What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

Phischy

The Spursy One
Feb 29, 2004
1,000
1,152
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spor...s/new-everton-stadium-latest-bramley-14133652

Everton to get 2/3rds of the funding from a deal with the council. It would be quite interesting to know the reaction to that in liverpool. Can you imagine how bad it would go down in London if Boris had agreed to help pay for 2/3rds of our new stadium?!?!
State funding or private capital projects is illegal under EU law, so this definitely isn't the council funding it. In theory a council could build a stadium and rent it to a club at market rate but in this case they are lending Everton the money. West Ham organised a similar arrangement with Newham Council for their part of the costs associated with moving to the Olympic Stadium. (Shows how tin-pot they really are that they got (access to) a stadium at a massive knock-down price and still couldn't self fund it!)
 

Phischy

The Spursy One
Feb 29, 2004
1,000
1,152
Re the discussion about the NFL and signage etc.
The East Stand is the Main Entrance for the NFL and not that on the High Rd, so I don’t know if that will make any difference overall. I don’t really know what is meant here by a clean stadium as I imagine that all the different NFL stadiums have their own sponsorship and advertising deals - US Bank Stadium, MetLife Stadium, Bank of America Stadium and so on, so why would they object to a sponsors name for NWHL. Same with the advertising etc, although I suspect there may be separate electronic advertising for the NFL unless there is an exclusive deal with be advertisers. Then again the nominated Home zteam will be losing out on their advertising revenue for one game so perhaps they get a say on that. Don’t know there, just speculating.
Anyways, I append below the original signage layout in the Planning Docs for those interested.




Xc50Qtk.png
I get your point but there are a few issues with your argument.

The first is that NFL clubs have their own stadiums and they play in the NFL. The stadium nor the club have no contract with the NFL for it to be used for other NFL purposes. The only other scenario is Superbowl when the clubs/cities have to bid for the right to host. There are some articles about what that bidding process entails, but that will offer some idea of how hard nosed and business minded the NFL truly is. It's very rare for a city to make any kind of profit as a result of hosting NFL.

In our case we aren't a 'team stadium' we are a supplier to the NFL direct. The NFL will not be willing to allow a situation where they, as an entity, are giving airtime to any brand whatsoever without being financially compensated for doing so (remember the US is well ahead of the UK in terms of leveraging and utilising sponsorships and corporate associations). With that in mind, if Levy is willing to cut a which also benefits Spurs, there may be a scenario where a sonsor's name is used both for THFC's purposed and for the NFL, but I can 99.99% guarantee, unless a company is willing to pay more in order to line the NFL's pockets, that league will not allow any kind of branding in relation to the stadium on any NFL specific communications. At the very least they will have a sponsor for the International Series (NFL International Series 2017 brought to you by Subway for example) and the NFL would risk the value and positioning/importance of that commercial arrangement by allowing another sponsor free airtime every time the game's location is mentioned.

I appreciate some people may quite blithely think 'it's not such a big deal', but that's the same as, say, arguing that it's not such a big deal to sell things with the club logo on as long as the club don't sell it already... what's the problem? Well, the problem is that in order to maintain the integrity of the club's copyright and enable the club to make future claims, they have to crack down on anyone who abuses it. Some have fallen foul of that before. Unless you know, it's easy to assume or think 'why would that be an issue?'. It's a different example from a different area, but my point is, whilst your logic may be sound based on what you know, there are many more moving parts and far more stakeholders than you realise.

Until you see how the NFL operates, how savvy it is and how good it is at extracting every dollar and perk it can, it's easy to underestimate what they would expect from us.

As a side note, in terms of physical references to sponsor names, you'll probably find that they are just made less prominent during NFL matches (such as being unlit) if they are prohibited and will mainly just not be visible inside the bowl during the game as that is obviously the main thing which will be broadcast. They will also, no doubt, concentrate tv coverage etc. on the NFL side of the stadium as that will probably be set up to be far more generic.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,894
45,042
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.
 

THFCjosh

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
632
2,229
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.
If this is the case, then Nike have to up there with potential sponsors. It goes with ITK we heard previously.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,894
45,042
Am I right in thinking that those curved poles at the front of the stands are the roof struts(is that the word?) and that they will swing bottom end backwards and upwards so the bottom will be at the back and the top will be at the front of the roof?
 

DanielCHillier

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2014
2,034
4,029
Am I right in thinking that those curved poles at the front of the stands are the roof struts(is that the word?) and that they will swing bottom end backwards and upwards so the bottom will be at the back and the top will be at the front of the roof?
Correct, and the floodlights will be fitted to the top sections of these once lifted into place.
 

whitesocks

The past means nothing. This is a message for life
Jan 16, 2014
4,652
5,738
I get your point but there are a few issues with your argument.

The first is that NFL clubs have their own stadiums and they play in the NFL. The stadium nor the club have no contract with the NFL for it to be used for other NFL purposes. The only other scenario is Superbowl when the clubs/cities have to bid for the right to host. There are some articles about what that bidding process entails, but that will offer some idea of how hard nosed and business minded the NFL truly is. It's very rare for a city to make any kind of profit as a result of hosting NFL....

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.
 

danielneeds

Kick-Ass
May 5, 2004
24,179
48,764
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.
Lewis is paying for nothing. The whole stadium is currently paid for by bridging loans. Lewis won’t have put a penny in at the end of this.

The tie up with the NFL has the ultimate aim for us to be the home of a London franchise, and as the only stadium in London with a purpose built artificial pitch (which the NFL prefers) and facilities, we have a massive advantage should it come to pass.
 

absolute bobbins

Am Yisrael Chai
Feb 12, 2013
11,650
25,962
Probably. An intentional one at that. As I said on many occassions, ENIC`s record at there previous clubs show they like to talk a lot about building or developing stadiums, but always finish up ducking out before it happens leaving their pockets just that little bit heavier than they were before.
I miss this knob
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
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.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,894
45,042
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.
It did say the city not the club itself plus of course no city has ever before hosted NFL with Daniel Levy pullingthe strings.:)
I always thought the idea was that the sponsorship would be enhanced by having NFL not necessarily directly from the NFL Time will tell.
 
Top