100%, this surely is the universal opinion on it.More than happy to have the stadium named after ourselves forever to be honest. If we can compete financially without selling it, then we absolutely shouldn't bother.
Most teams don't have a venue like ours though.If there was value in naming a stadium after the team - most teams would do that.
There is not enough value to make it a good decision.
If there was value in naming a stadium after the team - most teams would do that.
There is not enough value to make it a good decision.
Exactly, although stadiums have held events throughout the years none are as diverse as ours.I’m not sure about most teams. Most teams don’t have a stadium with the same kind of exposure ours has, as in nfl, boxing, concerts etc which reach a global audience.
Does not matter.Most teams don't have a venue like ours though.
That might be the case but as a fan i'm not sure why people are climbing over themselves to rename our stadium some corporate rubbish.Does not matter.
The issue is - does naming the stadium after the team generate £15-20M in new annual revenue? That is - new fans who are spending £15M+ each year on club merchandise, or allowing the club to expand its commercial deals by that amount due to new world-wide interest - every year.
Its a bad deal, that the club uses because it has not found the right partner yet.
I'm sure it's very difficult to quantify, but it absolutely is giving us international reach and brand recognition. Not everything that isn't hitting the bottom line is a bad deal.Does not matter.
The issue is - does naming the stadium after the team generate £15-20M in new annual revenue? That is - new fans who are spending £15M+ each year on club merchandise, or allowing the club to expand its commercial deals by that amount due to new world-wide interest - every year.
Its a bad deal, that the club uses because it has not found the right partner yet.
No, this is bullshit.Does not matter.
The issue is - does naming the stadium after the team generate £15-20M in new annual revenue? That is - new fans who are spending £15M+ each year on club merchandise, or allowing the club to expand its commercial deals by that amount due to new world-wide interest - every year.
Its a bad deal, that the club uses because it has not found the right partner yet.
Could the lack of any tangible results be due to him saving his best work and contacts for Chelsea?Posted to Rob & A&C yesterday that Kline was leaving, didn't know how long it would take to come out but it's been coming for some time now.
To back up what Trix said, he has done absolutely nothing and isn't well liked. I have very strong links to this
All that is true - but misses the fundamental point of marketing - you have to turn it into revenue. That is the question sponsors will be asking - if I spend X on naming rights, what return will I get on that investment? Internally, Spurs have to ask the same question - if we forgo X in naming rights, will we make up that lost revenue somewhere else?No, this is bullshit.
It is about branding and PR. Something that is of course notoriously difficult to put a price on. But look at it this way, the club is trying to position Tottenham Hotspur as a world leading brand. That's exactly the aim any brand sponsoring the stadium would have. It's great exposure and a brand would be willing to pay out for it. For Spurs though, there's the opportunity cost at stake of missing out on their own exposure. Now, they'd of course still benefit somewhat, but that would be reduced as the stadium becomes known as, for the sake of argument, Salesforce Park. In addition, while Salesforce might pay £20m for the rights, once everything from tax, to costs associated with change, to lost revenue from other opportunities sold in as part of a package, that figure is going to be considerably less. So by having a stadium with such international reach named after themselves, Spurs are actually getting the exposure at a fraction of the cost that any other huge brand would.