After some of the losses we’ve endured over the past few years, i doubt we could. not easily at least.
You have more faith than i do 
lets not be ridiculous now.
1 Like
Well we do like to make things hard for ourselves.
But ok 
Haha come on @g4e, Shammy is right, let’s not be silly. Any team in the top ten of the PL would win either of those leagues by a double points margin. Top ten is a conservative estimate too
Just having some fun.nothing wrong with some gallows humour…granted, Len is better at it than i am 
For me it’s just the arrogance of the people who run the club to think that because Arsenal don’t believe said player is worth £40m then we must not pay that price. We as a club do not dictate the market. A player is worth whatever a club is willing to pay for him. If Juventus are willing to pay the release clause for Higuain then he is worth the £75m they paid.
The air around the Emirates is going to be poisonous if we don’t strengthen our squad adequately. Our manager is already behind his peers tactically, the least we could do is have the players to possibly supplant that.
7 Likes
Nothing that you typed applies to buying a jersey/kit online. You were making the point that Warrior Sports was unknown and you don’t see them on the local stores in India. Ronniec’s (I believe) point was the kit sponsor doesn’t matter, because fans of a club/team can find the jersey and will buy regardless of who the kit sponsor is.
In the online age, I too don’t think that the kit sponsor matters much from an exposure perspective anymore.
Supply chain/overhead is less online than brick and mortar stores. Perhaps, shipping is expensive for India, but other than that, you are wrong.
1 Like
Not to jump in here, but I think we are looking at the question a bit in reverse. It isn’t so much why teams are not going with Warrior but rather that they went with the best offer on the table… Warrior, as someone else said here does NOT have a presence in football, does not have the leveragability of distribution (as Trion pointed out - they simple aren’t as big a company as Adidas, et al.), so they aren’t going to throw around as much money on these things as the big boys (Nike and Adidas in particular).
All the really means is that Warrior has less to spend on this endeavor while they try to carve out a place in football - selecting one or two premium brands is a perfectly reasonable approach… has nothing to do with the rest of the teams (Just like Puma - who only has Dortmund and Arsenal).
It is still very simply supply and demand and generally speaking these deals are nearly pure LICENSING deals, so the team is basically incented to get the best financial terms (length of contract, amount, other incentives, etc.).
Bigger pic, Warrior ISN’T in the market to sponsor 25 big teams - it isn’t in the scope of the company to spend that or get proper ROI on that.
1 Like
Apparently We all are needlessly brainstorming.
As per Swiss Ramble, The ‘record’ Liverpool deal is a marketing ploy.
Liverpool’s “record” New Balance kit deal is basically worth
the same amount as the six-year deal signed with Warrior in 2012, namely £25
million a season, with the increase coming from the other part of the deal,
i.e. earnings from merchandising sales, due to New Balance’s better
distribution network.
Whatever the exact details, it is still lower than
Manchester United’s “largest kit manufacture sponsorship deal in sport” with
Adidas, which is worth £750 million over 10 years or an average of £75 million
a year from the 2015/16 season.
Before anyone points me the distribution bit, he is comparing Warrior & New Balance’s distribution channel.
What a hogwash! So much for Liverpool earning more than us.
-
I wasn’t just talking about retail, I was also talking about ecommerce/online purchase. Authentic Liverpool shirt can only be purchased by buying online from outside India.
-
With currency appreciation, even Delivery charges cost a lot.
Dollar to INR conversion is 67, Pound to INR is 80.
Much like India, any other country have similar currency rates.
So for you -
I never argued from fans’ side. I argued from Clubs’ side.
Clubs’ know that fans only care about Arsenal but if fans need to be able to easily access shirts, so in that case it’s a no brainer between Puma & Warrior/New Balance.
I wasn’t touting that Warrior’s deal with Liverpool is better than Arsenal’s with Puma or anyone else. I was agreeing that it probably behooves a club to get the best deal in financial terms (almost) regardless of the manufacturer because there is little gained from having an apparel manufacturer with larger or better distribution channels since product is still accessible online for fans.
The more interesting thing is the duration of the deals on the chart posted earlier in this thread. I would imagine a bump for Arsenal when their deal is up in 2019.
Maybe, Arsenal will see fit to invest in the squad with the extra money. 
1 Like
Excellent Point, which i forgot to mention.
With inflation, Manchester United’s deal would look average in 2018-19, when clubs like us, Barcelona renegotiate deals.
The other issue with comparing deals between the clubs is that everyone’s deal is on a different time frame. You’re right in that the “monster revenue” deals at the top won’t look the same when Arsenal/Real/Barcelona/etc. renew their sponsorships within a few seasons.
The other point is the duration of the contract. Bayern has a 15 year deal that is an outlier compared to the timeframe of the other deals. Just as important as the money, is the actual timeframe as it likely behooves a club to have a shorter deal–especially if the club forecasts the market to keep rising.
2 Likes
True but perhaps longer deal might have relaxed terms despite lower lump sum amount, which allows Bayern to continue earning.
Quite honestly it’s difficult to tell what deal is best from a fan’s perspective because we don’t know the bits & pieces of the agreement.
It’s similar to us talking about 250k Mhkitaryan got, but perhaps he has tons of variables in his salary like appearance bonus, goal bonus and when he is injured, he wouldn’t receive as much.
True. Not all deals have the same language–I wouldn’t be surprised to see a club like Real get a flat dollar amount and then after “X number of sales,” get a cut of additional units (jerseys) sold.
Extending that further, a “lessor known” manufacturer might offer better terms to a club like a cut of sales above a certain figure than say an Adidas or Nike.
Still, I think that if I’m running a club, I’m less concerned with who the kit sponsor is and more of the duration and money per year.
1 Like
Idk Shammy, Those cold and rainy winter nights in Stoke get even colder and wetter in Aberdeen, Inverness, and Dundee. I’m pretty sure we’d fold by February in the Scottish league.
2 Likes
I agree ofcourse.
When I mentioned accessibility, I was looking from perspective of shirt sale.
More easily shirt availability -> More shirts sold
So if Puma allows margin to Arsenal for shirts sold, what looks like 30m to us may well be more.
Yup, For Warrior, It was obvious way to enter the footballing world & market themselves as record breaking shirt sponsor for a club like Liverpool.
For someone new in Industry, that sends a bigger message than sponsoring 200-300 smaller entities.
Perhaps in a decade or so, It will match the bigger brand.
Who’d have thought it, I guess it’s possible to have a thread in the Arsenal section that’s busier than the Arsene Wenger thread.
Exactly.
We don’t need Puma to promote us, they can’t, and they won’t get us more fans anyway.
If we want more fans because of the sponsor, we should stick with Nike or sign Adidas, not Puma.
We need more money now at this point. Whoever gives us more money we deal with them.
I am not singling out Warriors, they are just one example.
These sponsors will give us great deals because we can promote them back instead.
[quote=“ronniec, post:221, topic:380”]
Whoever gives us more money we deal with them.[/quote]
Isn’t as simple as that really, and what you’ve said isn’t really how the commercial world works in reality tbh.
in a very basic sense, for long term viability it’s certainly better to go with an established brand offering less money than an obscure brand offer much more. Obviously there are lots of variables to consider but for a club like Arsenal it’s smart to go with established brands even if it mean less money.
Smaller clubs take who offers the most cash hence why you see JD, Sandico, Carbrini and dryworld at the bottom end of the league and championship. Nike and addidas usually go for lower league clubs with a strong brand
You’d be surprised how deep the brand stuff goes. I used to work at Sportsdirect and people constantly asked where they could find the Nike huarache in store, I told them you have to go to JD for them. Nike wouldn’t stock SportsDirect with huarache trainers even though a huge demand was clearly there.
Nike didn’t want their top fashion shoes associated with sports equipment and sportsdirect other homegrown crap. JD stores was an established and dedicated fashion store with a strong urban brand and young customer base that stocked the best of other manufactures fashion shoes. Who know how much sales nike lost through customers taking other manufacturers shoes in JD but to Nike it’s worth it in order to maintain a particular brand.
I’m just trying to highlight the molecular scale of how fashion manufactures operate in order to maintain a particular brand on certain products
1 Like