Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: dave.woodhall on November 28, 2011, 10:41:46 PM
-
Some interesting valuations here:
http://www.american-appraisal.co.uk/UK/Home-Page-Features/Feature-1.htm
-
Those figures appear to be plucked from thin air.
-
they do seem rather daft really, both the high figures and the low.
-
I can see us being banded a lot lower than some clubs. Simply because we aren't one of the favoured Sky 4, we aren't based in London and we aren't involved in many national and European competitions for prolonged periods etc.
However, to place us in the same bracket as Blackburn is a right slap in the chops. Our fan base and brand here and abroad, must reach out further than Blackburn? Unless of course they are taking into account the Indian market being opened up to them.
-
Arsenal= 14.9m
Man City= 10m
Liverpool= 9.3m
Man U= 7.9m
Chelsea= 6.4m
Stoke= 3.9m
Spurs= 3.4m
Blackburn= 2.7m
Aston Villa= 2.7m
Bolton= 2.3m
Fulham= 1.6m
Everton= 1.6m
Swansea= 1.3m
Newcastle= 1m
QPR= 0.8m
Wigan= 0.7m
Wolves= 0.5m
Sunderland= 0.4m
WBA= 0.4m
Norwich= 0.2m
Stoke are doing bloody well! More than Spurs or us- I doubt that very much...
-
However, to place us in the same bracket as Blackburn is a right slap in the chops. Our fan base and brand here and abroad, must reach out further than Blackburn? Unless of course they are taking into account the Indian market being opened up to them.
Blackburn calling Ewood the Venkys Stadium would have an obvious value to an obvious market.
The most interesting thing in that list is the valuation of Man City's naming rights versus what Etihad paid.
-
Personally, I'm waiting for the Swiss Rambler's take on things.
-
well i think we can safely say carrow road isn't going to be renamed in the forseeable future if those figures are right. 200k a year? probably a month's wage bill
-
As someone who works for the organisation who sponsor Stoke's stadium, and I've seen the figure on a spreadsheet, they get about £500k a year for a combined Shirt/stadium sponsorship. I'd say the figures are definitely plucked from thin air.
-
As someone who works for the organisation who sponsor Stoke's stadium, and I've seen the figure on a spreadsheet, they get about £500k a year for a combined Shirt/stadium sponsorship. I'd say the figures are definitely plucked from thin air.
Could be wrong but weren't they Championship or lower when they signed that deal? Different ball game once you're in the premier
-
If anyone thinks United would get less than Arsenal or indeed Man City they are off their rocker. City may have money, but their naming deal was a very creative one that had nothing to do with the value of their name. United would make double everyone else with such an iconic brand and stadium. As for us below stoke, what do the yanks know about football again?
-
Well, the MCFC actual is - we know - part of the FFP blag.
I'd like to know the basis of the valuations - is it reported fan base? Or the number of times the club appears on TV? Or the number fo times the ground is mentioned in print / in social media, etc?
Seems arbitrary, right now.
-
However, to place us in the same bracket as Blackburn is a right slap in the chops. Our fan base and brand here and abroad, must reach out further than Blackburn? Unless of course they are taking into account the Indian market being opened up to them.
Blackburn calling Ewood the Venkys Stadium would have an obvious value to an obvious market.
The most interesting thing in that list is the valuation of Man City's naming rights versus what Etihad paid.
We all know why that is. And we all know the PL and the FA will do nothing about it.
-
If anyone thinks United would get less than Arsenal or indeed Man City they are off their rocker... United would make double everyone else with such an iconic brand and stadium.
I'm not so sure, Ozz.
Arsenal and Citeh have homes that have either always had a sponsor name or had an original name that was such a mouthful that an alternative in the form of a sponsor would make a welcome simplification.
Meanwhile, Old Trafford will always be Old Trafford to United fans. In much the same way as Newcastle's support will stick with their home's moniker regardless of what Mike Ashley tries. Any company that doesn't recognise this is likely to get their fingers burned.
-
But the counter argument to that is, does it matter what we all call said stadium? The money they pay is surely for media purposes. Surely price of a stadium will be based on column inches a team get so how many times the stadiums name will be in print and the coverage it will get on SSN or the BBC with he reporter outside the "? stadium"
As well as logistics to where he stadium is. The fact you can see villa park on the main motorways or stadiums being on flight paths etc.
-
One of the big value on a deal for Villa Park would be creating huge hoardings viewed from the the M6 and the Expressway. This alone would be worth £000's per year, in he same way it is for Walsall.
-
One of the big value on a deal for Villa Park would be creating huge hoardings viewed from the the M6 and the Expressway. This alone would be worth £000's per year, in he same way it is for Walsall.
I've said it before but Villa Park is not a giant billboard. Walsall do that because they're small time. We are not.
What next? Have the players face painted with their sponsor's logo?!
-
How are Stoke above Spurs, us, Everton and Newcastle?
-
How are Stoke above Spurs, us, Everton and Newcastle?
New grounds with no other name have a premium. I guess that's why Arsenal are above Manchester United.
-
I wouldn't want it to happen either, but it's attractive to advertisers who will call the shots if it were to sponsored.
Look at Fulham and the betting company that sponsors them. One of the things they can sell is the space on the roof of theur stands to paint the ad so it can be seen by thousands of people landing at Heathrow everyday.
-
I made this point in the previous thread about Newcastle renaming St. James's Park, but if a ground already has a perfectly serviceable name, are the print media and the broadcasters - particularly the BBC - obliged to use the sponsored alternative?
-
I made this point in the previous thread about Newcastle renaming St. James's Park, but if a ground already has a perfectly serviceable name, are the print media and the broadcasters - particularly the BBC - obliged to use the sponsored alternative?
yes. They'll likely be told in very certain terms by the club to call it the McVities Stadium or Bassetts Wine Gums Arena or whatever because the club are being paid well for it. It happens in North America a lot. My wife works for Sun Life Financial and they recently bought the naming rights to the Miami Dolphins stadium. It's worth many millions and while it might not be possible to change what the fans have called it in the past or prefer to call it, all those representing the game in any official capacity have to call it by it's new name.
-
I thought that would probably be the case. I'd love the BBC to have the balls to drop in their usual rider when faced with explicit advertising: let's go over to Mike Ingham at the Etihad Stadium - other airlines are available should you wish to fly to the Middle East. It's not as if they're ever going to get live TV rights any time soon and if it knocked a few million off the latest assault on the traditions of our sport I'd be delighted.
-
I hadn't realised Etihad was an airline; I'm constantly being educated.
-
How are Stoke above Spurs, us, Everton and Newcastle?
New grounds with no other name have a premium. I guess that's why Arsenal are above Manchester United.
Stoke might look better on paper because this season they are in Europe. You know what I mean!
-
I hadn't realised Etihad was an airline; I'm constantly being educated.
Not many do. It's about the size of Flybe with more cash than the G7. It's owned by Sheik Mansour's half brother.
As I understand it the EUFA FP rules regard investments by family of owners to be connected and therefore not a way round the rules. We will see if EUFA take on the Sheiks. What have I just said?! Stupid boy!
-
If the criteria these guys work from are correct, those numbers are probably about right.
We lose out on all counts, not the least of which is the 'existing iconic name' bit.
If anything, it's quite insulting to see us so far ahead of Newcastle.
-
I made this point in the previous thread about Newcastle renaming St. James's Park, but if a ground already has a perfectly serviceable name, are the print media and the broadcasters - particularly the BBC - obliged to use the sponsored alternative?
yes. They'll likely be told in very certain terms by the club to call it the McVities Stadium or Bassetts Wine Gums Arena or whatever because the club are being paid well for it. It happens in North America a lot. My wife works for Sun Life Financial and they recently bought the naming rights to the Miami Dolphins stadium. It's worth many millions and while it might not be possible to change what the fans have called it in the past or prefer to call it, all those representing the game in any official capacity have to call it by it's new name.
And that's basically how you end up with classics like "The Home Depot Center" or, my own favorite, "PIzza Hut Park" ....ffs!