Arsenal's new £30 million 'sleeve sponsor'?!

[BS4 on Tour...]

7 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

I’d suggest he’s not a great ‘expert’ then BS4 !!!!

Family holiday in Rwanda anyone ?

Well I don’t know much about the country except the well documented stuff...but it’s interesting that its capital, Kigali, is deemed safe and clean with a construction boom that includes many five star hotels....tourism is growing rapidly in the country...

[Phileas Fogg]

6 minutes ago, Badger08 said:

The money generated however will be 4 times the amount.  I mean, its already working, we've started a thread on it and I've googled it to see how nice it would be for a holiday.  

Exactly. In terms of a nation’s tourist board, £30m isn’t that much. Regarding the aid argument, we give more money than that to other countries who may spend on far more sinister things than a marketing campaign..

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Exactly. In terms of a nation’s tourist board, £30m isn’t that much. Regarding the aid argument, we give more money than that to other countries who may spend on far more sinister things than a marketing campaign..

But again, the context of that being half the aid budget we send to Rwanda? Don't get me wrong, I totally understand aid is not charity but bankrolling investment to enable self-sufficiency, but this is just about the most expensive form of advertising they could get and we shouldn't be directly or indirectly bankrolling that. If you're starting out as a window cleaner for instance do you get a Transit van and grow or do you get a Merecedes van from the off because it looks much, much nicer and you have always liked the brand Mercedes? 

The only reason it is generating conversation is because it's distasteful. It will turn a number of people away from Rwanda because they will feel this is a 'piss take', even though it may generate a conversational buzz. 

As for estimates of what it will generate, they are but that. I wouldn't pay any attention to them as they are just guesses with some justifications behind them. Has an African tourist board advertised a sub-prime sponsorship at a sports club before? Don't see what barometer they are measuring against!!!

[Phileas Fogg]

19 minutes ago, 29AR said:

But again, the context of that being half the aid budget we send to Rwanda? Don't get me wrong, I totally understand aid is not charity but bankrolling investment to enable self-sufficiency, but this is just about the most expensive form of advertising they could get and we shouldn't be directly or indirectly bankrolling that. If you're starting out as a window cleaner for instance do you get a Transit van and grow or do you get a Merecedes van from the off because it looks much, much nicer and you have always liked the brand Mercedes? 

The only reason it is generating conversation is because it's distasteful. It will turn a number of people away from Rwanda because they will feel this is a 'piss take', even though it may generate a conversational buzz. 

As for estimates of what it will generate, they are but that. I wouldn't pay any attention to them as they are just guesses with some justifications behind them. Has an African tourist board advertised a sub-prime sponsorship at a sports club before? Don't see what barometer they are measuring against!!!

If it's legal, I don't think it's any of our concern what they spend their national budget on. A country doesn't just stop doing tourism because they're receiving an aid budget. Tourism creates income and jobs if they think it'll work then so be it. In the scheme of things, we don't spend much of our aid budget on Rwanda specifically anyway.

I don't think people will see it as a 'piss take' - I have my own rational about why I think they've chosen to do it and if it's that, it's pretty innovative thinking. Black Panther was a huge huge success, I think they're riding that wave. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

If it's legal, I don't think it's any of our concern what they spend their national budget on.

I could not agree with that when we fund that national budget, even if a very very very small proportion of. If we don't have concern we cannot justifiably hand over taxpayer's money. If I don't like the way a charity chooses to spend it's funds I stop giving, the government should be no different. 

A country doesn't just stop doing tourism because they're receiving an aid budget. Tourism creates income and jobs if they think it'll work then so be it. In the scheme of things, we don't spend much of our aid budget on Rwanda specifically anyway.

As said I totally agree, and don't even take issue with the amount spent. It's the amount spent and where and on what. A bad bargain is a bad bargain. You think they picked arsenal because of the local african support - that doesn't matter. Its not African tourism they are after. Its European and they could have got the same with any other Europa league team. This - Arsenal - was vanity, and that's the piss take. 

I don't think people will see it as a 'piss take' - I have my own rational about why I think they've chosen to do it and if it's that, it's pretty innovative thinking. Black Panther was a huge huge success, I think they're riding that wave.

Again, I agree. But why Arsenal, why so much? Near enough every Prem team has a number of African players and pockets of support in the continent. Arsenal are, let's face it, in transition, not even at the top table (Champions League) by some way, are not even filling their stadium (stay away fans) and have a new manager taking over from a long standing dynasty. It's ludicrous. The idea, the basis, is all fine, but £29m is a bad deal and a bad punt imo. 

I don't think Arsenal smell of roses here either. Should they feel cosy about selling a few inches on their shirts to a developing country for £29m per annum? No, they should feel incredibly distasteful. It's a far cry from Barca (a club I don't like) donating sponsorship to Unicef. 'Giving something back', eh? 

 

[DaveF]

13 hours ago, Gifford said:

Still not had the urge to visit Malaysia.

You should, it’s great.

[Phileas Fogg]

15 minutes ago, 29AR said:

As said I totally agree, and don't even take issue with the amount spent. It's the amount spent and where and on what. A bad bargain is a bad bargain. You think they picked arsenal because of the local african support - that doesn't matter. Its not African tourism they are after. Its European and they could have got the same with any other Europa league team. This - Arsenal - was vanity, and that's the piss take. 

Again, I agree. But why Arsenal, why so much? Near enough every Prem team has a number of African players and pockets of support in the continent. Arsenal are, let's face it, in transition, not even at the top table (Champions League) by some way, are not even filling their stadium (stay away fans) and have a new manager taking over from a long standing dynasty. It's ludicrous. The idea, the basis, is all fine, but £29m is a bad deal and a bad punt imo. 

Not primarily just because of their African support - mainly the movie actually. The movie was an enormous success globally.

Arsenal have had more prominent African players or players of African descent than most which I believe plays a part in this. I think being a London club is also a factor in why Arsenal were selected, I'd still say they're London's most famous club overall (I don't really want to get into a separate discussion about that) and that also plays a part. Could've picked Chelsea too who've also had their fair share of famous African players - who knows, maybe Arsenal were the only team they wanted to target who didn't have a sleeve sponsor yet.

I think, if they are doing it for the reasons I believe they are, it's a very interesting idea and pretty clever thinking.

[JamesBCFC]

Arsenal are the most supported team in Rwanda* so it makes sense that they would choose that team.

*source from 2015.

[wesco]

I can understand why people are saying we should not give them money if they can afford to spend £30m on a shirt sponsorship. I doubt though that the £30m came direct from the government and there is probably some other investment involved there. As has been said above if their predictions are correct and £30m will bring in an additional £300m in tourism then I would say that's good business. From Arsenal's perspective I think its a great deal £30m and the added interest in a nation which is already football mad.

I visited Rwanda back in 2009 and have to say it was an amazing country which was still affected by the troubles of genocide. If this does increase tourism then I say fair play to them. Some African countries are happy just receiving aid funding and carrying on as they are but I see this as Rwanda trying enhance the future of the nation and like someone said above is similar to what Croatia have done. 

[JamesBCFC]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/africa/rwanda/articles/rwanda-increase-uk-visitors-arsenal/amp/

"Clare Akamanzi, chief executive of the Rwanda Development Fund, defended the partnership on Tuesday, telling the BBC that the three-year deal was funded by “money that we directly generated from tourism”."

[lkntrkljbflrbh3eljth]

OK, the first point that has to be borne in mind is that this is a lot more than just a sleeve sponsorship. It also covers a pitchside sponsorship and "Visit Rwanda" will be displayed behind players and managers giving post-match interviews.

Another general point: Rwanda's GDP is just under $8.5billion. They're spending 0.48% of it on this sponsorship. We're giving them $82million which equates to 0.97% of their gdp.

To put that in perspective, imagine that you've got £10,000 in your bank account and you want to invest £45 in shares. Then imagine your multimillionaire mate having a go at you for it because he gave you a £90 christmas present. £30million may seem a lot but even for most developing states it's next to sod all and we definitely don't need to act all high and mighty about it and act as if we're doing them much of a favour by giving them £60million when they earn over £1billion in taxes and £400million in tourism revenue every year.

You can make the argument that they overpaid (although given the fact that sleeve sponsors have only been around for a year or so and there are various other factors at play here too I don't know how you could do that) but when it comes to judging value for money on investments I'm inclined to trust bankers and business analysts over random people on internet forums.

4 minutes ago, 29AR said:

I could not agree with that when we fund that national budget, even if a very very very small proportion of. If we don't have concern we cannot justifiably hand over taxpayer's money. If I don't like the way a charity chooses to spend it's funds I stop giving, the government should be no different.

As said I totally agree, and don't even take issue with the amount spent. It's the amount spent and where and on what. A bad bargain is a bad bargain. You think they picked arsenal because of the local african support - that doesn't matter. Its not African tourism they are after. Its European and they could have got the same with any other Europa league team. This - Arsenal - was vanity, and that's the piss take.

Again, I agree. But why Arsenal, why so much? Near enough every Prem team has a number of African players and pockets of support in the continent. Arsenal are, let's face it, in transition, not even at the top table (Champions League) by some way, are not even filling their stadium (stay away fans) and have a new manager taking over from a long standing dynasty. It's ludicrous. The idea, the basis, is all fine, but £29m is a bad deal and a bad punt imo. 

I don't think Arsenal smell of roses here either. Should they feel cosy about selling a few inches on their shirts to a developing country for £29m per annum? No, they should feel incredibly distasteful. It's a far cry from Barca (a club I don't like) donating sponsorship to Unicef. 'Giving something back', eh? 

With regard to your first couple of paragraphs have a look at the first part of my post. I think it's a bit much for us to be getting up in arms about how Rwanda spends their tourism revenue given how miniscule our contribution is.

With regard to the rest of your post, of course they're after more African tourism given that roughly 60% of their tourists are from Africa. Arsenal have already committed to holding various training camps and such like in Rwanda over the next few years which should bring in a lot of revenue for them given Arsenal's massive following across the continent. And you're being naive/obtuse if you think that sponsoring "any other Europa league team" would bring as much global visibility as a pitch/shirtsleeve sponsorship of Arsenal, who are the 2nd/3rd most popular football team in the most popular and most visible league in the world.

Also, saying it's distasteful to take money from developing nations is a bit of a silly thing to say in my opinion. Particularly when said country has calculated that it will help their economy immensely.

[Septic Peg]

9 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

OK, the first point that has to be borne in mind is that this is a lot more than just a sleeve sponsorship. It also covers a pitchside sponsorship and "Visit Rwanda" will be displayed behind players and managers giving post-match interviews.

Another general point: Rwanda's GDP is just under $8.5billion. They're spending 0.48% of it on this sponsorship. We're giving them $82million which equates to 0.97% of their gdp.

To put that in perspective, imagine that you've got £10,000 in your bank account and you want to invest £45 in shares. Then imagine your multimillionaire mate having a go at you for it because he gave you a £90 christmas present. £30million may seem a lot but even for most developing states it's next to sod all and we definitely don't need to act all high and mighty about it and act as if we're doing them much of a favour by giving them £60million when they earn over £1billion in taxes and £400million in tourism revenue every year.

You can make the argument that they overpaid (although given the fact that sleeve sponsors have only been around for a year or so and there are various other factors at play here too I don't know how you could do that) but when it comes to judging value for money on investments I'm inclined to trust bankers and business analysts over random people on internet forums.

With regard to your first couple of paragraphs have a look at the first part of my post. I think it's a bit much for us to be getting up in arms about how Rwanda spends their tourism revenue given how miniscule our contribution is.

With regard to the rest of your post, of course they're after more African tourism given that roughly 60% of their tourists are from Africa. Arsenal have already committed to holding various training camps and such like in Rwanda over the next few years which should bring in a lot of revenue for them given Arsenal's massive following across the continent. And you're being naive/obtuse if you think that sponsoring "any other Europa league team" would bring as much global visibility as a pitch/shirtsleeve sponsorship of Arsenal, who are the 2nd/3rd most popular football team in the most popular and most visible league in the world.

Also, saying it's distasteful to take money from developing nations is a bit of a silly thing to say in my opinion. Particularly when said country has calculated that it will help their economy immensely.

Please get off OTIB with your common sense. It's not welcome here. Only conspiracy theories and wild accusations allowed.

[LondonBristolian]

I'm sceptical of whether this will really do that much to promote tourism - although that said, up until yesterday, the possibility of going on holiday to Rwanda had literally never occurred to me and now at least I know it is an option, albeit one I don't plan to take up - and I would add that I get the impression Rwanda is not governed in the interests of the population at large and I've no idea how much transparency there is about spending on aid and where that money goes.

But I do think, as a principle, if we want countries to get out of poverty and no longer have a need for aid, they are going to have to invest in business and ways of generating income to do so. If this DID generate £300 million then that would create jobs and opportunities and potentially raise living standards. Without generating income, countries will stay poor and always be dependent on aid. I'm sceptical of whether this is the best investment possible but, at the same time, tourism is probably Rwanda's best option for investment.

Personally I'd rather give both foreign aid and charity to a country that is trying to make itself sustainable in the long-term than one that had no aspirations or goals to improve things for future generatons.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

OK, the first point that has to be borne in mind is that this is a lot more than just a sleeve sponsorship. It also covers a pitchside sponsorship and "Visit Rwanda" will be displayed behind players and managers giving post-match interviews.

Another general point: Rwanda's GDP is just under $8.5billion. They're spending 0.48% of it on this sponsorship. We're giving them $82million which equates to 0.97% of their gdp.

To put that in perspective, imagine that you've got £10,000 in your bank account and you want to invest £45 in shares. Then imagine your multimillionaire mate having a go at you for it because he gave you a £90 christmas present. £30million may seem a lot but even for most developing states it's next to sod all and we definitely don't need to act all high and mighty about it and act as if we're doing them much of a favour by giving them £60million when they earn over £1billion in taxes and £400million in tourism revenue every year.

You can make the argument that they overpaid (although given the fact that sleeve sponsors have only been around for a year or so and there are various other factors at play here too I don't know how you could do that) but when it comes to judging value for money on investments I'm inclined to trust bankers and business analysts over random people on internet forums.

With regard to your first couple of paragraphs have a look at the first part of my post. I think it's a bit much for us to be getting up in arms about how Rwanda spends their tourism revenue given how miniscule our contribution is.

With regard to the rest of your post, of course they're after more African tourism given that roughly 60% of their tourists are from Africa. Arsenal have already committed to holding various training camps and such like in Rwanda over the next few years which should bring in a lot of revenue for them given Arsenal's massive following across the continent. And you're being naive/obtuse if you think that sponsoring "any other Europa league team" would bring as much global visibility as a pitch/shirtsleeve sponsorship of Arsenal, who are the 2nd/3rd most popular football team in the most popular and most visible league in the world.

Also, saying it's distasteful to take money from developing nations is a bit of a silly thing to say in my opinion. Particularly when said country has calculated that it will help their economy immensely.

Caught in the hyperbole - I thought it was just the sleeve.

As for relative values, the materiality is an irrelevance in my mind. Where someone galls on this isn't really likely to be governed by something as micro as Rwanda spending 30m on advertising, it's a more fundamental issue of British govt use of tax payers funds. It's a more wide debate about the morality of aid and how it should be given really and controlled rather than just 'omfg Rwanda gave 30m to Arsenal'; and our respective morals are probably why we could only agree to disagree on such a matter  - for what it's worth I am totally behind aid and particularly African aid, but I'm also of the opinion the British Govt is accountable for every tax payers penny they spend, including on aid. Therefore aid should not be given for general overheads but rather by way of Grant, funding ventures we mutually agree are good investments. That possibly explains the background to my general distaste. 

Of course another reason we might not agree is the respective risk reward and how much reliance we place on other's assessments. A natural sceptic like myself, I view all such things as best guestimates which are soundly based on logic but wholly unreliable in real world practice - especially for such a niche deal as this. 

I definitely was being obtuse, but only to a certain extent. I do wonder how wide the audience could have been and relative cost picking say 4 or 5 continental teams playing in front of continental audiences. 

As for my opinion on Arsenal, again a question of morality. I'm as capitalist as they come, I still do some pro bono or loss leading work where it's client appropriate. To my mind arsenal could have generated great publicity and avoided this whole debate by writing off 29m - an immaterial sum to them, a sum they never had before.