What do you think Ricoh make of all this? there is a saying that "there is no such thing as bad publicity" but they cant be happy of all this negativity around their brand...
Well they signed a ten year extention of the deal around a year back ,so unless they intend to renege a la SISU style i geuss they're happy enough with the Status quo.:thinking about:
Something like 13 years to run ,don't know what value the second 10 yr stint though.
They've got a giant sign with their logo on it that is clearly visible from the M6, that alone is probably worth the money.
Had a panic attack on thursday as was travelling across exhall side of town and got a glimpse of the Exhibition hall roof ,for a minute or two until I got a better view I could have sworn the giant RICOH letters had been removed from the roof.Which brings me to another point . Can we trust a word ACL say when they Claim ts possible to see that sign from the Moon ?? Or was that Paul Fletcher??:thinking about::facepalm:
Wonder how many people drive past it and think 'I know what I need; a photocopier or digital camera' and buy one because of it.......... :thinking about:
Strangely I actually did look at a digital camera from Ricoh when I was buying one because the name had stuck in my mind. Sadly the only one they had in my price range was buggered when we opened the box in the shop, so I got a sony instead.
I'm always staggered by the amounts paid by these companies for naming rights. It certainly would not influence me when buying a product.
agreed. never get why tobacco companies spent millions...."wow, Malrboro are at Silverstone, i must buy some"
It's all subliminal; few people see adverts and think 'I must immediately go and buy their product' but each mention and view increases influence and association (James Smith's post is a good example a few up), so sponsorship and naming rights can be very lucrative even when they don't make a great deal of sense. It's not as if there are many people who need reminding that Coca-Cola exists, for instance.
They did but Sisu demanded that it should be handed over for free and it is now lost somewhere between here and the Cayman Islands.
Had a panic attack on thursday as was travelling across exhall side of town and got a glimpse of the Exhibition hall roof ,for a minute or two until I got a better view I could have sworn the giant RICOH letters had been removed from the roof.Which brings me to another point . Can we trust a word ACL say when they Claim ts possible to see that sign from the Moon ?? Or was that Paul Fletcher??:thinking about::facepalm:
Why would the removal of the big letters be of such concern?
I believe the deal with Ricoh is for 10 years which commenced in 2005 @ £1M per annum.
Imagine being able to invest the 10M in the football club.
I think they extended the deal a year or two ago.
Doncasters keepmoat sponsorship naming rights is extracted of the annual rent over the next ten years. It's an outrage the club do not get a percentage of the sponsorship deal.
<p>
Is this the same keepmoat stadium that the council had to give away because it was losing so much money?
Is this the same keepmoat stadium that the council had to give away because it was losing so much money?
Yes and Doncaster are leasing the entire stadium 365 days a year which CCFC/SISU aren't. I'm sure if SISU were in control of ACL they'd get all not just a percentage of the naming rights - I just thank God that they're not in control.
It was losing an average of £300,000 a year. So what? Do you understand anything about FPP at all?
So you think it's a good idea to have a sponsor of a stadium and the main tenant gets nothing? And you profess to be a supporter of that tenant?
Get it through your head - losses mean nothing. Swansea FC have 30% representation on their management company and have hardly paid anything towards that stadium.
Ah, so the £m's we've lost every year mean nothing?
Also It was losing (as was pointed out to me yesterday) £300,000 despite the club paying rent of ~£280K so the club have taken on a stadium that needed a minimum of nearly £600k to run per year. That figure also ignores the money that the other tenants were paying in, so could be higher.
Last edited:
<p>
Whether im a supporter or not is irrelevant, it doesn't change what is morally or legally right.
If losses are not important would you be happy for the club to pay £1.3m in rent so long as they got sponsorship money?
Whether im a supporter or not is irrelevant, it doesn't change what is morally or legally right.
If losses are not important would you be happy for the club to pay £1.3m in rent so long as they got sponsorship money?
