Just what are we getting out of our relationship with the Hill Dickinson company?

[PITA]

The Scottish National Stadium, has just been renamed " Barclays Hampden Park ", in line with the sponsorship with Barclays Bank.

There seems to be no problem with that and that`s the national stadium.

My first memory of a stadium being named after it`s sponsor, was Bolton`s Reebok Stadium and that was a long long time ago.

I really have no idea why some people are getting wound up by this ?

( It`s to be expected from the forum crank, but not the rest of the forum )

How many guesses am I allowed?

 

[windymiller]

We (Everton FC) have built a magnificent new stadium on the Liverpool waterfront, with stunning views of one of the most iconic buildings in the nation - the Royal Liver Building. It cost us in the region of £800million to build. It is a privilege to view it from the road, let alone see Everton win there in front of 50,000 singing Blues. There have been some teething problems and debate has raged over the capacity, but ultimately it is a truly world-class stadium. Handsome, too, what with the brickwork that is in keeping with the surrounding historical buildings. I also love that the Grade II listed perimeter wall has been restored. This stadium has the opportunity to put us as a club back on the map, particularly when we host the Euros in just over 2 years' time.

However, when my son's clients from overseas come to visit Liverpool and see our magnificent new home from outside, all they see are the words Hill Dickinson. We paid £800million to build it, so how much are they paying us to essentially take ownership of the branding of our new home? I think the word Everton only features in tiny letters on the small Everton crests. These can hardly be seen from the road or the river, but the words Hill Dickinson can be. I've heard that they only pay us around £10million per annum, but that can't be correct?

I make this post not to cause mischief, but to ask a genuine question. If they are literally paying for the stadium over the course of a decade, then fair enough. But £10million seems like relative pocket change.

Money. Money is what we are getting out of this relationship. Like with all of our other sponsors. Castore, money. Stake, money. Budweiser, money. Christopher Ward, money. Pepsi, money. Hill Dickinson, money. That's what sponsorship is all about. Forget all of this "partners" nonsense, you give us money we stick your name where millions of people will see it. That's it, that's the whole story. No matter what Dave K from Widnes says.

 

[davek]

Barclays Hampden Park and H*** D******** stadium bear zero comparison: one an established stadium name for about 150 years, the other the name of a small law firm who fight NHS cases against hospital patient claims attached to a stadium without any previous Everton connection.

Nothing could be starker in terms of examples of corporate connections to football stadiums.

 

[COYBL25]

How many guesses am I allowed?

How about, I’ll give you one guess

 

[windymiller]

The Scottish National Stadium, has just been renamed " Barclays Hampden Park ", in line with the sponsorship with Barclays Bank.

There seems to be no problem with that and that`s the national stadium.

My first memory of a stadium being named after it`s sponsor, was Bolton`s Reebok Stadium and that was a long long time ago.

I really have no idea why some people are getting wound up by this ?

( It`s to be expected from the forum crank, but not the rest of the forum )

Loads of people have a problem with that. There's protests organised, petitions, tons of news coverage. I'm not saying I have a problem with it, in particular, but there are problems (Barclays are also a bit of a controversial choice because of their investment portfolio). Just the same as there would be if Wembley was renamed the E.ON stadium or the LIDL arena.