Tottenham announce £320m eight-year shirt sponsor deal with AIA

[Boots]

All I have to say is this.

 

[bigspurs]

Brill, another decade of red logos... thpt.

Exactly what I was thinking. Purely considering aesthetics, their red logo is crap. If only it was blue like the Holsten logo used to be. Would make the shirts look so much nicer. Oh well, I guess the cash is more important in the grand scheme of things!

 

[Gassin's finest]

Exactly what I was thinking. Purely considering aesthetics, their red logo is crap. If only it was blue like the Holsten logo used to be. Would make the shirts look so much nicer. Oh well, I guess the cash is more important in the grand scheme of things!

I know... Unprecedented deal, lots of revenue, etc, which is all good.

But red. Ever since the Thompson's logos, I've never been happy with the red. As you say, surely a compromise can be made. For example... If they struck a deal with Liverpool or Man Utd, it'd have to be white wouldn't it? So what's the problem with some navy blue?

 

[chrissivad]

I know... Unprecedented deal, lots of revenue, etc, which is all good.

But red. Ever since the Thompson's logos, I've never been happy with the red. As you say, surely a compromise can be made. For example... If they struck a deal with Liverpool or Man Utd, it'd have to be white wouldn't it? So what's the problem with some navy blue?

They are paying about £40m a season, what compromise should they take?

And yes, if they sponsored Arsenal, Man United or Liverpool they would have to change it to white as a red logo on a red kit wouldn't work. It would just blend into the shirt.

But, they would still have the red (just not their exact red) around the logo.

It's like when we put the white logo on a navy background.

We have probably been a target of companies with red logos because our kit is basically a white canvas for them and it let's their logo stand out, unfortunately for us.

 

[Spurger King]

Brill, another decade of red logos... thpt.

Yep. An ugly logo in an ugly colour.

 

[Gassin's finest]

They are paying about £40m a season, what compromise should they take?

And yes, if they sponsored Arsenal, Man United or Liverpool they would have to change it to white as a red logo on a red kit wouldn't work. It would just blend into the shirt.

But, they would still have the red (just not their exact red) around the logo.

It's like when we put the white logo on a navy background.

We have probably been a target of companies with red logos because our kit is basically a white canvas for them and it let's their logo stand out, unfortunately for us.

If they want to sponsor the mighty Spurs, then navy blue.

 

[m*****73]

these add up...between Nike and AIA deal we are at 70 million per year. Assume the stadium rights deal is roughly double the AIA deal, that's 150 million per year over 15 years (with the shirt deal likely reupped at a higher number after 8). That pretty much takes care of the stadium.

Unfortunately not.

We'll be lucky if the stadium naming rights is even half of the AIA sponsorship on a per annum basis.

AIA are paying £40m on average per annum, whereas Levy is holding out for £20m a year for the naming rights (but that's generally considered to be significantly overestimated by the market) - Arsenal get £15m/yr from Emirates, whereas City have a joint shirt & stadium deal with Etihad which iirc values the naming rights at just under £20m per annum.

I'd expect that we'll end up with a deal that pays the club somewhere in region of £15m - £20m per annum.

 

[Lilbaz]

Unfortunately not.

We'll be lucky if the stadium naming rights is even half of the AIA sponsorship on a per annum basis.

AIA are paying £40m on average per annum, whereas Levy is holding out for £20m a year for the naming rights (but that's generally considered to be significantly overestimated by the market) - Arsenal get £15m/yr from Emirates, whereas City have a joint shirt & stadium deal with Etihad which iirc values the naming rights at just under £20m per annum.

I'd expect that we'll end up with a deal that pays the club somewhere in region of £15m - £20m per annum.

Sponsors seem to be moving away from naming rights deals and concentrating more on social media. The rams new stadium naming rights deal is worth $17m a year.

 

[chrissivad]

If they want to sponsor the mighty Spurs, then navy blue.

Are you being serious?
You want to take £40m a year from a company and then say if you want to have it on our kit you can't use your brand colour?

 

[Gassin's finest]

Are you being serious?
You want to take £40m a year from a company and then say if you want to have it on our kit you can't use your brand colour?

Yes.

 

[chrissivad]

Yes.

And why would they agree to pay that amount of money, not to have their brand/logo on the shirt?

Would you be OK if AIA started to use our badge in red as it fits in with their style?

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes.

And when they say ok we wont sponsor you? And nobody else will at anything close the price? Sell players to cut costs?

 

[Gassin's finest]

And why would they agree to pay that amount of money, not to have their brand/logo on the shirt?

Would you be OK if AIA started to use our badge in red as it fits in with their style?

1) They would have their logo. Just in navy blue.

2) No I wouldn't. Why would that even be the case? They're sponsoring us, not the other way round.

Anyway, we've had a red sponsor ever since ENIC took over, so it's not specifically AIA is it?

 

[BENNO]

I refuse to have anything red in the house, and i'm sure no Spurs fan wants a red logo on our shirt either but i'm surprised any fan is actually complaining about the new deal - it's £40m a season !!! what would you rather have, a blue logo and £30m ?

Probably be the first to moan when a signing doesn't happen 'cos we're £10m short on the valuation !

 

[Gassin's finest]

And when they say ok we wont sponsor you? And nobody else will at anything close the price? Sell players to cut costs?

And why would they agree to pay that amount of money, not to have their brand/logo on the shirt?

Would you be OK if AIA started to use our badge in red as it fits in with their style?

I refuse to have anything red in the house, and i'm sure no Spurs fan wants a red logo on our shirt either but i'm surprised any fan is actually complaining about the new deal - it's £40m a season !!! what would you rather have, a blue logo and £30m ?

Probably be the first to moan when a signing doesn't happen 'cos we're £10m short on the valuation !

My rather throwaway attitude to this seems to have been taken seriously here. However, being brutally honesy, I'm not really that engaged with the corporate side of the game. Nor does it upset it me that much.

I just don't like the red sponsors.

 

[chrissivad]

1) They would have their logo. Just in navy blue.

2) No I wouldn't. Why would that even be the case? They're sponsoring us, not the other way round.

Anyway, we've had a red sponsor ever since ENIC took over, so it's not specifically AIA is it?

1) they wouldn't, as the red is part of the logo.

Just like we wouldn't have our logo in red.

 

[Shadydan]

I didn't think anyone still cared about the colour of the logo lol

 

[BENNO]

My rather throwaway attitude to this seems to have been taken seriously here. However, being brutally honesy, I'm not really that engaged with the corporate side of the game. Nor does it upset it me that much.

I just don't like the red sponsors.

Nope, me neither but we won't care when we win the league this season.

 

[Gassin's finest]

I didn't think anyone still cared about the colour of the logo lol

You'd be wrong.

 

[Lilbaz]

I didn't think anyone still cared about the colour of the logo lol

I think we'd all prefer if it was navy blue. Just not going to happen.