'Kit deal blunder'

Well from what it sounds like, we dodged a bullet.

Or perhaps no one knows, or no one is in a position to answer your question? Or perhaps, as is not uncommon with these 'heard a rumour' questions, there's no question to be answered and someone's just got their information mixed up.

Might I suggest that if you hear a rumour that concerns you, a better course of action might be to drop the club an email about it? If you don't get a response or you're not satisfied with the one you get, by all means bring it up on here, but at least give the club a chance to answer. I'm all for asking questions but the way some people air the rumours they've heard on here is not terribly helpful or fair.

Having read various posts over the years regarding the Puma kit deal it is now time to elaborate on it and hopefully dispel a few myths along the way.

As the Joma kit deal entered its second year I was asked to look at it and obtain tenders from Joma and others in time for our third season. In addition negotiations were ongoing with MBNA to extend their partnership and initially it looked like they wouldn't be continuing due to internal reasons at the company.

In the negotiations one issue they brought up was of the poor legibility of their logo on the blue and white striped shirts as the black print did not stand out. 

Returning to the kit various meetings took place and five tenders were put to the Board, these were from Joma, Puma ( a 2 year option and a 4 year option), Macron and an Australian company. These tenders included unit price for the shirt, unit prices for all the training and leisurewear and value of 'gift of kit' - productt received 'free of charge' mainly for use by the players and back room staff.

Following the Board Meeting it was resolved to meet again with Joma and Puma to continue negotiations and two revised deals were put back to the Board and it was agreed to sign with Puma on the four year option.

Whilst not going into exact figures the bespoke shirt offer from Puma was cheaper than the 'off the shelf' offer from Joma, in fact it was cheaper than the original Joma deal from 2010. The bespoke shirt would also allow the MBNA logo to be clearly visible on the shirt and thankfully an agreement was made with MBNA to not only renew but double their investment.

A further meeting was held with Puma where they brought samples of their products and those who attended, including directors, shop volunteers, office volunteers and back room staff all agreed the quality was excellent.

Part of the contract was that we were committed to purchasing 2,600 shirts in each two year period. Figures supplied prior to negotiations showed that we had sold 2,300 shirts in the initial two seasons. Joma could only supply shirts from 6 years old to XL and took all the online sales paying a small commission to the Club and by the end of their deal were unable to supply any home shirts as they had stopped being produced in favour of a new design.

The Puma deal saw shirts available from 3 months to 5XL plus the Club would deal with online sales so an extra 150 sales per year was deemed to be achievable. One potential issue was the re-order process given the shirt was a bespoke design. It was possible to re-order, bespoke shirts were ordered for the Youth and Ladies team thanks to sponsorship deals with QHP, Swettenhams and Colin Murray. 

However, the price per unit would increase substantially and subsequently the profit margin would reduce. Although the cost per unit of the original order was less than the Joma price from 2010 it was agreed to increase the retail price thereby increasing revenue for the Club.

Towards the end of my time at the Club the above deal was renegotiated by new members of the Board as the 1300 shirts per season was felt to be too high. 

I think the biggest mistake was ordering too many ladies and long-sleeved shirts, an option that at the time was thought to be an advantage as, with the increased spectrum of sizes, it allowed us to cater for a wide range of supporters.

I can't comment on why the Puma deal was extended after its four year lifespan but assuming the Club followed the tender process and with both an Operstional Board and a full Board in place would imagine there were discussions before putting pen to paper and, assuming there was no change in Puma's operational procedures, the contract had to be signed by a director not a member of staff.

In conclusion I enjoyed the majority of my time at the Club, I try to keep up to date with its progress and I hope all fans, CFU members or not, will work together for the betterment of Chrster FC

Pat Cluskey

Am happy to clarify where I can.

I cannot comment on what happened at the end of the four years only that the initial contract had to be signed by a director and was fully discussed by the Board who each received a spreadsheet detailing each tender. 

As for the numbers and sizes, the initial order was based on volume of sales, 2,300, and the relevant sizes from the first two years of trading plus additional numbers for toddlers kits and 2XL to 5XL and potential online orders which initially were not administered by the Club. With 2,300 sales in years 1 and 2 of the Club I don't think, given the wider variety of sizes that were on offer an additional 300 sales was unachievable.