SociableSport

Dons at Cambridge University have clashed with their campus bosses by expressing concern over potential plans to sell naming rights to the University Library in a process the Telegraph describes as, "selling to the highest bidder."

Professor Gill Evans, a member of the university's Regent House governing body, said: “At this rate, one might set off for the University Library one morning to find it turned into a branch of Tesco with an internet café." 

Such a superficial assessment of sponsorship's benefits can be attributed what Evans herself describes as "a lack of consultation". Although we have recently seen with sports stadia that changing the name of established properties can be perceived as insensitive to the establishment in question, there is also much to praise in successful partnerships between brands and rights owners beyond the financials alone.
 
The University said the move was the “ultimate commemorative naming opportunity" and said the benefaction would mark the 800th anniversary of its founding." But this isn't the only thing a potential sponsor should bear in mind. The extra funding could help the University to recruit more underprivileged students or assist current students in achieving their potential beyond University life. It could improve campus facilities and ultimately help the staff maintain the quality of the University's emphatic research and teaching reputations. The right name, with the right plans, can make positive waves for the University.
 
It's a little frustrating to see so much negative press for naming rights deals in the UK. With Newcastle United and Chelsea upsetting their fans with talks of renaming their historic grounds, Cambridge had a real opportunity to rubbish the 'Tesco' mindset that is tarnishing naming rights deals and set out a non-financial agenda.
 
Naming rights is not just about raising funds, but about enhansing reputation, building relationships and fostering opportunities that benefit all stakeholders. I hope that the Cambridge campus can include all faculty and students alike in their plans and start discussions not by asking, 'how much funding do we want to achieve?' but, 'what sort of partnership do we want to create?'
 
If it's a partnership that stretches on for another 800 years, it is well worth planning carefully.

It seems the naming rights saga has caught fire among the English FA Premier League . On the back of Newcastle United's announcement that St. James' Park is to be known as the "sportsdirect.com @ St. James' Park", Chelsea's Chief Executive Ron Gourlay has now revealed that Chelsea are preparing to follow the lead by selling the naming rights for Stamford Bridge. Like Ashley and Co. at Newcastle, Gourlay is insisting that the associated brand will only be able to add to the name, rather than actually change the name of the stadium altogether. 'Stamford Bridge' would therefore be retained in the name along with the assocation with "a suitable blue-chip company."

"Retaining the heritage of the stadium is paramount to considering such a move but we think that is achievable and on that basis we would enter into discussions over naming rights with the right partner for Chelsea", Gourlay told Chelsea TV.

"We understand that this is a sensitive issue for our fans and that is why we would keep the name Stamford Bridge in any deal".

Could it be that scenes like the below are soon to be a thing of the past within the giants of the game? Surely Abramovich doesn't need the money as much as Chelsea need the identity of their stadium?

A sensitive issue indeed, but Gouray feels that the financial advantage of selling the rights is essential.

"What we are not prepared to happen, and I am sure our fans will appreciate this, is allow our rival clubs in England and Europe to gain a competitive advantage over us in terms of the revenue they can generate through either expanding the capacity of their existing stadia or moving to a new stadium and then invest that upside in their team or the club. Those possibilities are not open to Chelsea for the foreseeable future because of the restrictions in expanding our stadium and the issues around finding a new site, so that means we have to be creative and look at our sponsorship architecture and see if we can create new value and new opportunities that keeps us competitive".

In 2004, Emirates paid Arsenal £50million to acquire naming rights on their new Ashburton Grove stadium for 15 years, and Allianz is charged £4m every twelve months for Bayern Munich's ground to bear its name. In the USA, Citigroup pay £10m so for the new New York Mets baseball arena, now called Citi Field.

Check out http://chelseafc.com for more information.

"With the renaming it was always going to be whatever brand it was, at St James' Park. For the remainder of this season, we already have sportsdirect.com on the Gallowgate so we'd like to take that branding through the rest of the stadium."
Derek Llambias, Manging Director

Tampering with brand equity is risky business, particularly when the equity is built by generations of sports fanatics.

How do you think it's going to be received by the Newcastle United faithful? In changing the Official Name of Newcastle United's home ground, are they changing the very essence of the club itself?

Post your comments below and read more on the debate on BBC Sport's 606 debate