Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sponsors wanted for 25/26 season
Comments
-
Nearest source I could findredman said:Anybody any idea what somebody like Bolton get from their stadium sponsor?0 -
https://www.weston-homes.com/news-insights/latest-news/2m-sponsorship-deal-turns-peterboroughs-london-road-football-ground-into-the-weston-homes-stadium/#:~:text=Weston%20Homes%20has%20signed%20a,as%20the%20Weston%20Homes%20Stadium.
https://www.cledara.com/cambridge#:~:text=Naming%20The%20Cledara%20Abbey%20Stadium&text=Cledara%20is%20delighted%20to%20be,Come%20on%20you%20U's!
0 -
So 200k a year in Peterborough, would hope we could get more but will still be 6 figuresshirty5 said:1 -
Owners explore a viable revenue stream used by many clubs around the world so they don’t have a pot to piss in.golfaddick said:I think this all goes to.show the owners don't have a pot to piss in. Or if they do they aren't willing to throw it our way.
They are looking down the back of the sofa for £300k. Seems like they're do anything apart from spending their money.You’re a clown6 -
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.
4 -
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?9 -
football is the wrong business if you want to make money and reduce losses substantially, it’s a cash burner1
-
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 deals2 -
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.Croydon said: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.1 -
Are there many examples of big clubs doing it, that aren't brand new stadiums?Callumcafc said: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?
Genuine question as I can only think of Bournemouth and Newcastle.2 - Sponsored links:
-
St.Andrew's is now St Andrew's Trillion Trophy Stadium. I don't think anyone would claim their owners don't have a pot to piss in?0
-
Varney is wrong. The media (incl. BBC and Sky) refer to grounds that are sponsored by their sponsored names.JustFloydRoad said:3 -
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"golfaddick said:My take on it all.
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.2 -
Isn't it now, "St. Andrew's @ Knighthead Park"?Pelling1993 said:St.Andrew's is now St Andrew's Trillion Trophy Stadium. I don't think anyone would claim their owners don't have a pot to piss in?0 -
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.felix_31 said:
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.golfaddick said:My take on it all.
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 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.
It's basically free money for very little, aside from a few logos around the stadium.
0 -
"“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!!JustFloydRoad said:
Nearest source I could findredman said:Anybody any idea what somebody like Bolton get from their stadium sponsor?0 -
Oh yes you're quite right! Point still stands thoughChizz said:
Isn't it now, "St. Andrew's @ Knighthead Park"?Pelling1993 said:St.Andrew's is now St Andrew's Trillion Trophy Stadium. I don't think anyone would claim their owners don't have a pot to piss in?1 -
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 name0 -
I give you the Poundland Bescot Stadium as an example of how tone deaf football executives are when it comes to money.See also the ridiculous deal that prevents Charlton wearing red and white in away matches.19
-
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)Callumcafc said: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?
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.2 - Sponsored links:
-
SporadicAddick said:
Varney is wrong. The media (incl. BBC and Sky) refer to grounds that are sponsored by their sponsored names.JustFloydRoad said:
I think they use both.1 -
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/live/c5yvq8r4y7qtse9addick said:SporadicAddick said:
Varney is wrong. The media (incl. BBC and Sky) refer to grounds that are sponsored by their sponsored names.JustFloydRoad said:I think they use both.
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/c5yerll9l3kt1 -
Are people allowed to say that on here ? 😉😆SporadicAddick said:
Varney is wrong. The media (incl. BBC and Sky) refer to grounds that are sponsored by their sponsored names.JustFloydRoad said:3 -
Alexandra Palace could sponsor the ground, which would make it the Ally Pally Valley11
-
Hear hear to your second statement. Done my nut in to see that we played in yellow last Saturday against a team playing in Blue.Airman Brown said:I give you the Poundland Bescot Stadium as an example of how tone deaf football executives are when it comes to money.See also the ridiculous deal that prevents Charlton wearing red and white in away matches.2 -
The something or other Valley, seems inevitable to me given a possible healthy return, and if the funds strengthen the team I could accept it.1
-
Something to agree on at last. Lolgolfaddick said:
Hear hear to your second statement. Done my nut in to see that we played in yellow last Saturday against a team playing in Blue.Airman Brown said:I give you the Poundland Bescot Stadium as an example of how tone deaf football executives are when it comes to money.See also the ridiculous deal that prevents Charlton wearing red and white in away matches.0 -
To those people who dont want a sponsor in the stadium name, I say Toughsheet.3
-
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.0
-
Any club coming to the Siemens Stadium would know they were about to face a team full of spunk.Scratchingvalleycat said: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.0
