New Stadium Details And Discussions

[tiger666]

It looks immense - not sure how high up my knees will take me.

They're installing escalators for the old gits.

 

[mark87]

They're installing escalators for the old gits.

Stair lifts would be funnier.

 

[kmk]

Stair lifts would be funnier.

The South Stand sponsored by Stannah.

 

[Phischy]

I suspect whoever is our stadium sponsor will have an eye to the NFL anyway and will almost certainly sponsor that, possibly the games at Tottenham, and so there will be no problem.

This wouldn't surprise me in the least.

So why are we bothering?

It was said the combined stadium sponsorship would pay for the whole build, but now the NFL are going ahead without any at all.

I can only think of 2 reasons:

1. We used the NFL partnership to appeal to Boris Johnson, so the planning applications would go smoother and more money would be released for regeneration for the area. We've knocked listed buildings down and Boris looked the other way, maybe dreaming of being wrapped in the US flag, high kicking, and leading the 'bulls' onto the field.

2. That this is a vanity project for Joe Lewis, who is after all paying for every bean. If you want to impress your US billionaire chums, then inviting them to one of their games, with the whole michelin restaurant floor pre-booked, best seats in the house, and every inch is yours, that has to be fairly impressive.

The stadium sponsorship is a Spurs issue for Spurs' stadium. We can't know how much of the build was paid for buy the sponsorship until (or unless) we find out the actual value of the deal.

The NFL partnership is clearly appealing to THFC in a number of ways, not least, US audiences becoming more familiar with us based on 'Tottenham' entering the NFL lexicon. There's a small financial benefit to the club from NFL using the stadium and I am certain there is a certain caché to being the 'home' of the NFL in London which will have attracted him. It's financially motivated, of course, 100%, but it's about more than direct revenue from the NFL, it's about all of the secondary revenue streams that the association opens up.

I'm pretty sure there's some vanity involved, of course there is, or it's cost half as much. But it's vanity with a purpose, it's about evolving the perception of the club further as being elite and ultimately generating greater revenue as a result. A £1000 Burberry handbag doesn't cost 100 times as much to make as a £10 New Look one (my wife likes handbags!) but it sells for 100 times as much. That's because there is a mark-up on premium products and Levy knows the more of that he can sell, the more revenue we generate.

A lot of misconceptions floating around in here.

The stadium will have a sponsor (or as has been floated - sponsors.) When those deals are finalized, the stadium will be referred to as that particular designation - by the NFL, by the media, and by anyone else marketing the use of the stadium. Nearly all NFL stadiums are sponsored. This is nothing new to the NFL.

Most NFL stadiums are primarily funded by local and state governments - i.e. they are not owned by the NFL teams. Naming rights go to fund the cost of the stadium - just as they will here.

Over 2/3rds of NFL revenue comes from broadcast rights, 15% from tickets, and only 10% comes from marketing. And, those marketing deals are generally on a national scale - i.e Microsoft is the Official IT provider of the NFL. Those types of deals allow advertisers to use the NFL logo and trademarks in their advertising. The NFL does go overboard in protecting its copyrights and trademarks - companies cannot even use the term "Super Bowl" in advertising unless they pay the NFL - which is why you see a lot of ADs for new TVs near the Super Bowl referred to as "Get your new TV in time for the "Big Game".

But signs in stadiums are the purview of the local audience - they are not designed to be picked up on TV broadcasts. The signage around football pitches that are prevalent in most Football stadiums are not effective in the NFL - because you have so many people and equipment standing in front of them to make them irrelevant.

Lets take AIA as an example, I think they want to be part of the sponsorship of the new stadium, and may pay Spurs to place signage up. That is Spurs revenue - not the NFL, not PL. What Spurs may (will) do, is say to AIA - the cost is now going to be higher because the signage will have more visibility - not just 19 PL matches, but also 2 NFL games, 5 concerts, etc. And, so Spurs can charge more for greater visibility.

Why the NFL?

There are two primary reasons for why Levy wanted to deal with the NFL - neither are directly related to London getting an NFL team. Both are directly related to money. First, the NFL contract stipulates a minimum of 2 games per year for 10 years. That is projectable guaranteed revenue. Contrast that with CL matches - extra matches mean extra match-day revenue - but no team can "guarantee" a minimum of 2 CL matches for the next 10 years. So, Levy has expanded the revenue streams for a minimum of 10 years - this helps pay down the stadium, without relying on Spurs' Operating income. It comes with a degree of reliability - which Spurs can use when making budgets and forecasts.

Second, goes back to the naming rights issue. Naming rights is a financial decision for the sponsor - the sponsor wants to know how big is the audience, and how far is the reach. It then monetizes that advertising value and agrees to pay the naming rights. An English football stadium, as a stand-alone entity reaches a certain number of people. When you can expand that reach - say to Europe via publicity surrounding CL matches - that increases the value of the naming rights. A company would look at that reach, and assign a probability that the stadium would be in use for CL, and add that to the basic value of the stadium. When you add the NFL - then sponsors can look and calculate the effect of the stadium name being broadcast twice a year - to American audiences (over and above the people who would typically watch Spurs play). That extra reach has value. That is what Levy is trying to leverage, and why he gets a contract to demonstrate some level of certainty to potential sponsors.

If London is awarded a team, I'd hedge against that happening any time soon, then Levy has positioned the stadium to be the home stadium - which would increase its visibility from 2 games per year to 10 games per year - which then goes to the sponsorship value.

So, the tie-in to the NFL has to do with finding additional reliable revenue streams to fund the stadium, and to increase the value of the naming rights - which, you guessed it, goes to fund the stadium. I have seen nothing to suggest that Joe Lewis, ENIC, Levy, et al want to own an NFL team, instead everything points to them creating multiple revenue steams to pay for the stadium.

I'm sorry, but you're making some totally baseless assumptions here and demonstrate a pretty limited understanding of the way the NFL operates as a business. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but your argument seems to be predicated on the notion that a Sponsor can dictate to us and the NFL or that one can simply assume it would retain the sponsor name because 'why not'.

The fundamental principle of that business is not to give away for free anything which can be charged for.

Yes the stadium will have a sponsor.

No, you cannot assume that sponsor's name will be used for all stadium purposes. I can offer a tangible real world example. Wembley is Wembley Stadium connected by EE. Every staircase in the bottom tier has the EE logo on it as a sort of watermark, you can see them at every Spurs home game. Except, it doesn't for NFL games. No reference to EE is allowed, right down to removing the sponsorship from the staircases. This is a provable fact, not based on assumption or conjecture. That's the way the NFL operate, they won't allow anyone to leverage or earn off their brand unless they are getting a cut of the pie.

So if the stadium has a sponsored name for NFL games, you can be positive it's because they are also paying the NFL for that privilege.

It's inappropriate to use individual team stadiums as a reference point as it's a totally different situation. As I have described, they are not providers to the NFL, they are owned by the teams which own the NFL. In that regard it is in the teams interests to have sponsors from which the directly benefit from be allowed, but to not allow sponsors which provide no direct financial benefit. This clearly means that whilst the stadium is a supplier to and contracted with the NFL, there is likely to be generic naming for NFL purposes, however, if a team is located there the stadium can be named by that team in any way they see fit, including sponsorship, which would require an entirely different negotiation between the club and the team which ultimately leases the stadium from us. (I.e. we could impose the name in the lease for which we will benefit from our sponsor).

Your points on sources of revenue is broadly irrelevant. That's like arguing the club won't increase season ticket prices, because when compared with TV, corporates and transfers it's a small proportion of the overall pie. But like with any business, any potential source of income will be maximised to the full extent and existing sources of revenue will be protected. For example, if I was considering sponsoring the International Series and I knew that someone else had effectively gained a form of sponsorship for 'free' (in terms of payments to the NFL), then I would perceive that the value of my own sponsorship would be reduced. It's a simple negotiating tactic and the NFL would never countenance it.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and clearly we can refer back to this conversation when the matches roll around. The simple fact is that Levy said the stadium had to be able to be handed over to NFL clean in the same manner as for CL games and we already know what that means in a CL context, so we can infer that the arrangement with NFL will be similar.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

e pie.

So if the stadium has a sponsored name for NFL games, you can be positive it's because they are also paying the NFL for that privilege.

NO - Stadium naming rights belong to the stadium - not the league.

It's inappropriate to use individual team stadiums as a reference point as it's a totally different situation. As I have described, they are not providers to the NFL, they are owned by the teams which own the NFL.

NO - most stadiums are not owned by the teams. Some are, but most are owned by the municipalities and leased to the teams. Stadiums are used for multiple purposes - NFL, College, Concerts, Basketball and even baseball in some circumstances. The name of the stadium does not change for the purpose. The stadium is the stadium.

In that regard it is in the teams interests to have sponsors from which the directly benefit from be allowed, but to not allow sponsors which provide no direct financial benefit. This clearly means that whilst the stadium is a supplier to and contracted with the NFL, there is likely to be generic naming for NFL purposes, however, if a team is located there the stadium can be named by that team in any way they see fit, including sponsorship, which would require an entirely different negotiation between the club and the team which ultimately leases the stadium from us. (I.e. we could impose the name in the lease for which we will benefit from our sponsor).

Not even sure what you are saying here.

Your points on sources of revenue is broadly irrelevant. That's like arguing the club won't increase season ticket prices, because when compared with TV, corporates and transfers it's a small proportion of the overall pie. But like with any business, any potential source of income will be maximised to the full extent and existing sources of revenue will be protected. For example, if I was considering sponsoring the International Series and I knew that someone else had effectively gained a form of sponsorship for 'free' (in terms of payments to the NFL), then I would perceive that the value of my own sponsorship would be reduced. It's a simple negotiating tactic and the NFL would never countenance it.

The NFL has entered into a lease with THFC - to use the stadium, a minimum of two times per year. They are paying THFC for the rights to host games. It is my understanding that they (NFL) will keep all ticketing revenue and concession revenue from both games. The NFL is simply a tenant. Nothing more, nothing less. This gives THFC a known and reliable revenue stream - to pay of the stadium. It does not give the NFL the right to dictate the name of the stadium - any more than the NFL can dictate that any of its teams play in specifically named stadiums. In fact 6 teams play in stadiums with no corporate sponsorship...if the NFL controlled that aspect - surely, even you would admit the NFL would "maximize" its revenue by "naming" the stadium...

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and clearly we can refer back to this conversation when the matches roll around. The simple fact is that Levy said the stadium had to be able to be handed over to NFL clean in the same manner as for CL games and we already know what that means in a CL context, so we can infer that the arrangement with NFL will be similar.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Just to add a few comments -

Hyundai is the Official Automobile sponsor of the NFL - Yet the Falcons play in Mercedes Benz Stadium - as do the MLS team in Atlanta...

Tennessee Titans play in Nissan Stadium. When Spurs played in Nashville last summer - they played in "Nissan Stadium"

NIKE is the official sportswear sponsor of the NFL - yet the Buffalo Bill play in New Era Stadium

Castrol is the official Oil company of the NFL - Indianapolis Colts play in Lucas Oil Stadium

Verizon is the official telecommunications Sponsor of the NFL - the Dallas Cowboys play in AT&T Stadium

Stub Hub Center is the current home of the LA Chargers. It is also the same stadium (and name) for the LA Galaxy in MLS.

Names belong to the stadiums - not the leagues of the teams.

Teams that play in stadiums with no corporate sponsors:

Kansas City - Arrowhead
Green Bay - Lambeau
Cincinnati - Paul Brown Stadium
Los Angeles Rams - Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
Oakland - Oakland-Alameda County Stadium
Chicago - Soldier Field

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Multi-tenant stadiums:
Heinz Field - hosts Steelers and University of Pittsburgh
Hard Rock Stadium - Miami Dolphins and University of Miami (and formerly Miami Marlins - MLB)
Gillette Stadium - New England Patriots and New England Revolution (MLS)
Stub Hub Center - LA Galaxy (MLS) and Los Angeles Chargers (NFL)
CenturyLink Field - Seattle Seahawks and Seattle Sounders (MLS) - Spurs played here also http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/seattle-match-report-190714/

Lincoln Financial - Philadelphia Eagles, and Temple Owls
LA Memorial Coliseum - LA Rams and USC Trojans
Oakland Alameda Stadium - Oakland Raiders, Oakland A's
Raymond James Stadium - Tampa Buccaneers, and University of South Florida
US Bank Stadium - Minnesota Vikings, University of Minnesota.


The name is the name - no matter the tenant or particular use.

 

[TheAmerican]

Just putting it out there, with the new itk possibly alluding to a deal with the naming rights...

NFL UK is set to announce tomorrow information regarding 2018 London games
http://www.nfluk.com/news/internati...ook-Live/80348ca8-07c3-45f8-b6e5-23215a598e2a

The East End hoarding (looks to line up with the signage locations in renderings) has been up by itself for some time. People on Skyscraper City (construction/engineering board) suspect it's unlikely it's just for weather protection. Maybe a naming rights announcement tied in with the NFL playing there?

 

[WiganSpur]

Reckon the stadium name will tie in with the NFL announcement. Surely it makes sense now. Think this will be the announcement.

Can't see the statement saying "We've got two games at the New White Hart Lane" or "The New Tottenham Stadium".

Additionally, I think the Stadium sponsor would want to wait until they had naming rights announced before the NFL announcement for obvious exposure reasons.

 

[worcestersauce]

By 15.45 the whole of continental United States would be awake would they not?

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

By 15.45 the whole of continental United States would be awake would they not?

Yes - but to be honest, the stadium naming rights won't make much of a ripple over here. 99% won't know about it, 0.9% won't care. But, for the rest of us - we would have followed the news at any time!!

 

[kr1978]

Yes - but to be honest, the stadium naming rights won't make much of a ripple over here. 99% won't know about it, 0.9% won't care. But, for the rest of us - we would have followed the news at any time!!

Yes but announcing the London NFL fixtures at xxxxxx stadium will get coverage on all the sports channels, brand recognition etc

 

[danielneeds]

Reckon the stadium name will tie in with the NFL announcement. Surely it makes sense now. Think this will be the announcement.

Can't see the statement saying "We've got two games at the New White Hart Lane" or "The New Tottenham Stadium".

Additionally, I think the Stadium sponsor would want to wait until they had naming rights announced before the NFL announcement for obvious exposure reasons.

I think you'd have more leaks that it'd be coming. Although there would be a media embargo, journalists would have been briefed by now, so they could prepare pieces.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Yes but announcing the London NFL fixtures at xxxxxx stadium will get coverage on all the sports channels, brand recognition etc

Yeah, its a big deal. And all the sports outlets will report on it. But, outside of Spurs fans, nobody will pay attention.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

It will be interesting to see what Levy can do with the pull of both PL and the NFL. Looking over some articles now - it looks like < $20M/year is about the going rate for an NFL stadium in a big market.

The LA Rams are looking for $30M/year for 20 years for their new stadium. AT&T pays between $17-19 M/year for the Cowboys stadium. MetLife pays about $19M/year for the Jets/Giants stadium.

Mercedes Benz pays $12M/year over 27 years for the new Atlanta stadium.
US Bank is paying $8.8M/year over 25 years for the Minnesota stadium.

Arsenal was ~ £7.5M/year over 15 years (£100M total)

There has been talk of Levy pushing for a deal worth £400M (but not clear on the time frame). And, also there has been talk of multiple types of sponsorships to get to the £400M - so maybe a primary stadium sponsor, and then sub-sponsors of various parts of the stadium - either stands, or entrances. I expect Spurs/Levy to get creative here.

Ideally, I'd love to see a £20M/year deal for 20 years as the primary sponsor...but it might come in less than that, but with some escalator clauses based on NFL exposure and/or Spurs league and CL success.

 

[DanielCHillier]

Yeah, its a big deal. And all the sports outlets will report on it. But, outside of Spurs fans, nobody will pay attention.

It's not that they'll be reporting on the naming rights for the stadium, it's that they'll be announcing the NFL fixtures and specifically the London fixtures played at the "insert naming rights" stadium.

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

It's not that they'll be reporting on the naming rights for the stadium, it's that they'll be announcing the NFL fixtures and specifically the London fixtures played at the "insert naming rights" stadium.

No - I get it. It just won't be a big deal here at all.

Its a big deal for Spurs, and an important piece of the puzzle, and I am looking forward to it.

But, it will be a big yawn here. This is true of all the stadiums though, not because its in London - nobody really cares about that stuff except the people getting paid.

On this side of the pond - NFL in London is simply another game. So announcing the schedule, and the stadium name is not really a news event here. Its a bigger deal for the teams involved - particularly any season ticket holders who lose a home game. But, I suspect that this year, the game is Oakland v. LA Chargers - and the Chargers are struggling to sell out a small MLS stadium, so their fans probably don't care if they lose a home game, and Oakland is moving to Las Vegas so their fans probably don't care either...

 

[worcestersauce]

No - I get it. It just won't be a big deal here at all.

Its a big deal for Spurs, and an important piece of the puzzle, and I am looking forward to it.

But, it will be a big yawn here. This is true of all the stadiums though, not because its in London - nobody really cares about that stuff except the people getting paid.

On this side of the pond - NFL in London is simply another game. So announcing the schedule, and the stadium name is not really a news event here. Its a bigger deal for the teams involved - particularly any season ticket holders who lose a home game. But, I suspect that this year, the game is Oakland v. LA Chargers - and the Chargers are struggling to sell out a small MLS stadium, so their fans probably don't care if they lose a home game, and Oakland is moving to Las Vegas so their fans probably don't care either...

Sounds like Oakland v Chargers is a bit like Stoke City v West Bromwich Albion then, not the true glamour tie.

 

[thinktank]

 

[thfc1973]

Sounds like Oakland v Chargers is a bit like Stoke City v West Bromwich Albion then, not the true glamour tie.

That couldn't be further from the truth....They would pretty much be arch rivals come the fixture but the atmosphere will be lost in the fact that the true fans wont be there to watch them, which is probably a good thing as the stadium would be trashed!