Under armour is the Kit supplier,
But why in football do football clubs make money from their shirt deals, i.e utd?

Appreciate that it isn't on the same scale but surely to get your brand noticed and associated with a sport they should be giving stuff to you?

Not saying not paying them was right just a thought

I wonder if it is anything to do with the poor quality of off field items, I know it is a gripe most seasons but this years stock is dire. When you see the quality of some of the stuff UA sell it is appalling, not one decent golf/polo shirt, a baseball cap or t shirt with the club logo and UA branding.

There was a real chance this season to get some gear that kids and people away from the hard core of support might have wanted to buy.

The CCJ could simply be the result of a dispute between the club and UA. For that matter for all we know so could the other CCJ's.

icon_smile.gificon_smile.gificon_smile.gif

There's often sponsorship and a franchising agreement in higher sports deals where clubs make money out of it. It just wouldn't be worthwhile for anyone to do something similar at Salford. I doubt any RL club has something like that.

My reading of the CCJs is that Marwan doesn't like paying his bills in the timescales the suppliers set. 'Better in my bank than yours' approach. If he pushes the suppliers for longer gaps between invoice and payment and the supplier doesn't accept it then a CCJS is the way to force his hand. Not uncommon but not the best way to do business. Big companies like supermarkets can set the terms for when smaller suppliers get paid and the suppliers just have to suck it up providing the supermarket pays when it should. Not sure Salford are in a strong enough position to force their hand in that way yet and big suppliers (like UA) will have standard procedures for their smaller contracts like ours