arsenal finances thread: Page 4 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

arsenal finances thread

goon

The percentage stat is a little misleading. Our matchday income is huge so it's obviously going to shrink the commercial %.

Raw figures would be better. For example Tottenham have a similar percentage to us but as of May 2016 our retail and commercial income totalled 104m vs their 60m. For reference Chelsea had 113m

Claudius

not really. United have the same matchday income as us, but as you can see, their 2,156 commercial deals with wineries in Argentina and pig farmers in Zimbabwe far dwarf our commercial input. we need to do more.

goon

What do you mean not really? What are you disagreeing with?

jones

That the percentage stat is misleading is my guess. Regardless of how high our matchday income is in actual figures, it shouldn't be 30% of the club's total revenue.

goon

That makes no sense. We have the highest match day income in the world of course it's going to be proportionaltely bigger than at other clubs who make a lot less from it. The conditions that exist that enable us to get match day income at that level will have little bearing on the level and size of our commercial deals.

Klaus

It seems reasonable for a London club. Chelsea's matchday income is 21% to our 29%. Most of that difference could probably be attributed to the difference in stadium sizes.

Claudius

goon wrote:
That makes no sense. We have the highest match day income in the world of course it's going to be proportionally bigger than at other clubs who make a lot less from it. The conditions that exist that enable us to get match day income at that level will have little bearing on the level and size of our commercial deals.

Mr Alt Facts, according to that graphic, United's matchday income is £103m and ours is £102m. We are pulling in the same amount from the stadium. We are trailing them badly on the commercial front. That's where all the difference is coming from. It's this gap that will allow them dominate us in the transfer market for years to come. They are so far ahead that they can match us in the transfer market every year, and still buy a Griezmann on top of that. Every summer.

goon

My alt facts, Mr Fake news, come from Deloitte funnily enough who published it based on the last set of published accounts back in May. That being said, do you actually think I'm disputing that United make shit loads more than us commercially? 😆

I'm not that deluded.

Qwiss

Klaus wrote:
It seems reasonable for a London club. Chelsea's matchday income is 21% to our 29%. Most of that difference could probably be attributed to the difference in stadium sizes.

I believe the main earning difference between us and Chelsea when it comes to match day revenue is the corporate entertainment side of things. Its why Chelsea, Spurs, etc are so desperate for new stadiums.

evoh1

We have no commercial backers of note because we really aren't pulling weight in that area. Giving the stadium naming rights for free(ish), no training ground / kit deals, barely any secondaries of note.

Yes we do have high stadium revenue but that is no excuse, it was built to help us compete it's the big teams and no our lack of commercial nous is doing exactly the opposite. It would help if we had actually won something of note to get the name out there beyond 2004, but surely our long storied club has a bit more to give to bring in companies that want to be associated?

Anzac

jones wrote:
That the percentage stat is misleading is my guess. Regardless of how high our matchday income is in actual figures, it shouldn't be 30% of the club's total revenue.

Was even higher % prior to both the new TV deal and our commercial deals of 2014.
There was a table of the top20 financial clubs in UEFA and whilst at the time we ranked 5th in revenues our split was 60/40 re match day revenues,
whilst the average trend amongst the other top20 was 40/60.
The only other top20 club to have a similar bias towards match gates at the time was NUFC in 18th.
Remembering that prior to 2010 we didn't have a commercial unit at a time when ManU had over 100 employees themselves and were paying Nike to manage it.

Anzac

evoh_1 wrote:
We have no commercial backers of note because we really aren't pulling weight in that area. Giving the stadium naming rights for free(ish), no training ground / kit deals, barely any secondaries of note.

Yes we do have high stadium revenue but that is no excuse, it was built to help us compete it's the big teams and no our lack of commercial nous is doing exactly the opposite. It would help if we had actually won something of note to get the name out there beyond 2004, but surely our long storied club has a bit more to give to bring in companies that want to be associated?

IMO we've done well in spite of our business sense as opposed to being as a result of it.
Our match day revenues take precedence because the club has targeted the casual / tourist / entertainment option = they spend more per head than the loyal club supporter because they are more likely to indulge in the whole experience per capita. Incidentally this was also the reasoning for the strategy inside the ground re noise etc to make it as pleasant an entertainment experience for the casuals as possible.
Likewise all of our primary sponsorship deals have usually been associated with match days & the football 'experience' at the stadium.
Likewise our style of play and even our obvious short comings all ensure we are involved in the end of season awards re goals of the season, most entertaining games etc, which keeps the sponsors happy even if we don't actually win titles, which is where the BIG money is to be had, along with increased expectations.

mdgoonah41

ornstein confirmed on twitter we are broke

Rohit

😆

Club trying to deflect attention from the worst transfer window from a 'big club' ever.

Or, Kroenke clearly running the club as one of his multiple businesses.

mohan

How the hell can we be broke when its clear we are having profit every year?

Is money being taken out of club and not being represented in the balancing books?

Qwiss

Of course we are not broke. 😆

Klaus

😆 You have to admit, this is such good trolling. Arsenal haven't been this entertaining in a decade.

mdgoonah41

the fact that the club is telling ornstein that and he wrote it is so fucking offensive. the club is so disrespectful to its supporters. this is garbage

goon

Just to get things straight:

Orny told in June that we have up to £150m to spend. Let's assume it was a major exaggeration and it's only 50m (as arseblog suggests).

We've made a net profit so far of approximately 17m, plus 50m so we should have plenty of money to spend. Oh, wages? Well to wipe out the bulk of that you'd have to assume that Laca, Kola, Jack and Chambers are on a combined salary of 1m a week, that's ignoring departures.

There's other factors that just don't add up either, how can we afford to offer Ox 180k a week and sacrifice the transfer fee if we're so broke? How can we possibly afford new deals on the table for Alexis and Mesut? How could we afford to bid for Lemar?

It's total bollox, time to boycott. Kroenke is the real problem, not Wenger.

Rohit

goon wrote:
Kroenke is the real problem

Certainly the bigger problem. He joined the board in 2008. We haven't challenged since. There are some real issues behind the scenes for sure.

« Previous Page Next Page »