St James' Park

[Guest BooBoo]

No the mooted site as Castle Leazes is behind Leazes Park and essentially just a farmers moor.

 

Busy bodies kicked up a fuss with No Business on the Moor and the plans were kicked out. Shame.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

No the mooted site as Castle Leazes is behind Leazes Park and essentially just a farmers moor.

 

Busy bodies kicked up a fuss with No Business on the Moor and the plans were kicked out. Shame.

 

Ah right, I don't know the details of that scheme, can't really remember it. Still, I think, barring unprecedented European success, SJP as it is is big enough for us.

[TheGuv]

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,24093.0.html

 

 

 

Good read. Some good pics too

[AyeDubbleYoo]

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,24093.0.html

 

Good read. Some good pics too

 

Great thread that. I've always been grateful that we've grown SJP from the original stadium, and kept it on the same site. It really gives it a sense of history that many modern stadiums lack. Hopefully the renaming won't mess with that.

[Optimistic Nut]

Didn't we also enquire about the old Clarke Chapman site opposite Gateshead Stadium where Sports Direct Village is now after that burned down?

[ChezGiven]

http://i.imgur.com/5l8dI.jpg

 

the only comment i'd make on this is that 2008 was the start of the world financial crisis wasn't it...therefore do you have similar figures that suggest the downturns in this graph are unique to NUFC (and ashleys mismanagement) or could it be considered a trend within the game as well?

 

genuine question

 

I put all the top clubs (edit : outside of financial top 4) matchday and commercial incomes together on two graphs on page 14 of this thread. I ignored Media as its a collective agreement and so therefore doesnt represent individual financial performance.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?/topic/31435-the-14-questions/page__st__260

[Dave]

No the mooted site as Castle Leazes is behind Leazes Park and essentially just a farmers moor.

 

Busy bodies kicked up a fuss with No Business on the Moor and the plans were kicked out. Shame.

 

Ah right, I don't know the details of that scheme, can't really remember it. Still, I think, barring unprecedented European success, SJP as it is is big enough for us.

 

It was quite an extensive scheme which included shrinking SJP as a sweetener to the council so Leazes would have a park in front of the terraces.

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=458915&page=5

 

Thanks for the link. Pretty sure I've read it before but fancy another look.

[Heron]

Really, we should eradicate the idea that us as fans would be architects to our own downfall should we make an issue of this. Ultimately, it would be Ashley and his advisers who would be the architects. Why, because we are in the top four and unbeaten should this issue be deemed irrelevant? £8million for 4 or 5 seasons does not equate to challenging the top 4. Putting £8million in at a crucial stage, i.e. this January, is more likely to have a positive effect, with the roll that we're already on, and the potential one season wonder finish. Putting us potentially in Europe and furthermore on the map for the next level of footballer, not to mention the increased profits from league position. Remove the last of our stragglers, like Alan Smith, and your wage structure is all fixed. Slowly build...without fucking the fans off...then we might get more from retail you fat London sluts.

[Weezertron]

Need to keep as much green as possible in the city. Glad it never got passed.

[Dave]

Interesting piece from International Marketing Reports, 'a sports marketing and digital television intelligence publisher...best known for publishing Europe’s best selling and most highly acclaimed sponsorship report, Driving Business Through Sport (editions 1 & 2) and for the International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship.'. The company is based some 388 miles from SJP.

 

http://www.imrpublications.com/commentdetails.aspx?nid=38

COMMENT

Naming rights - a tale of two cities

14/11/2011

 

The media has already given its verdict on Newcastle United’s decision to sell the naming rights to its famous St James’ Park stadium. The damning criticisms have included the fact that it’s very difficult to rename existing stadia in the UK, that it has trampled on over 100 years of proud history and that the value of the rights will be negligible anyway. The media’s response to similar plans aired by Chelsea has been relatively subdued.

 

There are a several issues that have gone unreported that make Mike Ashley’s (Newcastle’s owner) plans appear even more questionable and Chelsea’s more plausible.

 

First, it is important to understand that Newcastle United is a strong brand in its own right. Its large, passionate fan base is one of the key brand strengths, its proud history is another and part of that history is its home; St James’ Park.

 

By damaging the relationship with the former and appearing to degrade the latter, the club’s board has effectively done as much damage to that brand as could be achieved with a single press release.

 

The current likelihood of a major international company wanting to take naming rights is very low and given that Northern Rock has just announced termination of its primary deal with the club (not, according to the bank, because of the latest controversy), the issue could devalue the shirt sponsorship rights as well.

 

Arguably the most bizarre decision made by the club, however, is to brand the stadium as the Sports Direct Arena (named after Mike Ashley’s sports goods company) for a year to showcase the opportunity. What it has showcased to date is the sheer naivety of the club’s board. First, naming rights deals work over a long-term. They are not used for short-term tactical marketing or generating brand awareness but for long-term relationships and brand building.

 

Look at naming rights deals around the globe and it is very rare to find any that run for less than five years and most significant examples run for 10 years at minimum. It’s difficult to see how the Sports Direct Arena name can be activated to create a ‘showcase’. There is little time to do anything significant to bring the new name to life, especially with such universal derision among the football, media and marketing communities.

 

So what can the board prove to potential sponsors?

 

Surely had they wished to demonstrate levels of stadium name awareness and positive resonance, they would have been a lot better basing the marketing on the existing name. What they are inviting now is a comparison between awareness and positive feelings that surround St James’ Park with the results from the change. There is only one way this can go and it won’t be appealing to sponsors.

 

The type of major sponsor that the club is targeting will be represented by sophisticated marketing professionals. They already understand how naming rights work and they know how to research the value and potential; they don’t need an irrelevant and counter-productive exercise to help make their decision.

 

Of course there is an argument to say that the club is being very clever and what they will ultimately offer is the opportunity for a sponsor to come in and take the shirt and naming rights sponsorships at a high level and in the process become the fans’ hero by reverting the name back to St James’ Park.

 

Such a cunning plan would be undermined by a couple of factors. Sponsors aren’t going to be duped into paying over the odds – they know that the naming rights is a poisoned chalice and if they took just the shirt rights, they would pay for just the shirt rights – they might insist that the stadium name reverts as a condition, and that would just make the whole exercise a complete farce. Second, will a sponsor really want to work with a club that has such a penchant for PR own goals? If so, the chances are that the value of the deal will reflect the perceived expertise of the management. Sponsors want to work with rights holders that understand their needs and form genuine partnerships – they are wary of those that don’t show commercial nous.

 

Given that Northern Rock has just announced the termination of its primary shirt deal with the club (the bank states that the decision is not related to the naming rights publicity), Newcastle United is now under even more pressure to secure a major sponsorship deal of some sort in the coming months.

 

With the team doing exceptionally well in the Premiership – it is currently in third place without having the huge player investment of other teams competing for the top spots, the mood at St James’ Park (sorry I mean the Sports Direct Arena), should be positive. Instead the club has been mired in anger and ridicule – and not for the first time in its history, it’s the directors that have been the cause.

 

The sponsorship community is now also awaiting the outcome of Chelsea’s attempt to sell rights to its Stamford Bridge stadium. It remains to be seen whether this will be successful and there are certain to be strong voices of disapproval among the fans. If the club can achieve a good deal for its rights, it will break new ground. No other club in the UK has managed to sell rights for a major existing venue in football, nor indeed has this happened internationally where the culture of naming rights is similar to that of the UK.

 

Chelsea will certainly have a better chance of succeeding than Newcastle. First, the club has gone about the process in a more professional way having explained the need to increase stadium capacity to compete and fans are aware that the Financial Fair Play rules could hamper the club’s ambitions unless new revenues are found. If it remains at Stamford Bridge, a major redevelopment could dovetail with a naming rights deal to make it more acceptable to fans.

 

Equally important, however, is that the demographic and attitudes of the fanbase are very different to Newcastle. Chelsea’s ground is in affluent west London with season ticket prices starting at £595, whereas Newcastle is based in the more working class North East and season tickets start at £345.

 

Although both clubs have a long and proud history, Chelsea has been seen as a more commercial and ‘trendy’ club for several decades. The fans saw the first three-tier stand opened in England in the 1970s, hotel and leisure infrastructure built in the 1990s and the words Chelsea and big money are regularly uttered in the same sentence.  Its fans, therefore, are more likely to be accepting of commercial change than those of Newcastle. This is not a value judgement and it certainly doesn’t mean that either set of fans is right or wrong – it is a simple fact that there is a difference. In the case of naming rights, it means that Chelsea are more likely to overcome what will be very significant obstacles to successfully achieve a change.

[Big Geordie]

Good piece. The more and more I think about it, the more I believe that Ashley's intention is and always been to use the club to his own ends. So, it will remain it's current name and we'll also end up with Sports Direct on the shirts until he leaves the club. The fact that the club are said to be looking for other sponsors is nothing more than a smokescreen.

[Sifu]

Good read that

 

Good piece. The more and more I think about it, the more I believe that Ashley's intention is and always been to use the club to his own ends. So, it will remain it's current name and we'll also end up with Sports Direct on the shirts until he leaves the club. The fact that the club are said to be looking for other sponsors is nothing more than a smokescreen.

 

It does look like that this is the case.....

[bowlingcrofty]

Good piece. The more and more I think about it, the more I believe that Ashley's intention is and always been to use the club to his own ends. So, it will remain it's current name and we'll also end up with Sports Direct on the shirts until he leaves the club. The fact that the club are said to be looking for other sponsors is nothing more than a smokescreen.

 

Pretty much this. Unless someone offers him silly money, we'll be his free global advertising.

 

Same for the sale of the club.

[colinmk]

I don't think it was always his intention to do that, I reckon he made it his priority after his ridiculous decisions cost him a lot of money in the first couple of years and because of the backlash he correctly received. Basically the club has to pay for his mistakes, one way or another.

[ChrisJbarnes]

wikipedia has it down as "St James Park- which is known for sponsorship as the Sports Direct Arena". SDA doesnt have its own page.

[Cronky]

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system.

 

When do you think we should have expanded the stadium Cronky? Considering the fact, the ground didn't start getting regularly sold out until '96. I guess the building work should have started in '97 instead of a few years later? I don't remember it at the time, but maybe the club was slow off the mark because wise sages like yourself would have been telling them what a bad idea it was to get the club into a completely unsustainable level of debt (£66m in 2001. I can just see a younger Bobyule warning of inevitably "doing a Charlton/Boro" ).

 

Thank goodness Mike Ashley generously after 4 years of ownership put undersoil heating at the training facilities built under the old board, perhaps in another 4 years if we sell off a few more players we can afford to renovate the showers at the academy facilities built under the old board too. What a generous and forward thinking owner he is, without him developing a youth system at the club we'd never have been able to recruit and bring through the likes of Ameobi, Taylor, Carroll, Krul, and numerous others who filled squad places but didn't quite make it at the top level.

 

 

If you'd look at my quote again, you'll see that I was talking about the slow development of the club from the sixties onwards. In fact one could go even further back, because the ground had barely changed at all between 1905 and 1970. Various attempts at modernisation had floundered because the club could not come to any agreement with the local council and Freemen of the City, who were the landlords. In fact, the club was earmarked as one of the grounds for the 1966 World Cup but then suffered the ignominy of having the invitation withdrawn and given instead to Ayresome Park, because the club could not institute the necessary ground improvements. Even after 1970, progress was very slow due to disputes with the council, and the financial problems that two relegations brought.

 

You mysteriously omitted the sentence immediately following that quote, in which I acknowledged Sir John Hall as a dynamic figure who had initiated the process of bringing the club up to its potential, although we had not 'quite caught up in every aspect'.

[Optimistic Nut]

UV seems in his element at the minute like. Feck all from him on here since the end of the transfer window pretty much, then nowt until the last week or so, nowt about what goes out on the pitch in between. Funny that.

[Cronky]

The gist of that IMR article seems to be that it'll be okay when Chelsea do it, but not okay when we do it.

 

Well okay, but we're entering into new ground here, and no-one quite knows what the results will be.

 

Just to make two points - I'm not sure why he's saying that the proposed limited period of Sports Direct naming won't work because naming rights are long-term. If I understand it right, the club only saying that they hope to demonstrate how a stadium sponsor's name will achieve a lot of prominence on TV screens and other media outlets all over the world. That can be done within the space of a season. They're not trying to demonstrate how profitable it will be for that company in terms of sales, which would be the long-term consideration.

 

I did a double take at the final paragraph about Chelsea demonstrating commercial competence and vibrancy through the building of the East Stand and the partnership with the CABRA hotel and leisure complex. That's an absolute joke. That deal was a disaster for Chelsea and they were teetering on the verge of bankruptcy through a series of bitter legal disputes with CABRA for many years. Chelsea were on the point of going bust when Abramovich took over. I'm not sure if the author has really done his homework.

[Dave]

The comparison with Chelsea was purely about how accepted it would be by the fans, as I read it. Nowhere does it say they're 'okay' to do it, and nowhere does it comment on the success of their hotel complex deal, financial or otherwise.

 

I just found it interesting as a professional in sports marketing and sponsorship questioning what Ashley is playing at. There's been a few as it happens.

[ChezGiven]

I read that earlier, its coming from an angle which suggests vested interest in relation to the commercial side at Chelsea.

 

This section seems to be written by a marketing graduate, not a professional.

Of course there is an argument to say that the club is being very clever and what they will ultimately offer is the opportunity for a sponsor to come in and take the shirt and naming rights sponsorships at a high level and in the process become the fans’ hero by reverting the name back to St James’ Park.

 

Such a cunning plan would be undermined by a couple of factors. Sponsors aren’t going to be duped into paying over the odds – they know that the naming rights is a poisoned chalice and if they took just the shirt rights, they would pay for just the shirt rights – they might insist that the stadium name reverts as a condition, and that would just make the whole exercise a complete farce. Second, will a sponsor really want to work with a club that has such a penchant for PR own goals? If so, the chances are that the value of the deal will reflect the perceived expertise of the management. Sponsors want to work with rights holders that understand their needs and form genuine partnerships – they are wary of those that don’t show commercial nous.

 

The bit about paying over the odds is unqualified, the figure discussed for the total package is the same as the last Villa shirt deal, so the author doesnt know the market that well.

 

Not sure of the relevance of PR own goals, interest in the club recently has gone through the roof for one reason only, we are 3rd in the Premier League. The only thing that matters is results and association with success. The Glazer PR fuck ups, vans being kicked, FCUM, yellow and green protests etc has has zero impact on Man U's commercial deals. Again, doesnt know his market that well.

 

The bit about showing commercial nous also seemed odd too, as though the club would be considered more commercially savvy to ignore the revenue stream the article shows is being actively considered by others.

 

Some good points made but given the confused intro on branding and the lack of depth of market insight, i wouldnt hold it in any high regard.

[OzzieMandias]

 

This section seems to be written by a marketing graduate, not a professional.

 

 

The articles in their "journal" are all written by academics:

 

http://www.imrpublications.com/journal-landing.aspx?volno=L&no=L

[Dave]

I read that earlier, its coming from an angle which suggests vested interest in relation to the commercial side at Chelsea.

 

This section seems to be written by a marketing graduate, not a professional.

Of course there is an argument to say that the club is being very clever and what they will ultimately offer is the opportunity for a sponsor to come in and take the shirt and naming rights sponsorships at a high level and in the process become the fans’ hero by reverting the name back to St James’ Park.

 

Such a cunning plan would be undermined by a couple of factors. Sponsors aren’t going to be duped into paying over the odds – they know that the naming rights is a poisoned chalice and if they took just the shirt rights, they would pay for just the shirt rights – they might insist that the stadium name reverts as a condition, and that would just make the whole exercise a complete farce. Second, will a sponsor really want to work with a club that has such a penchant for PR own goals? If so, the chances are that the value of the deal will reflect the perceived expertise of the management. Sponsors want to work with rights holders that understand their needs and form genuine partnerships – they are wary of those that don’t show commercial nous.

 

The bit about paying over the odds is unqualified, the figure discussed for the total package is the same as the last Villa shirt deal, so the author doesnt know the market that well.

 

Not sure of the relevance of PR own goals, interest in the club recently has gone through the roof for one reason only, we are 3rd in the Premier League. The only thing that matters is results and association with success. The Glazer PR fuck ups, vans being kicked, FCUM, yellow and green protests etc has has zero impact on Man U's commercial deals. Again, doesnt know his market that well.

 

The bit about showing commercial nous also seemed odd too, as though the club would be considered more commercially savvy to ignore the revenue stream the article shows is being actively considered by others.

 

Some good points made but given the confused intro on branding and the lack of depth of market insight, i wouldnt hold it in any high regard.

 

Fair enough. I guess we'll only know if someone actually decides to pick up the naming rights and pays for the privilege. For me, that's the absolute bare minimum that needs to happen if I am to even start to accept this concept.

 

Do you think anyone will?

[Crayola Kid]

Where do the club currently stand when judged against the financial fair play rules, does anyone on here know?  I have seen the semi-regular club statements suggesting Ashley has put money in each season, do we think it is enough to fall foul of these rules, should we actually manage to qualify for uefa competition?

 

i dont know if this has already been covered, its a long thread, but could the sports direct sponsorship not be a way for the owner to put a few quid in at some point, without getting on the wrong side of the fair play rules?  I'd imagine it would be set against the sports direct tax bill also, but that would stand against the apparent fact that he hasnt paid much at all for sponsorship so far (as i read it).

[mrmojorisin75]

I don't think it was always his intention to do that, I reckon he made it his priority after his ridiculous decisions cost him a lot of money in the first couple of years and because of the backlash he correctly received. Basically the club has to pay for his mistakes, one way or another.

 

this, nail on the head

[ChezGiven]

I read that earlier, its coming from an angle which suggests vested interest in relation to the commercial side at Chelsea.

 

This section seems to be written by a marketing graduate, not a professional.

Of course there is an argument to say that the club is being very clever and what they will ultimately offer is the opportunity for a sponsor to come in and take the shirt and naming rights sponsorships at a high level and in the process become the fans’ hero by reverting the name back to St James’ Park.

 

Such a cunning plan would be undermined by a couple of factors. Sponsors aren’t going to be duped into paying over the odds – they know that the naming rights is a poisoned chalice and if they took just the shirt rights, they would pay for just the shirt rights – they might insist that the stadium name reverts as a condition, and that would just make the whole exercise a complete farce. Second, will a sponsor really want to work with a club that has such a penchant for PR own goals? If so, the chances are that the value of the deal will reflect the perceived expertise of the management. Sponsors want to work with rights holders that understand their needs and form genuine partnerships – they are wary of those that don’t show commercial nous.

 

The bit about paying over the odds is unqualified, the figure discussed for the total package is the same as the last Villa shirt deal, so the author doesnt know the market that well.

 

Not sure of the relevance of PR own goals, interest in the club recently has gone through the roof for one reason only, we are 3rd in the Premier League. The only thing that matters is results and association with success. The Glazer PR fuck ups, vans being kicked, FCUM, yellow and green protests etc has has zero impact on Man U's commercial deals. Again, doesnt know his market that well.

 

The bit about showing commercial nous also seemed odd too, as though the club would be considered more commercially savvy to ignore the revenue stream the article shows is being actively considered by others.

 

Some good points made but given the confused intro on branding and the lack of depth of market insight, i wouldnt hold it in any high regard.

 

Fair enough. I guess we'll only know if someone actually decides to pick up the naming rights and pays for the privilege. For me, that's the absolute bare minimum that needs to happen if I am to even start to accept this concept.

 

Do you think anyone will?

 

If we are successful on the pitch, i dont see why not but there is still the suspicion that the plan was to have SD all along. I think i mentioned on here someone told me that they were discussing SD as the next shirt sponsor weeks ago. Someone may remember correcting me on the NR deal coming to an end this year, at the time i just heard that and assumed the deal was ending. Now its clear it been on the table for the last couple of months. In which case, i find it hard to see which company would want to come in and have a stadium name which is clearly (from a branding perspective) completely drowned out by all the SD branding, on shirts, stands, roofs and billboards.

 

My view is that they do want to sell it all and will if they can find someone to pay them what they want. Whether we can find that or not is the question, for me the key driver of that is success on the pitch which is where i would differ from what was written in that article. So, basically multiply the chances of us having an amazing season by the chance of a stadium naming fitting with a major company's business plan.