Top 50 Most Valuable Club Brands

He wants the teams valuated without the tv money, not without the tv deal altogether.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

I don't get it. Without TV Money the only thing that changes is exposure... with less exposure Celtic's brand would be weakened, not strengthened. I can't see how an overall global decline in brand value due to minimized exposure would help Celtic's rank at all, I might be missing something though.




You've lost me there.

If you disregarded TV deals as part of brand value Celtic would be much higher in the list, because our TV deal only makes up a tiny amount of our brand compared to the other teams. If TV money did not exist the same would be true, because even if we might be slightly less valuable, the other teams would be far, far less valuable given their dependency on TV.

Where does it say that TV deals are included in the brand value?

I don't see why the individual monitory aspect of each TV deal would be included in the brand value. It's more to do with exposure I'd expect.

Laurencio wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:


If you disregarded TV deals as part of brand value Celtic would be much higher in the list, because our TV deal only makes up a tiny amount of our brand compared to the other teams. If TV money did not exist the same would be true, because even if we might be slightly less valuable, the other teams would be far, far less valuable given their dependency on TV.

Where does it say that TV deals are included in the brand value?

It doesn't say how it's calculated but you just said that TV was vital to Celtic's brand, so by your own logic it would be part of the calculation. Do you now agree that if you disregarded or took away TV deals from everyone Celtic would be in a far better position relative to the other teams?

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Where does it say that TV deals are included in the brand value?

It doesn't say how it's calculated but you just said that TV was vital to Celtic's brand, so by your own logic it would be part of the calculation. Do you now agree that if you disregarded or took away TV money from everyone Celtic would be in a far better position relative to the other teams?

I said that exposure was important for a brand value. That without the global exposure that TV gives, the Celtic brand would be weaker as well. TV is only important in terms of exposure, nothing more.

No I do not. Celtic has the 24th strongest Brand in football, and the 37th most valuable, it seems fairly accurate to be fair.

The Bat-Man wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

The Bat-Man wrote:

I think he meant if you take away TV money from everyone and they would be much higher.

But they wouldn't, they would be much lower. In terms of Brand Value TV money is only good for exposure. Without TV Money there is no international exposure, therefore the brand value would drastically decline for everyone, including Celtic.

The thing he's pointing out that Celtic are there with a lot less TV money than anyone else, if EVERYONE had no TV money they would be a lot higher in that table because they don't rely on TV money as much as others.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Laurencio wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

It doesn't say how it's calculated but you just said that TV was vital to Celtic's brand, so by your own logic it would be part of the calculation. Do you now agree that if you disregarded or took away TV money from everyone Celtic would be in a far better position relative to the other teams?

I said that exposure was important for a brand value. That without the global exposure that TV gives, the Celtic brand would be weaker as well. TV is only important in terms of exposure, nothing more.

No I do not. Celtic has the 24th strongest Brand in football, and the 37th most valuable, it seems fairly accurate to be fair.

OK, let's just assume it's about exposure and not money. Even then, the TV exposure Celtic get is much, much less than premiership teams. So if you strip away TV exposure and then compare how valuable a brand Celtic have I can guarantee you we would be ahead of the likes of Fulham.

Zzonked wrote:

The Bat-Man wrote:

The thing he's pointing out that Celtic are there with a lot less TV money than anyone else, if EVERYONE had no TV money they would be a lot higher in that table because they don't rely on TV money as much as others.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Yes, but it shows how big a club Celtic are in their own right without having to rely on TV exposure.

West Ham are doing well, higher than Valencia and PSG.

All I said was I don't think it's an accurate representation of who has a bigger brand, the list is dominated by money. We have a stronger brand than clubs like Fulham and Sunderland, even with their Premier League exposure. The only reason they are on there is because of the television money they get. I don't think if you play in a rich league it makes you a bigger brand. If you took television money out of the equation, Celtic would be a lot higher up

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

I said that exposure was important for a brand value. That without the global exposure that TV gives, the Celtic brand would be weaker as well. TV is only important in terms of exposure, nothing more.

No I do not. Celtic has the 24th strongest Brand in football, and the 37th most valuable, it seems fairly accurate to be fair.

OK, let's just assume it's about exposure and not money. Even then, the TV exposure Celtic get is much, much less than premiership teams. So if you strip away TV exposure and then compare how valuable a brand Celtic have I can guarantee you we would be ahead of the likes of Fulham.

Who's to say. We don't really know how any club would look without exposure, but it's safe to assume that the less exposure, the less value. I have no idea how the ranking would look like without that, but I suspect the SPL wouldn't be the first target of overseas fans with next to no way of following the team. If Celtic was in the Premiership however then it's fairly obvious Celtic would trump any of the 26 brands below them.

According to that ranking Celtic is the 24th strongest brand in football (BBBB+), while Fulham has the 48th strongest (BB-). I personally don't see how that's inaccurate.

Henrik's Tongue wrote:All I said was I don't think it's an accurate representation of who has a bigger brand, the list is dominated by money. We have a stronger brand than clubs like Fulham and Sunderland, even with their Premier League exposure. The only reason they are on there is because of the television money they get. I don't think if you play in a rich league it makes you a bigger brand. If you took television money out of the equation, Celtic would be a lot higher up

No it's not, it's because of the exposure the premiership gets. If you took television money out of the equation there's a number of things that may or may not have happened, but none of them removes the influence of the Premiership on the rankings.

Laurencio wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

OK, let's just assume it's about exposure and not money. Even then, the TV exposure Celtic get is much, much less than premiership teams. So if you strip away TV exposure and then compare how valuable a brand Celtic have I can guarantee you we would be ahead of the likes of Fulham.

Who's to say. We don't really know how any club would look without exposure, but it's safe to assume that the less exposure, the less value. I have no idea how the ranking would look like without that, but I suspect the SPL wouldn't be the first target of overseas fans with next to no way of following the team. If Celtic was in the Premiership however then it's fairly obvious Celtic would trump any of the 26 brands below them.

According to that ranking Celtic is the 24th strongest brand in football (BBBB+), while Fulham has the 48th strongest (BB-). I personally don't see how that's inaccurate.

Henrik's Tongue wrote:All I said was I don't think it's an accurate representation of who has a bigger brand, the list is dominated by money. We have a stronger brand than clubs like Fulham and Sunderland, even with their Premier League exposure. The only reason they are on there is because of the television money they get. I don't think if you play in a rich league it makes you a bigger brand. If you took television money out of the equation, Celtic would be a lot higher up

No it's not, it's because of the exposure the premiership gets. If you took television money out of the equation there's a number of things that may or may not have happened, but none of them removes the influence of the Premiership on the rankings.

They have factored in the premiership TV deal's level of exposure and that is the one and only reason that Sunderland and Fulham are ahead of us. I was going by the overall ranking, not the strongest brand when I made the Fulham comparison.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Who's to say. We don't really know how any club would look without exposure, but it's safe to assume that the less exposure, the less value. I have no idea how the ranking would look like without that, but I suspect the SPL wouldn't be the first target of overseas fans with next to no way of following the team. If Celtic was in the Premiership however then it's fairly obvious Celtic would trump any of the 26 brands below them.

According to that ranking Celtic is the 24th strongest brand in football (BBBB+), while Fulham has the 48th strongest (BB-). I personally don't see how that's inaccurate.



No it's not, it's because of the exposure the premiership gets. If you took television money out of the equation there's a number of things that may or may not have happened, but none of them removes the influence of the Premiership on the rankings.

They have factored in the premiership TV deal's level of exposure and that is the one and only reason that Sunderland and Fulham are ahead of us. I was going by the overall ranking, not the strongest brand when I made the Fulham comparison.

Has nothing to do with TV deal money, it has to do with the fact that they play in the premiership, which evidently has a huge impact on marketability, and have certain marketable players which have increased their revenue and market share.

Laurencio wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

They have factored in the premiership TV deal's level of exposure and that is the one and only reason that Sunderland and Fulham are ahead of us. I was going by the overall ranking, not the strongest brand when I made the Fulham comparison.

Has nothing to do with TV deal money, it has to do with the fact that they play in the premiership, which evidently has a huge impact on marketability, and have certain marketable players which have increased their revenue and market share.

I just said that TV exposure was the one and only reason. Where are you getting the idea that I'm talking about money from?

The reason that we are a less valuable brand but a stronger brand than Fulham is because of the TV deal - I don't know whether that involves both money and exposure, but either way the reason is the TV deal.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Has nothing to do with TV deal money, it has to do with the fact that they play in the premiership, which evidently has a huge impact on marketability, and have certain marketable players which have increased their revenue and market share.

I just said that TV exposure was the one and only reason. Where are you getting the idea that I'm talking about money from?

The reason that we are a less valuable brand but a stronger brand than Fulham is because of the TV deal - I don't know whether that involves both money and exposure, but either way the reason is the TV deal.

Because the original argument I disagreed with was talking about how TV Revenue was the whole reason for Celtic being further down the rankings, maybe?

It's because of the Premiership's international appeal compared to the SPL, but I'm sure Television exposure has something to do with it, yes.

Laurencio wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

I just said that TV exposure was the one and only reason. Where are you getting the idea that I'm talking about money from?

The reason that we are a less valuable brand but a stronger brand than Fulham is because of the TV deal - I don't know whether that involves both money and exposure, but either way the reason is the TV deal.

Because the original argument I disagreed with was talking about how TV Revenue was the whole reason for Celtic being further down the rankings, maybe?

It's because of the Premiership's international appeal compared to the SPL, but I'm sure Television exposure has something to do with it, yes.

I was talking about the TV deal as a whole - I don't know whether the investigation factored in the TV deal's money as well as its exposure. The fact that Celtic are a stronger but less valuable brand suggests to me that it did, but I don't know. Either way, I was talking about the deal as a whole.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

Because the original argument I disagreed with was talking about how TV Revenue was the whole reason for Celtic being further down the rankings, maybe?

It's because of the Premiership's international appeal compared to the SPL, but I'm sure Television exposure has something to do with it, yes.

I was talking about the TV deal as a whole - I don't know whether the investigation factored in the TV deal's money as well as its exposure. The fact that Celtic are a stronger but less valuable brand suggests to me that it did, but I don't know. Either way, I was talking about the deal as a whole.

It factored in all levels of revenue, for every club, as well as risk analysis (Celtic's SPL dominance makes them near risk free for instance), cost and revenue prognosis, brand exposure, marketability, the lot. To not do that would be utterly retarded. If you were to disregard the TV deals completely, which is impossible by the nature of market exposure, then we have absolutely no idea how anyone would end up. Where would Celtic be with no exposure what so ever? Who the hell knows? It's an impossible scenario.

Laurencio wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

I was talking about the TV deal as a whole - I don't know whether the investigation factored in the TV deal's money as well as its exposure. The fact that Celtic are a stronger but less valuable brand suggests to me that it did, but I don't know. Either way, I was talking about the deal as a whole.

It factored in all levels of revenue, for every club, as well as risk analysis (Celtic's SPL dominance makes them near risk free for instance), cost and revenue prognosis, brand exposure, marketability, the lot. To not do that would be utterly retarded. If you were to disregard the TV deals completely, which is impossible by the nature of market exposure, then we have absolutely no idea how anyone would end up. Where would Celtic be with no exposure what so ever? Who the hell knows? It's an impossible scenario.

Yes, I know they factored in all of that. I'm just not clear on what aspects of the TV deal they factored in - you for instance seem to deny that it factors in TV money, only exposure.

I'm not talking about a theoretical scenario where TV exposure doesn't exist. I'm saying that if the investigation ignored TV exposure Celtic would be further up the list. I'm not saying they should ignore TV exposure, but it shows that Celtic are a very big club because we are less dependent on TV exposure than Fulham to maintain our global brand.

I don't mean to be patronising and you speak English brilliantly for a second language but please make sure you've not misinterpreted my point again, I hope I've made myself clear this time.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

It factored in all levels of revenue, for every club, as well as risk analysis (Celtic's SPL dominance makes them near risk free for instance), cost and revenue prognosis, brand exposure, marketability, the lot. To not do that would be utterly retarded. If you were to disregard the TV deals completely, which is impossible by the nature of market exposure, then we have absolutely no idea how anyone would end up. Where would Celtic be with no exposure what so ever? Who the hell knows? It's an impossible scenario.

Yes, I know they factored in all of that. I'm just not clear on what aspects of the TV deal they factored in - you for instance seem to deny that it factors in TV money, only exposure.

I'm not talking about a theoretical scenario where TV exposure doesn't exist. I'm saying that if the investigation ignored TV exposure Celtic would be further up the list. I'm not saying they should ignore TV exposure, but it shows that Celtic are a very big club because we are less dependent on TV exposure than Fulham to maintain our global brand.

I don't mean to be patronising and you speak English brilliantly for a second language but please make sure you've not misinterpreted my point again, I hope I've made myself clear this time.

I don't deny that TV deal revenue was involved, in terms of overall revenue it would have to be, if you look at revenue then the TV deal would be factored in for obvious reasons, but for it to have played a vital role which somehow heavily impacted Celtic's rating. That is in my opinion utter nonsense.

It can't ignore TV exposure, it's impossible, and as a result of that being impossible we don't know how the ranking would look like without the greater concept of the TV deals. How would Celtic's market exposure be without TV exposure from European competitions and the rather limited, but very much influential, SPL TV exposure? How would it be without the Asian exposure? During Nakamura's time at Celtic you had millions of Japanese who took note and watched Celtic games religiously, that arguably would have had a large influence on any brand value, exposure and even brand strength.

No it doesn't show that. It shows that Celtic is very much a powerful and strong brand in football, one of the top 25 actually. It shows that the Premiership is an highly influential force in terms of marketing, and it shows that Fulham, a long with most English teams in the top division, have benefited greatly from the Premiership's influence, as illustrated by the market value of several Premiership teams' brands.

In terms of dependency there's simply no way to accurately measure that. If Fulham were in Celtic's position, if Fulham regularly played in top European competitions and were part of a dominant force in a, no disrespect, smaller league, who is to say Fulham wouldn't have a strong brand as well? What we can see is that at the moment Celtic is a very strong brand, and Fulham is a relatively weak one, but with considerable financial value.

Laurencio wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Yes, I know they factored in all of that. I'm just not clear on what aspects of the TV deal they factored in - you for instance seem to deny that it factors in TV money, only exposure.

I'm not talking about a theoretical scenario where TV exposure doesn't exist. I'm saying that if the investigation ignored TV exposure Celtic would be further up the list. I'm not saying they should ignore TV exposure, but it shows that Celtic are a very big club because we are less dependent on TV exposure than Fulham to maintain our global brand.

I don't mean to be patronising and you speak English brilliantly for a second language but please make sure you've not misinterpreted my point again, I hope I've made myself clear this time.

I don't deny that TV deal revenue was involved, in terms of overall revenue it would have to be, if you look at revenue then the TV deal would be factored in for obvious reasons, but for it to have played a vital role which somehow heavily impacted Celtic's rating. That is in my opinion utter nonsense.

It can't ignore TV exposure, it's impossible, and as a result of that being impossible we don't know how the ranking would look like without the greater concept of the TV deals. How would Celtic's market exposure be without TV exposure from European competitions and the rather limited, but very much influential, SPL TV exposure? How would it be without the Asian exposure? During Nakamura's time at Celtic you had millions of Japanese who took note and watched Celtic games religiously, that arguably would have had a large influence on any brand value, exposure and even brand strength.

No it doesn't show that. It shows that Celtic is very much a powerful and strong brand in football, one of the top 25 actually. It shows that the Premiership is an highly influential force in terms of marketing, and it shows that Fulham, a long with most English teams in the top division, have benefited greatly from the Premiership's influence, as illustrated by the market value of several Premiership teams' brands.

In terms of dependency there's simply no way to accurately measure that. If Fulham were in Celtic's position, if Fulham regularly played in top European competitions and were part of a dominant force in a, no disrespect, smaller league, who is to say Fulham wouldn't have a strong brand as well? What we can see is that at the moment Celtic is a very strong brand, and Fulham is a relatively weak one, but with considerable financial value.

Assuming it is factored in, I think revenue from the TV deals does play a vital role.

I'm not saying the investigation should discount TV exposure; I'm just saying that if it did Celtic would be higher up in the list, which shows that we are a big club less dependent on TV exposure than other clubs.

'No it doesn't show that?' So you agree that it shows we are a powerful and strong brand but you don't think it shows we are a big club? Surely the fact that we are less reliant on TV exposure shows that we are a very big club with a massive global brand?

Chelsea and Arsenal are a bigger more valuable clubs than Liverpool.

U mirin'

Ajax at 14 is great, considering where the club is now at least, with much less money from TV and sponsors than any club around the club gets. Looks like the Championship(s) did a bit for the brand, a jump from 74m to 184m and A+ rating.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Laurencio wrote:

I don't deny that TV deal revenue was involved, in terms of overall revenue it would have to be, if you look at revenue then the TV deal would be factored in for obvious reasons, but for it to have played a vital role which somehow heavily impacted Celtic's rating. That is in my opinion utter nonsense.

It can't ignore TV exposure, it's impossible, and as a result of that being impossible we don't know how the ranking would look like without the greater concept of the TV deals. How would Celtic's market exposure be without TV exposure from European competitions and the rather limited, but very much influential, SPL TV exposure? How would it be without the Asian exposure? During Nakamura's time at Celtic you had millions of Japanese who took note and watched Celtic games religiously, that arguably would have had a large influence on any brand value, exposure and even brand strength.

No it doesn't show that. It shows that Celtic is very much a powerful and strong brand in football, one of the top 25 actually. It shows that the Premiership is an highly influential force in terms of marketing, and it shows that Fulham, a long with most English teams in the top division, have benefited greatly from the Premiership's influence, as illustrated by the market value of several Premiership teams' brands.

In terms of dependency there's simply no way to accurately measure that. If Fulham were in Celtic's position, if Fulham regularly played in top European competitions and were part of a dominant force in a, no disrespect, smaller league, who is to say Fulham wouldn't have a strong brand as well? What we can see is that at the moment Celtic is a very strong brand, and Fulham is a relatively weak one, but with considerable financial value.

Assuming it is factored in, I think revenue from the TV deals does play a vital role.

I'm not saying the investigation should discount TV exposure; I'm just saying that if it did Celtic would be higher up in the list, which shows that we are a big club less dependent on TV exposure than other clubs.

'No it doesn't show that?' So you agree that it shows we are a powerful and strong brand but you don't think it shows we are a big club? Surely the fact that we are less reliant on TV exposure shows that we are a very big club with a massive global brand?

I know that's what you are saying, but I disagree with the assumption as I don't see how you could make that conclusion with the data available. I can see no direct correlation between dependency on TV exposure and the results presented in this ranking. Please explain how these results in any way prove, show or even indicate that you are less reliant on TV exposure?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not arguing that Celtic is a small club and a poor brand, not at all. However I can't see how you can make the conclusions and assumptions you are making based on the data presented.

I don't get it, Seattle Sounders are worth more than Atletico Madrid? Atletico get better tv rights, have a bigger fan base and have more money... wtf

Celtic are only up there because the drunk American teenagers who justify their disgusting addiction with their "0.1% Irish blood" buy the merchandise so that they look like leprechauns.

can someone explain Villa to me?

Laurencio wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Assuming it is factored in, I think revenue from the TV deals does play a vital role.

I'm not saying the investigation should discount TV exposure; I'm just saying that if it did Celtic would be higher up in the list, which shows that we are a big club less dependent on TV exposure than other clubs.

'No it doesn't show that?' So you agree that it shows we are a powerful and strong brand but you don't think it shows we are a big club? Surely the fact that we are less reliant on TV exposure shows that we are a very big club with a massive global brand?

I know that's what you are saying, but I disagree with the assumption as I don't see how you could make that conclusion with the data available. I can see no direct correlation between dependency on TV exposure and the results presented in this ranking. Please explain how these results in any way prove, show or even indicate that you are less reliant on TV exposure?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not arguing that Celtic is a small club and a poor brand, not at all. However I can't see how you can make the conclusions and assumptions you are making based on the data presented.

If you agree that TV exposure is important for a club's brand it is logical to say that when a team like Celtic with next to no exposure gets on the list they must have a very strong brand in other ways. That's my final word on the matter.

What a pointless argument. Who cares where your club could be IF you were playing in the Premier League?

ahlycotc wrote:What a pointless argument. Who cares where your club could be IF you were playing in the Premier League?

That's not the argument dickhead.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:What a pointless argument. Who cares where your club could be IF you were playing in the Premier League?

That's not the argument dickhead.

It pretty much is. You are saying if you disregard TV money (which is another way of saying your club would be better off if it had the same money playing in the PL). Reputation isn't an arbitrary thing. It's earned. There is a reason more people watch, support, and pour their money in PL clubs over SPL clubs.

So yeah, Celtic would have a better brand if they were playing in the PL. But what's your point?

ahlycotc wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

That's not the argument dickhead.

It pretty much is. You are saying if you disregard TV money (which is another way of saying your club would be better off if it had the same money playing in the PL). Reputation isn't an arbitrary thing. It's earned. There is a reason more people watch, support, and pour their money in PL clubs over SPL clubs.

So yeah, Celtic would have a better brand if they were playing in the PL. But what's your point?

You fucking idiot, I never once mentioned a theoretical scenario where Celtic are in the premiership. I said that we still managed to finish above most premiership clubs without needing the TV exposure they get, showing how big a club Celtic are. If karma existed a masked man would smash in your front door right now and brutally rape you for your ignorance and insolence. Don't even bother to justify your shite, shite comment because I won't respond.