Bobby and the Guardian... the dialogue continues

From: On Behalf Of Anirban Das Blah
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: [Footer-in-mouth] Re: Correction

Difference being the FT article is business coverage of a business event the event as it happened when it happened. It’s a news piece dedicated to the event. Or 3 pieces actually.
The Guardian article is written 6-months later as an opinion piece that is written by a football writer about something else altogether. In it he mentions 1 sentence about the logo issue.
Of all people I don’t think I need to discuss with you the difference between an opinion piece 6 months later on another topic and a news piece as it happened on the specific topic J

In fact this is the point I made in my first mail. That Barca has done a great job in building this myth of Unicef happening because the club spurned China and that this is evidence.

Blah


From: On Behalf Of AGhosh0222
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: [Footer-in-mouth] Re: Correction


when i have a little time, i'll see if i can find you some links to stories about the socios' revolt. as i recall, the reports i read were quoting the spanish football press -- which is not much better that its english counterpart, but still.

in the meantime, just to go by the two links you sent -- one (the ft) says barca was spurned, the other (guardian) says barca made a "decision to eschew the temptations of commercial sponsorship and dedicate the space on the shirts to publicising the United Nations children's agency UNICEF..."

one you choose to believe, the other you dismiss as peddling a "myth."

i'm sure you have your reasons. but again, it's no skin off my nose.

Bobby


On Behalf Of Anirban Das Blah
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 5:18 PM
Subject: [Footer-in-mouth] Re: Correction

“if the chinese deal wasn't good enough (and if we are actually to believe the champions of spain and europe, and employers of the world's most popular footballer would have difficulty lining up another sponsor with deep pockets), laporta could simply have gone back to the slogan-free shirt -- retaining the prestige that comes with that.”



The Chinese deal was more than good enough for Laporta… it was the Chinese who backed out! Read the FT reports I sent… blow-by-blow accounts. And nothing that says the socios revolted. In fact the only “published” resports about Socios revolting are from Barcelona fans on emails and bulletin boards. Not ONE article on ANY independent website. Right now you’re saying no source. I’m saying FT. To my mind, FT is better than no source. So until I see a more credible link than FT, we should stick to them I think… more objective than you or me or what we believe.



And I have no doubt Barca could get sponsors. As and when Barca gets a shirt sponsor, it will undoubtedly be the most expensive such deal in history… after all this is the best team in the world and one of the Top 5 or 6 of all time (after Madrid, Milan and Juve and possibly after Man U and Liverpool… but probably ahead of Ajax and Bayern).But the question is not an absolute question… it is a question framed in context and relativity.



Could they nail a deal the last moment after the Chinese pulled out that did justice to the Barca brand? Remember any brand making a 10 million or more investment would want a multi-year deal. Did Barca have time to strike a deal like Samsung and Chelsea, or Madrid’s Semen’s deal that made a statement that here we are… the biggest and best club in the world with the best deal in history like Chelsea and Madrid did? Or would they be forced to accept a cut, diluting the value and locking the opportunity for 3 years. I work in the business and have reasonable friends in football. The consensus in the trade is the answer to that is simple… once the Chinese walked there was no way that Barca could have cut a deal that did it justice in that timeframe.



As for Unicef, let me see Laporta’s options:

Option 1: You finally agree to sell your values and tradition but then your suitor ditches you at the last moment. So you’re forced to go back to your tradition of no logo (or even a logo of your Club Website). Except it feels less like tradition and values and more like a jilted bride who everyone is laughing at.

Option 2: You put Unicef on your logo (for free), milk the PR, talk about how you are More Than a Club, and continue to build the unique, almost mythical Barca brand.



Which option would you choose?

One thing I will never deny is Laporta’s smarts. He is passionate, modern and intelligent and to my mind one of the best G-14 presidents out there. He pulled a rabbit out of the hat and you have to give him credit. But within the next 2 seasons, Barca will have a logo on their shirt, socios or no socios, and I am happy to bet serious money on that.



By the way, I have great respect for Barca’s no logo policy… the romantic in me feels it would be a pity if that disappears too.

Bobby's reply

believe what you want, dude. my information came from published reports (at the time) that laporta was forced to do a volte face after a revolt by the 'socios.' if you prefer to think ft's version is "fact" and the rest are "myth," that's no skin off my nose.

but purely for argument's sake, can you explain how putting unicef on the shirt amounts to "face-saving" for laporta?

if the chinese deal wasn't good enough (and if we are actually to believe the champions of spain and europe, and employers of the world's most popular footballer would have difficulty lining up another sponsor with deep pockets), laporta could simply have gone back to the slogan-free shirt -- retaining the prestige that comes with that.

or he could have followed the real madrid example of a few years ago, when their shirt advertized the club's website: that would have brought some benefit to the barca (more eyeballs for the website) without seeming crassly commercial.

despite having these perfectly acceptable and face-saving options, he specifically picked unicef. you don't want to give the guy credit for that -- that's fine. but how do you conclude that his choice was made on dodgy grounds?

and why exactly would laporta need to save face? the guy had just presided over barca's european triumph, its second successive domestic championship and the warm glow of ronaldinho's superstardom. madrid may fire coaches with that sort of record, but at barca we tend to genuflect before such success.

as i have said before, barca will one day bow to commercial logic (helped by the fact that catalan nationalism is not as virulent as it used to be) and sell its shirt space. until then, we will retain our bragging rights.

meanwhile, you and i seem to be in agreement about the quality of capello's madrid. who would have thought!

Guardian incl. Sid Lowe's claims about Barca and Madrid being Beauty and the Beast

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-6250667,00.html

Good article except for the line perpetuating the latest myth of Barca not wanting sponsorships on their shirt and having Unicef. Bobby, still no reply to my mail with the links from the Financial Times about how the Chinese backed out of the sponsorship deal rather than the Club? Until I see some proof, the facts (as far as I am concerned) remain that Laporta got his knickers in a twist about the size of the Chinese deal, announced it prematurely, the Chinese backed out and with no time to find a sponsorship that befits the club's stature, the Unicef logo was a good face-saving strategy.

I agree by the way with Sid Lowe (who by the way is rabidly anti-Madrid in the opinion of most Madrid supporters, unlike someone like Phil Ball)... the Valencia performance was dire. But the team showed just the sort of winning mentality that promises a good season. We had scored 1 goal in Valencia in 4 years, had won once this decade. They were unbeaten at home in 13 months. They had 9 wins and a draw this season. They held Barca at the Camp Nou. And while they were blighted by injuries, we were also missing Ronaldo, Beckham, Helguera, Guti, Cicinho and Cannavaro (2nd half). Despite that they fought and got a result which is the sign of a tough team... one that can win when the playing badly in difficult circumstances. I am certain that no Madrid team in the last 4 years would have scored a win, and this is what gives the fans hope.

As for whether this means we are an ugly team... yes sometimes we are (Getafe, Valencia, Lyon first leg). But as the team gets better we are also seeing some really good performances (Lyon 2nd leg 2nd half, Racing Santander). And I'm sure that anyone who saw the Villareal game (at home and without Riquelme) would agree that Barca looked pretty crap until the dodgy first goal... and it's only then that their play took wings. Iniesta by the way has been spectacular this season.