Not much, I’m afraid: only £6m cash denominated in Euros. Hedging contracts very low too.— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) October 4, 2016 really interesting. Surprised a club so conservative didnt hedge on the Euro getting strong. Im sure @The Jitty Slitter jitty and others can do a better job explaining why they did or didnt do it.
Accounts are from end of May. Possible the club made some changes over the summer. Brexit vote was in June. But you're right, it is surprising how little the club hedged. Possible tax consequences?
The main takeaway I had from it is the fcuking absurd amount of money United have. They have been an absolute trash fire for three years and they have just an insane amount of money. City are one thing, they have a bunch of crooked oil money, but United can spend 100m every year and it means nothing to them. I'm hoping that, eventually, if they continue to miss out on silverware that they won't be super wealthy.
If they miss out on the CL again, they take a huge financial hit in terms of both the Adidas and the Chevy sponsorship deals, IIRC.
despite our commercial deals now being below market rate a year or so after they were signed. Lets all be honest with ourselves, Gazidis sucks.
As if I needed another reason to root against Mourinho. If you're right, that would probably explain the 200m+ they spent this last summer.
Exactly What does he even do to justify such a huge salary? The only growth in the business is basically growth directly from the broadcasting deal, or indirectly from it (i.e sponsorships where value is linked to broadcasting reach).
it's more the damage to the brand if they spend a 4th year as an irrelevant team Its also why they acquired two genuine 'superstars"
United is biggest club in UK, 2nd or 3rd biggest in the world (Barca give or take, behind Real Madrid). long before Fergie was manager this was the case, and they always will make money. I for one don't begrudge, we're a big club, United are simply bigger. When they were shit under Big Ron or Dochety many years ago, they still used to get the highest average attendances.
Utd have 100m extra EBITDA / 150m cashflow to spend every single year compared to Arsenal That is getting towards 50% again of Arsenal's entire revenue In relative terms Arsenal are like BvB compared to Bayern Arsena's revenue growth is pathetic IMO But as I have said before, I don't think there is any strategic value in the Arsenal brand. It's just part of the EPL product offering.
Hedging currency is expensive and the whole AFC business is essentially operated in £ so why hedge. Like many they probably did not foresee Brexit and the huge drop in the £ either. But in the end, it does not impact them that much. Yes transfers from europe will be more expensive - but as the currency loss is suffered by all EPL teams equally, so the market will be overall down.
lol.....what do you expect? United is a bigger club, second only to Real Madrid in world terms. It's not a fair comparison. Our revenue growth has been pretty good compared to other clubs, we're ahead of Chelsea now, and City only have the Qatar gang to bolster them commercially.
Compared to City, Chelsea, it is. In the world rankings, we've all been in similar places for the past 5 years.
Commercial revenue growth hasn't been the best. This is less about Gazidis than the realities of the marketplace. Arsenal need to win stuff to grow revenue the way the likes of United have. The Emirates deal is up for renewal in 2018, right?
but we have grown. and in proportion to other big English clubs it's not that much. i just disagree that we've been stagnant or haven't grown.
City have grown bigger, although they had to from a lower space. Look at where we are compared to Chelsea and Liverpool in commercial revenue Then remember that Chelsea are going to blow by us in commercial revenue when their new Nike deal kicks in in 2018. Its grown a lot in that time frame, but when you compare it to what other clubs have done, we are behind and about to be blown away. Gazidis had his chance a few years ago and blew it. Arsenal has to win on the field, we know that. But Gazidis is basically a wasteman.
PSG's commercial deals are so bogus, its just crying to get audited...with criminal charges brought forward afterwards
I genuinely don't know the answer to this--are City's different? I was under the impression they partake in the same practices
Tis what I thought too. Prince's comment about Gazidis is (a little) wrong, IMO: the commercial revenues were low for so many years because the club signed very long sponsorships with Emirates and Nike to ensure cash flows for the stadium. In hindsight, that wasn't the best move for the club, but those deals were signed long before Gazidis got to the club.
It's inexcusable that Liverpool get more commercial revenue than us. Keep in mind that while Chelsea's Nike deal kicks in in 2018, our Puma deal ends in 2019, and the Emirates deal is up in 2018.
Commercial deals can be reviewed, the problem is what is the incentive for any sponsor to renegotiate when the club is operating from a position of weakness?