the only problem i see with etihad is they sponsor the league but you can't fly with etihad because they don't even connect to the majority of the cities that mls clubs are in. sure etihad is in JFK or LGA (forgot which one) but you want to fly to kansas city? etihad doesn't fly there...you want to fly to salt lake city? etihad doesn't fly there so its like whats the point of even having them as "official airline of MLS" if they don't even have hubs in half of the cities that teams play in?
Could Melbourne City's Shirt Sponsor Hint At Ours?
- Thread starter Buckley
- Start date
Yes but what's the rate of domestic (and international) expansion likely to be? Etihad probably won't ever fly to as many destinations as a budget airline. They don't exactly offer a cheap service LOL.
I don't see why those behind Etihad haven't started a lower budget airline yet. In many cases they are more popular. Perhaps they prefer the prestige and greater exclusivity of Etihad considering it was created by royal decree.
Still for anyone who cares Abu Dhabi is looking at lower cost carriers...
http://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/abu-dhabi-ready-for-a-low-cost-carrier-1.1287029
Last edited:
I'm not disagreeing with it simply clarifying his response.
I'd like Etihad a hell of a lot more than Pepsi or coke.
Honestly, if I wore a jersey with coke or Pepsi on it.... Wait I wouldn't. It's kind of laughable.
Etihad looks sharp on my City shirts. Coke or Pepsi would look more like a Coke or Pepsi jersey than a NYCFC. Because their brand literally carries that much weight.
Etihad would be the perfect fit because at least they're synonymous with CFG and thus NYCFC.
I think most US sponsors would look more like a jersey of the sponsor than of NYCFC because in the US brands carry so much weight.
Just look at new MUFC kits... All I see is Chevrolet and thus comes off tacky to me.
Another thing. Lettering is much better than a picture logo. Chevrolet just sticks out while Etihad blends nicely into the design.
I'd like Etihad a hell of a lot more than Pepsi or coke.
Honestly, if I wore a jersey with coke or Pepsi on it.... Wait I wouldn't. It's kind of laughable.
Etihad looks sharp on my City shirts. Coke or Pepsi would look more like a Coke or Pepsi jersey than a NYCFC. Because their brand literally carries that much weight.
Etihad would be the perfect fit because at least they're synonymous with CFG and thus NYCFC.
I think most US sponsors would look more like a jersey of the sponsor than of NYCFC because in the US brands carry so much weight.
Just look at new MUFC kits... All I see is Chevrolet and thus comes off tacky to me.
Another thing. Lettering is much better than a picture logo. Chevrolet just sticks out while Etihad blends nicely into the design.
I'm not saying I don't want Pepsi or coke because I drink one or the other I just think a jersey with a multicolored and off colored logo at that would look stupid and I'd be embarrassed to be seen in public with it, thus wouldn't buy it. Also the MLS is still fairly new to people in the states (certainly more exposure brought to it by the WC but still see empty stadiums) and the last thing you want is a sponsor that takes the attention away from the team badge.
Can't seriously tell me the Chevrolet logo looks good on the new MUFC kits. It's out of place and loud. I get that's the point of the sponsorship, for the sponsor to be seen but as a supporter it's very tacky and slightly embarrassing to walk around with an off color seemingly glued on logo on your chest.
Etihad looks good, standard chartered looks good, Samsung, AON (old MUFC), but fat glued on pictures on a kit don't look clean and that's clearly what CFG is going for.
They WANT a certain style of play (hence Kreis spending time with city) and they obviously want a certain look across all divisions as well.
Can't seriously tell me the Chevrolet logo looks good on the new MUFC kits. It's out of place and loud. I get that's the point of the sponsorship, for the sponsor to be seen but as a supporter it's very tacky and slightly embarrassing to walk around with an off color seemingly glued on logo on your chest.
Etihad looks good, standard chartered looks good, Samsung, AON (old MUFC), but fat glued on pictures on a kit don't look clean and that's clearly what CFG is going for.
They WANT a certain style of play (hence Kreis spending time with city) and they obviously want a certain look across all divisions as well.
At the end of the day, after ten minutes into the first pre-season game, who is even going to notice the sponsor on the shirt? If the sponsor thinks it makes them money then great. After that, all I ask is that the sponsor logo is not an eyesore. After that, I'll just stop thinking about it and I'll forget that the shirt even has a sponsor logo.
It's all down to personal opinion of course so I can see other's arguments but from my perspective, I will be extremely disappointed if it's Etihad. One of the main hindrance's to me coming along with NYCFC at the beginning was the fear that this would simply be a Branded Investment for CFG and the Yankees. Piggy-backing on MCFC's sponsorship deal (which no matter how they spin is exactly what is happening) with Sheik's company send's the wrong message to me.
This, among other things I have seen since May, is starting to make me feel relieved that I only committed $30 to this club, it's still very cheap and easy to back out if I don't start seeing what I was hoping to see.
This, among other things I have seen since May, is starting to make me feel relieved that I only committed $30 to this club, it's still very cheap and easy to back out if I don't start seeing what I was hoping to see.
Last edited:
I hear what you're saying but it's up to us to make this OUR team, a shirt sponsor shouldn't define our identity.
What is wrong with Etihad....
With due respect, you, like us (Man City) and every other CFG team, are just that a City Football Group Team... If the group line is Etihad, then you probably get Etihad.
You are just another club (like all clubs are) in the group, from the owners point of view, like it or not, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Man City fans are grateful to the Sheikh, he virtually rescued us. The fact he has raised us above any of our expectations he would get away with putting pretty much anything on the shirt.
New York is a new team, and you guys have hopes and expectations (that is good), but you are (at the end of the day) part of the group, and if the owner decides the value is getting the whole group sponsored by a single sponsor it is wholly his call.
With due respect, you, like us (Man City) and every other CFG team, are just that a City Football Group Team... If the group line is Etihad, then you probably get Etihad.
You are just another club (like all clubs are) in the group, from the owners point of view, like it or not, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Man City fans are grateful to the Sheikh, he virtually rescued us. The fact he has raised us above any of our expectations he would get away with putting pretty much anything on the shirt.
New York is a new team, and you guys have hopes and expectations (that is good), but you are (at the end of the day) part of the group, and if the owner decides the value is getting the whole group sponsored by a single sponsor it is wholly his call.
It might. Depends on if Etihad is happy with just being a league sponsor or not.
Have to think they're favorites but not necessarily a slam dunk.
Have to think they're favorites but not necessarily a slam dunk.
Squeeze me? What?
Etihad is a standalone company and the Sheikh has nothing to do with it, save that a relative runs it.
This would be akin to a cousin of yours owning a Mom & Pop store and you suggesting that you own it.
All Children have an independent identity but there parents ensure that they all tow the family line.
You will have an identity in America but it will be the same within the group the world over. Look at McDonald's and subway. Some discreet local differences in the menu but same branding worldwide. Separate identity does not mean renegade
Etihad is owned by the Abu Dhabi government.. Is Sheikh Mansour part of that government? No, he ain´t, Etihad is not even counted as a related party to him in IAS24.
Sheikh Mansour is part of the federal UAE government though, but they got nothing to do with airlines..
Sheikh Mansour is part of the federal UAE government though, but they got nothing to do with airlines..
Similar threads
