Should the NHL sell the naming rights for the Stanley Cup

[edog37]

I would leave the Stanley Cup's name the Stanley Cup, however the championship could be renamed, i.e. The McDonald's Stanley Cup Championship. But don't change the name of the actual Cup.

more likely, the Stanley Cup Final presented by McDonalds....it would have to be handled like the Rose Bowl.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

How much money would a corporation possibly be willing to pay per year? What, $5 million? (That's probably being extremely generous). Even that only translates to an extra $167,000 or so per year in each owner's pocket. There's not really any incentive for anyone to do this, nevermind the fact that it would be tarnishing the trophy's reputation.

i dont disagree that surely a cost benefit analysis would be prudent and it may very well not be worth selling it.

doesnt change the premise the NHL owners are ethically obligated to the players to maximize every available source of income available.

including and especially advertisements on jerseys. the players are the distribution conduit for the product and the convergance of product and channels of distribution all coming together on the ice is dynamic and compelling enough to put ads on jerseys.

i dont really care if hardcore fans (like the ones on HF) like it or not, it has to happen or the owners are short changing the partners they so badly needed that it was worth stealing a season of NHL hockey from the lemmings (fans).

 

[ricky0034]

I would honestly strongly consider not watching the NHL anymore if this happened

 

[cptjeff]

doesnt change the premise the NHL owners are ethically obligated to the players to maximize every available source of income available.

including and especially advertisements on jerseys. the players are the distribution conduit for the product and the convergance of product and channels of distribution all coming together on the ice is dynamic and compelling enough to put ads on jerseys.

Why? The league is healthy financially, and if something wouldn't make a big difference to the bottom line, but stands a chance of doing irreparable harm to the brand, then it absolutely should not be done.

Sports may often be a business, but it relies on the emotional attachments of fans. Teams are businesses, true, but they also serve as civic entities, and have to do good by their communities. If they don't, they die, no matter how great the business strategy is.

Various companies have tried to maximize every revenue stream. They may fly high for a while, but usually those are the ones that crash spectacularly. In the meantime, other companies focus on building lasting relationships with their customers, making a quality product and charging a reasonable price for it. Those are the ones that last centuries.

But hey, you're right about the exploit every revenue stream bit. As a sidenote, I hear Enron is hiring, and they love the way you think.

i dont really care if hardcore fans (like the ones on HF) like it or not, it has to happen or the owners are short changing the partners they so badly needed that it was worth stealing a season of NHL hockey from the lemmings (fans).

So why the hell are you posting on a hockey message board in the summer?

Also, that paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Dr Tran]

OH **** (I can't say it here) NO!

 

[tarheelhockey]

Various companies have tried to maximize every revenue stream. They may fly high for a while, but usually those are the ones that crash spectacularly. In the meantime, other companies focus on building lasting relationships with their customers, making a quality product and charging a reasonable price for it. Those are the ones that last centuries.

This paragraph should be stickied at the top of the BoH board.

 

[Fugu]

Sports may often be a business, but it relies on the emotional attachments of fans. Teams are businesses, true, but they also serve as civic entities, and have to do good by their communities. If they don't, they die, no matter how great the business strategy is.

Very good point. It is entertainment after all, and these types of products compete for discretionary/disposable income. The decision to commit is purely emotional for fans. We could split hairs and say that corporations buy tickets and suites as a business decision, but they only do it if giving those tickets to someone, or inviting them to a suite, also serves an emotional process (which I believe it does). If no one wanted the tickets, the companies would stop buying.

 

[Alex The Loyal]

NOOOOooooOoooOhohohooooo. The Stanley Cup is the best trophy in sports. Having it sullied by sponsors would be horrible. No other league of the big 4 does what you're suggesting as far as I know, so why should the NHL do it? The NHL is doing fine as a whole. Sure there are a few teams struggling, but all in all the NHL is doing fine.

 

[Shawa666]

Well, you know, these are ways in which private enterprises raise revenues to meet the needs of its employees. Not every solution is a taxpayer cash grab...

I'm not against selling naming rights to everything else. However I'm not sure changing anything to such a recognisable brand is a good Idea. And I raise this question, Is the NHL even allowed to change the cup's name legally?

 

[kdb209]

I'm not against selling naming rights to everything else. However I'm not sure changing anything to such a recognisable brand is a good Idea. And I raise this question, Is the NHL even allowed to change the cup's name legally?

My guess is that they couldn't rename the

Cup itself.

They likely couldn't award it as the

Cup.

They probably could award it as the

Stanley Cup.

Or as the Stanley Cup presented by

I doubt that the 1947 Trustee Agreeement with the NHL envisioned selling corporate rights - so it is unlikely that it would be precluded under the agreement.

Also note that the NHL, not the cup trust/trustees, owns the Trademark on the name

Cup.