Selling stadium names is a bit tinpot in my opinion. I get that it's a business but this is hardly going to be a season defining lump of cash so not really sure why they'd even bother due to the inevitable backlash.
Some ridiculous comments on here suggesting our owners are skint because they are exploring commercial revenue potential. Anyone running a business is constantly exploring ways to drive revenues no matter how much money they have.
If someone wants to pay a few hundred grand to have their name on the ground then so be it. Like others have said it will always be called the Valley as has been demonstrated with other grounds sponsorship deals
Selling stadium names is a bit tinpot in my opinion. I get that it's a business but this is hardly going to be a season defining lump of cash so not really sure why they'd even bother due to the inevitable backlash.
It may not be season defining but it helps in the long run, football clubs aren’t charities, they don’t run off good will it’s cash. We’re in a position that means we need as much money as possible to come in from as many different places as possible.
A lot of grounds that have had "naming rights" have been clubs that have moved to new, bigger & brighter stadiums......esp higher up. Arsenal, Man City, Leicester, West Ham, Brighton etc. Those are easy wins for the clubs as they are moving to new grounds that don't have a name yet. Obviously further down the pyramid you've got the Tough Sheet stadium & the WHAM stadium (or whatever iis called) but most haven't changed their name. The thing is, people might say "it doesn't matter, it'll always be The Valley to me" but it's the media who get the name out there. Everytime there is a goal on a Saturday afternoon & SKY say....." and we are off to the Arthur Smith Community Stadium where Charlton have just taken the lead..." then thats another reminder to the public that The Valley is no more.
I could just about live with a naming like the Oval used to be ie The Kia Oval, but not a complete takeover of the name of eg "The Adidas Valley" But not the "Adidas Stadium"
A lot of grounds that have had "naming rights" have been clubs that have moved to new, bigger & brighter stadiums......esp higher up. Arsenal, Man City, Leicester, West Ham, Brighton etc. Those are easy wins for the clubs as they are moving to new grounds that don't have a name yet. Obviously further down the pyramid you've got the Tough Sheet stadium & the WHAM stadium (or whatever iis called) but most haven't changed their name. The thing is, people might say "it doesn't matter, it'll always be The Valley to me" but it's the media who get the name out there. Everytime there is a goal on a Saturday afternoon & SKY say....." and we are off to the Arthur Smith Community Stadium where Charlton have just taken the lead..." then thats another reminder to the public that The Valley is no more.
This is a good point. But it might work if it was called something akin to: "The Arthur Smith Valley" - we know it's really called The Valley, everyone would still call it The Valley but there is also much needed revenue. I agree though - if there is no 'Valley' in the name - it's a big No from me.
I suppose it's a bit similar to Twickenham being called the 'Allianz Twickenham Stadium'. NO ONE seems to add in the Allianz bit apart from the official pages on social media.
I couldn't have told you it was Allianz even if you'd offered me £10m for a correct answer and after reading Chizz's post i've just had to look it up to see it's called the Kia Oval, so this tells you no one really cares about naming rights. People will always just refer to it as the main name.
It's basically free money for very little, aside from a few logos around the stadium.
"“I think what Ian Evatt has achieved is incredible in the last three years, so it’s time now to step up and make money available to him to get good players and enter the Championship." That did not go well!!
Big difference between a greenfield new stadium, and an established name, as the RFU are finding out with Twickenham.
You'll end up like Wembley or Birmingham with Sponsor at The Valley or a riff on that, can't see how you do a full name change on such an established stadium name
I’m not really a fan but those using it as a reason to say the owners are skint…
would you say Brentford, Man City, Bournemouth, Arsenal, Brighton and Leicester are also all skint?
Go and check the figures for how much revenue those clubs are earning from them stadium rights, and then estimate how much we would get in comparison if you look at other league1 teams. Completely different scenarios and we are not comparable to the likes of those clubs who are so far ahead of us that they shouldn't be brought into the conversation. I don't think the issue would be entirely with the stadium name, more so how much we would get from losing our soul (probably not a lot)
This will just turn into another endless debate, snappy comments, and being rude to fellow Charlton fans.
None of us can stop it, none of us have the money to make the difference, we are all at the mercy of whoever decides these things.
It's obvious though that if it does happen, it will not bring in a massive amount of money, as we aren't a big enough draw.
The general mood will be that the majority won't be happy with the Valley being renamed. Unfortunately, many of us aren't happy about paying taxes, doesn't mean much.
People can paint it however they want, it's just another step towards identity loss that we have become quite accustomed to over the past decade or so.
When we were formed in 1905 we played on a ground that was owned and named after a company nearby at Siemens Meadow. Siemens is a very successful company in the UK and abroad and have sponsored teams such as Real Madrid and Bayern Munich. If they were to sponsor the ground as the Siemens Valley it would hark back to both their and our history. Any other sponsor would not have that connection, so I suggest Charlie starts speaking to Siemens in Munich to know if they want to rekindle their history. They have a UK hq in Manchester at Sir William Siemens House.
When we were formed in 1905 we played on a ground that was owned and named after a company nearby at Siemens Meadow. Siemens is a very successful company in the UK and abroad and have sponsored teams such as Real Madrid and Bayern Munich. If they were to sponsor the ground as the Siemens Valley it would hark back to both their and our history. Any other sponsor would not have that connection, so I suggest Charlie starts speaking to Siemens in Munich to know if they want to rekindle their history. They have a UK hq in Manchester at Sir William Siemens House.
Any club coming to the Siemens Stadium would know they were about to face a team full of spunk.
Comments
https://www.cledara.com/cambridge#:~:text=Naming%20The%20Cledara%20Abbey%20Stadium&text=Cledara%20is%20delighted%20to%20be,Come%20on%20you%20U's!
would you say Brentford, Man City, Bournemouth, Arsenal, Brighton and Leicester are also all skint?
If someone wants to pay a few hundred grand to have their name on the ground then so be it. Like others have said it will always be called the Valley as has been demonstrated with other grounds sponsorship deals
Genuine question as I can only think of Bournemouth and Newcastle.
It's basically free money for very little, aside from a few logos around the stadium.
You'll end up like Wembley or Birmingham with Sponsor at The Valley or a riff on that, can't see how you do a full name change on such an established stadium name
This will just turn into another endless debate, snappy comments, and being rude to fellow Charlton fans.
None of us can stop it, none of us have the money to make the difference, we are all at the mercy of whoever decides these things.
It's obvious though that if it does happen, it will not bring in a massive amount of money, as we aren't a big enough draw.
The general mood will be that the majority won't be happy with the Valley being renamed. Unfortunately, many of us aren't happy about paying taxes, doesn't mean much.
People can paint it however they want, it's just another step towards identity loss that we have become quite accustomed to over the past decade or so.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/live/cm21gd746ylt
St Andrews not a great example as no-one is going to deliberately add “ at Knighthead Park” to a report.
the two links are a better example of how identity is removed through naming rights.
Even grounds that had original naming rights, and had no real “identity” either, are susceptible.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/live/c5yerll9l3kt