Stadium naming rights
I thought I’d chime in on this.
The club produced their 2025/26 sponsorship opportunities brochure which included an offer for “prime stadium branding opportunities that align your brand with Charlton’s rich history and passionate fanbase. Whether through naming rights, LED advertising, or stand sponsorship.”
This is as far as I can tell the first time that any of the club’s owners have offered this up, and my first instinct was to remind myself how tone deaf this lot are despite banging on about fan engagement at every opportunity.
There are various ways brands are incorporated in stadium names. Wembley Stadium connected by EE, the Kira Oval, St. Andrew’s @ Knighthead Park and then there’s Twickenham which is now called Allianz Stadium.
It’s a lot easier on fan’s emotions to name a new stadium after a sponsor like The Emirates, Etihad or American Express, and of course there’s an argument that a club could call a ground what it wants, but fans will still always call it the Bescot, London Road or Brisbane Road as examples.
Bolton’s ground will always be The Reebok to me, even though it’s on its third reincarnation.
So, what is the point then. People will always call The Valley The Valley even if it was re-named The Laughing Cow Valley or Valley by Thames Water. Mind you, they haven’t got a pot to piss in.
The point is that it eats a little more away at the history of our great club. A history that supporters have fought so hard to maintain despite a plethora of careless and useless owners. In America (almost) every sports stadium or arena is branded and it takes away any kind of fan association or historical connection.
We already don’t even own the old place, let alone attempt to monetize the famous 106-year old ground. They’ll be changing our colours or replacing the Red, Red Robin next. Oh wait someone tried that.
Like a lot things it is principal and I or you will always call it The Valley, but it will anger me every time I see it written down or someone in the media uses it’s official branded name. No company is going to pay us a couple of hundred grand unless their brand is used at least publicly.
The club needs funding and investment, I understand that, and that can only help build a sustainable and successful team, but there must be so many other ways this ownership can secure additional income streams.
I’d be interested in other’s opinions.
Let’s not get all Canute here with principals, as you say, the World is heading towards a situation where all Stadiums will be sponsored and the sooner the Club join in the sooner the Club benefit financially. The main target of the fans now should be to encourage appropriate sponsorship which retains ‘The Valley ‘ name incorporated rather than fighting the Owners on the principle of naming rights per sei.
Yes, it annoys that Roland will also gain financially but if there is a net gain for the Club then surely that’s what counts?
Agree with your sentiments AHLL…. any rebranding would have to be conditional that it maintained ‘The Valley’ in it. You don’t need to completely rename the place. Ultimately, it’s a great revenue opportunity and if that means investment in the side then who cares if we are The Joe Bloggs Valley? I imagine 40 plus years ago there were similar disagreements when someone dared to write a company name on the team shirt !
I have just looked it up and ‘Toughsheet Comm. Stadium’ in Bolton is a multi million pound deal over 5 years. So let’s say £500,000 a year, if that were split 60:40 with Roland then our share could mean we play at the Valley (or whatever the new name is) rent free!
Agree to an extent CA but we’re not the ones writing the cheques. I’d hate it if we end up with some cheesy commercial incarnation but as fans we have got a choice, i.e., the ones that filled out The Valley against Doncaster turn up every week meaning the owners aren’t underwriting £9M operating losses (appreciate you’ve got a decent excuse btw). Genuinely think if it’s the voice of the fans and they/we put our money where our mouth is the owners would take naming rights off the table.
I wouldn’t get overly excited about a name change if the money was big enough. It will always be the valley to the fans.
Pity there is no multi national or global company that’s titled Valley….eg Valley Airlines,Valley Shipping, or Valley Cabs who would’ve the idea of naming the stadium after there company…
We are right under the Heathrow flypast and could also consider using the stadium roof to advertise too as planes fly over.
Ohhhhh…..there IS a company called ‘Valley Cabs’ near the ground….have they the money 💰????
https://valley-company.com
Valley Cafe ☺️
Brilliant…..Valley kebab house too ?
Money talks
The same knee jerk emotional resistance was expressed by some when shirt sponsorship took off, when the FA and EFL sold out to whichever brand turned up with a big bag of cash but those ships have long since sailed. Someone earlier referenced Canute and they’re bang on.
We all hope it doesn’t end up as comically inappropriate as the ToughSheet – but even that auditory accident generates its own publicity – we certainly hope it isn’t ethically inappropriate e.g. a gambling brand, anything Saudi, etc etc but critically if the business managers don’t monetise every reasonable opportunity they’re simply not doing their jobs properly. Shirt sponsorship, became front and back and shorts and different brands on home and away. If some other business thinks there’s value to be had with its branding on a hoarding, shirt, program advert, stand roof, tunnel roof, that’s up to them and the club should collect.
The biggest difference here is that we rank and file fans have had the commercial opportunities emailed out to us, we just know a lot more about it this year than we ever have before. There’s been no shortage of bellyaching about recent owners not making a good job of the commercial side, getting sniffy about commercial expansion now is unrealistic.
We’ll all still call it the Valley, it will barely even register after the start of September.
I always sthought we were missing a trick with the naming rights, As long as AHLL says we retain “the Valley” in the eventual name, even if it only defrays the cost of renting it from RD, or we can get it upfront and Pay the Begian off….
I am sure we could put up with “the Reg Vardy Valley” if it meant finally being rid of RD
BTW, its Kia Oval not Kira.
I dont see any big problem with ground sponsorship should it bring in a sizeable sum to enable the club to move forward.
Too many of our fanbase imo are not forward thinkers and are stuck in the time-warp of the heritage of The Valley and its history – this was born out by the protest when the club was looking to move to the Peninsular some years ago. Did you see the likes of Everton,Man City, Arsenal, Brighton,Southampton fans vehemently complaining about moving into their respective new stadiums? I always said that moving to the Peninsular would have taken the club into a new level with the opportunities borne out of being close to Canary Wharf, but, no, it was not to be because of backward thinking fans.
Lets look forward for once, embrace the opportunities and maybe we can eventually lose the tag of Liddl Ol Charlton and start playing with the big boys.
Kia. Of course, thanks Stuart.
Some very sensible comments above. Perhaps some of you can make me understand. Firstly if some company is willing to give us a lot of money to call the it the “Easy Jet Valley” or whatever then fine. Of course it will always be called The Valley whatever happens. But do tell me please. Does having naming rights really influence consumers? If i am taking a flight, i don’t think “Oh i love the Emirates Stadium, so i’m gonna fly with them.” Or back in the day, i was never gonna buy a pair Reebok trainers because i liked the Bolton stadium. I guess i am missing something really important here, so can someone explain it to me? Thanks in advance.
I think this is a 101 in the whole multi trillion business of marketing and advertising.
The Emperors New Clothes….that’s all i’m saying…. 😉
The ownership of the club by a large group of investors makes me think that an individual within that group is unlikely to make a large investment to fund expensive recruits. I think it more likely that the club will be allowed to invest the proceeds of sales of current players. The sale of May was basically wasted on Ahadme so they will be wary in future. They may be able to recruit players in the under £300k range.
In the last 15 years recruiting expensive players above £500k has been a disaster. Vetokole ( due to injury problems) but others just didn’t hack it, including McLeod, Ajose and Kirk.
The big sales have been former academy players, such as Gomez, Konsa, Lookman, Fox and Burstow. The only recruit I can remember that went for significantly more than we paid was Bonne.
So selling naming rights could be a good option for owners and supporters
Alex Gilbey, Ronnie Schwartz, Scott Fraser, Terry Taylor, Sam Lavelle, Diallang Jaiyesimi, Craig MacGillivray to add a few more to that list of players that cost a bit of cash.
CA I did limit the players mentioned to those that cost over £500k, but you are absolutely right there as been many lower cost players and free transfers who would have received signing on fees and relatively good salary packages which are higher than many other Div1 teams would offer.
Ahadme should play against Dulwich Hamlet this evening if fit, he should do something to earn his salary.
Dixon has done a good job but is not a No.9, he is a winger or second striker as he was in Jamaica.
As an ex-Chicagoan where do you stand on the Cub’s stadium? As far as I know it has always been Wrigley Stadium.
I don’t mind providing that the sponsor is a company that reflects some of our club values – I wouldn’t be happy if a fast food or betting company owned the naming rights. If it brings some money in and helps the team progress then I’d reluctantly support it.
We also need to bear in mind that the club is running an eye watering loss – if a ground sponsor helps keep that deficit down and allows us to keep some players then it has to be a good thing.
Wrigley Field was named in 1926 way before Emirates or Etihad were invented 😁. It was the first ever branded sports stadium, so I guess it was old William’s fault, but so unlike anything else in America it does at least honour the history.
How would you react to the name being changed to the WINALOT stadium? Money wise it’s needed but the Tough Shit stadium for Bolton is a bit embarrassing. To the fan it will always be the Valley no matter if for sponsorship purposes it becomes known as the Home Bargains stadium.