-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Babs said:
Well would you have paid BEFORE it was being built?
Really you are stretching to say that the issue is Tottenham on that one, tell you what, how about once it is built and named, you come back and say "I was talking bollocks" or, when we build it and we can't get a named sponsor I will come back and say "Babs was right, we cant name it because it is in Tottenham"
Who do you really think will be eating humble pie?
Babs said:
Nope, stadium was started Feb 2004, Emirates deal was October 2004
babs read posts if your arguing i posted before that emirates started being built before they signed any deal.
nothing is finalised with the stadium, until bricks start going down i wouldn't pay for something, the legal loopholes etc for any change in planning or building ideas results in different payment structures etc. they want to sign something at the last possible stage as it would reduce any risk
nothing is finalised with the stadium, until bricks start going down i wouldn't pay for something, the legal loopholes etc for any change in planning or building ideas results in different payment structures etc. they want to sign something at the last possible stage as it would reduce any risk
Babs said:
So how do you know we are not in the same position, that a sponsorship outline is in place with figures but it has not yet been announced?
Emirates were the Chelsea sponsor and announce the deal with Woolwich wanderers a week after in broke that they were breaking ties with Chelsea.
You seem to throw shit around with zero substance and then claim fact.
and how the hell do you know if he doesn't have a ball park figure?
we barely know anything that happens behind those closed doors, and yet you know levy doesn't have any companies lined up, or any estimate in potential sponsorship.
give us a break, and if you do know all this, who we signing in January? may as well put a few quid on your mystic Meg impression.
as i say sponsors market is rarely about the fans, investek? augmented reality software? do you think thats for the 80k fans that go to spurs?
or the worldwide tv audiances? b'cos the millions round the world will call it what ever the tv calls it, and sadly the name WHL will be nothing but a memory to those who use attend
we barely know anything that happens behind those closed doors, and yet you know levy doesn't have any companies lined up, or any estimate in potential sponsorship.
give us a break, and if you do know all this, who we signing in January? may as well put a few quid on your mystic Meg impression.
as i say sponsors market is rarely about the fans, investek? augmented reality software? do you think thats for the 80k fans that go to spurs?
or the worldwide tv audiances? b'cos the millions round the world will call it what ever the tv calls it, and sadly the name WHL will be nothing but a memory to those who use attend
Babs said:
Prove it, because without proof this is your "opinion" which, I have to say, does not hold much water.
ahh you see babs when i was trying to acquire naming rights deals last week for sponsorship i found after all the Asia and middle east companies watched the olympics they called the Stratford stadium the Olympic stadium exactly that as the whole world watched it, however they had no idea what whl even was..... so the NDP got offered more money.....
NDP will be a new building, the olympic stadium wont be and already has a name so obviously will get less sponsor money
We can all make wild statments based on assumptions and hearsay,
but the cold hard fact is regardless of how financially sound the idea is of Tottenham moving, most fans do not want Tottenham to leave its home
NDP will be a new building, the olympic stadium wont be and already has a name so obviously will get less sponsor money
We can all make wild statments based on assumptions and hearsay,
but the cold hard fact is regardless of how financially sound the idea is of Tottenham moving, most fans do not want Tottenham to leave its home
Babs said:
So it is your opinion, thanks for the clarification. I will file these facts alongside last night's supper.
the fact remains, the most appealing thing to sponsors is the fans around the world 90% who will never see the site, and the other 10 % will be spurs fans or dedicated away fans who love football for what it is.
who gives a flying donkeys cock what the area is like in terms of a sponsors name, the only time most people will see it is on motd or sky with their fancy camera fly overs
lets build it in Hampstead, nice area, expensive houses, or sloan sq, or kings road,
who gives a flying donkeys cock what the area is like in terms of a sponsors name, the only time most people will see it is on motd or sky with their fancy camera fly overs
lets build it in Hampstead, nice area, expensive houses, or sloan sq, or kings road,
Babs said:
Babs said:
If that is the target market then why not sell our new sponsors one of those old HGV's in a field by the side of the M25..........
This thread is making me need a :mong: emoticon
Soak it up...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... aims-mp.do
Tottenham Hotspur are planning to “repackage” the Olympic stadium and sell it on to the highest bidder, it was claimed today.
David Lammy MP, who is campaigning for the club to remain at its north London home, said Spurs' main motivation for a move to Stratford was to boost the club's commercial value before a sale.
His comments came as it emerged that Tottenham, who are in a head-to-head race for the stadium with West Ham, expect to raise £150 million by selling the naming rights to the venue in a 10-year deal. Mr Lammy, MP for Tottenham, said: “This is not simply about moving the stadium, it is about repackaging an asset for sale. I am convinced the owners will sell the club and the Olympic stadium. Its location and potential for naming rights makes it a much more valuable proposition for a buyer.”
Mr Lammy has written to the National Audit Office calling for an investigation into the appropriate use of public money should the £500 million-plus venue be sold to Spurs, who propose to demolish the existing structure.
Experts believe Spurs has a good chance of clinching a deal given the rising values in the market since Woolwich sold the naming rights of their new home to the Emirates airline in 2004 in a deal worth £100 million over 15 years.
If Spurs stay at White Hart Lane, a revamped stadium there would not be worth anywhere near as much.
Sponsors are much less interested in a venue, such as White Hart Lane, when its name is already common parlance. Successful deals have involved purpose-built stadiums such as the Reebok stadium, home of Bolton Wanderers. A potential £150 million deal, plus additional revenues from shirt sponsorship, are key to Spurs' interest in the move east.
The club propose a 200-year lease on a site, and would create a 60,000 seat football-only venue.
Rival bidders West Ham have budgeted for a £12 million-a-year income from stadium naming rights, even though they are threatened with relegation from the Premier League.
Tim Crow, chief executive of consultancy Synergy Sponsorship, said: “Top club shirt sponsorships are now going for £20 million a year, so £150 million over 10 years for the Olympic stadium would be realistic for Spurs to aim for.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... aims-mp.do
Tottenham Hotspur are planning to “repackage” the Olympic stadium and sell it on to the highest bidder, it was claimed today.
David Lammy MP, who is campaigning for the club to remain at its north London home, said Spurs' main motivation for a move to Stratford was to boost the club's commercial value before a sale.
His comments came as it emerged that Tottenham, who are in a head-to-head race for the stadium with West Ham, expect to raise £150 million by selling the naming rights to the venue in a 10-year deal. Mr Lammy, MP for Tottenham, said: “This is not simply about moving the stadium, it is about repackaging an asset for sale. I am convinced the owners will sell the club and the Olympic stadium. Its location and potential for naming rights makes it a much more valuable proposition for a buyer.”
Mr Lammy has written to the National Audit Office calling for an investigation into the appropriate use of public money should the £500 million-plus venue be sold to Spurs, who propose to demolish the existing structure.
Experts believe Spurs has a good chance of clinching a deal given the rising values in the market since Woolwich sold the naming rights of their new home to the Emirates airline in 2004 in a deal worth £100 million over 15 years.
If Spurs stay at White Hart Lane, a revamped stadium there would not be worth anywhere near as much.
Sponsors are much less interested in a venue, such as White Hart Lane, when its name is already common parlance. Successful deals have involved purpose-built stadiums such as the Reebok stadium, home of Bolton Wanderers. A potential £150 million deal, plus additional revenues from shirt sponsorship, are key to Spurs' interest in the move east.
The club propose a 200-year lease on a site, and would create a 60,000 seat football-only venue.
Rival bidders West Ham have budgeted for a £12 million-a-year income from stadium naming rights, even though they are threatened with relegation from the Premier League.
Tim Crow, chief executive of consultancy Synergy Sponsorship, said: “Top club shirt sponsorships are now going for £20 million a year, so £150 million over 10 years for the Olympic stadium would be realistic for Spurs to aim for.”