and actually tv and matchday increased by eleven and five respectively.

lagos wrote:

is that the value of the deal or the incremental value?

Incremental value but think I may of got my figures wrong, we might be in line for around £30mill - £35mill not £40mill extra.

commercial revenues are inexcusably pathetic. hard to believe that they actually approved a bonus for gazidis when his team is far and away the worst performer at the club. it's no exaggeration to say that no one in the footballing world underperforms commercially more than arsenal.

if our commercial revenue was where it should be, we could easily afford to buy and pay a van persie-level world class player on top of our normal business each and every offseason - maybe even two of them in some seasons. and then we just lcoked ourselves into another below market kit+stadium sponsorship deal. it just blows my mind.

Have to appreciate Gazidis' starting point when he joined. Still can't believe the commercial 'team' was two people.

lagos wrote:

in fairness to Gazidis, we were lockjed into these shit deals before he came in. Has the kit deal been announced yet Kami? I think you meant shirt +stadium

Also it must be quite difficult to sell a team which hasn't won anything in nearly a decade to sponsors.

lagos wrote:

in fairness to Gazidis, we were lockjed into these shit deals before he came in. Has the kit deal been announced yet Kami? I think you meant shirt +stadium

while the secondary sponsorships are much better than they use to be, they are still barely covering their salaries with the improvement. and in 3 years this new shirt and stadium sponsorship deal will look like a shit one to most as well. it already looks that way to me, but whatever.

Biggus wrote:
lagos wrote:

in fairness to Gazidis, we were lockjed into these shit deals before he came in. Has the kit deal been announced yet Kami? I think you meant shirt +stadium

Also it must be quite difficult to sell a team which hasn't won anything in nearly a decade to sponsors.

that's very true. What do the sponsors gain by having us instead of say united or chelsea?

Even Liverpool have a bigger fanbase for commercial companies to exploit on

Biggus wrote:

Also it must be quite difficult to sell a team which hasn't won anything in nearly a decade to sponsors.

We have a pretty big fan base and that gives sponsors good exposure, hence why we will get a decent deal, like the Emirates one. Also being in the CL every season helps hence why it is essential we stay there!

Meatwad wrote:

while the secondary sponsorships are much better than they use to be, they are still barely covering their salaries with the improvement. and in 3 years this new shirt and stadium sponsorship deal will look like a shit one to most as well. it already looks that way to me, but whatever.

The shirt sponsor deal is to my knowledge the second highest out of all the football clubs, only Man Utd have announced a bigger deal and firstly we can't compete with them, secondly the guy who signed off that deal got fired when they realised they got mugged! Liverpool have a £20mill deal with Standard Chartered and again there were rumours that people higher up weren't happy as they feel they are overpaying. We will get a better idea in 2 or 3 years time when the other big clubs announce their deals as to how good ours is but in the current market it is good.

Everyone is always playing catch up in football, it's just the nature of the game.

Unless you're ManU and have signed a pack with the devil; their crest is no coincidence.

4 days later
Write a Reply...