Arsenal News
Arsenal News & Transfers
As featured on NewsNow: Arsenal newsArsenal News 24/7

Arsenal News, Only Arsenal, Blogs, Transfer News

Archives

October 2017
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

600 percent increase in Arsenal sponsorship deal

Tony Attwood

We have been talking about it for a long time – but now it has started.  The first of the new commercial sponsorship deals is in, and it shows a 600 percent increase on the previous deal.

Of course there will be some supporters that will argue that the increase is not enough – and there will be others that will argue that the figure of a 600 percent increase is only there because the original deal was so low.  (The original deal included a high level of front loading, so that cash was made available to Arsenal in order to reduce the debt owing on the stadium building).

Obviously everyone can take their own view, but the fact is that in one move Arsenal have just increased their income quite considerably.

The new deal covers shirt and stadium sponsorship with Emirates, and clocks in at £30m a season – against a £5m a season deal before.

No matter what one’s views this does represent a considerable increase on the original deal.  The deal is in place to 2018/9

As part of the new package, Emirates will continue with naming rights on the  Ashburton Grove ground until 2028.

Ivan Gazidis, said he believes the move shows the club’s intent to “keep at the top of the game in England and Europe.   This agreement is a testimony to Arsenal’s approach and to the capabilities we have developed in recent years as well as the strength of our partnership with Emirates,” he said. “The original deal with Emirates was a key facilitator of our move from Highbury and this next phase of our relationship will be just as critical to keep us at the top of the game in England and Europe.

“The fact this partnership will continue for many years to come underlines how much both organisations value and benefit from the relationship.”

The chairman and chief executive of Emirates Airline and group, His Highness Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum, added: “Arsenal’s strong appeal around the globe and ambitious approach to the game parallel our own approach to business, making them a valuable partner for our brand.”

——————————–

The books…

The sites…

———————-

 

88 comments to 600 percent increase in Arsenal sponsorship deal

  • Valentin

    I am on the side of those that this is a very bad deal.
    30 millions for shirt and stadium naming right is an incredibly low value for the world wide exposure a club like Arsenal will generate.
    If a club like Liverpool can get 20 millions per year just for a shirt deal and Manchester United gets 70 millions if you include training and live kits sponsorship (I know that that deal has been signed under a cloud) per year. Arsenal who are in the champion’s league should get something closer to 40 millions per year. Somebody reported that Barcelona will receive 100 millions Euro per year by their new Qatar sponsorship deal.
    40 millions per year is already more than what Gazidis negotiated with stadium naming right thrown for free on top.
    I want a more detailed description of the deal decomposed to a much mower level.

    Regarding the spending 30 millions extra on Arsenal budget will just be added to our wage bill.
    30 millions: 5 milliomillions for 1 new player.
    1 extra players paid x time x Salary: 100K x 50 weeks x over 5 years (recommended contract length)
    Nothing to shout on it,
    Anybody signing with will have to be made aware of the club’s situation.

  • Brickfields Gunners

    WOO HOO ! Game on !The long wait is over and as the money comes in we can again reinvest and compete with the other clubs with sugar daddies !
    Just rewards for the faithful and patient fans who were praying for this new horizon.
    Reminded me of this ‘devout’ and ‘unselfish ‘young lady , who would daily pray to God thus ,” Dear God ,I seek nothing for myself ,but please bless my parents with a handsome and rich son-in-law !”
    I too went aaww , like most of you !

  • jake

    goody.
    in the words of bugs bunny “thats all folks”

  • Maverick

    I am kinda with Valentin TBH, when you read that 30m extra it is like WOOOOOOOOW awesome, but when you read that there are a lot of things thrown in with that deal it isnt as great as i would have hoped……….50m yes but 30m in comparision to what smaller clubs will get when they renew (we are locked in at this level for another 5 years) its a bit Meh!! I mean when even the spuds renew their shirt deals they will likely get more than this just for the shirt deal and nothing extra…….i know the puds will always be in our shadows but it seems we are constantly cheapening ourselves in order to keep relationships and in a way they are taking advantage of us…….i reckon the emirates airline are making probably at least 10x that a year off us, so even 50m should have been achieveable!!

  • jake

    the boot deal is also up for renewal soon

    http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/10/08/real-madrid-and-barca-earn-most-from-kit-deals-united-and-liverpool-closing-in-081002/

    I got this link from The AFC forum.

    It would seem Valentin’s numbers are a bit out if the above link is accurate

  • Ong Bing

    Good news, good news, maybe some people said that sum is not good enough.

    I still believe, we are in the good track.

  • Maverick

    oh BTW i am not a person to put a down on things an extra 30m YAYAYAYAY i just feel that a club of Arsenals stature should have pushed for a bit more because i feel that deal was too good for Emirates and we should have bargained a bit harder, even if it was just for an extra 5-10m a season…….but i suppose the next deal in 5 years will be even better and we have the kit supplier also to renew so things are quite rosy.

    oh BTW just off the top of my mind, does this mean that the rumour about Cavani to Arsenal might have some legs because we have spare money before this deal in our transfer fund and now an extra 30m on top…..a lot of places are saying that for Cavani 30-35m would be accepted for him because Napoli need the money and apparently Lavezzi is only on 65-70k and they feel Cavani would be happy with 90-100k and doesnt care about the money he cares about the quality of the team and the quality of football and wants badly to play in the champions league!!

  • Andrei

    So why nobody is complaining about oil money supporting Arsenal 🙂
    On a more serious note I’m wondering what kind of incentives and performance guarantees are included in the deal. E.g. if qualifying for CL every year for duration of the deal enough to keep the contract valid?

  • WalterBroeckx

    According to the Swiss Ramble it is not a bad deal at all.

  • Maverick

    @walter, i don’t know if you know anything about transfers, but do you think what i wrote above about Cavani is a possibility?

  • Maverick

    do you have the link of the swiss ramble article i find their articles quite insightful

  • WalterBroeckx

    According to a very reliable source (Spa Bruis) the deal was originally worth more than the double. Much more even

    But then Emirates said: we cant link ourselves to a club with a stadium full of bin bags. We give you 100M less.

    And then Emirates said: if you read all those blogs Arsenal is the worst club in the world. We cannot link ourselves to the worst club in the world. We give you 100M less.

    And then Emirates said: if you see all that moaning you have the worst manager in the world and the worst player in the world. We cannot link ourselves to those. We give you 100M less.

    And so it ended at 150M for 5 years. And not the first proposed 450M.

    The financial revenue will rise that is a fact. Not enough? Just send your CV to Arsenal and tell them how you would make better deals. I’m sure they are interested

  • americangooner

    well this is a great deal. 600% better than the deal we had. I dont understand why some still moan about this deal. maybe they think they are a better deal-breaker than IG. Or that they think they have some higher intelligence on mathematics. even that douche swiss ramble sees this deal as excellent job. furthermore the nike deal is slowly expiring so we might still improve on the finances.

  • WalterBroeckx

    Maverick,
    he said it on twitter. copy below read from bottom to top :

    Also, there should be a similar uplift when Arsenal renegotiate Nike kit supplier deal with Adidas strongly rumoured to be replacement.
    Expand
    44m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    So, an impressive deal, though question is how good it will look in a few years time when other leading clubs renegotiate their deals.
    Expand
    44m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    The deal could also be worth more if team is successful, as bonus payments for success likely to be included in contract.
    Expand
    44m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    Either way, this is higher than every other club with the exception of Manchester United’s Chevrolet deal (£45m).
    Expand
    45m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    If naming rights extension effectively worth nothing, due to “stickiness” of Emirates name, then shirt sponsorship worth £30m a year.
    Expand
    45m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    That would leave £130m for shirt sponsorship (+ training kit), so £26m a year, compared to current £5.5m.
    Expand
    45m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    If that is unchanged, then that would be worth around £20m of new deal (7 years x £2.8m).
    Expand
    45m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    Likelihood is naming rights element of deal is worth very little. Current £90m deal includes £42m for naming rights, so only £2.8m a year.
    Expand
    45m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    This represents a significant improvement over current deal: £90m for 8 years shirt sponsorship plus 15 years stadium naming rights.
    Expand
    46m Swiss Ramble Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble

    New deal covers 5-year extension in shirt sponsorship from 2014 to 2019 plus 7-year extension in stadium naming rights from 2021 to 2028.

  • Maverick

    @walter is that last comment seriously the truth or just a sorta quipp to say how negativity truly does effect these sort of deals because lets face it we all know if any negativity is placed on a brand the value decreases.

  • WalterBroeckx

    off topic but on Swiss ramble. he has been sick for a while and that is why he was a bit off the radar. Still will need an operation apparently so not fully match fit as he told hismelf 😉

  • WalterBroeckx

    Maverick,

    I was just having a laugh to be honest but I do wonder if there might be any truth in to it….

  • Maverick

    lol @walter, but the silly thing about it is, even though it was a sort of tongue in cheek thing, those things could really actually happen……it could be that if the atmosphere was better and arsenal were being treated better they would pay more because as a brand you want to be associated with happiness so any negative crap does knock down negotiations.

  • Lew1234

    Not a bad deal at all, could have been better of course for example taking out the Training kit sponsorship and selling that separately (maybe £5-8m ish) but not much to complain about. The breakdown seems to £28m for the Shirt/Training gear and £2m for the Stadium naming rights.
    But unfortunately still leaves us at least £25m per year behind Utd’s shirt deals (£45M from Chevrolet and £10m from DHL [which Utd have bought out from the 2013/14 season as they believe they can can get more]).
    Still a step in the right direction, now onto the Nike deal and secondary sponsorship’s.

  • Brickfields Gunners

    Oooo Walter , nice , well swatted ! For a moment I thought I ‘d read Tony article wrongly and was cheering at a wake !
    We are getting more money ,aren’t we ? We will be going forward won’t we ?
    I’d also like to second Walter proposal ,and ask all you financial wizz -kids to apply to AFC to double our money !Did you lot study at the ‘Arry’s school of Economics ?

  • Maverick

    @Brickfields Gunners

    ‘Arry’s school of Economics’ I think that consists of a dog doing the actual accounts and looking at everything that competitors are doing and saying ‘i was going to do that’ ‘we were going to sign this’ and then of course finishing the sentence with ‘triffic’ with the odd ‘i am NOT A WHEELER DEALER i am a ****ING MANAGER’

    absolute quality!!

  • WalterBroeckx

    For those moaning I will repeat the most important words of the swiss ramble: “Either way, this is higher than every other club with the exception of Manchester United’s Chevrolet deal (£45m).”

  • americangooner

    can’t understand how a completely bailed out company came up with a deal of 45m with MANUre. surely it must have been some sort of incompetency from chevrolet. but still having the 2nd best deal is something to cheer about.
    and by the way, Liverpool, poor it might be performing, have sizeable following in Asia.

  • Strus

    This is very good deal. Previous one was at 5,5 mln p .a.
    Other top teams shirt sponsorship per year:
    Spurs ~12,5mln
    Chelsea ~14mln
    MC 20 mln
    Liverpool 20mln
    MU ~44mln(new deal)

    Arsenal current deal for statium namng rights were worth 2,8 mln/year, so lets assume new deal is about 25 mln for years 2022-2028
    That means the new shirt sponsorship deal is worth 25 mln p.a.
    Level of Bayern, Barcelona, Madrid.

  • Maverick

    @americangooner, if i have heard rightly you are correct…….they tried to back out of the deal and i heard that the person that signed the deal did so without the people knowing higher up and has been sacked. I can’t remember where i read about it but i swear i did unless i was dreaming, but the company and people in america in general were disgusted by the deal because as you say, they were bailed out then only a small time later they are signing HUGE deals worth insane amounts of money when they were begging for money just a little while earlier.

  • Wooby

    In the context of the world economy, getting £30M / year is not bad. Is our club “worth” more? Perhaps. But before we go crying that this is a bad deal, we would have to know which other company were in the running and the price these companies were willing to pay.

    We had to take the ManUre deal as a one-off that is simply not going to happen again. americangooner + Maverick, the GM exec who negotiated the deal with ManUre apparently did get fired: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/general-motors-exec-who-agreed-1218826

    Given the backlash/incredulity that followed the GM deal, I would not be surprised to see many an executive hold back from proposing a mega sponsorship deal with a sports franchise.

  • Sammy The Snake

    That good news and seems a fair price considering the going rate for shirt sponsorships, and it seems in line with the level of on-pitch success achieved by Gunners in the past few years.

    Some talk about negotiating extra 5-10 Mil as if it’s small change and Emirates is blind & deaf at the same time. Let’s remember Emirates are sponsoring the most number of clubs in Europe (Arsenal, PSG, AC Milan, Hamburg, and a few more…).

    Chevy deal with ManU seems fishy, and it would be their only sponsorship in EU.

    My faith in Ivan restored, a certain degree.

  • Chowdhury

    “Arsenal fans, the only people could get laid by Angelina Jolie and complain that it wasn’t a threesome with Scarlett Johansson.” — ‏@arseblog

  • Charlie

    We all know that the previous deal was a monkey on Arsenals’ back for various reasons and as the team that hasn’t won anything for 8 years the new deal aint bad. Highbury was iconic, Arsenal needed to move on because Highbury was too small but i’ll always love that ground. A friend of mine played there in the reserve league for Oxford United and said it was incredible. Marble everywhere and a marble changing room with heated floors was exceptional back in the day and facing Paul Merson, even when Merson was hungover, was something he’ll never forget. He admitted that Merson ran rings around him. The Emirates will never be the same but it’s necessary and the name doesn’t really matter. Let’s just embrace this, move on and realise that this benefits our club very much.

  • Charlie

    I should probably mention that as a teenager I used to see Arsenal from the Directors Box almost every week and that might be why I miss that place. Now i’m living outside the country and I can’t get tickets. Highbury was and always will be a special place to me.

  • Notoverthehill

    Walter the trouble with The Swiss Ramble is, that he cannot add or subtract!

    For TSR, with €12 millions in the bank, spend €12 millions, hey presto!, still €1 million in the bank! I could point to others, in the same little table.

    For The Arsenal, TSR used the TransferLeague to give The Arsenal a transfer cash pile of £47 millions from the sale of players registrations, since moving to The Emirates. The actual figure from the Financial Reports is about £10 millions more, spent on players.

    IF TSR worked at Highbury House, the auditors would be asking TSR what as happened to £57 millions? Where is it?

  • John

    Some good news NB we cant get what Utd get cos they are much more successful and thats what sponsorship is linked to.

    This together with the new adidas shirt deal well help the Gunners cover the football loss they are currently making thus avoiding having to sell their best players to report a profit.

    With a bit of luck we could save some money off the wages which is very high considering we dont pay top dollar and bring in transfer funds by getting rid

    Squllaci
    Bendther
    Chamakh
    Denilson
    Park

    I doubt very much the loan clubs are paying all of the wages of the ones that were currently out. It would be safe to say there’s 200K a week being wasted thats 10M a year.

    No point working hard and getting good contracts, charging the fans a fair quack on a ticket then throw money down the drain with stuipd contracts been handed out.

  • Charlie

    You can’t compare the deal with United, Barcelona or Real Madrid. Win trophies and you’ll get the big deals. It’s not bad compared to Chelsea and Man City based on current value Right now it looks good but it’s a long-term deal so how good will it look in 2019 ?

  • Stevie E

    Gotta love all the negative comments, wonder when they last negotiated a £150m contract.

  • Shard

    Charlie

    While winning trophies will help with sponsorships due to increased exposure and the ‘success of the brand’, it’s too simplistic to say that that’s the main reason we can’t get more. There are other things sponsors look for. Such as this

    http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/emirates-crm-data-key-to-150m-arsenal-deal/4004892.article?

    Also, yeah, the deals may not look so great when some other club renews their deals. So what? That’s what happens all the time in business. I think 5 years is a reasonably short length of time for us to gauge the market position again after some other teams renew.

    With this plus the Nike/Adidas deal we should be getting around 30-35m more per year. That can only help us, and hopefully there will also be some secondary deals signed.

  • adam t

    Seems a good deal, most top teams get 20M per year. ManUtd get 11M from DHL for training kits. The sticking point is the stadium naming rights extended for another 7 years from 2021 – 2028. This seems like it was thrown in as a gesture of good will !

  • Shard

    I don’t understand people making such a fuss about the stadium naming rights. Tom Fox, Arsenal’s Head of Marketing, 2 months ago, told us that it won’t bring us much money, if at all. He wouldn’t have said that publicly if they hadn’t already explored the market and found it to be so. In any case, 2021 is still far away, and 7 more years for naming rights for a stadium which won’t be new and flashy at that point, is hardly a major issue.

    Here is what Fox said, ” As for the stadium naming rights, that will be very hard to resell because it will probably always be known as Emirates Stadium now. Or “Ashburton Grove” to those of you that don’t want to call it that!”

    http://news.arseblog.com/2012/09/qa-with-tom-fox-and-mark-gonnella/

  • Stuart

    adam t
    On the kind of flip side to what you are saying, I would argue that the stadium naming rights are not really worth much anyway and we get to re-negotiate the kit deal in 5 years when we can get much more again. Much better than the long term deal we have seen last time round.

  • Stuart

    Added to that, the naming rights are really just a way of getting someone to pay for the general upkeep and utility bills at the stadium.

  • sebas

    People are misunderstanding the deal. What was offered was £150 million for 5 years purely for the shirt sponsorship. The naming rights deal is just a kicker to the kit sponsorship where it has been extended under the same financial terms as what was agreed earlier (£42 million/15 years just under £3 million/year). So looking at the £30 million/year we are to gain, that would be more than barca’s £24 million and only less than man city and man united.

  • Stuart

    sebas,

    That all depends on how you read into this part of the statement:-

    “As part of the deal Arsenal’s home will continue to be known as Emirates Stadium up to 2028”

  • adam t

    You are correct, the naming rights may not be worth much to Arsenal yet, but looking across the pond and with an American head of marketing, we could of been leading the Premiership in this field. Anything may happen in the next 16 years !

    http://247wallst.com/2011/11/30/most-valuable-stadiums-in-america/3/

    Or maybe I am just annoyed because Emirates signed a five year deal and we give them seven years stadium sponsorship lol

  • bjtgooner

    I think this is a very positive move by the club and hopefully the first of a number of new or renewed contracts.

    I suspect a number of the negative comments are emanating from the AAA or supporters of a fat Russian, who want the club to fail; to ease the pathway towards takeover.

  • sebas

    @Stuart
    http://www.arsenal.com/Emiratesnewdeal

    Well according to this article it states very clearly how the £150million is for the shirt sponsorship.

    It isn’t till towards the end of the article until naming rights are even mentioned and not even direct connection to the £150 million.

  • Sav from Australia

    It is quite amusing how people can complain about the new sponsorship. You wonder if they are, A) Indocrinated beyond hope; B) Rather silly people in general; C) Paid to make certain blogs and comments.

    This is a good deal. If Manchester United has a better deal, so what? If anyone who mentions that follows the story, you find the man who made the deal was fired. There is a big mess of corporate shenanigans behind the Man Utd deal, so I do not think it is fair to compare that to a club like Arsenal, which is run in a moral manner.

  • bjtgooner

    @Sav

    You make some good points. Wrt point C above, I have considered the possibility that a certain nuisance sewer rat was in fact a Russian rat – or in the employ of a Russian. It may be a long shot, but a comment in one of his earlier posts made me wonder.

  • Valentin

    Having read the documentation on the deal I stand by my initial point of view that this is a bad deal for Arsenal.
    The naming right got sold for the same exact money than before but it will be front loaded for the next summer. That means that in five years time when that money could be useful it would have been spent on paying off Bentdner, Denilson, Chamakh, Park and other failed players.
    In business Front loaded deals are frowned upon. Why? Because they look like
    ___ either you are desperate for cash and cheapen yourself (in the worst case, you are so desperate that you commit fraud. Google Enron and pre paid swaps),
    ___ or somebody in the management structure wants to look good. Such deal help him/her pretending to bring more revenue that he/she really brings.

    Tom Fox’s preventive excuse that the naming right is worth nothing does not stop that being an extremely bad deal.
    They did not even negotiate to have the stadium renamed The Arsenal Emirates Stadium instead of just the Emirates Stadium. The same way St James Park will always be St James Park, the Emirates Stadium will always be the Emirates Stadium. That is why the naming is worth nothing and will continue to be worth nothing. In contrast, after ten years the Arsenal Emirates Stadium could be renamed the Arsenal China Airways Stadium. For people the stadium would primarily be associated with Arsenal instead of the Emirates air line. That means the Emirates knew they hold all the cards.

    They will also be able to continue using the Arsenal name for a football academy in Dubai. In view of the current legal requirements on non-European footballer to get a work permit, unless Dubai suddenly become a powerhouse in football the Arsenal football club will not get any benefit from that partnership.

    30 millions per year may look good today, but it won’t tomorrow or in two years time. Also it looks like the deal does not include any extra incentive/reward. Why not getting extra cash if Arsenal gets more successful (win the EPL, the FA Cup, the Champion’s league) or gets more positive exposure?

  • Gooner Murphy

    @valentin
    Man get a grip of yourself £30mil per year up to 2018/19 naming rights extended to 2028 do you think ARSENAL will just sit there and not negotiate for more funds when we are approaching 2018 you also conveniently ignore the fact there are other sponsorships available to the club through manufacturing deals for boots kits ect, sometimes people just like to think they are more intellecence than everyone else.

  • Gord

    I think it is wonderful that Arsenal have gotten an increased sponsor deal from Emirate Airlines. Whether it is enough, I have no idea.

    Too many idiots will think that Arsene should be spending 150 million pounds in January. Which is more problems with the idiots who supposedly follow Aresenal, but really just want turmoil. Even the idiots that recognize that 150 million pounds is aggreagate over 5 years, will think that means Arsene should be spending an _ADDITIONAL_ 30 million pounds per year.

    I am willing to see Arsene spend whatever he does.

    But I just see another 2 to 6 weeks of BS in the Arsenal blogs over this supposed HUGE amount of money is what we are going to see.

    Factor in average player salaries, this almost disappears.

  • Adam

    @Andrei, you are right that little fact seems to have passed everyone by. Corporate government again buying in to football and not just with one club. So now Arsenal are linked to horse racing and other football clubs through this sponsorship deal. Stand alone Arsenal; not anymore. So Arsenal get to take £150million from the UAE, Is this oil money or monies generated from the airline? Something tells me the airline is propped up by the natural resources of the UAE which Arsenal are now tapping.

  • Stuart

    Hi Sebas,
    Yes, that link is the same place I got the quote from.

  • ARSENAL 13

    I think its a good deal. Add to it 20-25 mills from the new kit sponsorship deal…..ie a deals worth 50 mills/ year for the kit sponsor ship is not bad. AND the stadium alone will earn around 2.5 mills/ year upto 2028….NOT BAD.

    MY only dissatisfaction is that we lost an opportunity to rename the stadium differently (like ‘the new Highbury park’ or ‘the new ARSENAL stadium’ or….).

  • Sammy The Snake

    Adam, Emirates Airline in owned by the city of Dubai, which has very little oil, and not the UAE. This money is coming from trade related income of Dubai which includes airline income as well.

    Valentin, looks like you know little about business, negotiation or the fact that a deal must be beneficial to both parties. And it looks like you’re just looking for an excuse to moan…

  • rupert cook

    @Adam, I think if you want Arsenal to be successful you have to accept that we’re no different from the City’s of this world. Fans will always be hypocrites, one minute slagging off rich clubs for their dubious wealth and then celebrating when their own club drinks at Mammon’s trough. That’s the modern world and that’s big business. The spirit of Corinthians died many many years ago.

    This deal should ensure there’ll be no more selling of our better players and maybe a slight increase in power in the transfer market.

    If those things don’t happen then questions will be asked.

    I’d offer Gazidis a guarded congratulations.

  • Shard

    Valentin

    “The naming right got sold for the same exact money than before”

    How exactly do you know this? The deal did not provide a breakup of the money under different heads.

    As for front loading deals. It makes perfect sense. The deal starts from the end of next season. Also when we will be getting the kit renewal money. If we get some money in this year, we can also spend in the summer.

    Let’s say Arsenal get 35m of the 150 million in the summer. Added to our cash reserves, we get to spend on players and build the team in Jan and July. All good?

    That leaves 115 of the 150, over 5 years (starting 2014-2015) at an average of 23m per year. Add in the estimated 25 million kit sponsor from then and we’ll be getting a total of 48m per season. Up from a reported 17m we get now.

    So by frontloading, we don’t have to wait two more years to do our shopping. We can do it from this season itself. And we’ll still be getting an additional 30m every year for the next 5 years. At which point, we can renegotiate at current market rates again.

  • Shard

    rupert

    “we’re no different from the City’s of this world.”

    Yeah right. If you really want to go down that route you are essentially saying all money is evil and money should be done away with. We’re being paid by Emirates to sponsor them. We are not being run by Emirates.

  • nicky

    Herbert Chapman & Co would be amazed at the way the business side of their old Club has evolved over the years. Chapman in particular was a great believer in cashing in on the Arsenal name and will no doubt be applauding the way things are progressing.

  • bjtgooner

    @rupert (depressive AAA sewer rat with acne but not a lisp)

    “I think if you want Arsenal to be successful you have to accept that we’re no different from the City’s of this world. Fans will always be hypocrites,”

    What a twit you are, Arsenal are totally different to City in every respect – I think you may be trying to suggest, in your boneheaded dysfunctional way, that we should follow the City model – what happens when the owner tires of his toy?

    Having used many posts to this site to attack the board, manager and team you now start to attack fans by accusing them of hypocrisy. I cannot be sure what nest you have originated from, but you seem to have experienced or absorbed very little integrity or decency from there or elsewhere, consequently you show no respect for our fans or even the fans from other clubs.

  • Adam

    @Sammy, some fine lines Arsenal don’t cross. You are aware of the amount of oil that passes through Dubai? As we use Dubai to refuel our fleets so do the Americans, French. Dubai’s infrastructure and business interests have been built on the back of the oil industry without it you would not have an emirates airline. Granted they have moved away from an oil based industry to a service and tourism industry but that was only possible through oil. Plus whether you like it or not they are an integral part of the UAE with a lot of power within this partnership. The monarchy has the final say over matters in this region and who is head of Emirates airlines?
    Please don’t get me wrong I’m not having a pop just pointing out a different view, after all Britain still supplies the UAE including Dubai with the means to protect itself since we pulled out of the area in 71.
    I understand it is important for Dubai to promote its businesses but to use multiple football clubs to do this, does not sit right with me.

  • Steve

    Looking at other club stadium deals and shirt sponsorship deals it looks like a deal that Arsenal should of made, they could of maybe got another 5 million over the term for the stadium naming rights but it looks as if Arsenal have gone for continuity over changing stadium name.

    In 2014 you can add in the reported Adidas deal and also in 2013 a sponsor to take over from the out going O2 deal. Are the much maligned markiting department coming good for Arsenal after being hampered by the initial deals to build and pay for the new stadium

  • Adam

    @Rupert, Arsenal are still miles away from being a Man city, Man city are like Billionaires living in a council house.
    At least Arsenal has sourced its own income to build for the future. Even without this new deal Arsenal could remain competitive, maybe not winners but competitive, one thing these new deals will highlight is the need for obscene amounts of money within football to become winners, at least in the EPL. All-round it is a loss for the sport.

  • americangooner

    can someone explain to me how celebrating 2nd highest/best financial mega-deal compare with calling on the sugar daddies of the world to gift them trophies. while there is no certainty of sugar daddies staying in the club forever at least the financial deal are there for the duration.

    and by the way EMIRATES also sponsors 3-4 other clubs and they have agreements with FIFA untill 2014. but since FIFA is a corrupt organization they have asked FIFA to be stringent and transparent if they are to be sponsored by emirates. so Emirates to me seems to be a serious enough company . m.washingtonpost.com/sports/dcunited/emirates-airline-gauging-fifa-anti-corruption-moves-public-mood-before-extending-sponsorship/2012/11/23/94861c1c-3593-11e2-92f0-496af208bf23_story.html

    and emirates is also not run through subsidised oil. although owned by government of Dubai, it is run independently by The Emirates Group. it is also devoid of any protectionism from the government.
    mobile1.emirates.com/MobileAboutEmirates/global/english/emirates_story.xhtml

    now tell me how we are hypocrites.

  • Adam

    Independent company with no protection. Just headed up by a member of their royal family with benefits.

  • Shard

    Adam

    Large companies seem to enjoy some form of state protection/benefits anyway. See the bailouts for banks, GM, lobbying by companies within government (including funding candidates) etc.

  • Adam

    @shard, Hello dude.
    For people to state that the Emirates is a seperate entity from the UAE or the Royals of the area is a bit naive the company would not be the succes it is today without the political clout and conections that the royals of the area bring or the backing of the oil industry. anyway im moving away from the issue I was originally trying to make which was Emirates sponsorship of different teams as well as FIFA.
    So now Arsenal are directly linked with AC Milan, Real Madrid, PSG, Hamburger sv, Olympiacos and I think Schalke(not 100% sure about schalke).
    There has to be a better way to run football sponsorship?
    Maybe sponsors should approach the competition organisers dirrectly with the highest bidders getting the high profile matches but with all proceeds split evenly between all teams in the competition?

  • Shard

    Adam

    I agree. I don’t think Emirates can actually be considered a separate entity.

    Although sponsorships with organisers as well as with clubs is something that could lead to a conflict of interest, because they would want the teams they have invested in to do better and would have some pull over UEFA etc. I don’t have a problem with them sponsoring different clubs. What, in your opinion, is wrong with this? I’d like to know. I can’t think of why it is a problem if they also sponsor Milan or Hamburg. It is just a way for them to gain visibility in different markets.

    As regards your idea for tournament sponsorships, isn’t that to an extent what happens anyway? Sponsors bid and then the money is distributed by UEFA among all the participating clubs equally (on the basis of performance) If you are saying they should do a match by match bidding for sponsors and they should ban club sponsorships, I don’t know. It seems overly complicated, and still open to abuse. Maybe I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

  • MK

    Having Emirates as the naming sponsor of the stadium until 2028 will increase the pressure on them to always try to be our shirt sponsor as well.. A long term relationship that will likely mean we will always have at least one serious sponsorship bidder keeping our shirt sponsor price higher than if we were just searching for a sponsor without one already standing by.

    Yes it may seem like we are just giving away the naming rights but I think you can be sure that it is part of a plan to ensure the long term shirt sponsorship money flowing to the club and always having a default option to use when negotiating price increases.

    @americangooner, what is the problem with the Swiss Rambler? Best writer of club footbal finances on the internet bar none i have ever found (including professional journalists).

  • Adam

    @Shard, I do not see the problem with match by match sponsorship, so we can do away with two teams playing each other with the same sponsor on their shirts. Especially within European competition where this is an occurrence and their are feweer games compared with national competitions.
    Anyway Daddy duty calls and I will come back to this later.

  • americangooner

    I don’t think so he minds calling him a “douche” on the internet, that too on a comment section. yay, he is quite a writer. every arsenal fans were waiting for his perspective on the deal. quite a figure he is.

  • MK

    Oh, was just wondering if he’d done something in particular to offend or written something that I hadn’t read as I’d always found him pretty level headed about the club.

  • americangooner

    the distinction I was going to make was that there is a vast difference between sugar daddies coming to a club’s rescue and the club itself being proactive on the business side of the club. like tony & co. have pointed out some clubs are apparently owned by the country e.g. malaga. just because Emirates might have been helped by dubai doesn’t mean arsenal got oil money, like Chel$ki or man $ity.
    judging by some comment’s logic, since Emirates also sponsors FIFA, does it mean FIFA is run by oil money or for that matter is it run by Dubai?

  • Stuart

    americangooner
    Yeah, I too think it’s a bit extreme to compare legitimate sponsorship by a company (whether state owned /founded or not) to clubs funded by spare billions lurking about in someones vault. Remember when Arsenal were sponsored by O2 many moons ago? O2 were originally British Telecom which was also a public company.

  • Stuart

    damn, his post before I finished.

    I was going to go on to say the link is a bit tedious really.

  • Shard

    Adam

    Perhaps match to match sponsorship is workable. But who would negotiate the deals? The clubs involved? Individually? Together? Or the organisers? Or both? WHy would a club like say ManU or Arsenal be willing to share equal revenue from sponsorships with say Norwich?

    But in any case. I don’t see why it’s a problem to have the same company sponsoring several clubs. Can you explain why you think this might be bad for the sport?

  • Adam

    @Shard, Im all about fair competition within football and many other industries, Companies sponsor a tournament or tournament organisers already. Then to sponsor individual clubs within that tournament is not right in my opinion (and that’s all it is, opinion) it seems a bit of a conflict for the tournament organisers which also designate which refs do which games.
    However if the organisers tendered for sponsors before a tournament, including the shirt sponsorship of matches with all proceeds split evenly between all the competitions teams it may even up the playing field a bit and who knows over time we might be able to do away with seeding.
    Example would be the champions league format. Group stages 32 teams you could have 32 sponsors with the highest bidders getting the biggest games by combined index score.
    then on to the knock-out stages with again bidding from 16 sponsors with the game with the highest index score going to them, and so on until the final. Yes teams will have different shirt sponsors from game to game but this could be incorporated into the tournaments rules and it is fair if all monies are distributed evenly between all qualifying teams.
    The way things are set up at the moment nothing is stopping a betting company from sponsoring multiple teams in a competition. I believe some people would take notice of that scenario and call it a conflict of interests, so we need rules in place to cover all eventualities and not be selective about what companies can sponsor multiple teams and who cannot.
    This only seems a problem within European competitions and the only overall problem I see is selling shirts with only Emirates on it although Arsenal could be playing with a different sponsor on the shirt in Europe. But I honestly think that fans don’t care what sponsor is on a shirt.
    Anyway enough of my rambling thoughts.

  • Valentin

    @Shard, I took that the naming right were sold for the same amount than before from Gazidis media interview. At least it seems to suggest there was no increase on that front. There is the possibility that they were sold for less. 🙂
    Regarding the naming, as I explain by not renaming the stadium to “The Arsenal Emirates Stadium”, Gazidis and his team are making life for whoever is in charge of renegotiate that contract virtually impossible. In 2028, not a single sponsor will think that renaming the stadium will work. Exactly the same way St James Park will always be known as St James Park, whatever Mike Ashley does.

    If you still can’t see the problem with front loading in our current situation then I will restate the obvious.
    Buying a player is not just paying the money upfront. You can negotiate to have payments spread over the life of the player intitial contract. That is why Barcelona were still paying us for players who had since left them: Henry, Hleb.
    The real big cost of buying players is the wage. You cannot pay £30 millions for a player and expect him to move for less than £120K/week. £120k/week is more than £6M/year. Over five that is £30 millions. Nobody pays the 5 years wage of a player upfront, so you still have to find £30 millions over 5 years. Going forward, top players will not accept less than £180K/week.
    Once yo give that to a players, you are then force to upgrade most of your team, otherwise they refuse to sign an extension. See Walcott as a case in point who refuses to sign for less than £100k/year. You are then left with the players who know that they are unlikely to get a better deal (financially or sportively). The ones a lot of fan want to get rid off. Mistakes become much more costly.
    People complain about Squillacci and Chamakh, now compare that with Manchester City and Adebayor.
    @steve, before congratulating the commercial team, p,ease remember the following. This the same commercial team who refused to terminate a contract earlier (which they legally could have done) as a goodwill gesture to a sponsor that we ditch the following year anyway. There is doing the thing properly and there being pushed around. I think that on that subject we are being pushed around and taken for a ride.
    Why have we not a sponsor for our training kit like Manchester United had?
    Why no commercial contract do not include clauses for reward when being successful on the pitch?
    Why is there no reward for doing extra commercial activity such as travelling in pre season?
    Why is there no Arsenal TV (highlight in a low resolution Arsenal player that regularly broke down is not my idea of professional TV)?

  • Limpar

    Valentin.
    I gaz explained why we do not offer a separate sponsorship for the training kit, it’s for clarity which has most probably increased the price we got from emirates for this deal any way, so a bit of a pointless point really. It’s not Asia we wouldn’t have looked at that option & potential income if seperated. Christ what do you take our commercial team for ? Complete numbskulls?
    How do you know there are no bonuses for success on the pitch ?
    I find arsenal tv online pretty good, at first it had its problems but now seems pretty reliable

  • Limpar

    Also, travelling in pre season is obviously already a pre requisite in e terms of this deal. So those extra credits are already included. If you watch the press release most of your points are self explanatory.
    Also , why are so many fans neurotic about to ins & outs of such an obviously great deal for the club ?

  • Limpar

    Correction above : most of the ANSWERS to your points are self explanatory

  • Adam

    Getafe/Team Dubai

    Last year, it was announced that La Liga team Getafe had been bought for around E90m by the Royal Emirates Group and would in future be known as Team Dubai. It has since transpired that the REG have more in common with the Portsmouth’s former Arabian owners, than Sheikh Mansour. The funding for the purchase has stalled.

  • Adam

    The above is an extract from this site how true it is I do not know?
    http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/

  • Shard

    Valentin

    I think Arsenal know their own cash flow situation a little better than you and I. I thought I showed (obviously with guesswork) that Arsenal can reasonably expect an extra 30m per year for the years 2014-19 even with the front loading. The bringing forward some payments helps Arsenal get more money in the present and not wait another two years to reap the benefits of the deals. Basically, they have removed any reason for them waiting till 2014 before they increase their spending on wages and in the transfer market. We should be happy about this.

    Also, though I hadn’t seen or read the Gazidis interviews at the time, I still think he didn’t really say that the deal was on the same terms. He hinted at something like it but didn’t clarify it.

    Yeah, the Arsenal Emirates Stadium would have been good for us but will it be good for Emirates? Would they be willing to pay for that? A deal has to be good for both parties. And remember, the existing deal still ran till 2021. They could have just refused to include that part of the deal and pay less. I think this sort of nit picking is pointless. Bottom line is that this is a good deal for us, and puts us on the path to better finances, which in turn should lead to better output on the pitch.

  • rupert cook

    @ Adam, I think you get my point. I’m not saying we are the same as City with financial clout, I’m saying that we’ll wade in some murky waters to get finance. Most big businesses do. Naive to think otherwise.

    Let’s clarify this “fans are hypocrites” phrase. Most fans will have bias towards their club. Hypocrisy is rife in football at every level. Look at managers, there’ll happily moan about decisions against them but never highlight the decisions that went for them. We all do this. Loads on here will slag off City and Chelsea for having money but what if our club had a sugar daddy? Would you all be moaning then?

    Kudos to those who would but once the trophies start rolling in you won’t get many dissenters.

  • Adam

    @Rupert, Maybe im a bit of an honest communist at heart, So I will state it again, Im all about fair competition. There is so much money involved in football that we can share it all around evenly with absolute confidence that competition wise all teams have an equal chance. This is where the EU need to step in and clarify the “specific nature” of the football industry, put a stop to third party ownership and stop corporations from owning clubs as well as sponsoring other clubs, governing bodies and competition organisers. I really don’t think that people realise what a mess football is in, its a free for all grab it will you can.

  • rupert cook

    @Adam, I agree and I’m with you on the communist at heart. Unfortunately it’s people’s minds that sabotage the heart.

    Football is absolutely showered with money. Even in these tough times football seems impervious to the economic climate except for the smaller clubs who do not have the financial muscle. Those smaller clubs need the support more than the big teams which is why I love going to watch Oxford. It’s grass roots football which engages with the community and as a spectator you can almost touch the players (not that I’d want to). I just can’t afford to fork out to watch Arsenal and I also refuse to give any money to the current regime. I don’t trust their motives.

    AFC is like a giant washing machine on a constant spin cycle.

  • Limpar

    Current regime ! trust ?
    Yeah ok…

    Its not as if the current ‘regime ‘ has overseen arsenal rise from outside of the top 20 teams in europe to the top 5 over the last 15 yrs , winning many trophies and going unbeaten, whilst gaining fans all over the world and playing some of the best football ever seen on the planet outside of barcelona or anything like that along the way though, is it?

    Its a conspiriacy, the board are out to fleece us!

    Get back to the David Icke forum, Im sure youll be more welcome there

  • rupert cook

    @Limpar, yes very good. The current regime has not won us anything. Gazidis and Kronke have been behind what trophies exactly? Besides the imaginary ones that is?