We entered this lock down midway through building the new stadium in a bid to secure cash inflow but in my opinion we did the exact opposite. Even so few years on into a different from predicted landscape why did we not break off like chelsea did by paying a penalty? They paid off 40m on a 30m deal with 2 or 3 years remaining we could pay the 40m for 6 or 7 years remaining or even less maybe 20m as they would have given us only 36m over 6 years where we could have signed a 20m deal for six years and made double of what we would have gained;120m compared to 56m including the cost of breaking contract. There is no financial risk here as we could have confirmed the other deal and pulled of this one...spending years might have come by 2011.A decisive figure like David Dein would have done it amd is lacking even now though Ivan Gazdis is better than anything else we had but still he is no DD,men who loved,lived with the club are less and less in the board...i wish we could become fan owned like Barcelona or Real Madrid.
My opinion is that if you broke the deal with Nike they could claim a lot more due to; 1) the increased cost of them sponsoring someone else in the current climate. 2) the damage to their brand that a high profile club dropping them mid way through a contracted deal would cause. 3) illegally breaking the contract 4) legal costs You could be tied up in a long drawn out legal process to get out of the deal. To sponsor a top 4 premier league team who is always in the CL now would cost them hugely more so therefore they would not let you buy your way out of the contract as there is no benefit in it to them.
I still much prefer Nike as a sponsor for Arsenal. Puma just does'nt fit the Club. I would agree, when you look at the size of the current sponsorship deals for United, Chelsea and Real it's clear Arsenal's should be larger than it its. Particularly when you consider how much we sell in terms of merchandising/kits. Also Grammar is your friend.
Well then all the above mentioned factors apply to chelsea who broke a 30m adidas deal half way through to secure a deal that would earn them 70m more and bought their way out with a one amd a half year payment.Why would addidas let them do that seeing the astronomical amounts they are spending on united and real and currently its better sponsor chelsea especially for 30m a year?
Your English and grammar is ****. But the arsenal are managing their finances better than probably any other club.
Sure,but we seem to be missing opportunities that are easier to score just like today's game,had we taken those chances we would have had better on field results as well as even better finances.
Dude, we have two world class players and a host of quality others on the pitch and nothing excuses that insipid second half performance. The manager and players need to be tasered.
I think its to do with the timing...even 5 yrs ago no one could imagine the amount of money that would be sloshing around in football, how high sponsorship deals would rise etc. I may well be wrong though...usually am!!!
It's a valid point. The financial landscape of football has been massively inflated in the last 10 years. When Arsenal moved from Highbury, our financial projections from Ticket sales, Merchandise and Sponsorship had us up there with the richest clubs, then Abramovich and the Shiekhs came along and blew it all out of the water. Since then massive and unprecedented TV deals have made those early sponsorship deals look like peanuts by today's standards.
