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.
It doesn’t particularly matter. It’s money that the club wouldn’t otherwise had, hence I understand why it’s under discussed despite not being something I’d personally like.
Given the rest of your post I think we are largely on the same page on this one.
When it comes to sponsors having naming wrights of the ground. I am not that upset. Surrey do it and the ground is the Kia Oval. But guess what , we plebs still call it the Oval. But the club have a good deal from Kia.
When it comes to sponsors having naming wrights of the ground. I am not that upset. Surrey do it and the ground is the Kia Oval. But guess what , we plebs still call it the Oval. But the club have a good deal from Kia.
The vast difference between an internationally famous Test cricket ground and a League One football ground with low media exposure is likely to be reflected in the value achievable, as is obvious.
Nobody has said what “a good deal” might be, although some have talked unrealistically about it impacting on the team. I guess it depends what division we’re in and what a deal includes, but I doubt if we’re looking at much more than £100k pa in L1.
I’m a sceptic but there’s a whole lot of difference between doing a deal at £50k pa and one at £500k. And between Poundland and Emirates.
When it comes to sponsors having naming wrights of the ground. I am not that upset. Surrey do it and the ground is the Kia Oval. But guess what , we plebs still call it the Oval. But the club have a good deal from Kia.
The vast difference between an internationally famous Test cricket ground and a League One football ground with low media exposure is likely to be reflected in the value achievable, as is obvious.
Nobody has said what “a good deal” might be, although some have talked unrealistically about it impacting on the team. I guess it depends what division we’re in and what a deal includes, but I doubt if we’re looking at much more than £100k pa in L1.
I’m a sceptic but there’s a whole lot of difference between doing a deal at £50k pa and one at £500k. And between Poundland and Emirates.
Peterborough get £200k a year so I’d be disappointed if we got less than that
When it comes to sponsors having naming wrights of the ground. I am not that upset. Surrey do it and the ground is the Kia Oval. But guess what , we plebs still call it the Oval. But the club have a good deal from Kia.
The vast difference between an internationally famous Test cricket ground and a League One football ground with low media exposure is likely to be reflected in the value achievable, as is obvious.
Nobody has said what “a good deal” might be, although some have talked unrealistically about it impacting on the team. I guess it depends what division we’re in and what a deal includes, but I doubt if we’re looking at much more than £100k pa in L1.
I’m a sceptic but there’s a whole lot of difference between doing a deal at £50k pa and one at £500k. And between Poundland and Emirates.
Peterborough get £200k a year so I’d be disappointed if we got less than that
Peterborough also sell their players for decent fees.
I thing a lot of people on here are worried about a name change of the ground, just showing you can have a ground sponsor and incorporate the traditional name with a sponsors one.
When it comes to sponsors having naming wrights of the ground. I am not that upset. Surrey do it and the ground is the Kia Oval. But guess what , we plebs still call it the Oval. But the club have a good deal from Kia.
The vast difference between an internationally famous Test cricket ground and a League One football ground with low media exposure is likely to be reflected in the value achievable, as is obvious.
Nobody has said what “a good deal” might be, although some have talked unrealistically about it impacting on the team. I guess it depends what division we’re in and what a deal includes, but I doubt if we’re looking at much more than £100k pa in L1.
I’m a sceptic but there’s a whole lot of difference between doing a deal at £50k pa and one at £500k. And between Poundland and Emirates.
Peterborough get £200k a year so I’d be disappointed if we got less than that
Interesting, although the headline figure probably includes VAT.
We have 540 venue deals both current and historic in UK sports logged in our platform, and the range is pretty extreme. All the way from the likes of Emirates Stadium which (though partly baked into a $50m front of shirt) stands at $7.5m a year or so. Down to Scottish Champ teams which garner in the region of $85-100k per season for stadium.
There are also big swings in assets - through from full name change (eg DW stadium) to ultimately a deal which provides majority branding in the stadium.
It is probably the fastest growing area in the UK football landscape - with average deals increasing in annual value by 25% over the last 12 months.
When it comes to sponsors having naming wrights of the ground. I am not that upset. Surrey do it and the ground is the Kia Oval. But guess what , we plebs still call it the Oval. But the club have a good deal from Kia.
The vast difference between an internationally famous Test cricket ground and a League One football ground with low media exposure is likely to be reflected in the value achievable, as is obvious.
Nobody has said what “a good deal” might be, although some have talked unrealistically about it impacting on the team. I guess it depends what division we’re in and what a deal includes, but I doubt if we’re looking at much more than £100k pa in L1.
I’m a sceptic but there’s a whole lot of difference between doing a deal at £50k pa and one at £500k. And between Poundland and Emirates.
Peterborough get £200k a year so I’d be disappointed if we got less than that
Interesting, although the headline figure probably includes VAT.
It’s also a 6 year old deal so would hope the going rate has gone up since
We have 540 venue deals both current and historic in UK sports logged in our platform, and the range is pretty extreme. All the way from the likes of Emirates Stadium which (though partly baked into a $50m front of shirt) stands at $7.5m a year or so. Down to Scottish Champ teams which garner in the region of $85-100k per season for stadium.
There are also big swings in assets - through from full name change (eg DW stadium) to ultimately a deal which provides majority branding in the stadium.
It is probably the fastest growing area in the UK football landscape - with average deals increasing in annual value by 25% over the last 12 months.
Is there a standard % difference in full naming rights to a branding deal? Obviously think it's unlikely we get a full naming deal
I imagine it’s a hard sell to prospective clients in our league
The limited TV exposure and a small attendance won’t attract a new company / product launch
I assume it’s as much about the corporate entertainment options wrapped within iit which even then have limited appeal to the clients clients unless a noteworthy fixture.
We are I imagine always fishing for smaller and local businesses with a more modest budget.
We have 540 venue deals both current and historic in UK sports logged in our platform, and the range is pretty extreme. All the way from the likes of Emirates Stadium which (though partly baked into a $50m front of shirt) stands at $7.5m a year or so. Down to Scottish Champ teams which garner in the region of $85-100k per season for stadium.
There are also big swings in assets - through from full name change (eg DW stadium) to ultimately a deal which provides majority branding in the stadium.
It is probably the fastest growing area in the UK football landscape - with average deals increasing in annual value by 25% over the last 12 months.
Is there a standard % difference in full naming rights to a branding deal? Obviously think it's unlikely we get a full naming deal
Not really. There will be a lot in our favour that regardless of full naming or not, could boost the revenue on tap. Location of the ground, an affluent and business savvy fanbase that is an attraction to a lot of B2B brands who would traditionally look at venue partnerships.
Also bear in mind the potential for stadium partners who, as part of the commercials, offer up services, work and value in kind. Ultimately enhancing the venue that we play at.
Comments
Given the rest of your post I think we are largely on the same page on this one.
But guess what , we plebs still call it the Oval.
But the club have a good deal from Kia.
Group
Co
Assist Digital
Gold
I’m a sceptic but there’s a whole lot of difference between doing a deal at £50k pa and one at £500k. And between Poundland and Emirates.
There are also big swings in assets - through from full name change (eg DW stadium) to ultimately a deal which provides majority branding in the stadium.
It is probably the fastest growing area in the UK football landscape - with average deals increasing in annual value by 25% over the last 12 months.
The limited TV exposure and a small attendance won’t attract a new company / product launch
I assume it’s as much about the corporate entertainment options wrapped within iit which even then have limited appeal to the clients clients unless a noteworthy fixture.
We are I imagine always fishing for smaller and local businesses with a more modest budget.
Not really. There will be a lot in our favour that regardless of full naming or not, could boost the revenue on tap. Location of the ground, an affluent and business savvy fanbase that is an attraction to a lot of B2B brands who would traditionally look at venue partnerships.
Also bear in mind the potential for stadium partners who, as part of the commercials, offer up services, work and value in kind. Ultimately enhancing the venue that we play at.