Of course i'm not asking you to do it for me
Yeah the exchange thread isn't up yet so just thought i'd ask you before hand.
Got mine for 305 for both the cup ties but stepdad can't get any which sucks.
The Banter Thread
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
- Status
Of course i'm not asking you to do it for me
Yeah the exchange thread isn't up yet so just thought i'd ask you before hand.
Got mine for 305 for both the cup ties but stepdad can't get any which sucks.
We're into our 2nd year of a 4 year deal with Standard Chartered worth £81m.
I'm guessing that you mean our kit manufacture deal though. In which case we're in our last year of a £12m per year deal with Adidas and have agreed a £25m per year deal with an American company called Warrior (a subsidiary of New Balance) to take over from next year. As well as more than doubling what we'll be getting, the deal with Warrior is only for our shirts and training gear. Adidas's £12m got them the rights to all our clothing type merchandise.
Adidas said our demands were unrealistic (Warrior disagreed) and they wouldn't meet them. The comments from them are nothing more than sour grapes though. Although we sold slightly less shirts than Real, in terms of overall merchandise, we are Adidas's biggest seller.
It's not confirmed but supposedly Adidas did match the £25m on offer at the last minute but not our demands to retain control of non-football merchandise.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 7,275
- Location
- Leeds
Think that's a bit of a mistake atm (Without seeing what Warrior produce) purely on the basis, Adidas have made you some really nice gear imo
Not to mention the widespread marketing.
We're going to be Warrior's first (and I think) and only football team. Hopefully we'll have a far bigger input into the design of our kits.
Some of the Adidas kits were nice but generally they were identical to all other Adidas teams but in a different colour.
Some of the Adidas kits were nice but generally they were identical to all other Adidas teams but in a different colour.
That's the only draw back with Warrior, although they're the ones taking the risk, not ourselves. As I mentioned, they're a subsidiary of New Balance so aren't a small time manufacturer however their distribution channels won't be anything like Adidas's.
There are some potential advantages from being with a smaller company though. Unlike with Adidas, where we were one of many major clubs tied to them, we're the jewel in Warrior's crown; all their marketing will be focused on us alone, not a collection of clubs. Also, their poorer links to retailers may lead to a greater % of sales being made through offical club stores which effectively pays us twice.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yeah but that doesn't compare with our roughly combined 10mil a year deal for Stadium name AND shirt deal, so probably 5 mil for the shirt deal..... epic deal is.... fail.
http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/blog...-better-than-arsenals-kit-deal?urn=sow-wp4291
So supposedly Utd are getting 20mil a year for main shirt sponsor and 10mil a year for the TRAINING kit, and Arsenal are getting 5mil a year....... for our main shirt sponsor.
Though slight light at the end of the tunnel is if its only 8 years and started in 2006, we should have a huge chance for more income in 2 more years.
But that was low for the time we signed it, when were still really competitive..... and we locked ourselves into a stupid long term deal when everyone else was going bigger every year with a new deal. We should have been making, maybe not Utd money but, 10-15mil a year minimum, with another 5-6m for training and stuff, every year for the past 6 years. That's over 100mil we signed away for no reason at all, shockingly poor business alongside of some other very very solid business Arsenal were doing at the same time.
Whoever signed that deal seriously needs a kicking.
DM you're mixing up shirt sponsorship deals and kit manufacturing deals. The Warrior deal is to manufacture our kits. Arsenal's deal with Nike is worth just under £8m per year.
As for your general complaining about your shirt and stadium deal with Emirates. In isolation when you look at the £6m per year you're getting for your shirt sponsorship (and a further £2.8m per year for the stadium) it's embarrassing. You're getting half of what Spurs are earning, let alone the likes of Utd and Liverpool. You can't look at it like that though. Emirates front loaded their deal which was crucial to building your new stadium. How long would the stadium have been delayed without that injection of cash? How much would have any delay in moving to the new stadium cost you in lost gate receipts? How much more would have the stadium cost to build if it was delayed by 1,2 or 3 years?
Just looking at that last question. When Liverpool were looking to build our new ground in 2003, it was supposed to cost us around £80m. A year later and they were talking about £120m and now it's £300m+.
As for your general complaining about your shirt and stadium deal with Emirates. In isolation when you look at the £6m per year you're getting for your shirt sponsorship (and a further £2.8m per year for the stadium) it's embarrassing. You're getting half of what Spurs are earning, let alone the likes of Utd and Liverpool. You can't look at it like that though. Emirates front loaded their deal which was crucial to building your new stadium. How long would the stadium have been delayed without that injection of cash? How much would have any delay in moving to the new stadium cost you in lost gate receipts? How much more would have the stadium cost to build if it was delayed by 1,2 or 3 years?
Just looking at that last question. When Liverpool were looking to build our new ground in 2003, it was supposed to cost us around £80m. A year later and they were talking about £120m and now it's £300m+.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I know that, however its STILL a bad deal, just because we supposedly got a lot upfront(I'm not sure I've seen confirmation) we borrowed WAY before the financial crisis(seriously every time I ruddy type that its crysis first time now 
) and banks were handing out money like candy, we got a huge part of it in loan and even back then had many super rich owners who would have thought not much of putting more money in. They only borrowed as much as they did because, it was a good interest rate and the stadium income once built would pay off the debt, the interest AND leave more left over than we had before. They could have dumped their own money in and made it back quicker and lost less in interest but there wasn't really any need.
The funding was there, the backing was there, the loans were easy to get and the upside of a much bigger stadium was...... massive. There wasn't ever any NEED to have that money upfront.
The interest on borrowing an extra 100mil would likely be noticeably LESS than the money we lost by getting such a crap deal......... and that just makes it bad in every single which way. Basically back then, it was like getting a student loan, you could get one easily, at an interest rate that made more sense to borrow than not.
The property deal has made back WAY over the cost of the stadium which has all gone into the boards pockets and we're still left with a stadium with massively higher income than previously. Basically they borrowed money because there wasn't a lot of reason not to at that time. Now, they could still do it in a heartbeat by putting the money together themselves. Rich people/property developers generally prefer to put as little money down and have a stonking loan where the end property pays off the loan, interest and a little extra even though financially you're better off using your own money and making a bigger profit at the end, its just the way business get's done.
I don't think there is even the slightest chance that without the stadium money it wouldn't have been built and done exactly as was.
) and banks were handing out money like candy, we got a huge part of it in loan and even back then had many super rich owners who would have thought not much of putting more money in. They only borrowed as much as they did because, it was a good interest rate and the stadium income once built would pay off the debt, the interest AND leave more left over than we had before. They could have dumped their own money in and made it back quicker and lost less in interest but there wasn't really any need.The funding was there, the backing was there, the loans were easy to get and the upside of a much bigger stadium was...... massive. There wasn't ever any NEED to have that money upfront.
The interest on borrowing an extra 100mil would likely be noticeably LESS than the money we lost by getting such a crap deal......... and that just makes it bad in every single which way. Basically back then, it was like getting a student loan, you could get one easily, at an interest rate that made more sense to borrow than not.
The property deal has made back WAY over the cost of the stadium which has all gone into the boards pockets and we're still left with a stadium with massively higher income than previously. Basically they borrowed money because there wasn't a lot of reason not to at that time. Now, they could still do it in a heartbeat by putting the money together themselves. Rich people/property developers generally prefer to put as little money down and have a stonking loan where the end property pays off the loan, interest and a little extra even though financially you're better off using your own money and making a bigger profit at the end, its just the way business get's done.
I don't think there is even the slightest chance that without the stadium money it wouldn't have been built and done exactly as was.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
hehe, it was likely never in a million years going to cost 80mil, probably just sounded better to potential Liverpool buyers "buy the club and we've kinda got plans for a 80mil stadium that will make you 8 bajillion quid a year once built, how good is that, all for a one time low low price of....."
But they also likely realised the difference between Highbury, a stadium without anything else, and Emirates, a stadium with restaurants, a massive executive focus, many more facilities, offices, conference facilities and the long term profit that can generate.
Thing is Arsenal, embarrassingly, had an X-factor auditions thing there one year(every year, no idea), have people come in for the conference rooms, have rich people not only pay 3 times as much for a basic seat, but sell them an overpriced meal, and 5 overpriced drinks, etc, etc, etc, but because its all "in the stadium" it all counts as income and profit on Arsenal.
You can build a bog standard stadium with basic stands and no facilities underneath, for very cheap still, building a stadium that is also a business centre costs 2-3 times as much, but increases income dramatically.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,241
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
DM, arsenal are rubbish. face it. we are cheapskates that cant even outspend spurs and we offer crap salary for world class players. rvp on 100k lol what a joke when he should be double that
Ah, of course. We lost at the weekend, so you're back at the other end of the scale, are you?
Tell me when you think we should sack Wenger again.
- Status