SociableSport

Hours before Tiger Woods makes his eagerly awaited return to the media spotlight, we have seen a spike in Twitter activity akin to the November peak when press coverage of his private life hit the heights usually reserved for Royalty and Recession. The collective consciousness is naturally drawn to the Woods story, not in the least part due to the sheer volume of eyeball coverage its continued to draw (by this I mean the coverage in front of our eyeballs). 

http://trendistic.com/tiger-woods/_30-days#

Scandalous interest aside, news of the 'no questions to be asked' press conference will be ringing loud in the ears of those stakeholders who are currently hanging on the words soon to be uttered. Golf has both suffered and profiteered in the incremental attention to Woods. For one, right now Golf is a more popular sport than the Vancouver Games. The BBC will be streaming the interview online in what will no doubt be a prominent position; in a twist of irony, today is the round of 16 in the Accenture Matchplay tournament. Accenture, of course, were the first brand to terminate their association with Woods once the scandal had broken and the timing of Woods' announcement will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the tournament organisers and sponsorship managers looking to generate all the right coverage for all the right reasons.

Having said that, Accenture are, again, receiving a disproportionate amount of coverage. Their sponsorship of the tournament may be predicated on a hospitality strategy and yes, this may be a little awkward for those client entertainers who have to continually reply, "No we don't sponsor Tiger any more; anyway, about that Supply Chain Risk Management product...", but for being front-of-mind among those interested in golf, Accenture are in a very good place right now.

So, Ernie Els' comment, "I feel sorry for the sponsor. Mondays are a good day to make statements, not Friday" may be a little short-sighted. If the BBC and SKY News are talking about your tournament, that's good. Well, it's not perfect - given the context - but you have to be positive in these situations. 

It's the PGA Tour who will be holding their breath. If Woods retires, the tour will be left with a Woods-sized-hole that the sport's next top 5 biggest personalities would struggle to fill. If Woods announces a comeback date, it may well be one of the most watched sporting events of this young decade. This is, arguably, a make-or-break situation for golf's largest tour schedule and one of sport's biggest sponsorship properties.

All we can do is wait and see. 

Another beautiful quote from Jerry Maguire:

I am out here for YOU.... You don't know what it's like being ME out here for YOU!

It is an up-at-dawn, pride-swallowing SIEGE that I will NEVER fully tell you about, ok?!

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