Chelsea consider selling naming rights for Stamford Bridge

gaffs · 5th November 2009, 18:14

Quote:

Chelsea's new chief executive, Ron Gourlay, has revealed the club would consider selling the naming rights for Stamford Bridge. During an interview with Chelsea TV, his first since succeeding Peter Kenyon, Gourlay made it clear that such a deal would be possible on the proviso the name Stamford Bridge was retained in any agreement with a suitable blue-chip company.

"Retaining the heritage of the stadium is paramount to considering such a move but we think that is achievable and on that basis we would enter into discussions over naming rights with the right partner for Chelsea," he said. "We understand that this is a sensitive issue for our fans and that is why we would keep the name Stamford Bridge in any deal.

"What we are not prepared to happen, and I am sure our fans will appreciate this, is allow our rival clubs in England and Europe to gain a competitive advantage over us in terms of the revenue they can generate through either expanding the capacity of their existing stadia or moving to a new stadium and then invest that upside in their team or the club.

"Those possibilities are not open to Chelsea for the foreseeable future because of the restrictions in expanding our stadium and the issues around finding a new site, so that means we have to be creative and look at our sponsorship architecture and see if we can create new value and new opportunities that keeps us competitive."

Chelsea currently sit top of the Premier League and are through to the last 16 of the Champions League but, even though they retain the backing of the owner, Roman Abramovich, the club are keen to ensure their financial future. The capacity at Stamford Bridge is considerably smaller than those of Old Trafford and the Emirates, to name two rivals with bigger stadiums, and Gourlay does not want the club to suffer because of that.

"Our stadium does very well at the moment in competing with the bigger, and in some cases newer, stadia of our rivals. But they have more possibilities in the long run than we do. We cannot sell any more tickets to Chelsea fans as we sell out virtually every match within our limited capacity," he said.

"The match-day experience at Stamford Bridge and the relationship with our fans has improved greatly through initiatives such as our flexible ticketing policy for all cup matches, the freezing of non-hospitality ticket prices for the last four seasons for Premier League matches and subsidised or free travel to a significant number of away games.

"But we need to keep evolving and move the business forward to support the football side and the club generally. This is a potentially realistic way of doing that."

Chelsea consider selling naming rights for Stamford Bridge | Football | guardian.co.uk

You can bet the Glazers will do the same if Chelsea sell naming rights to Stanford Bridge.

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 18:16

They can't sell "naming rights" because Stamford Bridge already has a name. Allthey can sell is "presentation rights" (as has happened at Newcastle).

As for whether the Glazers would do it at OT, Gill has already said that there is "no value" in it for United. Basically we'd lose as much sponsorship revenue clearing out what presentation rights we've already sold in the stadium (eg to Hublot, Nike and Audi) as we'd ever gain.

Grinner · 5th November 2009, 18:17

The Cuntbowl.

Do I win anything?

kouroux · 5th November 2009, 18:18

The Lion's Kingdom in reference to Terry

Spoony Youngblood · 5th November 2009, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

They can't sell "naming rights" because Stamford Bridge already has a name. Allthey can sell is "presentation rights" (as has happened at Newcastle).

As for whether the Glazers would do it at OT, Gill has already said that there is "no value" in it for United. Basically we'd lose as much sponsorship revenue clearing out what presentation rights we've already sold in the stadium (eg to Hublot, Nike and Audi) as we'd ever gain.

Of course they can. The MEN used to called the Nynex Arena. Borrusia Dortmund's stadium is now called Signal Iduna Park Stadium - formerly Westfalenstadion. So it's been done before. . .

Number7 · 5th November 2009, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

As for whether the Glazers would do it at OT, Gill has already said that there is "no value" in it for United. Basically we'd lose as much sponsorship revenue clearing out what presentation rights we've already sold in the stadium (eg to Hublot, Nike and Audi) as we'd ever gain.

I suppose that's positive for us. You can bet they've explored it though and will be keeping track of Newcastle and Chelsea doing this.

As for Chelsea wanting to increase revenue...not as if they have anything to spend it on for the next 2 years

, although I'm sure they'll squirm their way out of that one.

gaffs · 5th November 2009, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

They can't sell "naming rights" because Stamford Bridge already has a name. Allthey can sell is "presentation rights" (as has happened at Newcastle).

As for whether the Glazers would do it at OT, Gill has already said that there is "no value" in it for United. Basically we'd lose as much sponsorship revenue clearing out what presentation rights we've already sold in the stadium (eg to Hublot, Nike and Audi) as we'd ever gain.

They can drop Old Trafford and call it the NikeDome if they so choose.

prateik · 5th November 2009, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoony Youngblood

Of course they can. The MEN used to called the Nynex Arena. Borrusia Dortmund's stadium is now called Signal Iduna Park Stadium - formerly Westfalenstadion. So it's been done before. . .

JJB - DW
same thing ?

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoony Youngblood

Of course they can. The MEN used to called the Nynex Arena. Borrusia Dortmund's stadium is now called Signal Iduna Park Stadium - formerly Westfalenstadion. So it's been done before. . .

The MEN's not a good example because it's always been branded hasn't it?

The Westfalen however is an excellent example though as I've never heard it called anything else. If Dortmund claimed they were selling naming rights rather than presentation rights to the Westfalen, Mr S. Iduna should be paying a visit to the Rhineland Trading Standards Department!

gaffs · 5th November 2009, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

The MEN's not a good example because it's always been branded hasn't it?

The Westfalen however is an excellent example though as I've never heard it called anything else. If Dortmund claimed they were selling naming rights rather than presentation rights to the Westfalen, Mr S. Iduna should be paying a visit to the Rhineland Trading Standards Department!

So are Newcastle selling naming rights or presentation rights and whats the difference?

HsJ · 5th November 2009, 18:29

Artificial Stadium

All they need is to add a plastic pitch

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaffs

They can drop Old Trafford and call it the NikeDome if they so choose.

Yes, but everyone will continue to call it Old Trafford. And as a result, the value of the rights for Nike will be considerably less than if United moved to a new stadium. Hence the term in the industry for this type of deal is "presentation" rather than "naming" rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by prateik

JJB-DW same thing?

Well JJB got naming rights, because it was a new stadium. Same with the Reebok. Bu if a stadium gets a name before naming rights are sold, the value goes down dramatically. One of Boro's biggest mistakes was calling the Riverside Stadium, The Riverside - they'd have got far more had they not named it and then it would have just been the Cellnet.

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaffs

So are Newcastle selling naming rights or presentation rights and whats the difference?

Presentation rights. Because St James's Park already has a name.

ALX8725 · 5th November 2009, 18:35

Emirates? Allianz Arena? just let it go ralphie, Glazers are going to sell the NAMING rights to OT and we're all going to refer to the new stadium as NIKEFIELD

HsJ · 5th November 2009, 18:35

Newcastles name is by far the worst name for the stadium ever.

I challenge anyone to come up with a more ridiculous name.

Spoony Youngblood · 5th November 2009, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

The MEN's not a good example because it's always been branded hasn't it?

The Westfalen however is an excellent example though as I've never heard it called anything else. If Dortmund claimed they were selling naming rights rather than presentation rights to the Westfalen, Mr S. Iduna should be paying a visit to the Rhineland Trading Standards Department!

I still call it Westfalen, to be fair - but I'm not a follower of German footballer. I hope the Glazer never sell our naming rights, but you get the feeling it's inevitable. I think Liverpool were the first club to wear a sponsorship logo on their shirts - but everyone followed suit. I think we'll see the same happen here. Anyhow, I reckon you're splitting hairs, the fact is the MEN was called the Nynex and after a few months people stopped calling it the Nynex and it's now universally known as The M.E.N. Although, in a sense you're right, what Chelsea are thinking of selling aren't naming rights but presentation rights - because I'm 100% sure everyone will still call it SB, even though it may be called Durex's Stamford Bridge for example. They'd have to completely rename the stadium for it be classed as naming rights.

gaffs · 5th November 2009, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

Presentation rights. Because St James's Park already has a name.

That may well be what its called within the industry, but everyone still calls it naming rights.

I see your point that selling the "Presentation Right" may devalue the current deals that the other sponsors hold, but if one brand was to pay a huge amount, im sure the board would consider it.

Gill said we wouldnt sell Ronaldo, but things change.

gaffs · 5th November 2009, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoony Youngblood

I still call it Westfalen, to be fair - but I'm not a follower of German footballer. I hope the Glazer never sell our naming rights, but you get the feeling it's inevitable. I think Liverpool were the first club to wear a sponsorship logo on their shirts - but everyone followed suit. I think we'll see the same happen here. Anyhow, I reckon you're splitting hairs, the fact is the MEN was called the Nynex and after a few months people stopped calling it the Nynex and it's now universally known as The M.E.N. Although, in a sense you're right, what Chelsea are thinking of selling aren't naming rights but presentation rights - because I'm 100% sure everyone will still call it SB even though it may be called Durex's Stamford Bridge for example. They'd have to completely rename the stadium for it be classed as naming rights.

I still call it the Nynex.

I still call the Carling Cup the Worthington Cup.

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALX8725

Emirates? Allianz Arena? just let it go ralphie, Glazers are going to sell the NAMING rights

Er... there's a fairly key difference between Old Trafford on the one hand and the Emirates and the Allianz on the other. Hint: the clue is in the name.

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaffs

I see your point that selling the "Presentation Right" may devalue the current deals that the other sponsors hold, but if one brand was to pay a huge ammount, im sure the board would consider it.

Gill said we wouldnt sell Ronaldo, but things change.

What United have said is that no one would pay a huge amount, because United don't have naming rights to sell, only presentation rights.

However, I see your point re Mr Gill.

Spoony Youngblood · 5th November 2009, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaffs

I still call it the Nynex.

I still call the Carling Cup the Worthington Cup.

I call it the Milk Cup. Nah, I call it the Carling Cup. Shit name for a shit comp.

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoony Youngblood

in a sense you're right, what Chelsea are thinking of selling aren't naming rights but presentation rights - because I'm 100% sure everyone will still call it SB

Well that's the crux of the matter. Hence why in the industry there's a clear difference between naming and presentation rights, whether it's the Durex Stadium or the Durex Stamford Bridge Stadium. Neither are worth as much as the rent boys fucking off to a new stadium called the Durex Arena.

Oh and yes, the Milk Cup!

Nick 0208 Ldn · 5th November 2009, 18:45

If we were desperate we could approach that bed company called Dreams. Incorpoate them in at the end of "The Theatre of".

Might make some spare change.

gaffs · 5th November 2009, 18:46

In the Champions League, they cant call the stadium the Allianz Arena.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 5th November 2009, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by HsJ

Newcastles name is by far the worst name for the stadium ever.

I challenge anyone to come up with a more ridiculous name.

Challenge accepted sir.

Pizza Hut Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gaffs · 5th November 2009, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

Challenge accepted sir.

Pizza Hut Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gaylord Family Stadium cant be beaten. Though there is Gay Meadow, where Shrewsbury play.

The Home Depot Center is pretty bad - LA Galaxys stadium. Especially the way Americans say Depot.

FC Nuremberg play at the EasyCredit-Stadion.

And Dicks Sporting Goods Park - home of the Colorado Rapids....

Dick's Sporting Goods Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gaffs · 5th November 2009, 18:59

Tropicana Field - home of the baseball team The Tampa Bay Rays - Tropicana Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minute Maid Park - Houston Astros - Minute Maid Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Makki · 5th November 2009, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

Er... there's a fairly key difference between Old Trafford on the one hand and the Emirates and the Allianz on the other. Hint: the clue is in the name.

There's also a difference between naming a newly-built stadium (Emirates and Allianz) and re-naming a stadium that already has a name (Old Trafford).

robertsoncrusoe · 5th November 2009, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALX8725

Emirates? Allianz Arena? just let it go ralphie, Glazers are going to sell the NAMING rights to OT and we're all going to refer to the new stadium as NIKEFIELD

How about- malcolm glazer memorial park?

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makki

There's also a difference between naming a newly-built stadium (Emirates and Allianz) and re-naming a stadium that already has a name (Old Trafford).

That was my point.

You can't do the latter, however hard you try. In fact even when the original name was the result of the sale of naming rights, that tends to stick. I still refer to Huddersfield's ground as the McAlpine.

R_Nick · 5th November 2009, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoony Youngblood

I call it the Milk Cup. Nah, I call it the Carling Cup. Shit name for a shit comp.

Named after a shit beer!

Chelsea should go with "Maxi Pad's Stamford Bridge" seeing as it houses a load of bleedin cnuts

TonyMontana · 5th November 2009, 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaffs

You can bet the Glazers will do the same if Chelsea sell naming rights to Stanford Bridge.

Why?

ralphie88 · 5th November 2009, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by R_Nick

Named after a shit beer!

Generally only the shit beers get involved in football sponsorship. Carlsberg, Carling, Budweiser, Amstel, McEwans, Tennants... Although I guess Heineken's a decent lager.

I doubt we'll see the day when United are sponsored by Marble.

Grinner · 5th November 2009, 20:29

Wankdorf was pretty bad.

antihenry · 5th November 2009, 20:31

That's what Chelsea support came up with so far.

STAM

BRIDGE

Or better yet, three sponsor deal

Makki · 5th November 2009, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

That was my point.

You can't do the latter, however hard you try. In fact even when the original name was the result of the sale of naming rights, that tends to stick. I still refer to Huddersfield's ground as the McAlpine.

Oh, I knew that was your point from the beginning. Just didn't see it was you who wrote the post that I quoted. Dunno how I missed that

samabachan · 5th November 2009, 20:53

The coca cola cup!

niMic · 5th November 2009, 21:09

It's clearly the League Cup.

Marching · 5th November 2009, 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

They can't sell "naming rights" because Stamford Bridge already has a name. Allthey can sell is "presentation rights" (as has happened at Newcastle).

As for whether the Glazers would do it at OT, Gill has already said that there is "no value" in it for United. Basically we'd lose as much sponsorship revenue clearing out what presentation rights we've already sold in the stadium (eg to Hublot, Nike and Audi) as we'd ever gain.

What exactly is the difference between naming and presentation rights?

davisjw · 5th November 2009, 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

What United have said is that no one would pay a huge amount, because United don't have naming rights to sell, only presentation rights.

However, I see your point re Mr Gill.

Why? Old Trafford isn't a name we get paid to use for the stadium. Nothing stopping them from saying, right we'll drop Old Trafford and instead call it XYZ Park/Field/Stadium, etc. We couldn't if someone was paying us for the right but as it stands it's just a name with no association that causes them to use concrete.

Whoever owns the stadium owns the naming rights and can do what they want with them.

Well nothing stopping them but a riot of fans.

Theater of Dreams works quite well for now thank you potential investors.

5th November 2009, 20:31	#35 (permalink)
antihenry Reserve Team Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Blue Heaven Posts: 2,561	That's what Chelsea support came up with so far. STAMBRIDGE Or better yet, three sponsor deal

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Site Announcements

Chelsea consider selling naming rights for Stamford Bridge

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

5th November 2009, 18:16	#2 (permalink)
ralphie88 Cat smeller Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Stretford Posts: 13,125	They can't sell "naming rights" because Stamford Bridge already has a name. Allthey can sell is "presentation rights" (as has happened at Newcastle). As for whether the Glazers would do it at OT, Gill has already said that there is "no value" in it for United. Basically we'd lose as much sponsorship revenue clearing out what presentation rights we've already sold in the stadium (eg to Hublot, Nike and Audi) as we'd ever gain.

5th November 2009, 18:17	#3 (permalink)
Grinner fat gutted, hairy shouldered stinky arse Join Date: May 2003 Location: Kevin Costner - Prince of Cunts Posts: 13,187	The Cuntbowl. Do I win anything?

5th November 2009, 18:18	#4 (permalink)
kouroux First Team Regular Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Poitiers(86)/France Posts: 14,799	The Lion's Kingdom in reference to Terry

5th November 2009, 18:29	#11 (permalink)
HsJ Reserve Team Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The DIOUF! The DIOUF! The DIOUF is on FIRE!! Posts: 4,979	Artificial Stadium All they need is to add a plastic pitch

5th November 2009, 18:35	#14 (permalink)
ALX8725 reyalP maeT htuoY Join Date: May 2007 Location: Take Me Home, United Road. To The Place I Belong, To Old Trafford, To See United. Take Me Home, United Road. Posts: 4,186	Emirates? Allianz Arena? just let it go ralphie, Glazers are going to sell the NAMING rights to OT and we're all going to refer to the new stadium as NIKEFIELD

5th November 2009, 18:35	#15 (permalink)
HsJ Reserve Team Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The DIOUF! The DIOUF! The DIOUF is on FIRE!! Posts: 4,979	Newcastles name is by far the worst name for the stadium ever. I challenge anyone to come up with a more ridiculous name.

5th November 2009, 18:45	#23 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: An everlasting toast to Harry and Juana Smith. :) Posts: 10,950	If we were desperate we could approach that bed company called Dreams. Incorpoate them in at the end of "The Theatre of". Might make some spare change.

5th November 2009, 18:46	#24 (permalink)
gaffs First Team Sub Join Date: May 2007 Location: K Stand / Curva Nord Posts: 7,988	In the Champions League, they cant call the stadium the Allianz Arena.

5th November 2009, 18:59	#27 (permalink)
gaffs First Team Sub Join Date: May 2007 Location: K Stand / Curva Nord Posts: 7,988	Tropicana Field - home of the baseball team The Tampa Bay Rays - Tropicana Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Minute Maid Park - Houston Astros - Minute Maid Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5th November 2009, 20:29	#34 (permalink)
Grinner fat gutted, hairy shouldered stinky arse Join Date: May 2003 Location: Kevin Costner - Prince of Cunts Posts: 13,187	Wankdorf was pretty bad.

5th November 2009, 20:53	#37 (permalink)
samabachan First Team Sub Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Green & Gold till the club is sold! Posts: 8,144	The coca cola cup!

5th November 2009, 21:09	#38 (permalink)
niMic Reserve Team Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: And I'm all out of bubblegum. Posts: 4,741	It's clearly the League Cup.