I mean, I guess, but it's the growth since then that's in question. Making huge percentage gains on those deals when they came up was mandatory and expected because of the nature of those deals (i.e. they were structured to trade ultimate value for money up front). If other clubs have been able to make similar or larger gains relative to their already higher starting points, which they have, then it demands questions, no?
Perhaps, but (United aside) it really becomes a function of when those deals were negotiated. If Liverpool's shirt and kit sponsorships are more lucrative than ours and were negotiated/signed before ours, then that would reflect poorly on Arsenal. But if those deals were negotiated two years after, then assigning any kind of blame becomes a much trickier proposition. I'm using Liverpool as an example because, frankly, Arsenal should be pulling in substantially more in commercial revenue than Liverpool.
Our deal with Puma was signed in January of 2014 Liverpool's deal with New Balance was signed February of 2015. Gazidis sucks
How much is that deal actually worth? It's not clear (and it was more an extension of Liverpool's existing deal with Warrior). Better criticism, IMO, is that Liverpool signed a 25m/year deal with Warrior in 2012, and the Puma deal is worth 30m/year.
Hopefully we win some worthwhile shit and that pushes the value of the next deal up? Emirates and puma are relatively poor deals compared to rivals
There is no additional value in these deals. They just track inflation (i.e. the TV deals) Utd on the other hand made out like bandits on Adidas who are pursuing one strategic relationship per league.
City's deals have turned out to be undervalued. The Idea that they are bogus is not accurate IMO Abu Dhabi is in the habit of buying premium strategic assets and is regarded in the hospitality and tourism sector as a savvy investor. The concept with city was to acquire a foundation property in the entertainment/sports space on to which related companies could piggy back. They got City dirt cheap, "renovated it" and now they are laughing.
City's deals are undervalued? This needs an explanation, Jitty. A rather detailed one, I'm afraid. When they're pulling in 75% more than the likes of Arsenal/Chelsea/Liverpool, and all that money is from non-arms length transactions, it doesn't look like its overvalued at all.
City's Kit deal and Shirt sponsorship with Etihad Airways and Nike are nothing to write home about - indeed they are way below market e.g. http://mcfcsupportersclub.co.uk/manchester-city-sponsorship-by-the-numbers http://www.totalsportek.com/football/premier-league-shirt-sponsorship-deals/
They weren't undervalued at the time they were signed - the Etihad deal was a ten year arrangement signed in 2011. I still question how City could manage a 75% increase over their peers, especially with their wide-ranging arrangement with Abu Dhabi, and not have it be overvalued.
so then why should we moan, if others have advantages due to size (Man United) or access to big foreign bucks (City/Chelsea)? Liverpool have an organic model like we do, and they could rival us financially if Klopp gets them really good. Or even dare I say it Tottenham since Levy has the same model.
Saw we extended our Emirates kit sponsorship, but not seeing any figures to say how much we are making to assess if we are on par with other top Prem clubs sponsorship deals.... https://www.arsenal.com/news/emirates-and-arsenal-sign-record-deal
Arsenal's new Emirates deal is worth around £40m a year until 2024. Similar to Chelsea's as second highest in PL after Man Utd on £47m. Spurs and City are around £35m and L'pool deal, which is up next year, is about £30m.— Jeremy Wilson (@JWTelegraph) February 19, 2018
It's a truly terrible deal. It makes me think they are considering kicking Wenger out this summer, because they are wasting whatever leverage they had to get it done ASAP before there's other turmoil at the club
I suspect it just reveals these kind of deals have plateaued for now There's no obvious audience growth unlike a few years ago with the global rights boom There is no real reason to think Arsenal's deal should be worth much different to liverpool and chelsea I guess Liverpools replacement deal will be very similar
Interesting that the Arse deal got within 15% of the Chevy deal - derided at the time for being wildly OTT It's also the same as the Yokohama deal - but without ability to have separate training kit sponsor I don't really see how this is a bad deal given Arsenal is not one of the elite clubs like Utd, Bayern, Barca or Real
Because Spurs, Liverpool, and Chelsea will be able to renegotiate their deals in a few seasons and will probably blow us out the water.
Depends on how much inflation there is in sponsorship revenue. The money is less an issue than the number of years on the deal, IMO. Should have looked for 4 year deal instead. Also depends on how the deal is affected by CL revenue.
If it's the same as the Yokohama deal without a separate training kit sponsor, it's not the same as the Yokohama deal, is it. That's another 10-15 mil that got written off as part of this deal We'll see. I suspect they will be higher. If they aren't, don't call it a bubble tho
But that is always the case - as the deals age, the value looks worse. But Arsenal haven't achieved any mega step because there hasn't been any significant growth in the TV reach that powers the sponsorship. Instead Arse try to get that max rev by linking the shirt deal to the stadium naming deal. I think fans have just come to expect these deals should jump up by 10s of millions each year but why should they? Where else can disty go now globalisation has been achieved?
I'm mostly in agreement--but you don't want to be the first club that demonstrates this slowing-down unless you think really bad shit is afoot either for your club or the larger market.
Dinner w/ my fam earlier tonight. And not surprisingly the convo turned to our dear President and his "qualities". I said "you know his youngest son Barron is (or was?) an Arsenal fan" Then the first disturbing thought came over me... the father could have some sort of contact with our club... any old contact would be bad. And then a truly disturbing thought hit me hard... he could buy the club as a gift for his son. I instinctively reached for comforting thoughts like: He doesn't have that much money to buy off Kroenke... or does he? Stan wouldn't sell to him... or would he? Even if Stan wanted to, the board could block him somehow... but could they? What a scary, sobering day dream that was!