Arsenal Finances

[say yes]

 

[Gervais]

Stan really fu*ked over the city of St. Louis. The man doesn't give a toss about any of his teams beyond the money line.

He ****ed over the Raiders too, who actually need a stadium more than any other team in the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-b...havoc-again-o-co-coliseum-224124735--mlb.html

 

[BBF]

7th in the revenue table and we scrape the barrel for **** tier players like Kokorin on loan. This makes me so angry

 

[haha_arsenal]

How could ManCity generate more than Arsenal ?
the stadium is hardly full, ticket prices are lower, fan base is not large, they went through CL like us, etc.
or it's just that 'sponsor' money injection ?

 

[Godwin1]

How could ManCity generate more than Arsenal ?
the stadium is hardly full, ticket prices are lower, fan base is not large, they went through CL like us, etc.
or it's just that 'sponsor' money injection ?

I think so mate, them and Chelsea are both higher in broadcast revenu though so can that be manipulated by payments into the club from subsidiary companies? I just can't see them being that much higer than us.

 

[say yes]

Match day revenue is serious impressive, even if it's becoming less and less important.

Lagging behind elsewhere though.

 

[Godwin1]

Shows me we overcharge for tickets tbh, still impressive in a financial sense though I agree.

 

[haha_arsenal]

without a sugar daddy, we're doing extremely well.

 

[say yes]

How could ManCity generate more than Arsenal ?
the stadium is hardly full, ticket prices are lower, fan base is not large, they went through CL like us, etc.
or it's just that 'sponsor' money injection ?

This is from last year but assume the situation is pretty similar now - City have more than double our commercial revenue (which is pretty pitiful for a big club).

 

[say yes]

More recent commercial revenue graph: (2015 figures)

Commercial revenue passed £100 million for the first time, as it shot up £26 million (34%) from £77 million to £103 million, comprising £78 million from commercial deals and £25 million from retail and licensing. This was largely due to the new PUMA kit deal, which started in July 2014.

The club stated that this contract “signals the end of a period where our commercial revenues lagged behind a number of our competitors as a consequence of the long-term deals that were in place as part of the funding of the Emirates move”, which is right, but the reality is that Arsenal are still a fair way below the Manchester clubs: United’s 2014/15 revenue was up to £197 million (nearly twice as much), while City’s 2013/14 revenue was £166 million (and is expected to rise).

Similarly, Arsenal are still behind Chelsea (£109 million) and Liverpool (£104 million) before any 2015 growth, though they are miles above other Premier League clubs, e.g. Tottenham £42 million, Aston Villa £26 million.

Despite an increase in the number of partnerships, the concern is that Arsenal’s commercial performance will continue to place them at a competitive disadvantage relative to other leading clubs. Indeed, in the interim accounts the chairman warned, “Inevitably, this growth rate will now slow as we have our key partnerships with Emirates and PUMA in place for the medium term.” Further substantial increases are only likely to come as a result of success on the pitch, which again makes you wonder why the available cash has not been spent on strengthening the squad.

The PUMA agreement is worth £150 million over 5 years, so £30 million a year, which represents a £22 million increase over the former Nike deal. This is one of the best kit deals around, but is still dwarfed by Manchester United’s extraordinary £750 million 10-year deal with Adidas that starts from the 2015/16 season.

Similarly, Arsenal’s Emirates deal is also among the highest in the world. The £150 million contract covers a 5-year extension in shirt sponsorship from 2014 to 2019 plus a 7-year extension in stadium naming rights from 2021 to 2028. The club has not divulged how much of the deal is for naming rights, so I have used the straightforward £30 million annual figure, though my own estimate would put the pure shirt sponsorship at around £26 million, which would still be pretty good.

That said, it has since been overtaken by new sponsorship deals at Manchester United with Chevrolet (around £43 million a year) and Chelsea with Yokohama Rubber (£40 million).

There’s an old saying that “it’s an ill wind that blows no good” which applies to Arsenal’s relatively poor commercial performance to date. The new Premier League Financial Fair Play regulations restrict the amount of money clubs can spend from the new TV deal on wages, but this restriction only applies to the income from TV money, so Arsenal’s additional money from the new sponsorship deals can still be spent on wages.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

I mean.. Does City owner not own the major sponsor of them too?

 

[Rimaal]

• Nine Premier League teams now in top 20 clubs based on revenue earned

http://www.theguardian.com/football...ich-list-premier-league-real-madrid-barcelona

 

[Batman]

I mean.. Does City owner not own the major sponsor of them too?

I don't think he owns them outright but it's someone else with close ties to the royals in Abu Dhabi and so it's a pretty blatant skirting of FFP. The equivalent for us would be if all of a sudden we signed a massive endorsement deal with Walmart a company owned by a family that Stan's wife just so happens to be part of.

 

[AVENTUS]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ns-Emirates-generates-100m-Gunners-world.html

Arsenal now make more then £100.000.000 for home games (total), more then any other club in the World ahead of Real Madrid. Crazy.

 

[haha_arsenal]

I mean.. Does City owner not own the major sponsor of them too?

I've read somewhere his family owns Etihad and the 'commercial deals' were extremely higher than market value, including stadium name's right.

 

[Rimaal]

Selling to Stan Kroenke was a huge mistake.

 

[Jerome_Gooner]

City and PSG have the same tactics, huge "sponsor" deal way over market value which comes from the gulf and is linked to the president of the club.

 

[bingobob]

Or it could be because they win leagues etc that their commercial appeal is higher. How realistically can you value sponsorship*, they are sponsoring teams that splash huge sums on elite players, win trophies and are associated with being the best. If you are an elite brand or trying to develop an elite brand that's exactly what you want to be associated with. It's one of the reasons I've always struggled with our strategy, if we had speculated to accumulate we may well have higher commercial revenue to go alongside our match day revenue.

*while we can always speculate something is out of place it's near impossible to prove it.

 

[Batman]

Or it could be because they win leagues etc that their commercial appeal is higher. How realistically can you value sponsorship*, they are sponsoring teams that splash huge sums on elite players, win trophies and are associated with being the best. If you are an elite brand or trying to develop an elite brand that's exactly what you want to be associated with. It's one of the reasons I've always struggled with our strategy, if we had speculated to accumulate we may well have higher commercial revenue to go alongside our match day revenue.

*while we can always speculate something is out of place it's near impossible to prove it.

I agree with this for the most part but not in the case of PSG. I don't think they have a very large global profile at all. I'll give you an example. I live about an hour outside of Manhattan and spend most of my free time there. It's one of the most if not the most diverse city on earth. You meet people from every walk of life here and there are a TON of people who LOVE football. I have maybe seen one person ever wearing a PSG shirt. I literally have seen more people wearing Aston Villa shirts than PSG shirts. There are 3 pubs on 14th street alone flying an Arsenal flag that are mostly populated by Arsenal supporters. In fact during the FA Cup Final all 3 were filled to capacity an hour before kickoff. You can't walk a block in the summer without seeing someone in a Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern, United, Juventus, Manchester City or even Chelsea/Liverpool shirt. Nobody here cares about PSG. Even with Zlatan I think they're largely irrelevant outside of France. Now I know the United States(or NYC specifically) is not the only measure of their popularity but even online you just don't see people talking about or supporting them like other clubs. The only thing you ever really see is if Zlatan scores a wonder goal. All that leads me to believe that their commercial revenue is at least partially artificially enhanced.

 

[Gooner Zig]

City and PSG have the same tactics, huge "sponsor" deal way over market value which comes from the gulf and is linked to the president of the club.

For FFP purposes, these loans are re-valued to market. I remember this is what PSG got caught out for.