PDA

View Full Version : Stand Name / Sponsorship



Woody1985
08-10-2009, 04:28 PM
Would you be happy for a sponsor to fund / part fund the stand and have it named accordingly?

Apologies if this has been done before.

Edit; Can an admin change permanant to permanent?

lEXO
08-10-2009, 04:39 PM
Yes i would.If it saved the club money and the sponsor was right it would make great sense.Would,nt agree with changing the Stadium name, but the stand, yes
In fact i would be in favour of changing the name of the south stand when the bigot brothers and the yams come, to the pampers stand. Cos there,s ***** up the back and pish doon the front.

Woody1985
08-10-2009, 04:43 PM
Yes i would.If it saved the club money and the sponsor was right it would make great sense.Would,nt agree with changing the Stadium name, but the stand, yes.

I agree that it should only be the stand name. However, if there was a substantial sum on offer to fully fund the stand and rename the stadium for a set period then it might be worth it.

Everyone would still know it as ER. I can't see a sponsor just taking the stand name alone as it wouldn't give them enough coverage e.g. SSN announce a result from ER, they wouldn't mention the stand name. They'd just say ER and to get the type of coverage they'd want it to be like the kit-kat / Walkers stadium.

The amount we'd get from a sponsor would probably be quite low due to the recession and people cutting back on marketing.

Come to think of it, why did I start this thread. :LOL:

Caversham Green
08-10-2009, 04:44 PM
It makes good business sense, but not for me - can't stand the Britannia Stadium, The JJB (which has now changed its name) etc.

Pete70
08-10-2009, 04:44 PM
I would be happy if a company wanted to sponsor the renaming of the whole stadium. Depending on the name and amount of cash of course.

It will always be known as ER to me though

Keith_M
08-10-2009, 05:03 PM
Personally, I'd find it quite amusing if it was sponsored by French Connection........


You can imagine the headlines in the papers....



:wink:

GreenOnions
08-10-2009, 07:29 PM
No - I would not be happy with that at all - and especially if the sponsor was involved in producing alcohol etc

Everyone seems willing to sell their soul for a corporate buck these days - except Barcelona, of course.

If we have to have a tie-up with anyone it should be an organisation that shares something of Hibs' ties to the local community and their ambitions for the local area.

Sure - the money would not be so great in the short term but IMHO it is the strength of our links with communities and groups in Edinburgh that will sustain us in the longer term rather than the business world that would drop us as soon as a better opportunity presented itself.

Rasta_Hibs
08-10-2009, 08:43 PM
No - I would not be happy with that at all - and especially if the sponsor was involved in producing alcohol etc

Everyone seems willing to sell their soul for a corporate buck these days - except Barcelona, of course.

If we have to have a tie-up with anyone it should be an organisation that shares something of Hibs' ties to the local community and their ambitions for the local area.

Sure - the money would not be so great in the short term but IMHO it is the strength of our links with communities and groups in Edinburgh that will sustain us in the longer term rather than the business world that would drop us as soon as a better opportunity presented itself.

The Hugo Boss Hibs Areana.

That would be qaulity! :thumbsup:

Green Mikey
08-10-2009, 09:23 PM
No - I would not be happy with that at all - and especially if the sponsor was involved in producing alcohol etc

Everyone seems willing to sell their soul for a corporate buck these days - except Barcelona, of course.

If we have to have a tie-up with anyone it should be an organisation that shares something of Hibs' ties to the local community and their ambitions for the local area.

Sure - the money would not be so great in the short term but IMHO it is the strength of our links with communities and groups in Edinburgh that will sustain us in the longer term rather than the business world that would drop us as soon as a better opportunity presented itself.

Did you not agree with Whyte and Mackay and Carlsberg as sponsors then?

Why would a alcohol company be a bad sponsor? Is this Kenny MacKaskill, anti-alcohol, PC nonsense that blames the product without addressing the social problems that lead to excessice alcohol consumption.

Woody1985
09-10-2009, 12:02 PM
No - I would not be happy with that at all - and especially if the sponsor was involved in producing alcohol etc

Everyone seems willing to sell their soul for a corporate buck these days - except Barcelona, of course.

If we have to have a tie-up with anyone it should be an organisation that shares something of Hibs' ties to the local community and their ambitions for the local area.

Sure - the money would not be so great in the short term but IMHO it is the strength of our links with communities and groups in Edinburgh that will sustain us in the longer term rather than the business world that would drop us as soon as a better opportunity presented itself.

There are a few cynics that would say that Barca have added the sponsor for free so no one complains about it (I suspect a few hard core fans still will have).

I think this gets the Barca fans used to having something on the strip that will open them up to having paid sponsorship in a few years time.

Modern football clubs will need all the revenue streams they can to stay at the very top of world football and Barca would surely attract one of the most lucrative deals.

GreenOnions
09-10-2009, 02:57 PM
Did you not agree with Whyte and Mackay and Carlsberg as sponsors then?

Why would a alcohol company be a bad sponsor? Is this Kenny MacKaskill, anti-alcohol, PC nonsense that blames the product without addressing the social problems that lead to excessice alcohol consumption.

No - I didn't agree with that. In fact - I was pretty disgusted by what appears to me to be an unprincipled decision made purely for profit.

I can't tell from your post what your specific opinion is. However, I think you may be in danger of adopting a stance that avoids taking a decision on the issue altogether.

You either think promoting alcohol to minors (the group most likely to buy replica strips etc) is okay - or you don't IMHO. The reason for my opinion is based on asking yourself the question "what is the sponsor trying to achieve with its' advertising?"

I don't have an objection to alcohol promotion per se. However - alcohol sponsors want access to sporting clubs specifically because of the number of young people who participate and spectate. In the case of football there are a huge number of children to whom these companies can gain direct access via sponsorship. For me - that should be a non-starter if we are to be responsible guardians of our younger supporters' best interests.

I grant you that most of us would also have an opinion about whether enough is being done to tackle the causes of alcohol abuse. However, although this is strongly linked to the other point it is a distinct issue.

For me - accepting alcohol sponsorship until such time as someone else deals with the underlying causes of alcohol abuse is like saying you would continue to buy cheap clothing made by three year olds in Vietnam until someone else ends wordwide poverty.

I'd be interested to know what your thought are on tobacco advertising?

lEXO
09-10-2009, 03:34 PM
No - I didn't agree with that. In fact - I was pretty disgusted by what appears to me to be an unprincipled decision made purely for profit.

I can't tell from your post what your specific opinion is. However, I think you may be in danger of adopting a stance that avoids taking a decision on the issue altogether.

You either think promoting alcohol to minors (the group most likely to buy replica strips etc) is okay - or you don't IMHO. The reason for my opinion is based on asking yourself the question "what is the sponsor trying to achieve with its' advertising?"

I don't have an objection to alcohol promotion per se. However - alcohol sponsors want access to sporting clubs specifically because of the number of young people who participate and spectate. In the case of football there are a huge number of children to whom these companies can gain direct access via sponsorship. For me - that should be a non-starter if we are to be responsible guardians of our younger supporters' best interests.

I grant you that most of us would also have an opinion about whether enough is being done to tackle the causes of alcohol abuse. However, although this is strongly linked to the other point it is a distinct issue.

For me - accepting alcohol sponsorship until such time as someone else deals with the underlying causes of alcohol abuse is like saying you would continue to buy cheap clothing made by three year olds in Vietnam until someone else ends wordwide poverty.

I'd be interested to know what your thought are on tobacco advertising?
Shirt sponsors like most sponsors are attracted to the tv coverage that the teams get.I dont for one second think that carlsberg,tennenets, white and Mckay sponsor football teams to target underage drinkers.
Look at the adverts during champions league nights tv.Beer companies,credit card companies,games companies etc.This is the way of the corporate world nowadays unfortunately.
I dont buy a Hibs top and havent done for a long time.I buy my season ticket and thats it.But to say that drinks companies are using this is an in towards children is in my view unfair and unfounded.

GreenOnions
09-10-2009, 03:44 PM
Shirt sponsors like most sponsors are attracted to the tv coverage that the teams get.I dont for one second think that carlsberg,tennenets, white and Mckay sponsor football teams to target underage drinkers.
Look at the adverts during champions league nights tv.Beer companies,credit card companies,games companies etc.This is the way of the corporate world nowadays unfortunately.
I dont buy a Hibs top and havent done for a long time.I buy my season ticket and thats it.But to say that drinks companies are using this is an in towards children is in my view unfair and unfounded.

I understand what you're saying and I agree that children may not be the intended "target" of alcohol sponsorship. However, they are certainly a group who are "reached" by it.

Whether the effect is intended or not - if kids are affected it can't be a good thing can it?

Research shows that availability, acceptability and general pervasiveness of alcohol affect consumption levels - particularly among the young. Surely we shouldn't be contributing to that?

Green Mikey
09-10-2009, 03:47 PM
No - I didn't agree with that. In fact - I was pretty disgusted by what appears to me to be an unprincipled decision made purely for profit.

I can't tell from your post what your specific opinion is. However, I think you may be in danger of adopting a stance that avoids taking a decision on the issue altogether.

You either think promoting alcohol to minors (the group most likely to buy replica strips etc) is okay - or you don't IMHO. The reason for my opinion is based on asking yourself the question "what is the sponsor trying to achieve with its' advertising?"

I don't have an objection to alcohol promotion per se. However - alcohol sponsors want access to sporting clubs specifically because of the number of young people who participate and spectate. In the case of football there are a huge number of children to whom these companies can gain direct access via sponsorship. For me - that should be a non-starter if we are to be responsible guardians of our younger supporters' best interests.

I grant you that most of us would also have an opinion about whether enough is being done to tackle the causes of alcohol abuse. However, although this is strongly linked to the other point it is a distinct issue.

For me - accepting alcohol sponsorship until such time as someone else deals with the underlying causes of alcohol abuse is like saying you would continue to buy cheap clothing made by three year olds in Vietnam until someone else ends wordwide poverty.
I'd be interested to know what your thought are on tobacco advertising?

Disagree with your whole post. I don't think that advertising alcohol through football makes children abuse alcohol. Children would be aware of alcohol long before they would see a sponsor on a strip or a stadium name. Pubs, restaurants, supermarkets all sell alcohol and children will be exposed to this prior to being influenced by a football strip. IMO society and parents are more likely to have much larger influence a child's attitude towards alcohol than advertising ever will.

I don't believe that banning alcohol advertsing will have any impact on alcohol abuse in Scotland. Take your tobacco example, the smoking ban has had a much greater impact on smoking than banning advertsing.

The part of your post that I have highlighted in bold doesn't make sense. How is there a link between knowing you are buying a garment made by a child and allowing alcohol advertising? You can easily avoid buying clothes made by a child, using this logic it is not advertising that is causing the problem it is the purchase product. The only answer alcohol abuse in your world would be prohibition...


Anyway, I think the Belhaven Best Easter Road Stadium has a good ring to it:greengrin

Viva_Palmeiras
09-10-2009, 03:54 PM
Could there not be a compromise...

e.g. Gillette (the best a man can get) Easter Road Stadium.:greengrin

lEXO
09-10-2009, 04:02 PM
I understand what you're saying and I agree that children may not be the intended "target" of alcohol sponsorship. However, they are certainly a group who are "reached" by it.

Whether the effect is intended or not - if kids are affected it can't be a good thing can it?

Research shows that availability, acceptability and general pervasiveness of alcohol affect consumption levels - particularly among the young. Surely we shouldn't be contributing to that?
Well maybe if clubs sold junior kits without the advertising on the front it might be a good start.I know for a fact that Tennents as part of their sponsonrship of the SFA put a fair bit money into the international youth set up, but get no sponsorship or credit for it.They are and have been sponsors of scottish football for a long time.I think our countries drink and health problems go much deeper than sponsorship in football.

GreenOnions
09-10-2009, 04:07 PM
Well maybe if clubs sold junior kits without the advertising on the front it might be a good start.I know for a fact that Tennents as part of their sponsonrship of the SFA put a fair bit money into the international youth set up, but get no sponsorship or credit for it.They are and have been sponsors of scottish football for a long time.I think our countries drink and health problems go much deeper than sponsorship in football.

Agreed. But not an excuse for inaction on our part IMHO.

GreenOnions
09-10-2009, 04:18 PM
Disagree with your whole post. I don't think that advertising alcohol through football makes children abuse alcohol. Children would be aware of alcohol long before they would see a sponsor on a strip or a stadium name. Pubs, restaurants, supermarkets all sell alcohol and children will be exposed to this prior to being influenced by a football strip. IMO society and parents are more likely to have much larger influence a child's attitude towards alcohol than advertising ever will.

I don't believe that banning alcohol advertsing will have any impact on alcohol abuse in Scotland. Take your tobacco example, the smoking ban has had a much greater impact on smoking than banning advertsing.

The part of your post that I have highlighted in bold doesn't make sense. How is there a link between knowing you are buying a garment made by a child and allowing alcohol advertising? You can easily avoid buying clothes made by a child, using this logic it is not advertising that is causing the problem it is the purchase product. The only answer alcohol abuse in your world would be prohibition...


Anyway, I think the Belhaven Best Easter Road Stadium has a good ring to it:greengrin

Advertising has different effects depending on the target group. Drinks companies like to tell us that their advertising doesn't encourage people to drink more - it is designed to get them to switch brands.

This may or may not be the case. However, what effect does it have when it reaches those (whether intentionally or not) who do not yet drink alcohol?

I accept that children will see alcohol all the time. However, for me the key is that a football club is something that children and young people will identify strongly with and products associated with it may well be extremely appealing.

I think - when added to the research I mention above about the effects on consumption levels of availability, acceptability and pervasiveness - that alcohol sponsorship in sport should not be considered.

The question I was asking re tobacco advertising was regarding whether or not you think tobacco advertising in sport was potentially harmful or whether the same points you make re alcohol held for smoking? Clearly it is not allowed now but, as a point for debate, what is your view on it?

As it happens - if we are to have alcohol sponsorship - Belhaven Best might not be a bad shout :shhhsh!:

Green Mikey
09-10-2009, 04:29 PM
Advertising has different effects depending on the target group. Drinks companies like to tell us that their advertising doesn't encourage people to drink more - it is designed to get them to switch brands.

This may or may not be the case. However, what effect does it have when it reaches those (whether intentionally or not) who do not yet drink alcohol?

I accept that children will see alcohol all the time. However, for me the key is that a football club is something that children and young people will identify strongly with and products associated with it may well be extremely appealing.

I think - when added to the research I mention above about the effects on consumption levels of availability, acceptability and pervasiveness - that alcohol sponsorship in sport should not be considered.

The question I was asking re tobacco advertising was regarding whether or not you think tobacco advertising in sport was potentially harmful or whether the same points you make re alcohol held for smoking? Clearly it is not allowed now but, as a point for debate, what is your view on it?

As it happens - if we are to have alcohol sponsorship - Belhaven Best might not be a bad shout :shhhsh!:

I understand that advertising in sport has an influence on consumption. It is the amount of influence that it exerts on consumption that I am uncertain about.

You mention the availability, acceptability and pervasiveness of alochol advertising in sport has. However, I don't think this is where alcohol is promoted the most. There are the pubs, restaurants, shops and tv programmes (Queen Vic and Rovers for example) selling and advertising alcohol much more widely than sport sponsorship ever could. IMO If the battle against alcohol has to be fought, it should be fought in the aforementioned places before advertising in sport is targeted.

lEXO
09-10-2009, 06:35 PM
I understand that advertising in sport has an influence on consumption. It is the amount of influence that it exerts on consumption that I am uncertain about.

You mention the availability, acceptability and pervasiveness of alochol advertising in sport has. However, I don't think this is where alcohol is promoted the most. There are the pubs, restaurants, shops and tv programmes (Queen Vic and Rovers for example) selling and advertising alcohol much more widely than sport sponsorship ever could. IMO If the battle against alcohol has to be fought, it should be fought in the aforementioned places before advertising in sport is targeted.
:top marksMy fiance works in marketing and said exactly the same thing.

GreenOnions
09-10-2009, 09:26 PM
I understand that advertising in sport has an influence on consumption. It is the amount of influence that it exerts on consumption that I am uncertain about.

You mention the availability, acceptability and pervasiveness of alochol advertising in sport has. However, I don't think this is where alcohol is promoted the most. There are the pubs, restaurants, shops and tv programmes (Queen Vic and Rovers for example) selling and advertising alcohol much more widely than sport sponsorship ever could. IMO If the battle against alcohol has to be fought, it should be fought in the aforementioned places before advertising in sport is targeted.

If we are agreed on the fact that advertising alcohol in sport has an impact on levels of consumption then that's a start.

IMHO sport is different from the other areas you mention where alcohol is advertised.

Pubs and restaurants can be thought of as completely separate because these are places that people go to partly with consumption of alcohol as their objective - although there is a strong case for action on drinks promotions etc but that's another debate.

Shops and TV do have some restrictions already - although I'd like to see more. The point is though that these restrictions are in place specifically to counter some of the negative effects of alcohol promotion mentioned above.

Sport is more important though because of the esteem in which players and clubs are held by fans. This makes any form of endorsement or sponsorship extremely powerful and a good deal of that influence will be exerted on young people because of the type of product that football is.

I do agree with you though that the "pervasiveness" of alcohol and drinking on TV soaps etc is extremely poor and should be tackled. After that it should be my other pet hate - those people trying to reverse the effects of redistributive taxation by advertising gambling everywhere you look ............

greenlex
09-10-2009, 10:26 PM
The Arthur Guiness Arena complete with huge illuminated harp signs on each of the Stands. Shirt sponsorship with a big f@rk off harp on the shirt wouldn't go amiss either. :agree:

SouthMoroccoStu
10-10-2009, 06:40 AM
The Farmer Autocare Arena anyone?:devil::duck:

PeeJay
10-10-2009, 08:01 AM
Would you be happy for a sponsor to fund / part fund the stand and have it named accordingly?

Apologies if this has been done before.

Edit; Can an admin change permanant to permanent?

I see no problem with a sponsor funding the stand and giving it their name. But I would be against the stadium being known as anything other than it has always been.

offshorehibby
10-10-2009, 09:01 AM
I see no problem with a sponsor funding the stand and giving it their name. But I would be against the stadium being known as anything other than it has always been.

I would have no problem with re-naming the stadium if were to allow us to build the east stand and not take on to much debt.
To all Hibbys it will always be Easter Road.

PeeJay
10-10-2009, 09:41 AM
I would have no problem with re-naming the stadium if were to allow us to build the east stand and not take on to much debt.
To all Hibbys it will always be Easter Road.

Not to new ones it won't be - if they don't know Easter Road? All we need is a new East Stand: we don't have to surrender the name to anyone for that, surely?

weecounty hibby
10-10-2009, 01:47 PM
I would call it after whoever gave us the most cash. Someone may correct me but was the ground not known as Hibernian Park or stadium but has just become Easter Road over the years anyway. a bit like Love Street was really St Mirren Park and Parkhead is Celtic Park

basehibby
10-10-2009, 01:58 PM
While I can see the point of view of folk objecting to selling the name of the stand and/or stadium, I think it's a sacrafice worth making if it allows progress to be made with the team on the park at a much quicker rate - I would much prefer it to be a for a contracted period of time though - leaving the option open to either return to the traditional name of "Easter Road" in future or to re-lease again for further revenue.

Also i think the particular brand being advertised is an important factor - ie no pishy maroon colours or even vague references to THEM (eg the Hertz Arena would be a definite nono :jamboak:)