe be realistic about your market expectations instead of saddling your company with a sponsor deal that threatens the existence of your company.

In fairness, TeamViewer isnt the only company that gambled big on the worklife being changed forever as a result of the global pandemic.

Sadly the technology they use isnt excactly hard to replicate for those who know how, and that puts a big limit on just how much they can milk their biggest companies, the IT/Tech sector, who will find cheaper alternatives if their pricing options reaches the "unreasonable" level.

This is a though one. This might end with Manchester United looking for a new shirt sponsor as opposed to devaluing their current sponsordeal.
 
Last edited:
the deal is worth £47m per year to United, yet the German company's profits are reportedly only £43.5m.
Click to expand...

This is a stupid statement. What does it mean? That they spend 47 millions, but get 43.5 in shirt sales? OK, but the biggest benefit to TeamViewer, from having their big, ugly, stupid logo on our shirts is advertising, not revenue. Getting something back is a cherry on the pie, even if they were not getting ANYTHING back, advertising of their brand would still be the point. This makes no sense. Actually, we should not be letting them have their logo on our shirts if they are getting almost all that money back from our revenues.

That said - I wish they pull out. More Glazers get hurt the better. They need to sell, this club has no future while they are around. The ONLY good thing they did with the club was hiring Erik ten Hag, but they are unable to support him with money or the club hierarchy so he can actually be successful.

And lastly a question: £47M/year for a club that spends that much on an average transfer doesn't sound like terribly significant amount? Especially if sponsor gets almost all of it back from our shirt sales. Sure, it is some money, but how much do Glazers really care, aside from bad optics?
 
horsechoker said:
Chevrolet logo next season lads?
Click to expand...
Nah, car brands are too much for us, we'll be going back to advertising water faucets. Also, honestly Kohler logo looked better on the shirt than that fugly yellow Chevrolet, anyway :)
 
NewGlory said:
Nah, car brands are too much for us, we'll be going back to advertising water faucets. Also, honestly Kohler logo looked better on the shirt than that fugly yellow Chevrolet, anyway :)
Click to expand...

You mean Kohler the toilet maker? No thanks.
 
Giggsy13 said:
You mean Kohler the toilet maker? No thanks.
Click to expand...
Come on, man. It perfectly fits our current situation and Glazers have done it in the past. Also, to be fair they make half-decent water faucets too, not just toilets :D
 
NewGlory said:
This is a stupid statement. What does it mean? That they spend 47 millions, but get 43.5 in shirt sales? OK, but the biggest benefit to TeamViewer, from having their big, ugly, stupid logo on our shirts is advertising, not revenue. Getting something back is a cherry on the pie, even if they were not getting ANYTHING back, advertising of their brand would still be the point. This makes no sense. Actually, we should not be letting them have their logo on our shirts if they are getting almost all that money back from our revenues.

That said - I wish they pull out. More Glazers get hurt the better. They need to sell, this club has no future while they are around. The ONLY good thing they did with the club was hiring Erik ten Hag, but they are unable to support him with money or the club hierarchy so he can actually be successful.

And lastly a question: £47M/year for a club that spends that much on an average transfer doesn't sound like terribly significant amount? Especially if sponsor gets almost all of it back from our shirt sales. Sure, it is some money, but how much do Glazers really care, aside from bad optics?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the figures correctly. The 43.5m refers to Teamviewer's turnover from selling their product - they don't receive anything from shirt sales. Profits from shirt sales go directly to Adidas, who pay us for producing the strip under licence. Teamviewer paying us 47.5m per year, as others have stated above, is a terrible business decision because even though that 47.5m is an expense they can write off against their tax liabilities, it's way too high to be sustainable. Even if they paid us 10m per year it would raise questions about the viability of their sponsorship.
 
scottser said:
I'm not sure you understand the figures correctly. The 43.5m refers to Teamviewer's turnover from selling their product - they don't receive anything from shirt sales. Profits from shirt sales go directly to Adidas, who pay us for producing the strip under licence. Teamviewer paying us 47.5m per year, as others have stated above, is a terrible business decision because even though that 47.5m is an expense they can write off against their tax liabilities, it's way too high to be sustainable. Even if they paid us 10m per year it would raise questions about the viability of their sponsorship.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "turnover"? 43M cannot possibly be their overall revenue, so how do you measure the increase in revenue that can be attributed to their logo on our shirt? That is impossible to track.
 
NewGlory said:
What do you mean by "turnover"? 43M cannot possibly be their overall revenue, so how do you measure the increase in revenue that can be attributed to their logo on our shirt? That is impossible to track.
Click to expand...

They wrote: "As active investors we will not tolerate that you spend ca. 1.4x your net profit or over 70 million euros per year on sponsorship contracts with Manchester United and Mercedes Formula 1. You are not SAP, Oracle or Mercedes."

according to the article, 43.5m is their net profit.
 
NoLogo said:
To be honest I was kinda surprised that they could afford the deal back then, their product isn't bad but their licensing model doesn't seem to be the best, considering that my old company just kept on using their free version of the product.

On top of that it was clear that their revenue was severely boosted due to the increase in remote work due to the pandemic, so an increase that resulted from a crisis and would probably go down a bit once the crisis was over.
Click to expand...

Apparently, we're lining up WinRAR to takeover.
 
tenpoless said:
It's just how tech industry works these days, they're trying to cut cost and in this case marketing spending. More and more companies are asking employees to go back to the office. Reducing the demand for remote software. Even the biggest tech companies also asked employees to return to the office for some reason. And here they thought COVID was going to change everything and that a large percentage of us that worked from home will likely remain that way for the rest of our lives. Then people realized you can't replace human social interaction. TeamViewer, just like any other, probably have overestimated their own growth.
Click to expand...
I imagine it’s because these companies have office spaces that are just going to waste. And their lease isn’t something they can backtrack on, unlike spoilt Team viewer and their deal.
 
NewGlory said:
This is a stupid statement. What does it mean? That they spend 47 millions, but get 43.5 in shirt sales? OK, but the biggest benefit to TeamViewer, from having their big, ugly, stupid logo on our shirts is advertising, not revenue. Getting something back is a cherry on the pie, even if they were not getting ANYTHING back, advertising of their brand would still be the point. This makes no sense. Actually, we should not be letting them have their logo on our shirts if they are getting almost all that money back from our revenues.

That said - I wish they pull out. More Glazers get hurt the better. They need to sell, this club has no future while they are around. The ONLY good thing they did with the club was hiring Erik ten Hag, but they are unable to support him with money or the club hierarchy so he can actually be successful.

And lastly a question: £47M/year for a club that spends that much on an average transfer doesn't sound like terribly significant amount? Especially if sponsor gets almost all of it back from our shirt sales. Sure, it is some money, but how much do Glazers really care, aside from bad optics?
Click to expand...

What are you on about? This is the best looking sponsor in decades really, since Vodafone. No sponsor looks good, but it's certainly exceptionally better than Chevy, AIG and AON. Not only esthetically, they filled the whole bloody shirt, but those last three were embarassing companies to walk around advertising. I'd literally never heard of TeamViewer, their logo is smaller, unassuming, esthetically it looks good.
 
Strootman's Finger said:
What are you on about? This is the best looking sponsor in decades really, since Vodafone. No sponsor looks good, but it's certainly exceptionally better than Chevy, AIG and AON. Not only esthetically, they filled the whole bloody shirt, but those last three were embarassing companies to walk around advertising. I'd literally never heard of TeamViewer, their logo is smaller, unassuming, esthetically it looks good.
Click to expand...
I think aesthetically AIG and AON looked way better than TeamViewer. Can't argue that AIG is an embarrassing company, given that they caused 2008 economic collapse. Not sure what AON has done horrible-like?
 
scottser said:
They wrote: "As active investors we will not tolerate that you spend ca. 1.4x your net profit or over 70 million euros per year on sponsorship contracts with Manchester United and Mercedes Formula 1. You are not SAP, Oracle or Mercedes."

according to the article, 43.5m is their net profit.
Click to expand...
Holy crap! They are much worse than I thought Haha! Thanks for sharing.
 
This is going to go down as the happiest and most hopeful day on the Caf since Moyes took over.
 
I want someone nice I can identify with. Like maybe the French cheese marketing board. Or Factory Records. Or Renault. Or the British meat marketing board, just a nice big picture of a sausage roll and a rasher of Bacon.

A different way to go would be something that closely symbolise our evolution as an organization. Like Betamax.

Or we could always bring back Sharp, do they still exist?
 
Herman Toothrot said:
We could try tapping up VLC player. At Christmas, we could wear a special shirt with the cone wearing a little Santa hat.
Click to expand...
Haha brilliant idea that I can see those cheesy Christmas cards with the players on it. Although with hopefully the sale of the club now happening we can attract some big sponsors again.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
They sound like a bunch of amateurs. Who the hell signs off on a sponsorship deal where they’re paying more on a yearly basis than they’re generating in profits?
Click to expand...
They're not paying the sponsorship money from their yearly profits, are they, because then they wouldn't be profits.
 
52ae47c0-eec6-42b0-a2d3-caf5d2752842
 
Haven’t the EPL put a block on ownership linked sponsorships to stop Newcastle inflating their revenue? Team viewer have been unhappy for months - this hasn’t come out of the blue - and we signed the deal during the pandemic when the financial world was very different so likely can get more anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.