Great minds think alike. Just made similar article.

The Lou Macari Chip Shop Stadium

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Unless Pro Evo was the sponsor, Id go with Trad Brick.

With the news that Chelsea are set to sell the naming rights of Stamford Bridge, do you think this is their's (and City's) way of coming into line for FFP?

...................

It is their way of getting round them, not coming into line with them.

It is their way of getting round them, not coming into line with them

--------------------------------

There is nothing in the rules which states that a stadium can't be sponsored. So no, it's not a way of getting round the FFP, it is a way of trying to enable the club to fall in line with it.

RipleysCat is right - unless the stadium is mysteriously renamed 'The Millhouse Capital Arena' at a price of £100m a year.

Personally, I am not a fan of changing stadia names. I'd always hoped that once the emirates was paid off it's be renamed, or rather debranded, to Ashburton Grove. Unfortunately, I don't know if I see that happening.

If Man utd were to rename old trafford, I can see them doing a similar thing to Newcastle, where it keeps most of the name, but people still refer to it as it was.

For instance, ______@oldtrafford.

Question to United fans: if all of our rivals did it and there was a sense that we were getting left behind financially as a result of holding on to our traditional name, how would you feel about renaming OT? It would be a bitter blow, wouldn't it, but how many of us would hang on to the name if the price of that principle were a £30 million seasonal shortfall on the incomes of our competitors for the league title?

I don't really know what I think. Maybe I'd be willing to sanction something like 'Old Trafford, sponsored by ...' but draw the line at calling it the McDonalds Stadium.

There is nothing in the rules which states that a stadium can't be sponsored.

...............................

No there is not. But there is something in the rules that says it has to be done at market value.

We are yet to see if UEFA are going to enforce that rule.

Both you and I know that UEFA will try anything to stop the CL domination from English teams.

but how many of us would hang on to the name if the price of that principle were a £30 million seasonal shortfall on the incomes of our competitors for the league title?

--------------------------------------

Highly doubtful that the figure will be £30m per year.

But there is something in the rules that says it has to be done at market value.

-----------------------------

Indeed there is. So what is the market value? And what is the proposed value for the re-naming of Stamford Bridge? And what is the value for the re-naming of Eastlands? Because as far as I'm aware, no figures have actually been released in regards to what both Chelsea could receive, and what City have received for the sponsorship of their stadium.

RC

That will be UEFA's problem to decide.

If they are going to bring in rules, then they have to enforce them.

Note here that I have not accused City of breaking them. City have done exactly what anyone with any sense would have done.

They have pushed the envelope, to see what UEFA's reaction would be.

"Note here that I have not accused City of breaking them"

Good.

"They have pushed the envelope, to see what UEFA's reaction would be."

And what would the conclusion be therefore if UEFA don't put any restrictions on City's deal? That UEFA have "copped out", or that there is nothing wrong with City's deal?

And what would the conclusion be therefore if UEFA don't put any restrictions on City's deal? That UEFA have "copped out", or that there is nothing wrong with City's deal?

................................

Hard to say.

Personally I think your owners have put it right there on the edge, to test the waters.

How is it right there on the edge? Even just being of that opinion suggests that you know what the specifics of City's deal actually are.

So what are the specifics?

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 minutes ago

How is it right there on the edge?

..................................

Try and work that out for yourself. It is not very difficult.

Try and think how you are going to get round the FFP rules, because you are going to have to do so to be able to compete in the CL from 2013.

Try and think really hard about this. Think what you would do, if you had an endless pot of money.

My take is that your owners have set this right on the edge to see exactly what UEFA will do. I think your stadium naming rights and shirt deal combined over a period of ten years are at the very high end of market value when compared against the likes of Real, Barcelona, United and even Liverpool.

UEFA said they were looking into it. They are doing so for a reason.

"Try and work that out for yourself. It is not very difficult."

Without being privvy to the actual figures, how is it possible to know just how much (if at all) City are pushing the envelope. I ask again, what is the market value, and how does City's deal compare to this?

"Try and think how you are going to get round the FFP rules"

No. How we are going to fall in line with the FFP regulations.

"My take is that your owners have set this right on the edge to see exactly what UEFA will do. I think your stadium naming rights and shirt deal combined over a period of ten years are at the very high end of market value when compared against the likes of Real, Barcelona, United and even Liverpool"

So you do know what the figures are then. You must do in order to write what you just have done. So, what are these figures?

"UEFA said they were looking into it."

UEFA will look into any deal of this type. That's one of the principle things they have to do in order to ensure that clubs will ascribe to the regulations that they are intent on implimenting. Or to put it in simple terms, it's standard procedure.

"Try and think how you are going to get round the FFP rules"

No. How we are going to fall in line with the FFP regulations.

..............................

You can't fall in line with them. That is why you had to sell the naming rights to the stadium.

I doubt very much your turnover from gate receipts alone would pay for a tenth of your squads wages.

So you do know what the figures are then.

...............

I have the same idea as everyone else. Google it, and see what you come up with.

One figure often bandied about is 400 million over ten years.

UEFA said they were looking into it."

UEFA will look into any deal of this type.

................

Why would they? If Wigan sold the naming rights to their stadium for a few million, UEFA would not bat an eyelid.

One figure often bandied about is 400 million over ten years.

--------------------------

And how does that figure break down? What is it actually for?

"You can't fall in line with them. That is why you had to sell the naming rights to the stadium."

Once again, selling naming rights to a stadium is as valid a way to raise revenue as shirt sponsorship is. Do clubs only have shirt sponsors because they can't fall in line with the FFP?

"I doubt very much your turnover from gate receipts alone would pay for a tenth of your squads wages."

Well you're wrong. For 1/10th of our wages amounts to around £11m-£12m. Our gate receipts bring in much more than that. Nevertheless, there are three main sources of income for clubs these days. Match-day revenue, sponsorship revenue, and TV revenue. The vast majority (if not all) clubs rely on all three areas in order to be able to cover their expenses, and indeed, return a profit.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 minutes ago

One figure often bandied about is 400 million over ten years.

--------------------------

And how does that figure break down?

................................


Why would I care, look it up if you want to know, or write to your club finance officer.

...........................

What is it actually for?

.........................

To boost your income, so that you do not fail FFP. Pretty obvious really.

I am not sure why you are having trouble with this to be honest.

Once again, selling naming rights to a stadium is as valid a way to raise revenue as shirt sponsorship is.

.................

No one has said it is not.