As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
Barriecuda wrote: If you look at the 2012-2013 kit launch, it appears Nike has designed an entire marketing campaign around the look - based on the Arsenal subway/tube sign.
Fascinating post Barrie on a subject I do not know much about.
One thing sprang to mind.
The tube sign is the reverse red/blue colours to the Nike Arsenal logo, with Nike's having a blue roundel and red cannon.
I think they have gone for the Royal Air Force target colours in an attempt to hitch us to a "Cool Britannia/Mods" image.
The Original Nike deal was done by Edelman and the twat gave Nike an option from 2011 to 2014 which they have exercised .
The Emirates deal was massively undersold and again that was Edelman brought in by good old Clock end Danny Fizman.
Emirates had been kicked out by the new Jewish owner of Chelsea FC in unceremonious fashion and were gagging to get their own back.
Chelsea were getting 7 million a year from Emirates and that was back in the early years of the millennium
In my opinion we could have had them pay for the entire costs of the new stadium but Arsenal underestimated the cost of the plan by some 150 million and they were desperate to get the finance upfront in place !
Since the deal was done the clubs relationship with Emirates took a mahoosive downturn after the club started advertising for the Israeli tourist board and Arsenal have been trying to patch this fcuk up ever since ..... and Emirates are only now talking again to the club .
Edelman was also directly responsible for the Flamini contract fcuk up not to mention Edu !
I'm stunned by the amount of clowns working in exec roles at the club as they cant even get the ticketing on match days right , a fundamental in the business.
Last edited by Herd on Wed May 09, 2012 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Barriecuda wrote: If you look at the 2012-2013 kit launch, it appears Nike has designed an entire marketing campaign around the look - based on the Arsenal subway/tube sign.
Fascinating post Barrie on a subject I do not know much about.
One thing sprang to mind.
The tube sign is the reverse red/blue colours to the Nike Arsenal logo, with Nike's having a blue roundel and red cannon.
I think they have gone for the Royal Air Force target colours in an attempt to hitch us to a "Cool Britannia/Mods" image.
But this is just my opinion!
My thoughts of it being based on the tube sign were just a hunch, FYI; I don't know with any certainty what the new look is based around, if anything.
Herd wrote:The Original Nike deal was done by Edelman and the twat gave Nike an option from 2011 to 2014 which they have exercised .
The Emirates deal was massively undersold and again that was Edelman brought in by good old Clock end Danny Fizman.
Emirates had been kicked out by the new Jewish owner of Chelsea FC in unceremonious fashion and were gagging to get their own back.
Chelsea were getting 7 million a year from Emirates and that was back in the early years of the millennium
In my opinion we could have had them pay for the entire costs of the new stadium but Arsenal underestimated the cost of the plan by some 150 million and they were desperate to get the finance upfront in place !
Since the deal was done the clubs relationship with Emirates took a mahoosive downturn after the club started advertising for the Israeli tourist board and Arsenal have been trying to patch this fcuk up ever since ..... and Emirates are only now talking again to the club .
Edelman was also directly responsible for the Flamini contract fcuk up not to mention Edu !
I'm stunned by the amount of clowns working in exec roles at the club as they cant even get the ticketing on match days right , a fundamental in the business.
Edelman was sacked from his role at the club though, so at least he was held responsible.
The one thing I would say in defence of these deals is that the cash was all provided up front as a way of financing the new stadium. The various banks involved would not have lent the club all the money necessary to build the stadium without this contribution. Getting that cash up front, was always going to lead to some form of uncompetitive sponsorship deal in return,albeit may not as uncompetitive as they have turned out to be.
Where our competitors who have not yet built stadiums (Tottenham, Chelsea and Liverpool) have a disadvantage is that these new commercial deals are already signed so it will be difficult for them to renegotiate to provide up front financing for their stadiums when the time comes. Going cap in hand to the banks, in a subdued economic environment, without much of a stake to put down yourself (admittedly this may not apply to Chelsea) is going to lead to significantly higher interest rates being charged. In the longer term this will put them at a financial disadvantage for longer than we will have to endure.
Not sure why Barrie's post is so "great".. And I'm not having a go at Barrie. All the post comprises of is conjecture about what the Club might or might not be doing and how we might be getting Nike to pay for the marketing. To get Nike to pay for the marketing is part of the deal. Do you seriously think the Club agrees a deal with Nike then advertises for Nike?? No. We've done a shit deal. Whether Edelman has forced us down this line, I don't know. However let's just ignore the kit deal for a moment. What deals have the new team actually struck since they got on board. Where have they added value?
frankbutcher wrote:Not sure why Barrie's post is so "great".. And I'm not having a go at Barrie. All the post comprises of is conjecture about what the Club might or might not be doing and how we might be getting Nike to pay for the marketing. To get Nike to pay for the marketing is part of the deal. Do you seriously think the Club agrees a deal with Nike then advertises for Nike?? No. We've done a shit deal. Whether Edelman has forced us down this line, I don't know. However let's just ignore the kit deal for a moment. What deals have the new team actually struck since they got on board. Where have they added value?
I'm all ears.
Oh no - frank butcher is really an alter-ego of Gary Lineker!!
Nike was up for renewal last year. We extended it for £9m per year
I think it has been extended to 2014 so the Nike and Emirates deals run out at the same time.
What's the point of that? What benefit do you get from that? Liverpool have Warrior doing their kit for £25m per season. United have Nike paying them £25.4m per season. £25,4m per season! For a 3rd time... £25.4m per season!!! Nearly TRIPLE our deal!!!! How???? We are in Europe. We might not be United, but we're better than that. Even Spurs' deal is c. £12m per season for 1 season in the Champions League!!!!! Sorry mate, but this is not right. This is a shambles.
Taking what stg has said at face value, it would appear that the option to extend was up to Nike and not us. If that was the term in the orignal contract that we first signed then Nike are fully entitled to choose the three year extension and there's nothing we can do about it.
The question then is why this term was put into the contract in the first place.If it was in return for us getting a large chunk of cash up front to help with paying off the stadium debts then you can see why it was agreed to.
No the Nike deal didn't finance the stadium ,only the emirates one did .i
In business it is foolish to grant an option to anyone unless you do it at vastly improved terms which appears not to be the case here.
Simple logic being is the person holding the option will only ever exercise the option if it's cheaper than the market price at the time of declaring the extension or they will simply renegotiate.
The Market for sponsorship has gone up so they cashed in.
What pisses me is that even Gazidis has admitted that Nike have full control over what we wear so if they really wanted to they could have us walk out in blue shorts and white tops .
frankbutcher wrote:Not sure why Barrie's post is so "great".. And I'm not having a go at Barrie. All the post comprises of is conjecture about what the Club might or might not be doing and how we might be getting Nike to pay for the marketing. To get Nike to pay for the marketing is part of the deal. Do you seriously think the Club agrees a deal with Nike then advertises for Nike?? No. We've done a shit deal. Whether Edelman has forced us down this line, I don't know. However let's just ignore the kit deal for a moment. What deals have the new team actually struck since they got on board. Where have they added value?
I'm all ears.
I am with you on this one frankie - there is absolutely nothing to suggest that any, much less all or most of barrie's post is anything less than one persons random musings. The whole "possible unseen add ons" makes no sense to me either The facts we do know state that we are being paid 8m-9m per season until 2014 and I'm sorry but that it totally unacceptable. Yes the victims owners probably have some connection to their new kit sponsors hence the inflated price but as a club our profile across europe would surely have been way higher than the scousers in recent seasons (and yes I am taking into account their champions lge win). In my opinion we should be getting close to double what we are currently getting from nike and somebody should be held accountable for that. Nike may well be accepting the 3 year extension written into the previous deal but why are the club not looking to buy themselves out of it's current deal ? The 3 year deal is currently worth what the mancs and scousers are getting in 1 season so surely it must be cost effective to get out of this deal ? My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that as a club we havent got the balls to ruffle the feathers of a multi-national company like nike that we might have to deal with sometime down the line again - it is easy to go and sue a lady running a hat shop in spain but when it comes to really show our fight we are found wanting again. Of course the fact that nike are a us based firm (unless I am mistaken) and we are run by yanks should ensure that our cosy relationship with them wont end anytime soon - they must be thinking that we are the greatest mugs of all time
On a side issue I now refuse to be absolutely anything from nike - I am so pissed off with their fcuking about with our kits that I now buy adidas every single time I buy runners or any gear for myself or my kids. What is even better than that is that I am the guy who chooses and orders the kit for our local club so our last 3 kits ordered have all been adidas kits and our last batch of club polo shirts were made by adidas too
augie wrote:I am with you on this one frankie - there is absolutely nothing to suggest that any, much less all or most of barrie's post is anything less than one persons random musings.
It was only meant to be musings!
Overall though I do feel a proper market value price for the Arsenal kit sponsorship would be in the range of 11-15m per season. More than 15m would be a stretch considering our slightly barren years.
Easy solution? Move to Nike subsidiary Umbro, who have a really classy campaign in "Tailored by Umbro", which has a very "heritage" feel to it. That, or jump on board with Adidas, who may be looking to reclaim another sizable account in the Premiership after giving up on Liverpool.
Question -- we hear much of 2014, but do those deals actually expire after the end of the 2013-4 season, or at the start of the calendar year?
If it is the start of the calendar year, it serves to make next year even more crucial than it was before... Which may or may not be a good thing, only time will tell.
SWLGooner wrote:Question -- we hear much of 2014, but do those deals actually expire after the end of the 2013-4 season, or at the start of the calendar year?
If it is the start of the calendar year, it serves to make next year even more crucial than it was before... Which may or may not be a good thing, only time will tell.
SWLGooner wrote:Question -- we hear much of 2014, but do those deals actually expire after the end of the 2013-4 season, or at the start of the calendar year?
If it is the start of the calendar year, it serves to make next year even more crucial than it was before... Which may or may not be a good thing, only time will tell.
End of 2013-14 I believe.
Oh good, I can't see next year being too much of a barnstorming success of the type that would enable us to negotiate blockbuster deals
SWLGooner wrote:Question -- we hear much of 2014, but do those deals actually expire after the end of the 2013-4 season, or at the start of the calendar year?
If it is the start of the calendar year, it serves to make next year even more crucial than it was before... Which may or may not be a good thing, only time will tell.
End of 2013-14 I believe.
Oh good, I can't see next year being too much of a barnstorming success of the type that would enable us to negotiate blockbuster deals
Even if it were, I think we'd need another year or two of dominance added to that to have any rights negotiating as a an A-tier team. We haven't been title contenders for a long time - particularly long in the world of business...
No. We've done a shit deal. Whether Edelman has forced us down this line, I don't know. However let's just ignore the kit deal for a moment. What deals have the new team actually struck since they got on board. Where have they added value?
The facts we do know state that we are being paid 8m-9m per season until 2014 and I'm sorry but that it totally unacceptable. Yes the victims owners probably have some connection to their new kit sponsors hence the inflated price but as a club our profile across europe would surely have been way higher than the scousers in recent seasons (and yes I am taking into account their champions lge win). In my opinion we should be getting close to double what we are currently getting from nike and somebody should be held accountable for that. Nike may well be accepting the 3 year extension written into the previous deal but why are the club not looking to buy themselves out of it's current deal ? The 3 year deal is currently worth what the mancs and scousers are getting in 1 season so surely it must be cost effective to get out of this deal ? My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that as a club we havent got the balls to ruffle the feathers of a multi-national company like nike that we might have to deal with sometime down the line again - it is easy to go and sue a lady running a hat shop in spain but when it comes to really show our fight we are found wanting again. Of course the fact that nike are a us based firm (unless I am mistaken) and we are run by yanks should ensure that our cosy relationship with them wont end anytime soon - they must be thinking that we are the greatest mugs of all time 
