manc-mag

Chez, you're bigger than this, mate. Well your cock is anyway.

Couldn't disagree more. Fair enough if it was at Highbury it was a new ground called Ashburton Grove, sounded like a road off Stanhope Street. Aye, really respectful of tradition. The point isnt a complex one, moving a stadium for naked commercial reasons is more of an affront to the traditon and history of a club than a reversible name change. The relevance is that the media and you have argued that it's ok to move a stadium for clear commercial reasons but not to rename. As I said, I thought that was unfair and probably deliberate on the part of the media. But you can say the tradition of the club is striving for excellence on the pitch. So doing it for those reasons is consistent with the traditions of the club. That was undoubtedly the reason Arsenal did it.

Deadman is through the looking glass while the rest of us are all arguing amongst ourselves. Jesus O' Reilly.

Leazes you're like a dog with a bone (covered in shit).

Leazes, I'm not getting into it man. Your inadequacies are palpable and genuinely obsessive.

'tradition': objective (in other words 'the status quo'), so yes 'affront to': subjective. ie you're less 'affronted' depending on the motives for doing something. Moving grounds is undoubtedly a bigger 'change' to tradition, but this is biggery affrontery as far as I'm concerned. I disagree, it will take seconds to reverse this but would take months to rebuild roker park. The place where history took place, where all the great games in our history took place still exists. The place where the great games at Roker Park took place is no longer there. It'll take seconds to reverse it starting from when he no longer owns the club, which is anyone's guess.

'tradition': objective (in other words 'the status quo'), so yes 'affront to': subjective. ie you're less 'affronted' depending on the motives for doing something. Moving grounds is undoubtedly a bigger 'change' to tradition, but this is biggery affrontery as far as I'm concerned. your use of apostrophes is almost as amusing as the sitting on the fence rubbish you've been spouting for years. Oh well, at least you are now finally coming round to saying what I've been telling you all this time. How obsessed are you with me btw? I've actually directly contradicted a lot of what you've been saying in my last few posts and yet you're trying to claim I'm agreeing with you you bizarre manchild. Give it a rest. You basically didn't want the last lot to go, we all know that, but stop trying to graft random and frequently conflicting subsequent events into some unified clairvoyance theory you reckon you've had from day one. You're talking out of your arse.

Surprised Pardew wasn't wheeled out to do the Press Con for this on his tod btw.

'tradition': objective (in other words 'the status quo'), so yes 'affront to': subjective. ie you're less 'affronted' depending on the motives for doing something. Moving grounds is undoubtedly a bigger 'change' to tradition, but this is biggery affrontery as far as I'm concerned.

True dat, Laurence!

:lol: Just scanned back through the thread as it's been hard to keep up with while posting. Summat to laugh at, thank fuck for that!

Good post but I don't agree it's all about cash, I think he likes to flex his power and seek vengeance for his bruised ego. If it was simply about the cash why not do it sooner, why not do it when we were relegated when we 'needed' the cash? I can't believe a company would risk coming in and anyone from 'international branding experts' to the fucking tea lady would say don't do this, no-one will buy it and you'll be hated. He knows this, he's not daft. So it's free advertising to SD and another fuck you to the fans who sing nasty things about him. 'Dekka they're still singing that fahkin song!' 'Okay boss, I'll have a word with them'...../releases condescending guff 'I heard that song again Del Boy! What did I say you specky cahnt!' 'I'm sorry Mike, I don't know what else to do.' 'I fahkin do, let's do away with St James' Park.' .......... Ego's got him all that cash. You might be right mate purely on the psychology I don't know. Ego no doubt plays a massive part in everything he does, but I spose if you were being less sentimental about it (in absolutely no way a criticism of you as if you don't experience an emotional reaction to this then you've no business as a fan), you might equally characterise it as 'instinct' rather than ego. Ie "fuck it and screw the consequences, it's got SD written on it so it'll line my pockets". His instinct is pure, unsentimental commercialism. If that is the truth that is possible worse then the spiteful megalomaniac I put forward. It would mean he does not even consider the fans, it would mean he is a cold blooded cunt. Didn't he have some relationship with the fans in the early days that suggested some room for non commercial thinking? My belief to this day was that he bought it as a plaything, hang on to it for a few years, have a bit of fun (ego) and then you sell on at an inevitable profit. I'm convinced of it, simply because thats what was happening all around with clubs being sold for daft sums to chancy speculators. Look at Portsmouth. I think all that's backed up by no due diligence, continuing to pay silly money signings/wages etc and pissing about in the Bigg Market with the fans. It was that type of climate. Then when the banking sector collapsed, 99% of his exit strategy disappeared overnight, causing it to dawn on him that he had something that was actually costing shed loads of cash which nee fucker could afford to buy. That's when he had to start to look at it in a different light and start to put the austerity measures in. That's why for me when people say this was his plan from the word go and it was obvious to them they're just talking out of their arses. It's clearly changed over time-the only thing that hasn't is him as a person. And on that point I buy what Alex says because its the only thing that makes sense.

Good post but I don't agree it's all about cash, I think he likes to flex his power and seek vengeance for his bruised ego. If it was simply about the cash why not do it sooner, why not do it when we were relegated when we 'needed' the cash? I can't believe a company would risk coming in and anyone from 'international branding experts' to the fucking tea lady would say don't do this, no-one will buy it and you'll be hated. He knows this, he's not daft. So it's free advertising to SD and another fuck you to the fans who sing nasty things about him. 'Dekka they're still singing that fahkin song!' 'Okay boss, I'll have a word with them'...../releases condescending guff 'I heard that song again Del Boy! What did I say you specky cahnt!' 'I'm sorry Mike, I don't know what else to do.' 'I fahkin do, let's do away with St James' Park.' .......... Ego's got him all that cash. You might be right mate purely on the psychology I don't know. Ego no doubt plays a massive part in everything he does, but I spose if you were being less sentimental about it (in absolutely no way a criticism of you as if you don't experience an emotional reaction to this then you've no business as a fan), you might equally characterise it as 'instinct' rather than ego. Ie "fuck it and screw the consequences, it's got SD written on it so it'll line my pockets". His instinct is pure, unsentimental commercialism.

Aye, in a nutshell for me. Can't remember who said it but one poster on here used a really good turn of phrase where it's like he's got SD as his 'favourite son' and the Toon just ends up a bit of a whipping boy. It's understandable on the one hand I suppose where you've got someone who is completely unsentimental and one of the two 'sons' has made him a billionaire and the other has (to date) cost him money. It's not to say I think he deliberately devalues the second asset - it's simply just not in his interests to do so - and I think he'll feel he's justifiably cottoned on to a good strategy with the new team financing policies thus far, but the point is something like this where this is no discernible benefit to the club (sorry team positive but it is just a lie, we've got to accept that), it is a hindrance to the galvanizing efforts of other elements within the football club as it sets people (management and fans) against each other once again....and when we're actually playing like a proud football club for fucks sake!

By the way, any of the Sky TV lot coming out and deriding the name change, well thank you and I agree absolutely but you can fuck off quite frankly because at the end of the day this has 'the Sky TV effect' stamped all over it.

This is all over the fucking shop for me like. Firstly, on it’s most basic, emotional level it is just an utter, utter kick in the teeth. Then you sort of find yourself asking, well okay, if it'll always be SJP to the fans, are there any circumstances at all where you’d be accepting of a name change-and the club’s argument is perhaps the only one, ie if it was a revenue stream for the good of the club. Only you know that that isn’t actually going to happen because they’re lying about that aspect of it. Then you hear the stuff on here about “renaming was always his intention from the beginning and I’ve always called it that way” etc etc and that’s a load of old shite too, because 1. he’d have done it far earlier and 2. he’s tried to sell the club at least once. Then you hear John Hall being “quoted” on here as saying it was always Ashley’s intention to do this, and then you see him coming out and saying “I’m as surprised as anyone else and it’s wrong etc blah blah” Then it begs the hypothetical question for the ‘just increase revenues and we’ll be back in the Champions League’ element– ie (ignoring the fact the club is lying), would this hypothetically be an acceptable way of raising money if it was ploughed into the club? ie how much are you willing to accept in pursuit of those revenues, because otherwise it is just a case of asking for Ashley subsidies, which is a weak argument. Then theres the fact this is completely unprecedented in English top flight football as a renaming exercise ie it’s not to finance a ground move, it’s not the naming of a new ground, it is simply slapping a logo over 130 years of history and hence it's just a fucking insult. At the end of the day I can’t help but just come to the basic conclusion that it represents cash and hence it’s up for grabs as far as MA is concerned. It is simply THE ONLY factor he considers and literally nothing else is of relevance to him. So we continue to be constantly affected by decisions like this on a whim as and when things opportunistically occur to him. I genuinely can’t think of any other consistent ‘narrative’ than that. Fuck me gently.

Trespass isnt a criminal offence per se in the UK. Except on things like the railways etc (for good reason). In all standard circumstances the landowner has an innate remedy in that they are entitled to use reasonable force to remove you and so they don't need recourse to the criminal law. The sign 'Trespassers will be Prosecuted' is a legal misnomer. It's a 'free country' as it were.

I reckon if you got caught it'd be a public order offence you'd be charged with (criminal offence). It's only trespassing really if you look at it one way (not a criminal offence at all), but I think they'd claim what you were specifically up to amounted to some sort of incitement/disturbance, which then risks criminal sanction. Specifically the act of covering something with a banner and then removing it yourself would be very hard to prove as 'damage'. I suppose theres a form of financial damage in not having your branding displayed as intended, but if it wasn't them having to pay to have the sign restored and it was only temporary then you'd argue it didnt amount to damage under de minimus principles (ie basically too trivial to warrant the intervention of the criminal law).

You might get done for criminal damage like, in as much as it would cost money to 'repair' the damage (remove the covering). Obviously if you did you'd defend yourself by saying it didn't amount to 'damage' (ie permanent physical damage) and argue it was just a civil matter-ie they should only be sueing you for the cost of removing the covers. You'd probably get done for some sort of public order offence if you were caught in the act like. I'm glad someone asked a legal question by the way cos I've just been fucking dumbstruck by this all day and haven't even been able to write a sentence for 24 hours.

yeah mentioned earlier they're wearing armstrips.

Presumably because there isn't a corresponding rule about armbands.

But then we can sell him on to the dippers for £50 million!!!!!!11ONE!!! *narrative*

Jessica Jane Clement in this years I'm a Celebrity btw. Might actually be worth watching for a change.

That is mint.

Fuck off please.