The Naming Rights Thread

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,669
#82
Its going to be a recipe for piss taking if its going to be FedEx. The logo also would spoil the look off the stadium as its too overbearing in this picture
I agree that the colours are a bit of a clash, but why is FedEx opening us up to piss taking? Fairly reputable company, not particularly controversial, not known for something embarrassing etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of any naming rights but it's just something we're going to have to accept and, apart from the colours, I think FedEx is actually a fairly "good" thing to have in the name compared to what some other teams have. FedEx Stadium sounds fairly plain and boring if anything, which is definitely a good thing as far as naming rights go.
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,858
#83
I agree that the colours are a bit of a clash, but why is FedEx opening us up to piss taking? Fairly reputable company, not particularly controversial, not known for something embarrassing etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of any naming rights but it's just something we're going to have to accept and, apart from the colours, I think FedEx is actually a fairly "good" thing to have in the name compared to what some other teams have. FedEx Stadium sounds fairly plain and boring if anything, which is definitely a good thing as far as naming rights go.
To be honest its the "intensity" of the logo's colours that puts me off. Plus the way it was represented in that model, looked like a giant parcel ready for posting. Any company that is going to have the naming rights whether it be Fedex or not, should do it in a way that is classy and not overbearing. Since this debate I looked again at both The Emirates and Etihad stadia and both exhibited their names in a very classy way, without compromising the identity of the club. That Fedex model doesnt
 

absolute bobbins

Vous Êtes Des Assassins
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
9,406
#84
To be honest its the "intensity" of the logo's colours that puts me off. Plus the way it was represented in that model, looked like a giant parcel ready for posting. Any company that is going to have the naming rights whether it be Fedex or not, should do it in a way that is classy and not overbearing. Since this debate I looked again at both The Emirates and Etihad stadia and both exhibited their names in a very classy way, without compromising the identity of the club. That Fedex model doesnt
First of all, it's not a model, it's a logo that has been placed on the stadium render to give an visualisation of what is possiable and does not reflect a final design.

These packs have gone out to hundreds of blue chip outfits, I've been told from a friend that Google/Alphabet received one and she believes half of the Valley would have too.

I don't actually understand why people care about a roof logo, you're never going to see the roof of the stadium, you're still going to call it White Hart Lane, Spurs are still going to play in white shirts, It means fuck all except we'll have a fat, front loaded, naming rights deal that helps us pay off the stadium, either quicker or with smaller payments and better terms
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,858
#85
First of all, it's not a model, it's a logo that has been placed on the stadium render to give an visualisation of what is possiable and does not reflect a final design.

These packs have gone out to hundreds of blue chip outfits, I've been told from a friend that Google/Alphabet received one and she believes half of the Valley would have too.

I don't actually understand why people care about a roof logo, you're never going to see the roof of the stadium, you're still going to call it White Hart Lane, Spurs are still going to play in white shirts, It means fuck all except we'll have a fat, front loaded, naming rights deal that helps us pay off the stadium, either quicker or with smaller payments and better terms
You don't have to be so patronizing. I know what naming rights are and what they allow us to do. I did not say I am against it. If you obviously haven't got the point I was trying to make, just ask for further clarification if you are that interested or just leave me to my opinions.
 

Univarn

Lost. Probably Not Worth Finding.
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
1,655
#86
So there is a petition going around to try and keep White Heart Lane in the name of the stadium, e.g. appending it to the end of the eventual sponsor. I know this is a very touchy subject for a lot, so I try to tread lightly and be conscientious of everyone but I actually think this would be worse than a stadium advertiser name because it would be disingenuous, or would be made at the concession of the financial goals of the club which may put other parts of our project at risk. Curious what others think.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
44,901
#87
So there is a petition going around to try and keep White Heart Lane in the name of the stadium, e.g. appending it to the end of the eventual sponsor. I know this is a very touchy subject for a lot, so I try to tread lightly and be conscientious of everyone but I actually think this would be worse than a stadium advertiser name because it would be disingenuous, or would be made at the concession of the financial goals of the club which may put other parts of our project at risk. Curious what others think.
Will always be white hart lane whatever it's named.
 

Phischy

The Spursy One
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
935
#88
So there is a petition going around to try and keep White Heart Lane in the name of the stadium, e.g. appending it to the end of the eventual sponsor. I know this is a very touchy subject for a lot, so I try to tread lightly and be conscientious of everyone but I actually think this would be worse than a stadium advertiser name because it would be disingenuous, or would be made at the concession of the financial goals of the club which may put other parts of our project at risk. Curious what others think.
I was thinking about this.

For the record, I started the Stratford fight with a petition, which eventually gained a huge amount of traction and led to the We Are N17 campaign which I was heavily involved in. I say this because of what I'm about to say next...

I disagree with this petition.

There's various reasons for that.

Of course, I'd prefer for the stadium to be called White Hart Lane. We all would. But...

1. I don't want some bastardised version of the name. Like 'Cadbury Lane' or something. It's named after a road and if it's not named after that road it should have a proper new name, some may disagree.

2. Company Name @ White Hart Lane or anything of that nature sounds shit.

3. Revenue. This is the big one. Any compromise like point 2 will reduce revenue, not having a sponsor will remove the potential for revenue entirely. This is not a situation where someone is renaming a stadium to enrich themselves (which I'd want to fight), it's a brand new stadium that needs to be paid for.

This all means the true question to fans is 'would you be willing to play your part in guaranteeing the financing of the stadium and removing the need for a title sponsor by committing to the doubling in the cost of your season ticket (or matchdays ticket) for the next 5 years with no possibility of exiting that contract. All paid for up front.'

If 60,000 fans agree to that... Job done, circa £150m to £200m extra raised (assuming that's even enough money). If not, where is the money supposed to come from?

These same fans would probably sign a similar petition at ticket price increases if there was no sponsor and wouldn't consider ever selling Alli and Kane to pay for it, so we have to decide which is least worst.

As fans we'll still call it the Lane and if that identity changes then it's sad for us, but the new fans will have a new attachment.

Moving to Stratford was unnecessary and inappropriate for Tottenham Hotspur. Clinging on to a stadium name is understandable, but it's a necessary change (if one accepts that the new stadium was also necessary).
 

Univarn

Lost. Probably Not Worth Finding.
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
1,655
#91
I was thinking about this.

For the record, I started the Stratford fight with a petition, which eventually gained a huge amount of traction and led to the We Are N17 campaign which I was heavily involved in. I say this because of what I'm about to say next...

I disagree with this petition.

There's various reasons for that.

Of course, I'd prefer for the stadium to be called White Hart Lane. We all would. But...

1. I don't want some bastardised version of the name. Like 'Cadbury Lane' or something. It's named after a road and if it's not named after that road it should have a proper new name, some may disagree.

2. Company Name @ White Hart Lane or anything of that nature sounds shit.

3. Revenue. This is the big one. Any compromise like point 2 will reduce revenue, not having a sponsor will remove the potential for revenue entirely. This is not a situation where someone is renaming a stadium to enrich themselves (which I'd want to fight), it's a brand new stadium that needs to be paid for.

This all means the true question to fans is 'would you be willing to play your part in guaranteeing the financing of the stadium and removing the need for a title sponsor by committing to the doubling in the cost of your season ticket (or matchdays ticket) for the next 5 years with no possibility of exiting that contract. All paid for up front.'

If 60,000 fans agree to that... Job done, circa £150m to £200m extra raised (assuming that's even enough money). If not, where is the money supposed to come from?

These same fans would probably sign a similar petition at ticket price increases if there was no sponsor and wouldn't consider ever selling Alli and Kane to pay for it, so we have to decide which is least worst.

As fans we'll still call it the Lane and if that identity changes then it's sad for us, but the new fans will have a new attachment.

Moving to Stratford was unnecessary and inappropriate for Tottenham Hotspur. Clinging on to a stadium name is understandable, but it's a necessary change (if one accepts that the new stadium was also necessary).
You've pretty much summarized what I've been trying to say to people today but have not been able to successfully convey. A lot have gone to the "I'll always call it The Lane" screw you attitude and I'm not trying to say that they can't or shouldn't. It is such a touchy subject but I think we need to be realistic. If we want big contracts and big names and to keep big stars we realistically have to have that money because it will be 200-300+ million and is a key factor in the financial payback of the stadium.

I think the fan option is a cool idea but the semantics of it would be tough. To make it affordable you'd have to assume that the naming rights were set over a 30 year period with the money to be paid over that same period. That could probably be made affordable. 200m over 30 years comes out to about 100£ per seat per year which is not too bad but we also throw tantrums over every price increase. But I also suspect that would not do it with any naming rights company probably paying a significant fund up front then a rated amount over the remaining years which a fan group would not be able to match.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
44,893
#92
So there is a petition going around to try and keep White Heart Lane in the name of the stadium, e.g. appending it to the end of the eventual sponsor. I know this is a very touchy subject for a lot, so I try to tread lightly and be conscientious of everyone but I actually think this would be worse than a stadium advertiser name because it would be disingenuous, or would be made at the concession of the financial goals of the club which may put other parts of our project at risk. Curious what others think.
It won't ever happen because it would put off potential sponsors, and personally I don't have an issue with that.

White Hart Lane was White Hart Lane. It served us well for a huge amount of time and was a wonderful stadium, but it's gone now.

We haven't extended it or amended it. We have knocked it down and we are now building a new stadium.

It deserves its own identity even if that identity is associated with a brand name.

It's time to move forwards.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
15,348
#93
At Wembley "we're the Park Lane" and "we're the shelf side" are still being sung this season. I expect that this will also happen in the new stadium.

I say this because there will be a new name for it, that goes without much doubt, but the fans wont let the history of old place die. Fans wont be singing "we're the Pepsi end we're the Pepsi end Tottenham" in the new place, the old chants will be kept.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
44,893
#94
At Wembley "we're the Park Lane" and "we're the shelf side" are still being sung this season. I expect that this will also happen in the new stadium.

I say this because there will be a new name for it, that goes without much doubt, but the fans wont let the history of old place die. Fans wont be singing "we're the Pepsi end we're the Pepsi end Tottenham" in the new place, the old chants will be kept.
This is true and it will keep the memory of WHL going, which is a good thing.

It doesn't need to be kept in the name because we'll remember it anyway.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Messages
2,135
#95
So there is a petition going around to try and keep White Heart Lane in the name of the stadium, e.g. appending it to the end of the eventual sponsor. I know this is a very touchy subject for a lot, so I try to tread lightly and be conscientious of everyone but I actually think this would be worse than a stadium advertiser name because it would be disingenuous, or would be made at the concession of the financial goals of the club which may put other parts of our project at risk. Curious what others think.
Madison Square Garden is the only arena in the world that has a partner that essentially spends naming rights money to sponsor the arena, as JP Morgan Chase is their "Marquee" sponsor. There is no way it would be possible for NWHL to get that opportunity unless they accepted a greatly reduced value.

Naming rights are already on the downswing as companies are failing to see the value in them, and it looks exceptionally bad changing the name of a stadium after terms of the deal expire. A company would see zero value in spending that level of money and not having their name/logo plastered all over the building.
 

robertgoulet

SC Resident Crooner Extraordinaire
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
1,684
#97
We could do much much worse.

Whatever it is, for the medium term it will still be referred to as "White Hart Lane" by the fans. Hell, there are still people in Chicago who refer to Guaranteed Rate Field (fka US Cellular Field) as Comiskey Park, even though actual Comiskey Park was demolished in 1991, a new one was built and has gone through 3 different names (first "new" Comiskey, then US Cellular, now Guaranteed Rate) since then.

The majority of the fans only stopped using Comiskey when a new, organic nickname popped up (The Cell).
 

LukaMotion

WHL 1899-2017
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
2,544
#98
There's a petrol garage in my hometown that I grew up calling the Jet Garage, as that's who ran it at the time. In the last 15 years it's been a Shell garage, a BP garage and several others I can't even remember but to me it'll always be the Jet Garage, and in the same way our brand new stadium will always be WHL to me, regardless of which brand we choose to name it after.
 

Roynie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
2,823
#99
I seem to recall that, quite a while ago, someone said that DL was looking to do what they do in the USA and have corner (?) sponsors. The idea being that we would get 4 sponsors who, in total, would pay more than we would get from one big sponsor.

I do wonder when the sponsor(s) will actually be announced.
 

JimmyG2

SC Supporter
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
7,490
We could do much much worse.

Whatever it is, for the medium term it will still be referred to as "White Hart Lane" by the fans. Hell, there are still people in Chicago who refer to Guaranteed Rate Field (fka US Cellular Field) as Comiskey Park, even though actual Comiskey Park was demolished in 1991, a new one was built and has gone through 3 different names (first "new" Comiskey, then US Cellular, now Guaranteed Rate) since then.

The majority of the fans only stopped using Comiskey when a new, organic nickname popped up (The Cell).
Catchy or what!
 
Top