I am not in favor of changing the name but to say it goes up in pennies is disingenuous and dismissive of thier argument. We can approach it logically. Sponsership is probably a part of comercial activities in this link (its an old link). http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club Liverpool had 64 million pounds, wolves had 5 million. That is not pennies. There is clearly a difference in sponsership between the bottom clubs and the top clubs. I make no claim that if we somehow change our name it will mean that we can pull as much corp sponsership as Man U but that is the argument that they are making. So the question still stands that there is a value increase that they think the name change will bring then how much is it. We could look at it logically and think about what level of sponsership would be the max that we could realistically achieve in the Allams scenario. It doesnt mean that we have to change our mind at all simply because they could be right about an increase in cash coming in. But rather than be completly dismissive of their argument we could approach it and try to figure out a range of a potential increase.
Who would invest in a club with large debts run by an abrasive maverick just because it has a twee cuddly name in an industry where heritage and traditional values give a club its identity and image???
The commercial activities are very small for most clubs and sponsorship is even smaller. Most of the clubs in the Premier League are reliant on TV money. You may be able to make a few million extra but that is down to good marketing and it takes a lot more than changing your name.
I know some lasses who used to live up Kirkella or Swanland or Anlaby way, I don't know for sure, somewhere posh - and they used to get a fair bit of attention off Ehab 15 or so years back when they were 18/19. He used to ride his horse around to show off to them then, when they were dolled up to go out round town, he'd offer them a lift in his car and regale them with tales of how he was an Arabian Prince. True facts there.
If being in the premier league is more important than anything else and some on here have said that what we are called or even where we play (re the threat to relocate to Melton) does not matter so long as we stay in this league. Then would those that support the change be happy if he wanted to call us Leeds United and have us play at Elland Road?
I think you almost have a point, but not quite. In the terms of a developing (emerging, if you like) North American domestic soccer market, you have a growth that has been in progress for donkeys years and the investment and sponsorship it generates is, principally, inward investment. Are we, Hull City AFC, interested in that? I don't believe we are. USA soccer, in the scale of the country and its head-count, is still fairly slow in the growth of soccer and to increase that growth it will be more competitive than sympathetic to our own need for external investment. The only real opportunity, I could foresee, would be that of an American buyer of the club and that has nothing to do with AA's strategy, the need for a daft name-change or the price of fish.
The growth of soccer here has been slow on purpose. There are far more cities that want MLS clubs than the MLS will allow. That is the main reason why the USL Pro (14 teams), NASL (10 teams), PDL (64 teams), and the other few lower leagues are growing so fast. The MLS has been adamant that there will be no promotion or relegation on US soil. That means that as the MLS grows to a maximum of around 30 teams those cities that they pick will be cities that can provide long term stability. Those that do not make enough money will be moved to other cities just as we do in all other sports here, there will be no team that will have a negative balance sheet. Not really saying anything about what you are saying it is just important to understand that the growth of football (soccer) here is far slower than the demand and it is being kept that way artificially.
Blimey, that's what most of it is about in this country. [video=youtube;QlGsnoRhwHw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlGsnoRhwHw[/video] This is what achieving promotion to the Promised Land after 104 years of trying feels like.
People here care about winning the playoffs. In the MLS the top team in the regular season gets a trophy (supporters shield i think) but no one gives 2 ****s about it. Most fans of sports here would think the idea of relegation and promotion as insane. A fan of the Kansas City Royals wouldnt have a top level team if you had it. Plus we use the draft system when people come out of college or highschool. That allows the worst teams to get first dibs on the best players. That way even the worst team will eventually have a chance at being the best. It is a different mindset. There are positives, like no bankrupt teams but there are negatives as well. Obviously that means there are no real local teams unless you are lucky enough to live in an mls city. You could be fairly close to a USL city or the like but chances are you real team will be hours away from you. It just means that you presonally will have to watch more games on TV than in person. It doesnt really detract from the passion of the fans that attend the games. You can watch videos of Seattle or Portland and see fans that rival many clubs in the rest of the world.
You have pretty much endorsed what I stated, giving some of the rationale behind it. Your model of competitive sport is your own and, to be honest, you are welcome to it, which is why I am so against the name-change and its move towards American franchising of sport. The main advantage of your form of franchised sport is that it allows sponsors some element of security about the level at which their sponsorship will endure over a reasonable duration - real sponsorship relationships can be forged - which, in turn, also benefits the club; or does it? Perhaps the real question is, does it improve the sport, or simply create a whole load of millionaire sportsmen and hangers- on? The key thing is that, Ehab using your market to support his strategy, is simply demonstrating that he is extremely inept in his thinking or very shallow and dishonest in his application of real business markets and their potential. It really is very disappointing, as the quiet man has shown his full colours.
You make a good point about our sponsors having guaranted viewers and national attention as the teams they support can not be relegated. Beyond the MLS you dont see sponsors on jerseys. The main sponsership will be the stadium name and that rarely changes in the time it takes them to build a new stadium, beyond that its the same sponsors for everyone, beer companies, coke etc. They really sponsor the whole league as opposed to one team. The millionaire sportsmen thing - It clearly creates millionaire sportsmen no doubt about that. Unless you are on a league minimum salary and ride the bench your short career every one of them will be a millionaire. Hanger ons - That I would say it does not create. An artificially lower number of professional clubs means that the player quality is superior. Think about it this way we have 6 times your population but the same basic number of teams in our top tier. That means that our top tier has a better quality than if it was divided further. I wouldnt say thatthe ratio is the same as in 6 times better than it would be since there are other tiers but even counting them there are far less pro teams per sport. It is hard to show it in anyway beyond theoretical as our established sports are not shared by yours. One day the quality of the MLS will rival the english game in my opinion simply because of the population being pushed into such a small number of teams. I have said it before (and I agree with you) that I dont see how he can use us as inspiration for anything he does. There is very little he can do beyond moving the team up the table to get people here to buy kits etc. Americans are simply going to want to watch the best clubs and changing the name wont affect that. Now he could sign a bunch of Americans off our national team, that would get "fans". He could also partner with an MLS club and loan players to it and get players on loan. Our MLS clubs do that already between themselves and USL teams. Perhaps that type of partnership between 2 clubs could generate future income, especially if we did regular preseason tours of the US. Americans will show up to watch a PL team take on their local club. In my opinion it would take those types of ideas to generate income from the US, no name change is going to accomplish that.
