naming rights

An archive of news, events and discussion leading up to and post West Ham United's historic move from Upton Park to Stratford in 2016.

Moderators: Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks, Gnome

Locked
User avatar
HamburgHammer
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Too far away from Upton Park, Hamburg, Germany, to be precise
Has liked: 2 likes
Total likes: 7 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by HamburgHammer »

I suppose we'll eventually find out about the naming rights issue either way. And as you were kind enough to ask, I am of Christian faith, Protestant to be precise.
In this case though I would rather refer to common sense which tells me that Gold, Sullivan and Brady are all very experienced business people - I'd be extremly surprised if we didn't get any naming rights share over the 99 years, and in that respect it doesn't matter if anybody on here has seen Jesus or not... :fsake:
User avatar
MD_HM
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:00 am
Location: London
Has liked: 38 likes
Total likes: 339 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by MD_HM »

London Wasps going to bring in the same level of sponsorship as West Ham United playing in the premier league?

I don't follow rugby, had to google to learn anything about them...

I saw an article that indicated they hoped their move would triple their annual turnover to 20m.... That suggesting they currently turnover about 7m?

Wasn't our last report a turnover 90m?

I might not have understood your post but if you were suggesting London Wasps were a big enough long term option then don't see it personally.

Premiership football was the only option to bring in big money and earn some back for anyone and the more successful we are on the field the more the naming rights will increase over time.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45004
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 746 likes
Total likes: 2905 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by the pink palermo »

HamburgHammer wrote: I suppose we'll eventually find out about the naming rights issue either way.
We already have the answer, Doc has provided it , yet you choose not to believe him .
HamburgHammer wrote: And as you were kind enough to ask, I am of Christian faith, Protestant to be precise.
Actually I didn't ask you .
HamburgHammer wrote: In this case though I would rather refer to common sense which tells me that Gold, Sullivan and Brady are all very experienced business people
And Doc is very experienced in his line of work and considerably more reliable IMO .
HamburgHammer wrote: - I'd be extremly surprised if we didn't get any naming rights share over the 99 years, and in that respect it doesn't matter if anybody on here has seen Jesus or not... :fsake:
You're in for a shock when the lights go out HH, and I'd feint if Doc turns out to be incorrect .
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45004
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 746 likes
Total likes: 2905 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by the pink palermo »

MD_HM wrote:London Wasps going to bring in the same level of sponsorship as West Ham United playing in the premier league?

Premiership football was the only option to bring in big money and earn some back for anyone and the more successful we are on the field the more the naming rights will increase over time.
£50 to the BMF says that when the OS gets a naming rights deal - if it gets one - the money won't cover the cost of converting the OS into a( crap) football stadium .

In other words the LLDC have thrown good money after bad .
User avatar
mywhufc
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: naming rights

Post by mywhufc »

Moving into the stadium wasn't the windfall for the owners, it was the money they get for selling the boleyn.
No move, no lump sum to clear the debts.
Perhaps the Man City deal taught the government a lesson, but then again the stadium is sponsored technically by their owner just used it as way of putting money into the club bypassing FFP
User avatar
MD_HM
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:00 am
Location: London
Has liked: 38 likes
Total likes: 339 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by MD_HM »

the pink palermo wrote:
£50 to the BMF says that when the OS gets a naming rights deal - if it gets one - the money won't cover the cost of converting the OS into a( crap) football stadium .

In other words the LLDC have thrown good money after bad .
Do I think the initial naming rights deal will be for 200m?

Doubt it, especially as it could only be 5-15 year deal
gavrosh
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: naming rights

Post by gavrosh »

The E20 LLC, made up of the LLDC and Newham, own the stadium. It is in their interests that the club become more successful, because it eventually means more money for them, as Sir Robin Wales has pointed out a number of times. Stunting the club financially by not allowing it access to stadium naming rights is a totally self defeating move, as it stunts potential future naming rights revenues by keeping the club tiny, comparatively. Look at Man City's (obviously fixed) £80 million a year deal just announced. Naming rights are becoming a huge revenue stream for clubs in the higher echelons of football, and if west ham, as a function of greater revenue from the stadium move, were able to consistently get into Europe, the value of the naming rights on the stadium would sky rocket. As i said before, the owners would have to be idiots to give them up. And with all respects to Doc, I would not expect the senior people that I deal with at the LLDC to give any hint as to what the deal is. They've been scrutinised enough at all levels of government and not done so, so I wouldn't expect them to tell me.
User avatar
Doc H Ball
Posts: 14668
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:29 pm
Location: on parole
Has liked: 914 likes
Total likes: 1902 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by Doc H Ball »

gavrosh wrote:And with all respects to Doc, I would not expect the senior people that I deal with at the LLDC to give any hint as to what the deal is. They've been scrutinised enough at all levels of government and not done so, so I wouldn't expect them to tell me.
That's fair enough, but in a meeting with a prominent MP the LLDC confirmed to him that the Club would get no naming rights. It echoes what Brady told to the highest court in the land.

There is an ongoing State Aid calculation. Benefit to West Ham as a private business v Taxpayer outlay.

Given that the stadium has cost circa 800m total (cf COMS - 150m), specific adaption to football circa 150m, running costs 1.5m per annum and we pay 2m a year rent and chucked in 15m, then we had to give up other things to compensate. Things like catering, naming rights and exclusivity.

The owners wanted to pay as little as possible up front. It will be interesting to see how much this costs the Club in terms of revenue in the future.

Sure, the financial details are still confidential (not sure why), but we will have to pay for the stadium one way or another as a matter of law.

Probably worth checking out the European Court's response to the Charlton supporters' complaint as I'm fairly sure that referred to the lack of naming rights.
User avatar
MD_HM
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:00 am
Location: London
Has liked: 38 likes
Total likes: 339 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by MD_HM »

The LLDC better not look at West Ham's website then...

"West Ham will continue to take all of the revenue from all of its own assets such as ticketing, corporate hospitality, retail and sponsorship (including shirt sponsorship). We retain full commercial control of our business. Catering and naming rights revenue is shared."
gavrosh
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: naming rights

Post by gavrosh »

Do agree its mental the details have no been released. I was under the impression that they were waiting until the Vinci deal went through but that was a while back now so that one's out. The club continue to say that stadium sponsorship and catering will be shared, and the GLAs own literature says as much. Really weird.

One thing I can share without censure (i hope) is that while waiting for a meeting at the LLDC a few months back, we got chatting to a fellow from the firm that will be supplying the catering to the stadium. I dont remember what company he was from but they do the Emirates. Anyway, he said that West ham do get a share, but it kicks in after a very high threshold is met. Perhaps something similar is in effect with the naming rights, allowing West Ham to claim it will get some while in reality (at least for a while) the share will be minimum.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45004
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 746 likes
Total likes: 2905 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by the pink palermo »

gavrosh wrote:. As i said before, the owners would have to be idiots.
Gold is ancient, Sullivan not that far behind .

The sale of the Boleyn , as mywhufc points out, is what mattered , it rids them of their promises to the banks they made when buying the club along with any associated covenants .

Do you really think they care about possible naming rights ? They've done a deal that offloads definite debts .

The club is currently trading profitably , in two years time it will be debt free ( ignoring shareholders loans),clearly that has been their plan all along .

The cheap tickets argument has been exposed, the naming rights dream removed , as I asked at the time of the robber Baroness , how much money will flow through to the managers budget as a result of this move ?

Forget the TV cash, even the lowest placed club - possibly Bournemouth in 2 years time - will get £99m ,how much more from the hot dogs, shirts and ticket sales ?

£5m ? £10m?

We're moving home for the price of a right back ?
gavrosh
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: naming rights

Post by gavrosh »

Pinky, the value of a company is partly determined by its current net assets, but more importantly, by its expected future profits. Old as they are, the two Daves should know that. Giving up a significant revenue stream in a whim is very bad business whichever way you look at it. Fair enough they wanted to front load the benefits given the debt situation, but still.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45004
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 746 likes
Total likes: 2905 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by the pink palermo »

Gavrosh they haven't given it up on a whim, they've done it based upon sound advice .

Sullivan and Gold have substantial business interests , Sullivan in particular .He has a stack of property and access to very expensive advice .They have been in the football industry for over 20 years .They know the business .

On a whim ? No chance . As a calculated move ? Absolutely .

So, no sign of cheaper tickets for fans, and no crock of gold at the end of the naming rights rainbow .

Hot dog sales shared ......leaving corporate ( which will rake in a few bob) shirts and sponsorships .

Those three elements are largely driven by success on the pitch , trophies in the cabinet, not what stadium you are in .
gavrosh
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: naming rights

Post by gavrosh »

I still reckon (or rather hope) that they would have worked out a threshold deal above which west ham start to earn. So for example £2.5 mil fixed rent (adjustable by inflation), first £2 mil matchday sales to E20 and first £5.5 mil naming rights to LLDC. That would guarantee the £10 mil to E20 as rumoured and still provide an incentive to the club to strive for the sort of success that brings in much greater revenues from those streams.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45004
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 746 likes
Total likes: 2905 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by the pink palermo »

Gavrosh

Let's hope you are right .

Sadly I think we are all going to be a little disappointed .

One other thing though .

The LLDC , having insisted on the club clearing external debt ahead of the move, that's fair enough but I wonder if there are any restrictive covenants on the clubs ability to borrow money in the future ?
ooh look who it is
Posts: 8524
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:29 am
Location: I'm a reasonable guy. But, I've just experienced some very unreasonable things.

Re: naming rights

Post by ooh look who it is »

I thought it was a done deal/common knowledge that we had no say or share in the naming rights :eh:

I don't know much about the move but pretty much thought that was a given.
User avatar
HamburgHammer
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Too far away from Upton Park, Hamburg, Germany, to be precise
Has liked: 2 likes
Total likes: 7 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by HamburgHammer »

I seem to remember reading some info back then which stipulated that the vast majority of the naming rights income initially would go to the LLDC in order to quickly recuperate the conversion costs for the taxpayer (and to which West Ham only contributed 15 million upfront).
West Ham are the main beneficiary of the conversion, so it is understandable that they would have to give up something in order for the conversion to happen.

I also seem to remember though that once the conversion costs have been recuperated that there will be a more evenly share of the naming rights between the LLDC and West Ham which would make sense I reckon.
Surely West Ham are getting a tougher deal in that respect than Man City.

I still refuse to believe that West Ham will get nothing in terms of naming rights income over 99 years.
As without West Ham there would be no significant naming rights income anyway.
User avatar
We_are_BML
Posts: 2197
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:32 pm
Location: South of the Watford gap
Has liked: 4 likes
Total likes: 24 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by We_are_BML »

If we do not financially benefit from the re-naming of the stadium and we are only renting the stadium for 20 odd days a year can somebody tell me how this move will have a positive impact financially?
User avatar
spyinthesky
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:37 pm
Location: Enfield
Contact:

Re: naming rights

Post by spyinthesky »

gavrosh wrote:Do agree its mental the details have no been released. I was under the impression that they were waiting until the Vinci deal went through but that was a while back now so that one's out. The club continue to say that stadium sponsorship and catering will be shared, and the GLAs own literature says as much. Really weird.

One thing I can share without censure (i hope) is that while waiting for a meeting at the LLDC a few months back, we got chatting to a fellow from the firm that will be supplying the catering to the stadium. I dont remember what company he was from but they do the Emirates. Anyway, he said that West ham do get a share, but it kicks in after a very high threshold is met. Perhaps something similar is in effect with the naming rights, allowing West Ham to claim it will get some while in reality (at least for a while) the share will be minimum.
My thoughts entirely. As you so often hear of on business and political matters (and this is both) the expert(s) being questioned so often says something to the effect that they are both right and usually baffles the listeners as to how that is exactly so. I suspect a threshold of some kind allows that claim in this case. These things are never quite as they seem on the surface.
User avatar
Rays Rock
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:10 pm
Location: Outsider
Has liked: 46 likes
Total likes: 104 likes

Re: naming rights

Post by Rays Rock »

Naming rights proceeds will not be received by the club Initially.
The clubs share will be offset for a time period until our full contribution toward the conversion is met. This timescale is still unknown due to the unknown income of the naming rights.
Once this threshold has been met, the club can legally receive it's agreed share of the rights, as it will have contributed an amount sufficient to avoid state aid criticism.
Estimate time scales for reaching the threshold obviously depend on what rights deal is signed. somewhere between 7-10 years was the original estimate based upon incomes at other stadia.
Locked