Search: 'naming rights'

Manchester United are about to be floated on Singapore’s stock exchange. Ashley Shaw explores the motives behind the move.

Having suffered jibes that they are the “Pride of Singapore” for several years now, the news that Manchester United are to be floated on that country’s stock exchange would seem to be entirely appropriate. Mystery surrounds the precise sums involved in the supposed IPO (initial public offering) and the move seems to have baffled the financial press. Some are asking whether having won four titles out of five and reached three Champion League finals in five years, the Glazers believe the club have reached a peak. There are also suggestions that they have been tipped the wink about Sir Alex Ferguson’s imminent departure. But it may simply be that they are once again looking to milk more from the United cash cow.

Of particular interest to supporters is the final destination of these funds. This summer Liverpool and Manchester City spent fortunes in the transfer market, with City in particular seemingly able to lure United’s transfer targets with huge salaries. So fans are entitled to wonder if some of this money will be used to strengthen a squad now containing young, promising but as yet unproven talent.

The initial answer would appear to be no and that the windfall could be used to pay down a portion of the £400 million debt that costs the club £45m a year to finance. Then there is the question of the £250m “acquired” from as yet unknown sources to pay off the high-interest PIK (payment in kind) notes last year and the ailing nature of the Floridians’ other businesses, which has led some to suggest that the funds may be earmarked for “personal profits”.

Optimists may point to this being the beginning of a long exit strategy for the owners and, of course, any flotation weakens the Glazers’ hold on to the club to a degree. Learning from the failures of United’s last period of public ownership, fan groups are already talking up the possibility of buying a stake, even if the £2 billion valuation of the club may make that prohibitive. At the very least, any flotation would also lead to higher standards of transparency and the prospect of holding some sharper Glazer practices to account.

It is clear, however, that supporters have had an impact on the way the Glazers run the club. There’s little doubt that the “green and gold” campaign affected their strategies – prior to the protests they seemed hell-bent on double-digit ticket-price rises and taking profits as and when they saw fit.

Ever since the furore surrounding the 
bond prospectus, the Glazers seem more interested in placating fans, whether by freezing prices or being seen to act in a more 
conciliatory fashion.And while they have steered clear of selling stadium-naming rights, they have sought to sell advertising and/or corporate space on just about every other asset the club owns. It remains to be seen whether this constitutes good business or financial desperation.

The restraints on the manager remain. The club have slashed the players’ salary bill by £10m. Research by Andersred (andersred.blogspot.com) claims that the departures of Wes Brown, John O’Shea, Gary Neville, Edwin van der Sar, Paul Scholes and Owen Hargreaves, and their replacement by Phil Jones, David de Gea and Ashley Young, means a net saving of £205,000 a week. In an era when Manchester City, in particular, are intent on buying success by offering eye-watering salaries, United’s stance should be lauded. But the fear remains that a lack of quality in the squad will tell over the course of the season.

Despite almost identical, emphatic starts to the season, the contrast between the local rivals could not be greater. City look like a club in a desperate hurry, with pressure beginning to be exerted from the top and UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules forgotten in the rush for trophies. United would normally sit this season out; they are team clearly in transition with a new goalkeeper, defence and midfield to accommodate, and it remains to be seen if their free-scoring start is illusory.

Nevertheless, the fact that the manager continues to deliver, regardless of the considerable financial obstacles put in his way, remains one of the more remarkable stories in recent football history.

From WSC 296 October 2011

Liverpool supporters want to remain at Anfield but, as Rob Hughes explains, moving to Stanley Park may be the more viable option

Nearly ten years after announcing plans to build a new stadium in nearby Stanley Park, the future home of Liverpool remains in limbo. Managing director Ian Ayre’s recent admission that the preferred redevelopment of Anfield is becoming “increasingly unlikely” was compounded by owner John Henry’s comments on Twitter. “Anfield would certainly be our first choice,” he posted. “But realities may dictate otherwise.” There were, he concluded with a distinct tang of frustration, “so many obstacles”.

Ayre’s more detailed assessment cited problems over land and property acquisition, along with certain environmental and statutory issues, as the main “barriers to our ambition”. He couldn’t forego another pop at former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett while he was at it either, saying that their failure to keep their promise of a new stadium had “set the club back several years”.

But Liverpool’s main beef seems to be with the city council. There are major logistical issues with redeveloping Anfield, chief among them being the knock-on effect of extending and heightening the stands to allow for a proposed 60,000 bums on seats. “Local people have the right to light,” was council leader Joe Anderson’s Zen-like justification for the impasse. “You can’t build something right next to someone’s house that blocks daylight, whether Liverpool FC like it or not.” More ominously, Anderson estimated that, with red tape being what it is, it may take up to three years before rebuilding could even begin. Thus the council has firmly chucked the ball over the club’s wall. They have given Liverpool an extra three months to decide on whether or not to renew their option on a 999-year lease on the Stanley Park site, which takes them to September.

So just where does all this leave the club? Liverpool have long been looking at ways to increase capacity, not just to satisfy the demand (and I’m conveniently leaving aside the brief Roy Hodgson era here) but to better compete with the matchday revenue steams of rivals Man Utd and Arsenal. They are currently searching for a naming rights partner for the potential new stadium. At least that would take care of a fair slice of the £300 million construction bill. But there is a deeper issue at stake here than just the volume of somebody’s pockets.

Never mind that a move to Stanley Park might make more practical business sense – it is Anfield itself that seems to be the crux. Fan forums and local opinion suggest the supporters are overwhelmingly in favour of the current stadium being given a makeover rather than setting up camp down the road. There’s much talk of “the special magic of Anfield” and the unique spot it occupies in people’s hearts. While no one denies the inevitable reach of progress, the emotional bonds between Liverpool and their fans run uncommonly deep. And with no title for 21 years and counting – and no major trophy for the last six – Anfield’s stature as the only living symbol of past supremacy only grows stronger with time.

It is possible to view the supporters’ opinion as being driven by sentimentality rather than pragmatism. Cynics might even say it is indicative of the nostalgic inertia that has befallen the club since we stopped winning stuff. But football is nothing if not an emotional game, and the preservation of identity and heritage is paramount.

In this respect Liverpool appear to have sympathetic owners. Some years ago Henry was presented with the problem of overhauling Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox and one of the oldest meccas in North American baseball. Conscious of the high degree of community feeling towards the stadium and all it represented, he refused to compromise the needs of residents and opted to modernise the place where it stood rather than hike up the capacity by demolishing any surrounding buildings.

That’s all very noble, of course, but it does not offer a model for expanding Anfield. Whatever the eventual outcome, Ayre has been at pains to explain that no decision will be made that is not in the club’s best long-term interests. “We will not,” he stated emphatically, “make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep.” For those of us still raw from the false assurances of the Hicks and Gillett reign, that is at least something to build on.

From WSC 295 September 2011

Tom Davies takes a look at the ever-growing issue of separating ground and club ownership

The pitfalls of separating ground and club ownership have been well documented in recent months, at Crystal Palace and Southend among others, and it’s causing anxiety at Yeovil Town too. The League One club agreed in June to hive off Huish Park and its surrounding land to a separate company, Yeovil Town Holdings Ltd, in order to “realise the development potential of the site”, according to the club.

Read more…

Dear WSC
I read with interest Paul Joyce’s article concerning the rebranding of SSV Markranstadt as RB Leipzig in WSC 273. Only this summer it was rumoured that my club Southampton would be saved from extinction by becoming co-opted into the Red Bull sporting portfolio. While the team colours, fitting snugly with the brand, would not need to change the adding of the Red Bull moniker seemed a step too far. Surely something would be lost in fusing a global brand, with all its focus-grouped values and marketing spin, to a football club; an act of historic vandalism similar to replacing stained glass windows in a church with double glazing while nailing a satellite dish to the spire. The internet debate suggested, however, that many Saints supporters were happy to trade naming rights in exchange for the club’s survival. The same supporters had several years previously reacted angrily against a corporate branding of St Mary’s Stadium as simply the “Friends Provident Stadium” with the ensuing negative publicity resulting in a U-turn with the addition of St Mary’s to the title. Corporate patronage is not as new as we would like to imagine. The P in PSV Eindhoven stands for Philips, as in the Dutch electrical giants,  with the club’s home games at the Philips Stadion. Indeed, many clubs have benefited from long-term relationships with business which may be far preferable to other ownership and financing options; a quick glance around the leagues reveals several fates far worse than “Red Bull Saints”. Football may be just a game to some but following our team is about being part of a community, feeling a connection with the friends and strangers stood next to us at the ground. It is a thread linking us to people looking out for the score on a TV screen or in a newspaper on the other side of the world. Brands by their nature seek to harness and transform these feelings to translate them into profit, in the process sullying the very spirit of our club. Barcelona’s motto is “more than a club”. Every clubs motto should be “more than a brand”.
Neil Cotton, Southampton

Read more…

Newcastle United are in the headlines as Mike Ashley prepares to sell the naming rights to St James' Park

Newcastle businessman Barry Moat has been depicted in the press as the club’s potential saviour for several months now but, like someone running up a down escalator, he never seems to get any closer to his goal. With Moat having reportedly failed to come up with the £80 million required to cut a deal, owner Mike Ashley has now taken the club off the market, appointed Chris Hughton as full-time manager and, to general dismay, auctioned the naming rights for St James’ Park.

Read more…