• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

New Kit?

I think you'll be disappointed if you think a sponsor is going to spend £brickloads and then distract from their brand using the words 'White Hart Lane' and probably even 'Lane'.
 
I think you'll be disappointed if you think a sponsor is going to spend £brickloads and then distract from their brand using the words 'White Hart Lane' and probably even 'Lane'.
Yeah Nike arena or something like that I imagine, but it will always be WHL to the faithful.
 
I think you'll be disappointed if you think a sponsor is going to spend £brickloads and then distract from their brand using the words 'White Hart Lane' and probably even 'Lane'.

I know. There was even a rumour that the station and at least part of the road would no longer be WHL either.
 
It isn't a joke at all.... £25 million a year for stadium naming rights is an absolutely HUGE deal! It would be one of the biggest stadium naming rights deals in the World (perhaps even the biggest?) It is at least twice the amount that I was expecting. To put in context it is about 5 times the size of the naming rights for the Olympic stadium in Stratford.

£25 million a year for shirt manufacturer is also very high for us. More than double the value of our UA deal. Ignore the figure Chelsea have received. Remember that in recent times they have won the Premiership and FA Cup multiple times and won the CL and Europa league. We cannot expect a deal similar to Chelsea's until we have for won several titles and competed in the Champions League regularly over a 5+ year period.

I agree with you on both points.
 
Given the inflation rate for kit deals, 25 million is the least I'd expect. If it's Nike and they also get their name on the stadium, we become associated with them far more than Chelsea. When you think Reebok, you think Bolton (although it's now Macron). What has Chelsea got that's marketable at the moment? They're not in any European competition. Hazard is consistently underwhelming. Their most famous clams are all getting on, while we have the core of the England side and several high profile young stars from around the world. South Korea alone should be a gold mine if Son stays.

It's not that 50 million is that bad, but 60 million to Chelsea for the kits alone IS a joke.
Over the last dozen years:
Spurs:
0 league titles,
0 FA Cups,
0 CL trophies,
0 Europa League trophies,
1 League Cup,
2 CL qualifications (incl this year)

Chelsea:
4 league titles,
4 FA Cups,
1 CL trophy,
1 Europa League trophy,
3 League Cups.
That is a total of 13 major trophies.
In addition to the above they have qualified for the Champions League 12 times, going out in the semi finals 5 times and losing in the final once.

Yes this year we have qualified for the CL and they have not. However that is the first time that has ever happened (although admittedly we were royally stuffed by them when they fluked their way to their CL win while we finished 4th).

Over the last dozen years Chelsea are arguably the most successful club in England, ahead even of Man Utd who in the same period have 11 major trophies (5 league titles, 2 FA Cups, 3 League Cups and 1 CL trophy) and have achieved CL qualification 11 times, going out in the semi finals once and losing in the final twice.

When you consider the above, it is a miracle that it appears we are going to pull in close to half of what they will be earning from their kit manufacturer.
 
Is it likely Nike will be our principal shirt sponsor too? And thus we'll end up with a sponsorless shirt? One can dream!
 
Also, comparisons with Chelsea in terms of the size of the kit deal have to consider the fact that they ship 1.65m shirts a year in global sales, according to a report cited somewhere. I'd be willing to wager that we barely ship a quarter of that. Since kit deals make sense for the sponsor in terms of the majority of revenue from kit sales in stores and the like going to them (and they usually end up making a lot more money than they end up paying in terms of the sponsorship deal), it's an achievement that we've managed to secure a deal that is roughly 40 percent of Chelsea's (if the reports are to be believed) while not selling anywhere near that amount of shirts worldwide or experiencing as much success as they have over the last decade.

And let me reiterate that having a 'Nike Arena' wouldn't be anywhere near as horrible as some of the other options in terms of naming rights. Admittedly, though, that's because of my partiality to the Amsterdam ArenA. :)
 
I see everyone has completely missed the back that Chelsea have to pay £40m to adidas from breaking their 10 year deal with them.

Anyway our 25m from Nike is pretty standard.

This was the top deals back in February
uy2Duin.png
 
I see everyone has completely missed the back that Chelsea have to pay £40m to adidas from breaking their 10 year deal with them.

Anyway our 25m from Nike is pretty standard.

This was the top deals back in February
uy2Duin.png

Standard for a regular Champions League club (or Liverpool) yes.... but absolutely huge for a club that has won just a single league Cup and only ever qualified for the CL twice since it's inception.
 
Also, comparisons with Chelsea in terms of the size of the kit deal have to consider the fact that they ship 1.65m shirts a year in global sales, according to a report cited somewhere. I'd be willing to wager that we barely ship a quarter of that. Since kit deals make sense for the sponsor in terms of the majority of revenue from kit sales in stores and the like going to them (and they usually end up making a lot more money than they end up paying in terms of the sponsorship deal), it's an achievement that we've managed to secure a deal that is roughly 40 percent of Chelsea's (if the reports are to be believed) while not selling anywhere near that amount of shirts worldwide or experiencing as much success as they have over the last decade.

And let me reiterate that having a 'Nike Arena' wouldn't be anywhere near as horrible as some of the other options in terms of naming rights. Admittedly, though, that's because of my partiality to the Amsterdam ArenA. :)

To a warehouse in Russia? ;)

You tend to see the same handful of clubs on display everywhere, though in many cases they are probably fakes. It is a problem that we don't have that kind of distribution. Most of our shipping comes from our own store.
 
To a warehouse in Russia? ;)

You tend to see the same handful of clubs on display everywhere, though in many cases they are probably fakes. It is a problem that we don't have that kind of distribution. Most of our shipping comes from our own store.

To be fair, Asians and Africans are crazy about Chelsea, for some reason. 'We're racist, we're racist, we're racist, and that's the way we like it, we like it, we like it' doesn't seem to register in Accra, Lagos, Phnom Penh, Ho Chi Minh City and all the other places where the nouveau-riche upper middle class kids buy branded jerseys from the malls and Adidas (now Nike) superstores.
 
To be fair, Asians and Africans are crazy about Chelsea, for some reason. 'We're racist, we're racist, we're racist, and that's the way we like it, we like it, we like it' doesn't seem to register in Accra, Lagos, Phnom Penh, Ho Chi Minh City and all the other places where the nouveau-riche upper middle class kids buy branded jerseys from the malls and Adidas (now Nike) superstores.

I don't know about Asia, but the "for some reason" is probably because they had African stars like Drogba, Essien, Obi Mikel, and Kalou in the core of the side for years while they were winning things.
 
Which is why we will get less for the naming rights than we would have done if we had moved to a different location

I think what you are missing is all media organisations will not be allowed to call it White Hart Lane.

In Ireland when Landsdowne road was knocked down and new stadium built in the exact same site the name died with the old ground. Everyone calls it the Aviva because thats what the media do. Even Upton Park changed names in the last 10 years in popular imagination because the media started calling it the boleyn ground.

Regardless Nike wont care if a few thousand people in London still end up calling it White Hart Lane. 60,000 is nothing compared to the advertising audience of 100s of millions who get to hear the name every week.

And if the reported 25m a year deal is correct thats completely blown Arsenal out of the water from what they get.

http://swissramble.blogspot.ie/2015/09/arsenal-searching-for-hows-and-whys.html
"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."

The original Emirates naming rights deals was for 15 years for £42m signed back in 2004. This works out at 2.8m a season.
 
Im assuming though that this Kit deal is seperate to the naming rights of the stadium. So 25m for the Kit and maybe 25m for the stadium naming rights so a total of 50m a season?
 
I saw something posted on another site that stated the Nike kit deal is a minimum of £25 million a season with an increase of £10 million if we qualify for CL group stages. There was then some confusion as to whether once the extra £10 million is triggered via 1 CL qualification the number cannot reduce back to £25 million but would have to remain at £35 million until another CL qualification was secured, at which stage the amount would increase to £45 million and so on.... Sounds a bit far fetched to me but who knows?
 
surely it just means we get 35m the years we qualify for the group stages - failure to qualify would see it drop back to the base 25m
 
Back