Topic: Anfield naming rights worth £100m

[shanklyboy]

Because as I said I draw the line there, I'd rather we played in the second divi than share a ground with them. I'm not saying it's right, it's how I feel, much like you with stadium naming.

You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t tell me I need to move with the times, accept the inevitable and with the next breath say you wouldn’t accept a ground share if it allowed us to financially compete with our rivals, which is the reason  you are willing to accept us selling our soul.
If Peter Robinson had his way in the 80s we would already be sharing a stadium.

The finance is not in place, again it's covered in a number of other threads. I've already answered the question, did you not read it? I'd be overjoyed if we didn't need to get sponsorship for the stadium if we were financially sound. If you can show me how this is possible I'd love to hear it. I'm always open to a difference of opinion and don't have a problem changing mine if it makes sense to me.

I did read your answer it was ‘The finance isn’t in place’. That’s a really convincing explanation of why it isn’t in place.
As I have pointed out, it is  in place. Not as they would like it to be , but it is there all the same. I have given you the reason why it has to be .
How is it possible to be financially sound?
I think the revenue from the new stadium will go some way to achieve that. Factor in the added marketing initiatives that are hopefully to be put in place. Not to mention having to spend considerably less on players in future years etc.

That is a silly senario you've created there.

I’m using your argument of doing something for the benefit of the club. To enable them to compete.
You obviously don’t have the strong belief in that viewpoint that you are making out.
It’s as silly to you as not playing at Anfield is to me, yet you seem to think that’s worth selling ourselves for, not merely changing the colour of our shirts and paying more money to get into the ground. All done of course to make the club more competitive.

No, it's an example of fans ignoring a stadium sponsor name and using the original name of their stadium. It's not insulting at all. Middlesborough is another example, I remember going there and it was the Cellnet Riverside stadium, then the BT Cellnet Riverside stadium and now just the Riverside stadium. Twats though they are their fans actually named it The Riverside and during their sponsorship years called it the Riverside regardless of the sponsorship.

It is insulting for the reasons I have given. Using Boro or Bolton, Derby County, Coventry etc as an example is marginally better but still insulting. If you don’t see why that is I despair.

[7Dalglish]

You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t tell me I need to move with the times, accept the inevitable and with the next breath say you wouldn’t accept a ground share if it allowed us to financially compete with our rivals, which is the reason  you are willing to accept us selling our soul.
If Peter Robinson had his way in the 80s we would already be sharing a stadium.

I can actually, it's how I feel about the situation. You can't tell me what I feel and don't feel. I wouldn't accept a ground share but I don't feel quite the same way about stadium naming, simply put it's my opinion.

I did read your answer it was ‘The finance isn’t in place’. That’s a really convincing explanation of why it isn’t in place.
As I have pointed out, it is  in place. Not as they would like it to be , but it is there all the same. I have given you the reason why it has to be ..

No you didn't read what I said, I had already told you that I would be overjoyed if we didn't need to get sponsorship for the stadium, you then asked me the same question again. We do not have financing in place for the stadium, that is what they are currently working on, along with refinancing of the original purchase loan.

How is it possible to be financially sound?
I think the revenue from the new stadium will go some way to achieve that. Factor in the added marketing initiatives that are hopefully to be put in place. Not to mention having to spend considerably less on players in future years etc.

So let's take a gamble on the youth set up producing virtually everything we need, look at what ttnbd said about how the repayments will be made and how that affects ticket prices etc. Marketing initiatives? Come on now you're not agreeing to sell out are you?

I’m using your argument of doing something for the benefit of the club. To enable them to compete.
You obviously don’t have the strong belief in that viewpoint that you are making out.
It’s as silly to you as not playing at Anfield is to me, yet you seem to think that’s worth selling ourselves for, not merely changing the colour of our shirts and paying more money to get into the ground. All done of course to make the club more competitive.

Not playing at Anfield, you mean you don't want to leave Anfield? If so this is all a pointless discussion.

It is insulting for the reasons I have given. Using Boro or Bolton, Derby County, Coventry etc as an example is marginally better but still insulting. If you don’t see why that is I despair.

It's only insulting to you because it displays quite clearly that regardless of a stadium sponsor the fans still call it by the original name. If that insults you you need to relax a little and not be so sensitive.

[7Dalglish]

shanklyboy I'm sure your next reply would be to tell me where I'm wrong but I'm not wrong and neither are you. We disagree which is fine with me. You think that having a stadium sponsor is up there with ground sharing and changing from red to blue, I really don't.

[shanklyboy]

I can actually, it's how I feel about the situation. You can't tell me what I feel and don't feel. I wouldn't accept a ground share but I don't feel quite the same way about stadium naming, simply put it's my opinion.

Of course you can have your opinion which is totally the opposite of why you are advocating selling the name of the ground. If you don’t feel that’s hypocritical then maybe you should  have a look at it again.

No you didn't read what I said, I had already told you that I would be overjoyed if we didn't need to get sponsorship for the stadium, you then asked me the same question again. We do not have financing in place for the stadium, that is what they are currently working on, along with refinancing of the original purchase loan.

Jeezus , how many times? You telling me you would be overjoyed if we were financially sound doesn’t explain why the stadium finance isn’t in place.
Let me put it this way. What is it that H & G are trying to re-finance exactly?
The finance had to be in place to get the grants and planning permission.

So let's take a gamble on the youth set up producing virtually everything we need, look at what ttnbd said about how the repayments will be made and how that affects ticket prices etc. Marketing initiatives? Come on now you're not agreeing to sell out are you?

Youth setup? What’s that got to do with anything I have said?
I’m sure ttnbd post is very good but rather than muddy the waters anymore than they are over this, I’d prefer to just stick with the topic in hand.
You think having marketing initiatives is an indication of me ‘selling out’ ? What the hell is that all about?

Not playing at Anfield, you mean you don't want to leave Anfield? If so this is all a pointless discussion.

What are you on about?

It's only insulting to you because it displays quite clearly that regardless of a stadium sponsor the fans still call it by the original name. If that insults you you need to relax a little and not be so sensitive.

As I said if you don’t understand why……

[7Dalglish]

I don't need to read it again, I explained to you that I don't feel as strongly about having a stadium sponsor as I do about a ground share or changing our colours from red to blue, That does not make me a fucking hypocrite.

You didn't ask me to explain why the stadium finance isn't in place, I said it wasn't in place and you think it is. Who is the loan for the stadium currently with? All I know is that we have a bridging loan from RBS which is due to expire shortly and that loan is for the purchase of the club. If I'm wrong about that I have no problem being corrected.

How many times indeed, what I was referring to is that you keep asking me would I be up in arms if we didn't need a stadium sponsor my response a number of times was that I'd be overjoyed.

"It’s as silly to you as not playing at Anfield is to me" <-----you asked what I'm on about regarding playing at Anfield.

The youth set up comment was a conclusion I jumped to when you mentioned that we would be spending considerably less on players in the future, I assumed you meant our youth set up would bear fruit. The naming rights to the stadium is a marketing initiative, it was ironic that you added that to you list of way we can repay the debt without naming rights.

[walktall13]

It would be nice to call the new stadium anfield but if changing the name to something else brings millions of pounds in to pay for the thing and hopefully better players then so be it.

[GerrardKopLegend]

It would be nice to call the new stadium anfield but if changing the name to something else brings millions of pounds in to pay for the thing and hopefully better players then so be it.

I doubt the funded money goes towards anything but paying off the stadium. It make financial sense, but I hate any idea of the stadium not being called Anfield

[decisivemoment]

I'm afraid at this point we're probably stuck with the name change.  Arsenal after all sold their naming rights despite what turns out to have been far more favourable financing arrangements.  Selling naming rights on the new stadium is going to be absolutely vital to avoid a financial train wreck down the line.  That's the kind of price we all pay for Moores' decision to sell rather than bring in new equity, and in particular his decision to sell to what after all are rather old owners with a short-term horizon for making money on the deal.  That, along with the inevitable increase in ticket prices and what I fear will be several years of treading water in terms of playing staff.

[shanklyboy]

Why hasn't the name of Old Trafford been sold off?

Why wasn't Wembleys name changed for money?

[7Dalglish]

Hello Shanklyboy, OT's gradual expansion hasn't been anything like building a new stadium from scratch financially. Terrible example mate. Wembley stadium is a completely different ball game and you know it.

[shanklyboy]

Hello Shanklyboy, OT's gradual expansion hasn't been anything like building a new stadium from scratch financially. Terrible example mate. Wembley stadium is a completely different ball game and you know it.

Alright mate, hows it going.



I fail to see the relevence of either.
The argument appears to be that it's alright not to call the stadium Anfield because of the money we'll get.
Old Trafford is different because it's not a new stadium. It might aswell be.
Either way they could make millions if they changed the name too couldn't they? Why do you think they didn't?

Why is Wembley different?
It's all about money isn't it......fuck the heritage.

What pisses me off is that for months all we've heard on this site is how G & H  are selling our heritage and don't understand our history. While this thread has been going since July and it's only on 2 pages.
Seems to be that our heritage does have a price afterall.

The apathy is astounding.

[7Dalglish]

I honestly do understand where you're coming from. I don't like that we will more than likely need to help fund the building of the stadium by having a stadium sponsor.

Old Trafford is different because the money involved with their expansion has been significantly less and spread out over a longer period of time.

Wembley is different because they received over 120m from Sport England, basically the government. 40m from London Development agency and Dept of Culture, media and sport.

Wembley's annual revenue has been projected at over 200m and they don't have to continually purchase players etc..

I believe that no matter what sponsor (if any) we get it will still have Anfield as part of the name and that does soften the blow for me personally.

[shanklyboy]

I honestly do understand where you're coming from. I don't like that we will more than likely need to help fund the building of the stadium by having a stadium sponsor.

Old Trafford is different because the money involved with their expansion has been significantly less and spread out over a longer period of time.

Wembley is different because they received over 120m from Sport England, basically the government. 40m from London Development agency and Dept of Culture, media and sport.

Wembley's annual revenue has been projected at over 200m and they don't have to continually purchase players etc..

I believe that no matter what sponsor (if any) we get it will still have Anfield as part of the name and that does soften the blow for me personally.

Fair points about Wembley, but at the same time the reason they didn’t change it was because of the marketing value of the name worldwide. Very much the same as Anfield.

The very nature of a leveraged business is to increase profit, so renaming Old Trafford could well be a cash cow for Man Utd. It’s not about recouping your outlay all the time, sometimes it’s about generating new income which Old Trafford could do overnight.
 This hasn’t been done in favour of maintaining the market name of the stadium.

As I’ve said many times. If we allow this to go ahead they can name the new stadium anything they want. No guarantee that the word Anfield is anywhere in the name, and possibly a new name every few years.

Sorry mate but no amount of money, which I doubt would all be used for new players, will convince me that losing the name Anfield  will ever be worth it.

[fudge]

“I just hope I’m still around when the day comes for us to play our first game in it.”

Fucking hell, Gerrards a bit optimistic if he still thinks he'll be playing in 17 years time.

[7Dalglish]

Fair points about Wembley, but at the same time the reason they didn’t change it was because of the marketing value of the name worldwide. Very much the same as Anfield.

I agree it's one of the reasons, other reasons included getting over 160m free of charge from local and national governments. I think the marketing value of the name Anfield is valid and any sponsorship would include it. The Sony stadium at Anfield etc etc.

The very nature of a leveraged business is to increase profit, so renaming Old Trafford could well be a cash cow for Man Utd. It’s not about recouping your outlay all the time, sometimes it’s about generating new income which Old Trafford could do overnight.
 This hasn’t been done in favour of maintaining the market name of the stadium.

I think it hasn't been done thus far because they're able to keep up with payments for their incremental stadium expansions and it's been a matter of picking their battles. They had a big fan revolt at the time their take over went through and probably thought this is one that can stay on the back burner for a while. I wouldn't bet against it happening to them in the future.

As I’ve said many times. If we allow this to go ahead they can name the new stadium anything they want. No guarantee that the word Anfield is anywhere in the name, and possibly a new name every few years.

Sorry mate but no amount of money, which I doubt would all be used for new players, will convince me that losing the name Anfield  will ever be worth it.

Well you have already identified the marketing value of the name Anfield, they'd be stupid to remove it all together if it means a loss of revenue for them.

The other thing I'd like to comment on is that your main issue here is the apathy, you seem to feel like you're the only one that is bothered about this. I honestly don't think that's true, I don't know anyone that is all for stadium sponsorship. There are some like me that think the trade off is worth it. I would love to be proved wrong about that.

[shanklyboy]

The other thing I'd like to comment on is that your main issue here is the apathy, you seem to feel like you're the only one that is bothered about this. I honestly don't think that's true, I don't know anyone that is all for stadium sponsorship. There are some like me that think the trade off is worth it. I would love to be proved wrong about that.

As I've said the apathy is conspicuous by it's absence. I do feel like I'm whistling into the wind at times.
You say you would love to be proved wrong. Thats the rub though isn't it.
If we don't do it we have lost nothing.....if we win the league without doing it do you think anyone will be calling for us to sell the name of the stadium?

If we do it and it isn't the panacea people think it will be it will be too late.
I'm not prepared to take the risk of being proved right.

[7Dalglish]

Talking about winning the league, I don't think the owners need the team to win the league in order to make a profit. That for me is by far the biggest problem we face. The owners' goals and the goals of our manager, the players and us are completely different.

How about this, what if the club decided that stadium sponsorship is a step too far and they'd prefer to keep our traditions and history intact by keeping the name Anfield and nothing else. The result of which would be a large ticket price hike, which in turn prices some of our best and most loyal fans out of the picture? I understand that lots have already been priced out but how many more can we afford to lose?

I think I need to completely understand the financial impact the stadium and the associated loans have, at that point I can really decide whether we can afford not to have stadium sponsorship. That's really what I'm looking for.

[LiamG]

Quote from official site from interview with hicks :

So that 10-15 per cent would have been as part shareholder in your business?
 
Yes they would have been a minority investor and we would have used that capital to help build the new stadium. But we'll find other ways to capitalise the new stadium in a couple of years. Right now we've got the capital and I've put in a lot of money. We will put in more if we need to and we are going to design the best football stadium in the world and we'll end getting permanent capital for it when we need to further down the road.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Naming rights maybe??

[Nilanjan]

Why hasn't the name of Old Trafford been sold off?

Why wasn't Wembleys name changed for money?

Old Trafford was built in 1910 FFS
and
Wembly was built by The FA

[shanklyboy]

Old Trafford was built in 1910 FFS
and
Wembly was built by The FA

Thanks for that.............So what's your point?

[shanklyboy]

Talking about winning the league, I don't think the owners need the team to win the league in order to make a profit. That for me is by far the biggest problem we face. The owners' goals and the goals of our manager, the players and us are completely different.

How about this, what if the club decided that stadium sponsorship is a step too far and they'd prefer to keep our traditions and history intact by keeping the name Anfield and nothing else. The result of which would be a large ticket price hike, which in turn prices some of our best and most loyal fans out of the picture? I understand that lots have already been priced out but how many more can we afford to lose?

I think I need to completely understand the financial impact the stadium and the associated loans have, at that point I can really decide whether we can afford not to have stadium sponsorship. That's really what I'm looking for.

The cost of tickets can still increase even if we sell the name of the stadium. That money will be used in different areas. I don't think it's neccesarily going to mean a fairer or better ticketing structure.
To be honest I think they will introduce a varied ticketing structure anyway. That's what Hicks in particular has done elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if ST costs will be even more favourable pro rata, than window sales ( If there are any), or single purchases of any kind.
Whether it will be any good here remains to be seen.
Don't forget, we already have increases on ticket prices already.

[mikek1984]

i want to sell it for 100mil

[Emlyn18]

If out new ground is called any thing but Anfield it will be a fucking disgrace. Fuck the 100 million.

[Football CRAZY]

i want to sell it for 100mil

Me too. I would actually be angry if we didn't sell the name with numbers like £100m. Get's the loan payed off years quicker and in 15 years just name it Anfield again when we're out of debt.

[Alan_X]

Why hasn't the name of Old Trafford been sold off?

Why wasn't Wembleys name changed for money?

United don't need to sell naming rights.

And Webley haven't sold the naming rights they just whore themselves around to anyone with the cash to put on an event... Diana memorial concert, the NFL game or that pathetic racing event they just had... they've also sucked up the FA Cup semis until the end of time...

[7Dalglish]

The cost of tickets can still increase even if we sell the name of the stadium. That money will be used in different areas. I don't think it's neccesarily going to mean a fairer or better ticketing structure.
To be honest I think they will introduce a varied ticketing structure anyway. That's what Hicks in particular has done elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if ST costs will be even more favourable pro rata, than window sales ( If there are any), or single purchases of any kind.
Whether it will be any good here remains to be seen.
Don't forget, we already have increases on ticket prices already.

Well right now we don't know how much we'd get or how the money would be spent, that's why I asked you to respond to the senario I'd created. Come on Shanlyboy, I know you're not really a politician.

If refusing to go with naming rights meant it would price out a lot of our long standing and loyal support would you still believe it was the right thing to do?

[shanklyboy]

Well right now we don't know how much we'd get or how the money would be spent, that's why I asked you to respond to the senario I'd created. Come on Shanlyboy, I know you're not really a politician.

If refusing to go with naming rights meant it would price out a lot of our long standing and loyal support would you still believe it was the right thing to do?

I thought I had answered it!
I wouldn't want any loyal, long standing fan to be prevented from going to the game for whatever reason.
I don't think that selling the name would reduce ticket prices so it's impossible for me to answer your question by a simple yes or no.

Let me ask you a question.
What would your feelings be if the name of the stadium was sold but ticket prices still increased and prevented loyal , long standing fans from attending?

[7Dalglish]

I thought I had answered it!
I wouldn't want any loyal, long standing fan to be prevented from going to the game for whatever reason.
I don't think that selling the name would reduce ticket prices so it's impossible for me to answer your question by a simple yes or no.

Let me ask you a question.
What would your feelings be if the name of the stadium was sold but ticket prices still increased and prevented loyal , long standing fans from attending?

Let's get this right, you refuse to answer to my scenario because you don't believe it would happen and then provide your own and expect me to answer it. I never said it would reduce ticket prices, that's never going to happen. I said the increase would be so much that a large portion of our long standing loyal following wouldn't be able to afford the price hike.

Your answer stated that the money would be used in other areas, you don't know that and I wanted you to, just for a minute, believe that the scenario I created was fact.

I'll answer your question no problem, my feelings would be that I'd be seriously pissed off and I'd want to know exactly what was the point of naming the stadium if it didn't help keep the costs down for paying for the stadium. Why would they need to raise ticket prices so much that people couldn't go if they'd received a huge chunk of money to help offset the costs? That would be my feelings on the scenario you created...

[shanklyboy]

There are fans who are priced out of going to Anfield and have been for years.
I'm sure though that you wouldn't advocate us selling the name of our current ground on the basis that it would provide money for new players AND to keep the cost of tickets down to enable our long standing,loyal fans to start going to the game again.
Or would you?

[7Dalglish]

Stadium rights means any increases in ticket price are in line with inflation and therefore people can continue going to the game, without naming rights the increase in ticket price is so much that many cannot afford to go.

Yes or no to stadium naming rights in this scenario please.

[shanklyboy]

Stadium rights means any increases in ticket price are in line with inflation and therefore people can continue going to the game, without naming rights the increase in ticket price is so much that many cannot afford to go.

Yes or no to stadium naming rights in this scenario please.

Seeing that my viewpoint is to resist selling our name I think the 2 options are more than a bit leading don't you.

Add 2 more options and I'll answer the question providing you do the same.

1. No naming rights and a ticket increase comparible to the current pricing structure.
2. Ground share and ticket prices reduced.

[7Dalglish]

I answered your question after you refused to answer mine, I then restated it and you come up with another scenario and again refuse to answer mine.

Ground share isn't even on the table. You know where I stand on ground share and given the nice set up you created for option 1 it's obvious I'm going to choose that, you complain about a leading question and then create one yourself and expect me to answer.

Not much else to say really, agree to disagree as it's not going anywhere.

[shanklyboy]

I answered your question after you refused to answer mine, I then restated it and you come up with another scenario and again refuse to answer mine.

Ground share isn't even on the table. You know where I stand on ground share and given the nice set up you created for option 1 it's obvious I'm going to choose that, you complain about a leading question and then create one yourself and expect me to answer.

Not much else to say really, agree to disagree as it's not going anywhere.

I think I did actually answer your question. I pointed out that given my viewpoint your questions were leading.
Interestingly you point that out in my questions, which was actually the point I was proving.
The fact that groundshare isn't on the agenda is about as relevent as your 2 options, neither of which are on the agenda.
You know aswell as I do that you won't answer such a question because it makes your argument about doing it for those fans who won't be able to go anymore fall around your ears. If you had that much conviction about doing that, a groundshare wouldn't bother you in the slightest would it?

I also believe you have said 'agree to disagree ' before.

As I've already stated. you say that you are prepared to accept selling our name and the consequences of that. You are prepared to be proven wrong.
I don't accept it and I'm not prepared to be proved right.

[7Dalglish]

I think I did actually answer your question. I pointed out that given my viewpoint your questions were leading.
Interestingly you point that out in my questions, which was actually the point I was proving.

No, you didn't. It was a simple yes or no answer which you refused to give.

The fact that groundshare isn't on the agenda is about as relevent as your 2 options, neither of which are on the agenda.

Bollocks, ground share is not on the agenda at all. The options I've gave well we don't know do we?

You know aswell as I do that you won't answer such a question because it makes your argument about doing it for those fans who won't be able to go anymore fall around your ears. If you had that much conviction about doing that, a groundshare wouldn't bother you in the slightest would it?.

Won't answer the question? I did!

I also believe you have said 'agree to disagree ' before..

I have yes and shouldn't have bothered replying last time, you refuse to answer my question and make up new questions as a reply. It's a waste of time.

As I've already stated. you say that you are prepared to accept selling our name and the consequences of that. You are prepared to be proven wrong.
I don't accept it and I'm not prepared to be proved right.

Rightio.

[shanklyboy]

No, you didn't. It was a simple yes or no answer which you refused to give.

I answered the question, just not with the answer you wanted to hear.

Bollocks, ground share is not on the agenda at all. The options I've gave well we don't know do we?

Correct ground share isn't on the agenda,but that doesn't stop you asking me a loaded hypothetical question based on a scenario you made up. However you won't answer my question because you know you can only answer one way. Which is exactly what you wanted me to do. Funny that!

Won't answer the question? I did!

See above

I have yes and shouldn't have bothered replying last time, you refuse to answer my question and make up new questions as a reply. It's a waste of time.

Rightio.

Well lets hope I'm right and you are wrong eh. Surely every Liverpool fans in his heart as well as his head wants our stadium to be called Anfield.
Wouldn't it be better to do that and if we were in such dire financial straits to then consider changing the name. Rather than meekly accepting our fate.
Fuck that....you can if you want but I want no part of it.

[7Dalglish]

What are you on about I didn't answer the question? Read the replies to the questions you posed. I chose option 1 which in your scenario was 'no naming rights and a ticket increase comparable to the current pricing structure'. You on the other hand will not answer my question at all.

Also because I chose option 1 from your idea that does not mean I'm going against what I believe, it means as I've stated a number of times that I feel more strongly about ground sharing than I do naming rights. You continue to throw in shite like ground share when it's got fuck all to do with the topic because you're set in your ways and nothing, not even reasoned debate will allow you to deviate from what you originally say.

I'm not suggesting we 'meekly accept our fate', I'm suggesting that stadium naming as an option should be looked at and if there is a benefit to the club and our supporters then it should not be ruled out. You think it's a none starter, fair enough.

I didn't want to continue this but you got me when again you said I didn't answer your question, it's there in black and white.

[kingjari]

I wouldn't rule something completely different out with these Americans.

Hicks recently bought back the naming rights to Arlington park (I think) because he'd figured out a better way of generating revenues from other sponsors, although I don't know what these are.

However, it wouldn't suprise me if it's something similar to Wembley's set up, they have a main sponsor Powergen who's allowed to use Wembleys name, but ain't directly in Wembley name. I'm sure it also has approved partners like MacDonald's & ford, bit like the CL, that can use Wembleys name & are featured around the stadium.

This way, Anfield can still be called Anfield, but we may be able to find 5 or 6 blue chip companies willing to give us 20 million each to be associated with what now turns out to be a ground breaking new design for the next 15 years
(1.2m per sponsor per season must be good value?).
I'm not going over board when I say it's going to be one of the most talked about grounds in the world, even more so than are current home.

   That is very F**kin clever mate. And ideal, the stadium would still be known as our beloved Anfield but we'd rake it in if we had, like you suggest 6 different blue chip sponsors or stadium partners. Carlsberg, for the beer, Orange, communucations partner, an airline, a car manufacturer e.t.c  e.t.c. Though that scheme would go out the window on championes league nights with all their own preferred sponsors and the ensuing legalities of it all. but Anfield would remain Anfield on those nights.
    Anything that allows us to preserve that world renownd name of Anfield, is a good thing.
    Frankly i think our friends in Dubai pulled Arsenals pants down over the Emirates sponsorship deal they get £150 million for 15 years, thats seems ok, £10 million a year which is what i'd hope is the minimum we ask for our New Stadium. A ten year deal for £100 million whether its a single sponsor or several partner companies. 
    BUT the Arsenal deal also includes an 8 year shirt sponsorship deal. They get less on their shirt deal than we do,  our own deal is pretty poor & lags behind Spurs, Chelsea and the Salford Devils. I think i read  in world soccer that Arsenals deal is £5.5 mil a year. If thats true then Arsenal get only £106 million for 15 years of stadium naming rights. 
Not nearly enough, but your idea JRC is boss, sponsorship revenue without sacrificing our stadiums name.

[Terry_Tibbs]

Don't mean to sound pedantic but the Emirates deal was £100m over 15 years so, as you rightly say, the Arabs knew a thing or two about driving a hard business deal (as Hicks is currently finding out  )   Gooners deal

[jambutty]

I want the money generated from the naming rights.

It either buys better players or keeps ticket prices down.

[zionistzidane]

The idea of the new stadium being sponsored is vile to be honest... but... I agree that if it keeps ticket prices down and buys new players... we would be stupid not to consider it.