What's new

The Naming Rights Thread

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Let’s face it sponsor ain’t really gonna be bothered that we can it whl they’re after the global audience

Disagree. The acceptance/uptake of the new name will be really important to the naming rights partner. In particular when it's the first time the stadium has had a branded name, one of the key challenges that they'll have worked out is making sure the new name gets accepted into the common vernacular as quickly as possible. That's one of the reasons why we don't have any named WHL tribute type stuff like it's called Tottenham Hotspur Stadium not "New WHL" etc. and presumably also plays a role in why we're trying to get the station renamed too. Anything that will reduce the uptake of the new name will contribute to lowering the value of the naming rights deal. What the fans on the ground call it may seem like a small thing in the grand scheme of things but ultimately the less often people hear the name "White Hart Lane" the easier/quicker people all over will start to automatically call it "Nike Stadium" or whatever instead without even thinking about it
 

Phischy

The Spursy One
Feb 29, 2004
1,000
1,152
Disagree. The acceptance/uptake of the new name will be really important to the naming rights partner. In particular when it's the first time the stadium has had a branded name, one of the key challenges that they'll have worked out is making sure the new name gets accepted into the common vernacular as quickly as possible. That's one of the reasons why we don't have any named WHL tribute type stuff like it's called Tottenham Hotspur Stadium not "New WHL" etc. and presumably also plays a role in why we're trying to get the station renamed too. Anything that will reduce the uptake of the new name will contribute to lowering the value of the naming rights deal. What the fans on the ground call it may seem like a small thing in the grand scheme of things but ultimately the less often people hear the name "White Hart Lane" the easier/quicker people all over will start to automatically call it "Nike Stadium" or whatever instead without even thinking about it

"John Nike Leisure Stadium"
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Jul 22, 2008
43,881
95,147
I accept that this is highly unlikely, but it wouldn’t surprise me if we already have our official name - The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

Brands pay millions for the publicity, increasing brand awareness and strengthening their image through association with high profile teams. The stadium is going to be used for all sorts of non-football events, but the most significant is the NFL. We’ve been actively trying to increase our brand in the US for a while now, and those NFL games will attract millions of viewers from across the world. Over and over the advertising would be ‘Live from the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium’. The brand recognition opportunities from that could far outweigh the cash from an external company.

I think it’s unlikely, but I think there’s a small chance that Levy might be willing to see what tangible benefits we might gain over the course of one season by having the club advertised every time the stadium is used for a showcase event.
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Match Thread Admin
Oct 17, 2006
10,690
25,246
I accept that this is highly unlikely, but it wouldn’t surprise me if we already have our official name - The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

Brands pay millions for the publicity, increasing brand awareness and strengthening their image through association with high profile teams. The stadium is going to be used for all sorts of non-football events, but the most significant is the NFL. We’ve been actively trying to increase our brand in the US for a while now, and those NFL games will attract millions of viewers from across the world. Over and over the advertising would be ‘Live from the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium’. The brand recognition opportunities from that could far outweigh the cash from an external company.

I think it’s unlikely, but I think there’s a small chance that Levy might be willing to see what tangible benefits we might gain over the course of one season by having the club advertised every time the stadium is used for a showcase event.
Interesting, food for thought...
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Jul 22, 2008
43,881
95,147
Interesting, food for thought...

I hope so.

I know there has been talk of ongoing discussions with potential stadium sponsors, which is to be expected. I just thought it was worth highlighting the potentially huge benefits of keeping the name as it is. They could have given it a temporary name like ‘The New White Hart Lane’, but that wouldn’t mean much to anyone beyond Spurs fans.

‘The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium’ seems like an opportunity for free advertising on a global scale. In fact it’s not just free, we’re being paid a lot of money by the NFL to have the opportunity to advertise the club name across the USA and globe for several years.

I could imagine Levy factoring in how much we might get paid by a stadium sponsor, versus how much the club pay to raise brand awareness around the world. We had huge billboards of Bale in Manhattan which we probably paid a fair wedge. Having the club name repeatedly mentioned during televised NFL games watched by millions of people around the world is a marketing dream. If it was called the Aldi Arena, would NFL coverage even need to mention Spurs? This way they have no choice.

Could be a win-win situation. We will call it WHL or NWHL anyway, and the club get paid to have our name (and incredible stadium) advertised across the planet). A brand sponsoring, say, Madrid, are getting exposure through the CL and domestic football. Purpose-building NWHL as a dual handegg/football stadium means we’re getting the advertising benefits of a wide publicity that other brands pay millions for (just for the football side), but are in fact getting paid millions for the privilege.

Daniel fucking Levy.

I’m actually starting to think this is the plan. The markets of CL, EPL, and NFL that a sponsor would gain from should come at a significant cost. Being CL finalists has significantly strengthened our hand. Levy would be perfectly justified in demanding a king’s ransom for such high profile publicity. It actually might make perfect sense to go without any naming rights altogether.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
I accept that this is highly unlikely, but it wouldn’t surprise me if we already have our official name - The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

Brands pay millions for the publicity, increasing brand awareness and strengthening their image through association with high profile teams. The stadium is going to be used for all sorts of non-football events, but the most significant is the NFL. We’ve been actively trying to increase our brand in the US for a while now, and those NFL games will attract millions of viewers from across the world. Over and over the advertising would be ‘Live from the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium’. The brand recognition opportunities from that could far outweigh the cash from an external company.

I think it’s unlikely, but I think there’s a small chance that Levy might be willing to see what tangible benefits we might gain over the course of one season by having the club advertised every time the stadium is used for a showcase event.

Said this ages ago. The fact the stadium is multi purpose makes it a completely different scenario. If it’s worth £20m to some company then why isn’t it worth £20m to us.
 

McFlash

In the corner, eating crayons.
Oct 19, 2005
12,740
45,363
I hope so.

I know there has been talk of ongoing discussions with potential stadium sponsors, which is to be expected. I just thought it was worth highlighting the potentially huge benefits of keeping the name as it is. They could have given it a temporary name like ‘The New White Hart Lane’, but that wouldn’t mean much to anyone beyond Spurs fans.

‘The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium’ seems like an opportunity for free advertising on a global scale. In fact it’s not just free, we’re being paid a lot of money by the NFL to have the opportunity to advertise the club name across the USA and globe for several years.

I could imagine Levy factoring in how much we might get paid by a stadium sponsor, versus how much the club pay to raise brand awareness around the world. We had huge billboards of Bale in Manhattan which we probably paid a fair wedge. Having the club name repeatedly mentioned during televised NFL games watched by millions of people around the world is a marketing dream. If it was called the Aldi Arena, would NFL coverage even need to mention Spurs? This way they have no choice.

Could be a win-win situation. We will call it WHL or NWHL anyway, and the club get paid to have our name (and incredible stadium) advertised across the planet). A brand sponsoring, say, Madrid, are getting exposure through the CL and domestic football. Purpose-building NWHL as a dual handegg/football stadium means we’re getting the advertising benefits of a wide publicity that other brands pay millions for (just for the football side), but are in fact getting paid millions for the privilege.

Daniel fucking Levy.

I’m actually starting to think this is the plan. The markets of CL, EPL, and NFL that a sponsor would gain from should come at a significant cost. Being CL finalists has significantly strengthened our hand. Levy would be perfectly justified in demanding a king’s ransom for such high profile publicity. It actually might make perfect sense to go without any naming rights altogether.
I like your thinking on this Spurgs.
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Jul 22, 2008
43,881
95,147
Said this ages ago. The fact the stadium is multi purpose makes it a completely different scenario. If it’s worth £20m to some company then why isn’t it worth £20m to us.

It would be worth £20m for having their brand advertised in the EPL, CL, and the NFL. Most English clubs can only offer the EPL. Obviously we don’t need to advertise ourselves in the EPL or CL, as we’re doing that by simply being there.

I’d imagine Levy holds all the cards here. Either we get paid a record breaking sum for unprecedented global exposure across two sports, or we reap the benefits of brand exposure to the NFL audience.

It would tie in with the proposed station name too.
 

Phischy

The Spursy One
Feb 29, 2004
1,000
1,152
On this subject. The stadium will be known as Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in the NFL regardless of whether we get a sponsor, so we get that benefit regardless.
 

Buggsy61

Washed Up Member
Aug 31, 2012
5,551
8,921
With the stadium just built, and with the debt to pay off I don’t think we can afford not to go with a naming rights from a commercial company.
Apart from merchandising I can’t think of any way it would increase revenue by branding ourselves. The stadium is full, the NFL and PL games etc will be televised anyway and the prize money is also fixed depending on league position etc.
If we think we can generate £20m+ from extra merchandising then all well and good but I can’t see it myself, whereas a naming rights deal gives us guaranteed cash flow.
Like others have said though it will always be WHL to me anyway.
 

Spurger King

can't smile without glue
Jul 22, 2008
43,881
95,147
On this subject. The stadium will be known as Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in the NFL regardless of whether we get a sponsor, so we get that benefit regardless.

Really? I guess that’s the best of both worlds if true. An external company gets to be associated with us for EPL and CL games, and we get the NFL global market to promote ourselves.
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Match Thread Admin
Oct 17, 2006
10,690
25,246
On this subject. The stadium will be known as Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in the NFL regardless of whether we get a sponsor, so we get that benefit regardless.
Are you sure? I thought this only applies to European competitions as stipulated by UEFA. They certainly call the stadium sponsor's name when commentating the NFL in the USA.
 

Phischy

The Spursy One
Feb 29, 2004
1,000
1,152
Are you sure? I thought this only applies to European competitions as stipulated by UEFA. They certainly call the stadium sponsor's name when commentating the NFL in the USA.
Daniel Levy has already said, publicly, on camera, that the NFL wanted a deal in which the stadium could be handed over to them 'clean' and said that worked in a similar fashion to UEFA competition. This isn't something I have randomly made up!

The difference is, NFL franchises are all involved in the running of the league and they play in their own stadiums. Our stadium is not owned by an NFL franchise, it is being leased by the NFL as an entity, meaning that the NFL is looking for an arrangement which suits them as a whole, rather than an an individual member entity. (Of course the league understands the necessity to ensure its teams are financially viable, but they get zero benefit from a sponsor's name on our stadium. The only way a sponsor name will be used is if that sponsor pays the NFL or if they are already an NFL sponsor and ties in our stadium name with their arrangement. If our stadium sponsor operates in any business area an existing NFL sponsor operates in, it would create a conflict of interest, so theh NFL wouldn't stand for that either. Again, I should highlight this is about the fact it is NFL as an entity, not a specific team using our stadium. Finally, of course the NFL needs to protect it's teams. So if a team played at 'Chrysler Stadium' and suddenly had a 'home' game at 'Audi Stadium' in the UK, it could compromise that team's relationship with its own sponsors).

Therefore it's not an appropriate comparison with NFL club stadiums. A better comparison is with Wembley, who have an extremely similar contract. Wembley's name hasn't been sold fully, but they have a comprehensive arrangement with EE, with EE referenced in the name and EE visuals all over the stadium. EE's Wembley branding was even referenced on THFC official lierature whilst we were there. However, when the NFL were in town, all references to EE were removed or hidden, right the way down to the branding used on the steps around the inside of the bowl. That is an example of how our arrangement with the NFL is structured.

This may change in the future if the stadium is no longer contracted to the NFL as a whole, but is instead used by a team which is a member of the NFL, at which stage it would revert to a more conventional 'team facility' style arrangement rather than an 'NFL facility'.

You have to remember, sponsorships are expensive arrangements for sponsoring companies, they enter in to those arrangements with comprehensive contracts around usage of their brand and with clauses preventing it from being watered down, to maximise value. The NFL and its franchises' priority and responsibility is to its existing sponsorship arrangements, not to allowing us to extract an extra couple of million a year from ours. They would quite reasonably argue that they are paying us for the privilege of using our stadium and are entitled to ask that it is delivered to a particular standard for their requirements.
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Match Thread Admin
Oct 17, 2006
10,690
25,246
Daniel Levy has already said, publicly, on camera, that the NFL wanted a deal in which the stadium could be handed over to them 'clean' and said that worked in a similar fashion to UEFA competition. This isn't something I have randomly made up!

The difference is, NFL franchises are all involved in the running of the league and they play in their own stadiums. Our stadium is not owned by an NFL franchise, it is being leased by the NFL as an entity, meaning that the NFL is looking for an arrangement which suits them as a whole, rather than an an individual member entity. (Of course the league understands the necessity to ensure its teams are financially viable, but they get zero benefit from a sponsor's name on our stadium. The only way a sponsor name will be used is if that sponsor pays the NFL or if they are already an NFL sponsor and ties in our stadium name with their arrangement. If our stadium sponsor operates in any business area an existing NFL sponsor operates in, it would create a conflict of interest, so theh NFL wouldn't stand for that either. Again, I should highlight this is about the fact it is NFL as an entity, not a specific team using our stadium. Finally, of course the NFL needs to protect it's teams. So if a team played at 'Chrysler Stadium' and suddenly had a 'home' game at 'Audi Stadium' in the UK, it could compromise that team's relationship with its own sponsors).

Therefore it's not an appropriate comparison with NFL club stadiums. A better comparison is with Wembley, who have an extremely similar contract. Wembley's name hasn't been sold fully, but they have a comprehensive arrangement with EE, with EE referenced in the name and EE visuals all over the stadium. EE's Wembley branding was even referenced on THFC official lierature whilst we were there. However, when the NFL were in town, all references to EE were removed or hidden, right the way down to the branding used on the steps around the inside of the bowl. That is an example of how our arrangement with the NFL is structured.

This may change in the future if the stadium is no longer contracted to the NFL as a whole, but is instead used by a team which is a member of the NFL, at which stage it would revert to a more conventional 'team facility' style arrangement rather than an 'NFL facility'.

You have to remember, sponsorships are expensive arrangements for sponsoring companies, they enter in to those arrangements with comprehensive contracts around usage of their brand and with clauses preventing it from being watered down, to maximise value. The NFL and its franchises' priority and responsibility is to its existing sponsorship arrangements, not to allowing us to extract an extra couple of million a year from ours. They would quite reasonably argue that they are paying us for the privilege of using our stadium and are entitled to ask that it is delivered to a particular standard for their requirements.
Case closed! (y)

You are correct, as I now recall reading what you said about Levy providing a "clean" stadium to the NFL.

So the NFL games would benefit us from @Spurger King idea, but on the other side of the coin, any company who gets the naming rights would not benefit commercially (advertising) from these NFL games being played at our stadium, therefore could reasonably demand to pay less to us as a result?
 
Last edited:
Top