Author Topic: Anfield naming rights worth £100m (Read 94947 times)

BaZ87 · « **Reply #320 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:39:26 PM »

Quote from: El Torres on March 30, 2011, 03:30:23 PM

Stadium naming rights tend to be to long contracts so i'd say this is a big hint about them making the decision to redevelop Anfield. Would prefer a stand to get sponsored rather than the whole stadium but that would mean less money.

There is another option however, one that i would take over getting naming rights and that's making the stadium bigger. If the plan at the moment is to make it 60,000 with naming rights then we could possibly increase the capacity to 65 or 70k and not need naming rights. This is a bit outlandish, since there is very little room it would probably need some buildings surrounding the stadium knocked down and have one stand with another tier on it. If this were feasible then i would go for this since we could keep the stadium as it were and any money we would have made from the naming rights could be made from tickets. There is still a option to then get sell naming rights for one stand/tier. Even if it's only something like £5million a season with the extra ticket sales it would be fine. I'm sure a company would be interested in cheap naming rights even if it were for just one stand or one tier.

First of all, why is Ayre's comments re naming rights a hint that we're redeveloping Anfield? It's made me think the exact opposite and I'm now thinking that maybe this talk of an annoucement on a redevelopment is premature.

As for increasing the capacity further rather than selling naming rights: ignoring the obvious questions on our ability to sell those extra tickets, the greater the costs of a redevelopment (or new stadium), the more likely it would be that we'd have sell the naming rights to fund it.

Also your projections of selling the name of a stand for £5m per season is slightly optimistic.

iamrobk · « **Reply #321 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:41:35 PM »

Quote from: Suareznumber7 on March 30, 2011, 03:25:07 PM

Stadiums in the US sometimes even change names. If you look at the Houston Astros (baseball) their new stadium, when built, was called Enron Stadium. Now it is called Minute Maid Park. The Boston Celtics home court was called the Fleet Center. Now it is called TD Garden.

Naming rights may be new in Europe but not in US and I would assume that FSG would be more inclined to rename the stadium than not.

Yeah, the arena near me was first the CoreStates Center, then the First Union Center, then the Wachovia Center, and now the Wells Fargo Center, and it only opened in 1996!

Suareznumber7 · « **Reply #322 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:43:56 PM »

Quote from: El Torres on March 30, 2011, 03:30:23 PM

It may be normal to get naming rights but im pretty sure Fenway park has no naming rights, so they know that side of things too. Its called Fenway because it is in the suburb of Fenway-Kenmore.

I wasn't referring specifically to Fenway or FSG. I was just making the point that changing stadium names is pretty common in the US.

BobbyDavro · « **Reply #323 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:46:16 PM »

If we got £100m and two new stands from it, I wouldn't give the slightest toss.
I reckon it would be <SponsorName> Anfield anyway.

Like Coca Cola Anfield Stadium, as opposed to only the sponsor name....like Emirates, Reebok, Ricoh etc.

Suareznumber7 · « **Reply #324 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:46:25 PM »

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/mar/29/jetblue-boston-red-sox-fenway-spring-training/?partner=RSS

Nothing to do with Anfield but this does show that FSG will generate revenue wherever they can.

gray19lfc · « **Reply #325 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:47:28 PM »

Have no problem with it as long as 'Anfield' is still kept in the name, as we'd all just call it Anfield anyway.

Mal · « **Reply #326 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:48:04 PM »

Quote from: BaZ87 on March 30, 2011, 02:46:33 PM

Agree with the theory but it wouldn't be the reality in practise in this case. Anfield will always be known as Anfield, the sponsors name will be lost.

A ready made reply..! - Cheers SP

Quote from: Southern Pansy on March 30, 2011, 02:44:17 PM

The BBC, Sky, ESPN and all of the other broadcasters are punctiliously correct when giving stadium names. I suspect it is a contractual condition of the PL coverage. The new name will be exposed to millions every week.

The corporate sponsors really could not give a fuck what the people in the stadium call it. They are not the target market by and large.

A Feint Zebra · « **Reply #327 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:50:38 PM »

I wrote this on twitter...

You could be really clever with the naming rights. There's no point changing Anfield as that just isn't right, but you could always sell to a company that has a great slogan that matches the LFC way?

For instance (and I'm not suggesting that Birdseye is the one but)

ANFIELD
-------
Only the best at the Captains table.

Then the Birdseye logo somewhere well hidden - though if you get the right slogan, you may not even need a logo.

Hope y'all get my point.

Surprise me. · « **Reply #328 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:50:47 PM »

Quote from: BaZ87 on March 30, 2011, 03:39:26 PM

First of all, why is Ayre's comments re naming rights a hint that we're redeveloping Anfield? It's made me think the exact opposite and I'm now thinking that maybe this talk of an annoucement on a redevelopment is premature.

As for increasing the capacity further rather than selling naming rights: ignoring the obvious questions on our ability to sell those extra tickets, the greater the costs of a redevelopment (or new stadium), the more likely it would be that we'd have sell the naming rights to fund it.

Also your projections of selling the name of a stand for £5m per season is slightly optimistic.

Why would it be the opposite? Naming rights tend to have long contracts so it could be likely that we will around for a while. Most companies don't see short contracts as feasible since the names don't get remembered if they are only around for a short time. It wouldn't justify the money they spend, after a few seasons of one stadium having the same name it tends to be used more and gets mentioned often on TV or whatever but long contracts are what companies look for.

It may cost more to build more seats but over time the money would be recouped if we sell out. It would just take longer but the money would still be coming in all the same. I don't see why we would not be able to sell them either, i know we haven't sold out some games in recent seasons but with more seats, tickets should be cheaper, all depends on what prices turn out to be like. Also £5million may be a bit much but even something smaller would be fine, it's still more money at the end of the day, even if its around £1million. These are just ideas anyway, making the stadium bigger than 60k would be pretty hard.

Strummer77 · « **Reply #329 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:53:27 PM »

St.James Park was renamed with a sponsor. Doesn't affect that too much does it?

I'd imagine it would be something like "The Adidas Anfield Stadium" etc. It'd just be something on the odd sign, programme etc.

Matt A · « **Reply #330 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:54:15 PM »

Quote from: flashman on March 30, 2011, 01:35:51 PM

Presume it would be the McDonald Anfield, or Anfield sponsored by McNasty's, depends on how much we get, everything has a price

As long as it's not McAnfield

Jellies · « **Reply #331 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:55:44 PM »

Quote from: Matt A on March 30, 2011, 03:54:15 PM

As long as it's not McAnfield

Shanks and Kenny would've wanted that.

jcsue3828 · « **Reply #332 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:56:59 PM »

ladies and gentlemen, i present to you the

Wonga! Anfield stadium

Moley · « **Reply #333 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:57:26 PM »

Would be a waste of anyones money.

Id still call it Anfield, you would still call it Anfield, and the media would still call it Anfield.

All you would be getting was an advertising hoarding at the ground

killer_heels · « **Reply #334 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:57:38 PM »

Hate the idea and I hope we don't go ahead with it.

Beninger · « **Reply #335 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:58:30 PM »

Renaming of stadiums happens in the states for revenue purposes. If they did it, I'm sure the Anfield part would be left in the name. Besides, if they did do that it would help with a renovation, if that's what they're after, and it wouldn't be for the next 100 years or anything.

Soap · « **Reply #336 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:59:10 PM »

Adidas Anfield Stadium...

Nothing wrong with something like that IMO.

killer_heels · « **Reply #337 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:59:33 PM »

Also, would we have to change all the signs and gates to say "This is MacDonald's Anfield"?

Frank. · « **Reply #338 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:00:12 PM »

Quote from: killer_heels on March 30, 2011, 03:59:33 PM

Also, would we have to change all the signs and gates to say "This is MacDonald's Anfield"?

Depends on the contractual agreement of the two parties.

Mal · « **Reply #339 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:01:26 PM »

Quote from: killer_heels on March 30, 2011, 03:59:33 PM

Also, would we have to change all the signs and gates to say "This is MacDonald's Anfield"?

Only if MacDonald bought it.

BaZ87 · « **Reply #340 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:02:07 PM »

Quote from: Mal on March 30, 2011, 03:48:04 PM

A ready made reply..! - Cheers SP

It's a fair point - although I'm not sure they'd be contractually obliged to call it The 'x' Anfield Stadium.

Sky, BBC etc hardly mention the name of stadiums with their coverage though, certainly not enough to justify a sponsor paying a premium to have their name associated with the stadium imo anyway.

As I initially said, I'm sure some sort of deal could be had but I can't see us getting the huge figures some are hoping and expecting, and certainly not as much as we'd get from a new stadium.

Saying that, it's incredibly difficult to predict what we might get on a new stadium too. The Arsenal deal is very old, deals in America are hardly comparable and even the Galatasaray deal (I believe people have mentioned they get ~£10m per year) is difficult to read into considering they're very dominant in their local market.

It will be interesting to see what sort of deals we could attract. Providing it's not named something stupid, I'll be happy with whatever we can get, Anfield will always be known as Anfield to me and any money we get will just be a bonus.

Soap · « **Reply #341 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:02:32 PM »

Quote from: killer_heels on March 30, 2011, 03:59:33 PM

Also, would we have to change all the signs and gates to say "This is MacDonald's Anfield"?

No we wouldn't. Why on earth would McNasty's sponsor us, you loon.

Beninger · « **Reply #342 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:03:10 PM »

Bah. McDogballs...horrible.

killer_heels · « **Reply #343 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:04:17 PM »

Quote from: El Rey on March 30, 2011, 04:02:32 PM

No we wouldn't. Why on earth would McNasty's sponsor us, you loon.

Its the same with any sponsor, I wonder if they would try to get their names on the gates and signs.

Anyway, it would probably go to the biggest bid anyway, so every chance it could be a company like MacDonalds.

leivapool · « **Reply #344 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:07:26 PM »

This naming rights thing works OK for clubs who have a completely new stadium, Sunderland, Man City etc. But Anfield is just being redeveloped, and will still be in Anfield, so I don't really think it matters what the company pay and who they are. it will always be called Anfield!!!

Prefer the idea of having the stands sponsored, apart from the Kop of course.

Aristotle · « **Reply #345 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:09:24 PM »

Don't MacDonald's sponsor the World Cup or something like that? Why would they go for just one stadium when they have a gig like that going

IndianaRed · « **Reply #346 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:11:59 PM »

McDonald's

IndianaRed · « **Reply #347 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:13:33 PM »

Quote from: leivapool on March 30, 2011, 04:07:26 PM

This naming rights thing works OK for clubs who have a completely new stadium, Sunderland, Man City etc. But Anfield is just being redeveloped, and will still be in Anfield, so I don't really think it matters what the company pay and who they are. it will always be called Anfield!!!

Prefer the idea of having the stands sponsored, apart from the Kop of course.

the new stadium situation has not been decided yet

BaZ87 · « **Reply #348 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:13:43 PM »

Quote from: El Torres on March 30, 2011, 03:50:47 PM

Why would it be the opposite? Naming rights tend to have long contracts so it could be likely that we will around for a while. Most companies don't see short contracts as feasible since the names don't get remembered if they are only around for a short time. It wouldn't justify the money they spend, after a few seasons of one stadium having the same name it tends to be used more and gets mentioned often on TV or whatever but long contracts are what companies look for.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Ayre didn't make it clear that we're looking at a naming rights deal for Anfield (or a new stadium for that matter). He simply said we're "actively seeking stadium a naming rights partner", which is something he's said previously when we were only looking at buidling a new stadium.

Quote from: El Torres on March 30, 2011, 03:50:47 PM

It may cost more to build more seats but over time the money would be recouped if we sell out. It would just take longer but the money would still be coming in all the same. I don't see why we would not be able to sell them either, i know we haven't sold out some games in recent seasons but with more seats, tickets should be cheaper, all depends on what prices turn out to be like. Also £5million may be a bit much but even something smaller would be fine, it's still more money at the end of the day, even if its around £1million. These are just ideas anyway, making the stadium bigger than 60k would be pretty hard.

Whether we can sell the tickets or not is another debate. Even if we assume we can, we've still got to pay for those extra seats. Who knows how much we can borrow, FSG will invest etc but the greater the cost will increase the likelihood that we'd look into other ways of raising money.

Agree with your last point, anything we can get is a bonus.

Y2J · « **Reply #349 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:13:59 PM »

Isn't St James' park renamed as SportsDirect.Com @ St James'Park Stadium. Nobody calls it that way unless it is an official match presentation which is the most important thing for supporters.

If we rename it, none of the supporters will call it anything other than Anfield, it's a way to get some extra few quids to help build a new Stadium/redevelop Anfield easily and definitely better than raising ticket prices to generate funds.

Frank. · « **Reply #350 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:15:23 PM »

Quote from: Y2J on March 30, 2011, 04:13:59 PM

Isn't St James' park renamed as SportsDirect.Com @ St James'Park Stadium. Nobody calls it that way unless it is an official match presentation which is the most important thing for supporters.

If we rename it, none of the supporters will call it anything other than Anfield, it's a way to get some extra few quids to help build a new Stadium/redevelop Anfield easily and definitely better than raising ticket prices to generate funds.

Sky/ESPN/BBC don't even call it that.

CHOPPER · « **Reply #351 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:19:00 PM »

If you decide to dance, you have to dance to the music they play. On the cards and has been for some time.

Wait till they whack the prices of the season and match day tickets up.

Yakyb · « **Reply #352 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:19:05 PM »

The Cash For Gold Anfield Stadium

but realistically i cant see it having a big impact, they would want us to remain in Anfield and retain our identity so would be very careful about how this is approached (job for the supporters association i presume?!)

Hopefully they do redevelop the Main stand (they can rebuild the Boot Room whilst they are at it)

Vidocq · « **Reply #353 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:20:51 PM »

we are willing to change our history for 100mil?

Alan_X · « **Reply #354 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:22:17 PM »

Threads merged

flashman · « **Reply #355 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:28:55 PM »

Quote from: jcsue3828 on March 30, 2011, 03:56:59 PM

ladies and gentlemen, i present to you the

Wonga! Anfield stadium

Bunga Bunga

Strummer77 · « **Reply #356 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:37:32 PM »

Dan Roan:
To be clear LFC's MD Ian Ayre stresses club are not looking for naming rights for Anfield - only a possibility for new stadium

SteLFC91 · « **Reply #357 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:37:39 PM »

From Dan Roan on twitter:

To be clear LFC's MD Ian Ayre stresses club are not looking for naming rights for Anfield - only a possibility for new stadium

djschembri · « **Reply #358 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:37:42 PM »

Stadium naming rights for new stadium only

Dan Roan
To be clear LFC's MD Ian Ayre stresses club are not looking for naming rights for Anfield - only a possibility for new stadium

Rory Smith
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8416267/Liverpool-actively-seeking-stadium-naming-rights-deal-but-insist-Anfield-will-not-rebranded.html

Peter McGurk · « **Reply #359 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:38:06 PM »

http://www.theanfieldopinion.com/2011/03/liverpool-seeking-stadium-naming-rights.html

"The news comes after sources close to the club revealed that Reds’ owners – Fenway Sports Group – plan to redevelop Anfield, starting with the Anfield Road End of the stadium..."

Contradiction on contradiction.