Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thomond Park naming rights discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Wallyman View Post

    Munster renamed Musgrave Park. Ulster renamed Ravenhill. Leinster renamed Donnybrook. The RDS are looking to sell their naming rights. It happens everywhere. We now have BT Murrayfield. Real Madrid are looking to sell the naming rights to the Bernabeu and Barcelonas Camp Nou will have a sponsors name attached next season. At the end of the day the sponsorship income will more than overcome complaints or even boycotts by a small number of fans.
    Mustgrave Park and Ravenhill were redevelopments though. Murrayfield something similar. Still in the theme of new name for something new. Donnybrook too. Just my thoughts though. Didn’t hear about Real or Barca’s renaming. Though actually Barcalona are also doing a redevelopment if I’m correct. Real Madrid too actually.
    Last edited by KerryRed; 3-July-2020, 12:57.
    "The PRO12 is our domestic league, it's what you earn your bread and butter from; it's what pays the bills. We need to broaden our emphasis and get an understanding in Irish rugby that the domestic league from now on is most important and that's what qualifies you now for Europe.'' Garrett Fitzgerald, CEO Munster

    Comment


      Originally posted by KerryRed View Post

      Mustgrave Park and Ravenhill were a redevelopments though. Murrayfield something similar. Still in the theme of new name for something new. Just my thoughts though. Didn’t hear about Real or Barca’s renaming. Though actually Barcalona are also doing a redevelopment if I’m correct.
      Murrayfield hasn't been touched in decades. Definitely not a redevelopment. Musgrave got a new stand. The terraces have been there for 20 years. Not a redevelopment. Ravenhill was redeveloped over time. The first stand was opened 5 years before the renaming. The whole stadium was finished and in use as Ravenhill before the renaming.

      Other iconic stadiums that weren't redeveloped but got new names include Ellis Park (Coco Cola Park), DHL Newlands, Kings Parks Stadium (its had three names), BT Sport Cardiff Arms Park, Emirates Old Trafford (cricket). That's off the top of my head. There are many others out there.

      Barca are hoping to finance their extension and refurbishment (nothing is being demolished) of the Camp Nou (a far more iconic name than Thomond Park) by selling the naming rights. It is not going to be a redevelopment. The Bernabeu is the same. A new exterior and roof on the old stadium. Two world wide iconic stadium names, the homes of two of the worlds most famous sporting teams in the world are being renamed. But apparently the name Thomond Park, a name unheard of outside rugby circles (and probably within rugby outside of Europe) is too iconic to attach a sponsors name to.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Wallyman View Post

        Murrayfield hasn't been touched in decades. Definitely not a redevelopment. Musgrave got a new stand. The terraces have been there for 20 years. Not a redevelopment. Ravenhill was redeveloped over time. The first stand was opened 5 years before the renaming. The whole stadium was finished and in use as Ravenhill before the renaming.

        Other iconic stadiums that weren't redeveloped but got new names include Ellis Park (Coco Cola Park), DHL Newlands, Kings Parks Stadium (its had three names), BT Sport Cardiff Arms Park, Emirates Old Trafford (cricket). That's off the top of my head. There are many others out there.

        Barca are hoping to finance their extension and refurbishment (nothing is being demolished) of the Camp Nou (a far more iconic name than Thomond Park) by selling the naming rights. It is not going to be a redevelopment. The Bernabeu is the same. A new exterior and roof on the old stadium. Two world wide iconic stadium names, the homes of two of the worlds most famous sporting teams in the world are being renamed. But apparently the name Thomond Park, a name unheard of outside rugby circles (and probably within rugby outside of Europe) is too iconic to attach a sponsors name to.
        Just in relation to Murrayfield, the SRU replaced the grass with a Dessco surface, maybe nothing actually to do with redevelopment, fair enough.

        No one is saying the Thomand Park name is as iconic as the Nou Camp. My point being historically it’s been harder to rename a stadium without some sort redevelopment etc. Not going to look into new the examples you just gave
        Last edited by KerryRed; 3-July-2020, 13:44.
        "The PRO12 is our domestic league, it's what you earn your bread and butter from; it's what pays the bills. We need to broaden our emphasis and get an understanding in Irish rugby that the domestic league from now on is most important and that's what qualifies you now for Europe.'' Garrett Fitzgerald, CEO Munster

        Comment


          While it does seem a bit crass to rename the stadium, that is just the reality of modern professional sport. Get that revenue any way possible. I wonder if they won't be searching for a new shirt sponsor in the near future; maybe go for an international automobile, insurance, or financial company rather than BoI when that deal expires in 2023. It is sad that it is all about the money these days, but the rugby population tuning in isn't enough to sustain the sport without an excessive amount of advertising money coming into the coffers.

          Comment


            Originally posted by mr chips View Post
            I think there would be a lot more support for the naming of individual stands (the Bank of Ireland Stand/the Toyota Stand etc) than the whole stadium. Might be an easier sell to potential sponsors as well, in terms of them having to pony up less dough for what would still be a high level of exposure ("... and he's slotted that one right between the posts, as the ball sails towards the Guinness Stand here at Thomond Park ..."). Same goes for the likes of "Heineken Stadium at Thomond Park " or whatever - something that retained the original name would be far less likely to encounter opposition or controversy.
            would you get more income though?
            Companies won't get a return from most media coverage if theyve only a stand named after them.
            not much in papers compared to having whole stadium named after your company.

            Comment


              Obviously not from one single sponsor but with four stands to work with, broadly speaking you're only looking for 25% each of what you might expect from a full stadium naming deal. Ironically, it could be the two smaller ends (north & south) which could command more money as they could be mentioned every single time there's a score as well as in the post-match discussions. Just imagine the commentary spiel - "Peter O'Mahony's try late in the second half at the Toyota end was almost a carbon copy of CJ Stander's magnificent effort in the first half in front of delighted supporters at the Guinness end." There's serious value for a sponsor if their brand is getting a mention on the telly every single time there are points scored in a game.

              In fact, I wonder whether it could be more worthwhile to corporate sponsors to go this way than taking on a full stadium naming rights deal - a much smaller outlay in economically straitened times, yet proportionally more bang for their buck. And it could work out better for Munster as well - plucking numbers entirely out of thin air and going for round numbers for the sake of simplicity, if the target figure for a stadium naming deal was €1 million but we still managed to secure €300k per individual stand, overall we'd be better off financially to the tune of €200k. And the ground itself could continue as Thomond Park.

              Right, I'm off for an amble through the land of chocolate ...
              Tis but a scratch.

              Comment


                Originally posted by mr chips View Post
                Obviously not from one single sponsor but with four stands to work with, broadly speaking you're only looking for 25% each of what you might expect from a full stadium naming deal. Ironically, it could be the two smaller ends (north & south) which could command more money as they could be mentioned every single time there's a score as well as in the post-match discussions. Just imagine the commentary spiel - "Peter O'Mahony's try late in the second half at the Toyota end was almost a carbon copy of CJ Stander's magnificent effort in the first half in front of delighted supporters at the Guinness end." There's serious value for a sponsor if their brand is getting a mention on the telly every single time there are points scored in a game.

                In fact, I wonder whether it could be more worthwhile to corporate sponsors to go this way than taking on a full stadium naming rights deal - a much smaller outlay in economically straitened times, yet proportionally more bang for their buck. And it could work out better for Munster as well - plucking numbers entirely out of thin air and going for round numbers for the sake of simplicity, if the target figure for a stadium naming deal was €1 million but we still managed to secure €300k per individual stand, overall we'd be better off financially to the tune of €200k. And the ground itself could continue as Thomond Park.

                Right, I'm off for an amble through the land of chocolate ...
                Excellent suggestion, and don't forget Munster Rugby have a signed deal with the IRFU to give 50% of the re-naming rights for Thomond Park - but not for individual Stand/ Terrace Ends. So 100% of the sponsorship for Munster Rugby.

                Comment




                  I wouldn't want to be the guy sat in an internal budget meeting in a major corporate right now pitching the idea of spending cash on sports sponsorships.


                  In the last three months, the economics of marketing, sponsorships, TV rights and just about anything we can think of changed, and we don't even know how yet.


                  All of this was speculation before. Now it's somewhere out beyond that.
                  "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

                  "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


                  "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by mr chips View Post
                    Obviously not from one single sponsor but with four stands to work with, broadly speaking you're only looking for 25% each of what you might expect from a full stadium naming deal. Ironically, it could be the two smaller ends (north & south) which could command more money as they could be mentioned every single time there's a score as well as in the post-match discussions. Just imagine the commentary spiel - "Peter O'Mahony's try late in the second half at the Toyota end was almost a carbon copy of CJ Stander's magnificent effort in the first half in front of delighted supporters at the Guinness end." There's serious value for a sponsor if their brand is getting a mention on the telly every single time there are points scored in a game.

                    In fact, I wonder whether it could be more worthwhile to corporate sponsors to go this way than taking on a full stadium naming rights deal - a much smaller outlay in economically straitened times, yet proportionally more bang for their buck. And it could work out better for Munster as well - plucking numbers entirely out of thin air and going for round numbers for the sake of simplicity, if the target figure for a stadium naming deal was €1 million but we still managed to secure €300k per individual stand, overall we'd be better off financially to the tune of €200k. And the ground itself could continue as Thomond Park.

                    Right, I'm off for an amble through the land of chocolate ...
                    but that would only be relevant in match day commentary. There isnt return beyond that too much. Every time the stadium would be mentioned in media the sponsor gets coverage which isnt the case if you just rename stands. So companies wouldnt at all pay as much as the return wouldnt be near if they paid to sponsor the whole stadium

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by mr chips View Post
                      Obviously not from one single sponsor but with four stands to work with, broadly speaking you're only looking for 25% each of what you might expect from a full stadium naming deal. Ironically, it could be the two smaller ends (north & south) which could command more money as they could be mentioned every single time there's a score as well as in the post-match discussions. Just imagine the commentary spiel - "Peter O'Mahony's try late in the second half at the Toyota end was almost a carbon copy of CJ Stander's magnificent effort in the first half in front of delighted supporters at the Guinness end." There's serious value for a sponsor if their brand is getting a mention on the telly every single time there are points scored in a game.

                      In fact, I wonder whether it could be more worthwhile to corporate sponsors to go this way than taking on a full stadium naming rights deal - a much smaller outlay in economically straitened times, yet proportionally more bang for their buck. And it could work out better for Munster as well - plucking numbers entirely out of thin air and going for round numbers for the sake of simplicity, if the target figure for a stadium naming deal was €1 million but we still managed to secure €300k per individual stand, overall we'd be better off financially to the tune of €200k. And the ground itself could continue as Thomond Park.

                      Right, I'm off for an amble through the land of chocolate ...
                      I highly doubt that there would be many companies willing to sponsor two terraces that are empty for most of the season.

                      Comment


                        This, like the unspoken place of training, will be long forgotten 6 weeks after it's done.

                        Sooner the better tbh.
                        I am the million man.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post

                          I wouldn't want to be the guy sat in an internal budget meeting in a major corporate right now pitching the idea of spending cash on sports sponsorships.


                          In the last three months, the economics of marketing, sponsorships, TV rights and just about anything we can think of changed, and we don't even know how yet.


                          All of this was speculation before. Now it's somewhere out beyond that.
                          Actually, imo, now would be a pretty good time to be in that discussion b/c they have what is essentially a captive audience. People won't be going out as much until there is a vaccine or reliable drug to combat this virus, so they'll stay at home, and that means watching the television or streaming, and live sports is going to attract a good number of viewers, even the more casual fans b/c it is something to watch that isn't a movie or tv show.

                          Speaking of sponsorships, I had no idea that KFC was a big thing in NZ. I had watched super rugby from time to time but hadn't taken much notice of the ads, but since its the only sport on for me atm, I was paying much more mind and Colonel Sanders is all over those stadiums. Pretty surprising, at least to me.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post

                            I wouldn't want to be the guy sat in an internal budget meeting in a major corporate right now pitching the idea of spending cash on sports sponsorships.


                            In the last three months, the economics of marketing, sponsorships, TV rights and just about anything we can think of changed, and we don't even know how yet.


                            All of this was speculation before. Now it's somewhere out beyond that.
                            Depends on the business. Corporation tax takings in Ireland are 48% above expectations for the first 6 months of 2020, despite the lockdown, because the likes of the pharma and tech industries are booming.

                            Comment


                              Could make a similar argument about the entire ground, in fairness - it's only full a few times a season after all. It's just as valid to argue what's the point of any company paying to have their name on a ground when it's only in use every couple of weeks on average? But in any case, thanks to distancing regulations no ground is going to be anywhere near full for at least the majority of the coming season regardless so this is a pretty moot point.

                              I'm just trying to think outside the box a bit. Realistically, the total of four separate stand sponsorships is unlikely to exceed the full amount one might reasonably expect a stadium sponsorship deal to bring in. But despite the success of a few outlier companies on the back of the pandemic, many more hitherto robust companies are either going under or struggling to survive. So it's not being unduly pessimistic to acknowledge that our chances of getting anyone to pay for the naming rights to the ground, never mind the sort of wedge we might have expected just a few months back, have been significantly diminished for some time to come. Of course a lot will depend on how well and how quickly we come out of the coronavirus recession, but I think a deal to sponsor individual stands for e.g. two or three years could be an easier sell right now than the sort of figure that full naming rights would demand. Even if we only managed to get that in place for two out of the four, it'd be better than the square root of feck all that we have right now, like.
                              Tis but a scratch.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by mr chips View Post
                                Could make a similar argument about the entire ground, in fairness - it's only full a few times a season after all. It's just as valid to argue what's the point of any company paying to have their name on a ground when it's only in use every couple of weeks on average? But in any case, thanks to distancing regulations no ground is going to be anywhere near full for at least the majority of the coming season regardless so this is a pretty moot point.

                                I'm just trying to think outside the box a bit. Realistically, the total of four separate stand sponsorships is unlikely to exceed the full amount one might reasonably expect a stadium sponsorship deal to bring in. But despite the success of a few outlier companies on the back of the pandemic, many more hitherto robust companies are either going under or struggling to survive. So it's not being unduly pessimistic to acknowledge that our chances of getting anyone to pay for the naming rights to the ground, never mind the sort of wedge we might have expected just a few months back, have been significantly diminished for some time to come. Of course a lot will depend on how well and how quickly we come out of the coronavirus recession, but I think a deal to sponsor individual stands for e.g. two or three years could be an easier sell right now than the sort of figure that full naming rights would demand. Even if we only managed to get that in place for two out of the four, it'd be better than the square root of feck all that we have right now, like.
                                It doesn't matter if the ground is ever full or how often its used, because every time the media refer to the stadium they have to mention the sponsors name. The sponsors name would also be on every fixture list printed or online. That doesn't happen if you name individual stands/terraces and nobody other than the internal club media would even refer to the stand, never mind mention the sponsors name. Quite simply sponsors wouldn't get anywhere near the same exposure from naming individual stands/terraces as they would from naming the whole stadium, so you would get anywhere near the same money, even if all 4 had sponsors names.

                                I'm aware it's a moot point if potential sponsors aren't available, but if you can't find one to sponsor the whole stadium, your unlikely to find four to sponsor the stands/terraces.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X