Those French are well funny people.

Nice finish from Sanogo.

Like strikers who keep them hard and low.

I don't know how canny it is to have a 10 year long deal even though it comes at a top market price of 30 mill per year. Like we experienced with the pre-Emirates deal, the money could be great at present but the going rate can increase so drastically in future that this deal won't be looking good in five years' time.

However, I have the feeling that the bulk of this money will be paid to them immediately in order to make them qualify for the European tournaments through FFP.

There are probably some incremental increases. But 170m over 5 years doesn't equal £30m per year; lets just say that Chelsea's press office have big links to the Mail.

Can all the sponsors keep up with these kind of increment in football? Its insane. In 20 years time there will be 50-60m contracts per year.

So thats probably the reason why Adidas didn't want to give in to our demands. We aren't big enough for them, they concentrate on Chelsea?

Meanwhile Monaco is in trouble. They have to pay tax. They also revealed they signed the trio in march, so its abit funny about how haywire the Falcao rumours was in the press.

It'd be shocking if the best kit deals are only worth 50-60m in 20 years! (Or were you talking about player contracts?) In any case, a company will go for a deal only if they feel that it is a profitable one. If companies don't pay the clubs more, the clubs won't be paying the players more.

Nothing to worry about in here.

Clrnc wrote:

So thats probably the reason why Adidas didn't want to give in to our demands. We aren't big enough for them, they concentrate on Chelsea?

Probably the opposite actually. Our deal will have pressed Chelsea's pitch.

ManU and Barca have merch deals so they actually make quite a bit more than what is represented in the table.

Iloveyouarsenewenger wrote:

It'd be shocking if the best kit deals are only worth 50-60m in 20 years! (Or were you talking about player contracts?) In any case, a company will go for a deal only if they feel that it is a profitable one. If companies don't pay the clubs more, the clubs won't be paying the players more.

Nothing to worry about in here.

In the end its the consumers that suffer. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

John Guidetti playing for Ligi Ndogo Academy/Impala Bromma Boys growing up

Biggus wrote:

I like the fact that our deal is only for 5 years, you'd like to hope that we could negotiate a better deal by then.

Yeah pretty much; even at 5 years you had people complaining that our deal was too long. I think the example of our original Emirates deal is pretty good; it looked very impressive at the time but quickly became a millstone. As has been said it looks like Chelsea are taking a similar path; they need the cash badly to cover their transition into the FFP era and are kicking the can down the road.

I still can't understand why the fuck they appointed Kinnear?

Biggus wrote:

I like the fact that our deal is only for 5 years, you'd like to hope that we could negotiate a better deal by then.

Well, we already have a good deal, so I have confidence our guys will do it again. Our deal is much better than Chelsea's, so that's a win for Gazidis, Fox and Law.