What's new

The Naming Rights Thread

HobbitSpur

The Voice of Reason
Jun 28, 2013
1,785
3,818
I was hoping for similar, but I'm failing to see from a sponsor's perspective what would make our place worth £20m a year while even a £3m a year gamble on the Olympic didn't get any interest. They've obviously got Premier League football too albeit with lower viewing figures, they've got concerts, and they've got a venue which is at least somewhat iconic and familiar from the Olympics even if it's awful for matchgoing fans. If the value of their's right now is only, say, £2m then I don't see what could make ours worth 10x as much (3-4x I could see, but I doubt we'd take ~£7m a year).

@spids is 100% correct. It is all about exposure to international audiences. What we really do on home soil is of very little consequence to naming rights.

I would say to value us at 10x that of West Ham extremely conservative.

If you asked a football fan anywhere in the world to name an English Football team there is a fair chance that Tottenham would be in the top 6 named, mainly because of our recent exploits.

I would say that there is a fair chance that one or two Championship teams would be more recognized than West Ham, I am thinking of perhaps Leeds or Villa.

Sponsors want to surround themselves with household names and will pay to achieve this. It is why, for the foreseeable future Man Utd will be able to attract higher valued deals.

That said, on a business front I have 100% confidence that DL has something up his sleeve. I am not saying he is a visionary, but he has the acumen to extract the maximum from every opportunity.

I am sure that we would already have a deal in place if not having one was causing us too greater financial damage.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Guys juventus stadium naming rights is worth £3m a year. I really think you might need to manage your expectations.
 

luptic

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2008
2,352
3,062
Guys juventus stadium naming rights is worth £3m a year. I really think you might need to manage your expectations.
But Juventus is in Turin, and the exposure of Serie A is not the same as being in London and the Premier League.
 

spids

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
6,647
27,841
US sports stadium naming rights deals are massive compared to Juventus' £3M, and that is the model Levy is looking at ...

Facility----Total price----Deal length
Scotiabank Arena----$639 million----2017-2038
MetLife Stadium----$425-$625 million----2010-2036
Chase Center----$300-$400 million----2016-2040
Citi Field----$400 million----2006-2028
Mercedes-Benz Stadium----$324 million----2015-2043

When you consider every year we will have at least 2 x NFL games (which is effectively 25% of a regular season from a home game sperspective), Premier League football, plus (hopefully) Champions League football, plus being the best stadium in Europe for hosting non-football events, why can't we look for these sort of deals?
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,143
15,550
@spids is 100% correct. It is all about exposure to international audiences. What we really do on home soil is of very little consequence to naming rights.

I would say to value us at 10x that of West Ham extremely conservative.

If you asked a football fan anywhere in the world to name an English Football team there is a fair chance that Tottenham would be in the top 6 named, mainly because of our recent exploits.

I would say that there is a fair chance that one or two Championship teams would be more recognized than West Ham, I am thinking of perhaps Leeds or Villa.

Sponsors want to surround themselves with household names and will pay to achieve this. It is why, for the foreseeable future Man Utd will be able to attract higher valued deals.

That said, on a business front I have 100% confidence that DL has something up his sleeve. I am not saying he is a visionary, but he has the acumen to extract the maximum from every opportunity.

I am sure that we would already have a deal in place if not having one was causing us too greater financial damage.

That's part of the problem - our status comes from recent exploits. Potentially we could cement ourselves in the Top 4, win trophies, become a huge club. Equally we could fall back into 5th-7th and win fuck all. That level of uncertainty isn't good for long-term sponsorship deals. I think the best we could hope for is a relatively small guarenteed sum with substantial payments dependent onTop 4 finishes, trophies won, international commercial figures, additional events held etc. You'd be insane to committ to an ultra-expensive, long-term deal with someone who may or may not be a household name and more widely plays in a country with levels of cultural and economic uncertainty unprecedented in recent decades. Levy's very good, but he can't change those facts.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
6,143
15,550
US sports stadium naming rights deals are massive compared to Juventus' £3M, and that is the model Levy is looking at ...

Facility----Total price----Deal length
Scotiabank Arena----$639 million----2017-2038
MetLife Stadium----$425-$625 million----2010-2036
Chase Center----$300-$400 million----2016-2040
Citi Field----$400 million----2006-2028
Mercedes-Benz Stadium----$324 million----2015-2043

When you consider every year we will have at least 2 x NFL games (which is effectively 25% of a regular season from a home game sperspective), Premier League football, plus (hopefully) Champions League football, plus being the best stadium in Europe for hosting non-football events, why can't we look for these sort of deals?

So those translate to roughly £24m, £16m, £11.5m, £18m and £9m per year respectively. The first two also have two major franchises attatched to each. You think we can do better than those grounds with only one club, in a sport less wealthy than the NFL, with no trophies, success only in the last four years or so, no guarentee it'll be persistent (indeed with six big clubs and four CL spots, a likelihood it won't be), and being based in a country with huge uncertainty compared to the US/Canada? I really hope you're right, but it sounds like cloud cuckoo land. Anything over £12m I'd certainly be happy and pleasantly surprised with.
 

spids

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
6,647
27,841
So those translate to roughly £24m, £16m, £11.5m, £18m and £9m per year respectively. The first two also have two major franchises attatched to each. You think we can do better than those grounds with only one club, in a sport less wealthy than the NFL, with no trophies, success only in the last four years or so, no guarentee it'll be persistent (indeed with six big clubs and four CL spots, a likelihood it won't be), and being based in a country with huge uncertainty compared to the US/Canada? I really hope you're right, but it sounds like cloud cuckoo land. Anything over £12m I'd certainly be happy and pleasantly surprised with.

1. I'm saying £20M per year may be a stretch but it is what we should aim for. The biggest NFL deal is £24M per year and that is a good yardstick IMO.
2. Some of those deals were signed over ten years ago and would fetch more if signed today.
3. The NFL does not have the global reach of the Premier league, especially in Asia and Africa.
4. We will have the pull of Premier League football AND NFL football as we are hosting 25% of a regular NFL season every year for ten years, potentially followed by a full franchise.
5. I'm also not saying we will get one naming rights deal for £20M per year, but several different sponsorships deals attached to the stadium that could bring in that much combined.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
The focus of marketing has changed to focus more on social media now. But even that they have serverely cut to the likes of youtube and facebook get. The demonetisation is very strict now.
 

Real_madyidd

The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
Oct 25, 2004
18,792
12,448
oddly the lack of a deal for us could actually have a plus side (although I would rather get loads of cash). It would demonstrate that the deal city have is NOT at market value and that they are being sposored by a state:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Hard for anyone to argue that we are not more attractive now than they were at the time, if both prices were on the open/ free market.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
oddly the lack of a deal for us could actually have a plus side (although I would rather get loads of cash). It would demonstrate that the deal city have is NOT at market value and that they are being sposored by a state:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Hard for anyone to argue that we are not more attractive now than they were at the time, if both prices were on the open/ free market.

I don't think anyone needs us to fail to secure a deal to show that City's deal with Etihad is dodgy as fuck. It was blatantly obvious back then and it's even more obvious now, the powers that be just don't have the balls to do anything about it and/or are equally as corrupt as the people running City.
 

TheAmerican

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2012
6,909
18,760
With all the discussion above about our attractiveness from a football side is being had, it must be brought up that the stadium itself is designed to be used for NFL games and other entertainment. There is considerable value in that. Hell, there is recent talk that Napoli and Liverpool may host a friendly at the new stadium.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
there is a possibility we have struggled because the people wanting to deal with us for the stadium also would like it on our shirts also. to do that we would need to cover the cost of what AIA have already paid. not sure if it's 21 or 22 their deal ends
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Match Thread Admin
Oct 17, 2006
10,690
25,246
there is a possibility we have struggled because the people wanting to deal with us for the stadium also would like it on our shirts also. to do that we would need to cover the cost of what AIA have already paid. not sure if it's 21 or 22 their deal ends
Shirt sponsors and naming rights are usually two different contracts to my knowledge. But like "Emirates" re Arsenals shirt and stadium, they can be inclusive, but not necessarily so. What I am trying to say is that having AIA as our shirt sponsor should not negate us having a different sponsor for our stadium naming rights.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Shirt sponsors and naming rights are usually two different contracts to my knowledge. But like "Emirates" re Arsenals shirt and stadium, they can be inclusive, but not necessarily so. What I am trying to say is that having AIA as our shirt sponsor should not negate us having a different sponsor for our stadium naming rights.

I haven’t said it has, I’m saying the possibility we haven’t got the right deal yet might be because the ones we have spoke with might want both.
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Match Thread Admin
Oct 17, 2006
10,690
25,246
I haven’t said it has, I’m saying the possibility we haven’t got the right deal yet might be because the ones we have spoke with might want both.
Oh I see, my bad.

Well if that is the case then the news sponsor would have to offer quite a lot more than the current AIA contract in my opinion. This is because addons like Asian wide exposure does add to AIA's value as a sponsor. Unless the new sponsor is Asian as well. Just surmising
 

whitesocks

The past means nothing. This is a message for life
Jan 16, 2014
4,652
5,738
there is a possibility we have struggled because the people wanting to deal with us for the stadium also would like it on our shirts also. to do that we would need to cover the cost of what AIA have already paid. not sure if it's 21 or 22 their deal ends
I think you right. Etihad, Emirates.
Sponsor the shirt long term and the stadium rights get thrown in too.
 

Rocksuperstar

Isn't this fun? Isn't fun the best thing to have?
Jun 6, 2005
53,288
66,756
I don't think anyone needs us to fail to secure a deal to show that City's deal with Etihad is dodgy as fuck. It was blatantly obvious back then and it's even more obvious now, the powers that be just don't have the balls to do anything about it and/or are equally as corrupt as the people running City.

I'm not so sure if a lot of the powers are as corrupt as they seem - I tend to view this like a case put before the CPS - sure, it appears to be dodgy as fuck but can we prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it's dodgy as fuck? They know that money makes the world go around and they would be going up against the bottomless pit of money, the most expensive lawyers who will find every loop hole they can exploit and the most likely outcome would be that the FA/UEFA/FIFA whoever will basically be pouring millions into an investigation and legal action which could, ultimately, end up thrown out over a technicality.

Anything they try to do to either deter or punish this - straight to court, where it'll stay for probably years and all they would have to show for it at the end would be a lesson learned and a much leaner bank account. Citeh's owners though will just move some cash around and go about their day.

The biggest mistake they made was letting them buy the club in the first place, then by turning a blind eye to the obvious problems it would cause further down the line when the stadium sponsor was proposed.

captain-hindsight.png
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,891
45,039
I can't help thinking our new stadium sponsor would be happy to have the suffix "home of the champions of Europe"
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
I'm not so sure if a lot of the powers are as corrupt as they seem - I tend to view this like a case put before the CPS - sure, it appears to be dodgy as fuck but can we prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it's dodgy as fuck? They know that money makes the world go around and they would be going up against the bottomless pit of money, the most expensive lawyers who will find every loop hole they can exploit and the most likely outcome would be that the FA/UEFA/FIFA whoever will basically be pouring millions into an investigation and legal action which could, ultimately, end up thrown out over a technicality.

Anything they try to do to either deter or punish this - straight to court, where it'll stay for probably years and all they would have to show for it at the end would be a lesson learned and a much leaner bank account. Citeh's owners though will just move some cash around and go about their day.

The biggest mistake they made was letting them buy the club in the first place, then by turning a blind eye to the obvious problems it would cause further down the line when the stadium sponsor was proposed.

captain-hindsight.png

Yeah you make a good point to be fair. I still think UEFA is corrupt as fuck but you're right, that's not the only reason City etc. are allowed to get away with this. I think the powers that be in football are a perfect storm of corrupt and incompetent though which just makes these kinds of situations all the worse
 
Top