Spurs New Stadium Naming Rights - And Liverpools

[QPR Report]

Think it's different if it's a new stadium. Although I'd like a new stadium to be called "The New White Hart Lane", the "New Highbury, " ...


Observer

Tottenham up the ante with Chelsea over ground naming rights• Tottenham claim new ground will offer more to sponsors
• Executive director says stadium will outstrip rivals

Tottenham have claimed that sponsors would derive more benefit from putting their name to the club's new stadium than to Chelsea's current one, as they responded to Roman Abramovich's plans to sell off the naming rights to Stamford Bridge.

Spurs plan to build a 56,000-capacity ground next to their present home, to be ready for the 2012-13 season, and are seeking sponsors for the venue.

Paul Barber, Tottenham's executive director, said a brand new stadium could be more attractive to commercial interests than one that is more than 100 years old. "I think Chelsea have got some challenges because it is what it is," he said. "It's a good, old-fashioned football stadium, with a great atmosphere in it, but it's not brand new and it's not got all those features we will have.

"Our stadium will be as technologically advanced as any in the world. It's going to be as environmentally advanced as any other. And there will be some brands that want those kind of associations, that want top-class football in a fantastic environment."

Barber's comments in the Telegraph follow Chelsea's announcement of plans to auction naming rights on their Stamford Bridge ground.

Barber also predicted Spurs' new home would outshine Arsenal's. "Our stadium, by the time it's built, is going to be a generation beyond Arsenal, so therefore it is going to be more advanced both technologically and environmentally," he said.
www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/nov/07/tottenham-stadium-sponsors-chelsea

[QPR Report]

Sunday Times

Liverpool plan £250m field of dreams
The Reds are confident of persuading a leading global firm to buy the rights to name the club’s proposed new ground

Jonathan Northcroft


LIVERPOOL will brush off the controversy over England’s top clubs selling naming rights to their stadiums and chase the most expensive naming rights deal in the history of sport. Despite the recession, the Merseyside club’s hierarchy are convinced they can raise a mammoth £250m by persuading a leading global firm to buy the rights to name Liverpool’s proposed ground.

Liverpool’s owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, have been buoyed by their record £20m-per-season shirt sponsorship agreement signed recently with Standard Chartered, taking it as proof of the world-wide appeal of the club and the Premier League. These factors have persuaded Hicks and Gillett to revisit stadium-building plans, shelved due to Liverpool’s debts. The two Americans now believe they can underwrite more than 50% of the cost of building a new ground on a site earmarked on Stanley Park through a world-record naming rights sale.

The benchmark they have set Liverpool’s commercial team is the deal signed between the New York Mets baseball franchise and Citigroup. The American financial services giant paid $20m (£12m) a year over 20 years to have a new stadium, Citi Field, opened by the Mets early in 2009. Liverpool believe they can outstrip that. “Naming rights are a global market,” said Hicks. “We likely will partner with someone wanting global branding, unlike the US stadiums, which only worry about TV appeal in the States, similar to why Standard Chartered chose to partner with us on our shirts.”

Despite debts approaching £300m and Liverpool’s onfield worries, Hicks remains bullish about the outlook for his club. He said Rafael Benitez would not be forced to sell star players even if Liverpool fail to qualify for the knockout stages of the Champions League. Hicks and Gillett are seeking new investors, in the hope of raising money to reduce the club’s debt by diluting their shareholding, and spoke of “significant interest”. They are undeterred by protests by Newcastle fans in response to their club’s stadium being renamed sportsdirect.com@St James’ Park Stadium and criticism of Chelsea, who last week announced they were looking to sell off naming rights to Stamford Bridge in the hope of raising £150m.

Liverpool believe their situation is different, because they are building a new stadium rather than renaming an existing one. They regard as a precedent Arsenal, who signed a £100m 15-year deal with Emirates, which also included shirt sponsorship, when they moved from Highbury in 2006. Manchester United are the only Big Four club for whom a naming rights sale does not appear an option. A club source said a rights sale involving Old Trafford is “not on our agenda”. Sir Alex Ferguson said Chelsea’s plans were driven by money. “It is the only reason I can think of. But it does not really concern me. I wouldn’t have thought [it would happen at United].”

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6907973.ece

[ingham]

Also technically and environmentally.

Did you mention 'brand'. Yes, I did. Remember, that is how Scholar and Sugar made Spurs the Club we aren't today. Once, as Burkinshaw said, we were merely a football club.

No there is no question of that.

Technically, or environmentally we are something else. And as far as the football goes, well.

Did you mention Ferguson? No. He isn't what I'd call an environmental manager. And technically, hardly a brand.

Put it all together, and you can truthfully say that we will be winners off the pitch, and outside it. Next door, we'll be something else, and not just somewhere else.

Environmentally, that is. If not technically as well.

Adieu Ramsey, Clough, Chapman, Clough and Taylor, Revie, Busby, Shankly, Paisley, mere football persons, mere winners, mere successes.

We are Tottenham. Or, at any rate, we were.