• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Management ENIC

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

ENIC In or ENIC Out

  • Total voters
    209
ShutUpPatrik said:
Here's my hot take. We're not getting a stadium naming rights deal as long as we have the NFL partnership. That's the innoficial naming rights deal. The club is having its name marketed to millions of viewers whenever they mention the games in London.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, we are open to naming rights but it would have to be silly money to make it worth it. Chances are we’d want it to be something like “BRAND @ Tottenham Hotspur Stadium” too so we can still get the most out of it. So fair chance it’ll never happen.
 
Brian Fantana said:
Yeah you don’t appear on bloomberg and give that interview unless you want investment coming forward. He doesn’t have to do that at all of course and we’ve only seen a minute of the interview so there’s zero conflict but why do the interview anyway?

On a different note Kilpatrick says the club is a listed company. They haven’t been for years. You can’t be getting that basic bit of information wrong as a journalist
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

TBF Levy said Tottenham Hotspur is run like a listed company (ie obeys laws and rules pertaining to listed companies)
 
ILSpur said:
It's just a basic understanding of the importance of brand awareness. People try to assign a monetary value to a brand name, but it's damn near impossible to quantify at times. Just for an example of the importance, Coca Cola spends around $4B/year on advertising and branding work.



Yes, maybe, but you have to do an opportunity cost comparison. Let's say that due to the football games, concerts, the NFL, corporate events, and ever thing else that "Tottenham Hotspur Stadium" generates 250+ million impressions per year. The advertising cost alone to do that could equate to whatever we bring in via naming rights if the offer is too low. So, you picked up naming rights but you could end up profit neutral or negative depending on the level of advertising and branding spend that you'd need to make up for what the current stadium name represents.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's such an unknown I almost get why they're undecided what to do.
I actually think companies like Coke advertising is dumb. Literally everyone knows what it is. Same as a lot of movie marketing. Why spend $100m advertising the 38th movie in the Avengers saga? We know it exists and we will see it if we've seen the other 37 movies and 1,083 TV shows.
Sometimes I wonder if they spend that money not to advertise themselves, but to take up advertising space that others may benefit from.
 
Matt1882 said:
It's such an unknown I almost get why they're undecided what to do.
I actually think companies like Coke advertising is dumb. Literally everyone knows what it is. Same as a lot of movie marketing. Why spend $100m advertising the 38th movie in the Avengers saga? We know it exists and we will see it if we've seen the other 37 movies and 1,083 TV shows.
Sometimes I wonder if they spend that money not to advertise themselves, but to take up advertising space that others may benefit from.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As a wild guess my bet is you don’t work in the advertising / marketing industry!
 
Brian Fantana said:
Basically they've always been for sale and are for sale but that buyer isnt out there because their price will always be unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yep, but there is nothing wrong with having a high price to buy the Club. Chavs, who were losing £1m per week with revenues the same as Spurs (if both with or without CL as the measure - in fact Spurs now ahead of them because of the revenues generated by the Stadium) (now more than £2m per week) were bought under what should have been a distressed sale for £2.5b!!
 
Zomb said:
Just means he doesn’t have to deal with shareholder activists forcing his position as CEO
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not really relevant.

ATM Lewis and Levy jointly own 85% with 15% being held by other people. Even if an activist shareholder could get most of the 15% to either sell to him/her and/or get them to vote with him/her, the activist shareholder has too small a holding to do much other than to say rude words - doesn't matter in that scenario if company is listed or private.
 
Spursidol said:
Not really relevant.

ATM Lewis and Levy jointly own 85% with 15% being held by other people. Even if an activist shareholder could get most of the 15% to either sell to him/her and/or get them to vote with him/her, the activist shareholder has too small a holding to do much other than to say rude words - doesn't matter in that scenario if company is listed or private.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That’s my point

Private company means no influential activists
 
Matt1882 said:
It's such an unknown I almost get why they're undecided what to do.
I actually think companies like Coke advertising is dumb. Literally everyone knows what it is. Same as a lot of movie marketing. Why spend $100m advertising the 38th movie in the Avengers saga? We know it exists and we will see it if we've seen the other 37 movies and 1,083 TV shows.
Sometimes I wonder if they spend that money not to advertise themselves, but to take up advertising space that others may benefit from.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

🤦‍♂️
 
BernardMatthews said:
As a wild guess my bet is you don’t work in the advertising / marketing industry!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Advertising is psychological and is ultimately conditioning and manipulation. There's a reason most people thing of certain things by default with brands/items and whilst most people call their hoover a hoover, when it's actually a vacuum cleaner. Hoover is the brand.

We humans are incredibly susceptible to it. Which is why they spend millions doing it.
 
Murphy said:
Advertising is psychological and is ultimately conditioning and manipulation. There's a reason most people thing of certain things by default with brands/items and whilst most people call their hoover a hoover, when it's actually a vacuum cleaner. Hoover is the brand.

We humans are incredibly susceptible to it. Which is why they spend millions doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I sometimes call a vacuum cleaner a hoover but I've never bought a Hoover so don't understand how that idea works.
 
Aussies Dream said:
Levy interviewed on Bloomberg TV


View: https://youtu.be/Nf1yCyjyhJE?si=9E2eGr8x_hzRsygG
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


So we now know from this interview that annually the club makes £20m to £30m from the other events and this is put towards capital costs. Ie. paying off the interest on the loans as I always expected the plan was.

That is the first time we have had a proper answer from the club on that.

I would add, the last few minutes of that is the most honest we've seen him.
 
Last edited:
Seems like Levy was waiting for a time when he had a manager he could face the public with, Ange is the perfect guy for him to front up and carry the club on it's shoulders, Levy was never doing this when we had Conte/Jose in charge.
 
McCOYS said:
I sometimes call a vacuum cleaner a hoover but I've never bought a Hoover so don't understand how that idea works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It just shows how entrenched a brand can be. Hoover were big in the 1950?!s

I have no idea when Hoover stopped being the goto Vacuum cleaner. And they have been bought out by some other firm since those heady days of the 50s.

But I’m sure the original owners made plenty of money off the back of their Hoover advertising. Since then people just have adopted that name for a domestic appliance.
 
BernardMatthews said:
It just shows how entrenched a brand can be. Hoover were big in the 1950?!s

I have no idea when Hoover stopped being the goto Vacuum cleaner. And they have been bought out by some other firm since those heady days of the 50s.

But I’m sure the original owners made plenty of money off the back of their Hoover advertising. Since then people just have adopted that name for a domestic appliance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, that makes sense.

I use a Henry, and I hate vacuuming, I put it off as long as possible until I force myself to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top