Toonpack

Would it be OK if it was flattened and a new one built called something else ??? I couldn't give a shit what Wembley is called. Your question should be directed at said southern journalists. Toonpack continues to defend Mike Ashley for all he's worth, even though he "made his mind up about him" on 1st september 2011. Poor bloke is too late, he's realised at last he is "recouping" [4 years after being told this by myself] but STILL defends him. What did he think Ashley to do with the money from the sales of Carroll particularly I wonder ? I've asked him this, but true to form, he didn't reply, same as he hasn't replied to a particularly well made comment from sammyb [i think ]. Edit....just dropped in, away until Monday. Sadly your lack of comprehension resurfaces. Recouping is significantly different to "pocketing". My posts are not a defence either by the way. Please point out which one's are. Second bold bit, please re-post or quote it and I'll respond, if appropriate, I must have missed it. As for not answering, sadly I can't answer in pictures, maybe if I could, you would then understand what I am saying. sadly, your comprehension of a progressive club is non-existent, as it has always been. I'll give you a clue ... you back your manager while you actually own it, rather than sell the "business" for a profit [would you not do differently] ? Enough clues for the moment, or are you about to confirm the meaning of "clueless" You can do that admirably, without any help from me

Would it be OK if it was flattened and a new one built called something else ??? I couldn't give a shit what Wembley is called. Your question should be directed at said southern journalists. Toonpack continues to defend Mike Ashley for all he's worth, even though he "made his mind up about him" on 1st september 2011. Poor bloke is too late, he's realised at last he is "recouping" [4 years after being told this by myself] but STILL defends him. What did he think Ashley to do with the money from the sales of Carroll particularly I wonder ? I've asked him this, but true to form, he didn't reply, same as he hasn't replied to a particularly well made comment from sammyb [i think ]. Edit....just dropped in, away until Monday. Sadly your lack of comprehension resurfaces. Recouping is significantly different to "pocketing". My posts are not a defence either by the way. Please point out which one's are. Second bold bit, please re-post or quote it and I'll respond, if appropriate, I must have missed it. As for not answering, sadly I can't answer in pictures, maybe if I could, you would then understand what I am saying.

All the while he's exposed personally to the tune of £150 Million-ish. Be quicker to use SD as a vehicle to pay NUFC and recoup his personal exposure from profit taking/re-allocation. Win, win, sort of (for him).

Would it be OK if it was flattened and a new one built called something else ???

Yep, you're right. You are in a minority A tiny monority on here, yes, elsewhere strangely not.

Agree on that mind. Edit, having thought about it a bit more: I'd be surprised if it was free mind, SD's cash isn't his per se, they will have a marketing budget and he could quite properly use that to sponsor NUFC, where he is really personally exposed, diverting some to reduce said exposure. I also don't hold with the "he bought the club solely to promote SD" theory, certainly the link does SD no harm, but it has cost him (personally, not SD) in total around £280 Million, he could have got the much better exposure for SD by not spending a penny of his own cash and simply sponsoring a club via SD at much less cost. For less he could have had SD on Man U shirts for the last 5 years, as an example. He's nothing if not a brilliant businessman and spending more to get less doesn't fit the "brilliant businessman" model.

Don't like the truth eh?

Everything you've said is obvious though. The whole lot. It's obvious there's a ven diagram out there somewhere, where you could gauge a financial benefit that would meet public acceptance for the bastardisation of 130 years of history and culture. Only an idiot could see there isn't but to me and I respect you a lot, clearly a very bright astute intelligent lad, but the vast majority of your posts on this thread are like when someones in sixth form in the common room hoping to be voted debater of the month. Beginning to talk about the Arsenal example is a ridiculous tangent and at this moment in time, there's little or strong evidence (based on past history) there's a willingness to generate additional income for the football club by "show casing" the naming rights. They aren't that stupid, they will have calculated what the reaction would be, they are aware that the adverse reaction will short term and long term put big business off. Why??? To show case his scabby company. It's that simple, going off at tangents about the heritage of the city I find almost antagonistic when the basic subject hits you in the face. It's not though. you started that discussion indirectly. I believe you used the phrase"destruction of history" or some such. What Arsenal did is far worse they totally irradicated their heritage, what Ashley has done is inconsequential in comparison. I will call it SJP, you will call it SJP, everyone on this thread will call it SJP, the council and those MP's will call it SJP, football fans in general will call it SJP, many media types will still call it, or know it, as SJP (except where they contractually can't). It has not, and will not, have gone anywhere. There is no new law where anyone who matters (the fans) MUST on pain of death call it SDA and not ever mention SJP again . It is an irrelevance. Do I agree with it, not a jot, but think about it man! The history is still there SJP is still there, on some TV shows and the club website it's called something else, but where it matters, in the city and in football culture it is still SJP. The culture/heritage of the place/city is unchanged. To be honest about it, most called SJP "the ground" (certainly was/is by me and those I know) and probably a lot of people on this thread, "what time you going up to the ground" etc etc Should all who have the temerity to call it "the ground" be villified for the destruction of history. In terms of the the commercial aspects, it's a thoroughly predicatable "happening", the game is driven by money, every possible angle will be exploited to generate money. Whether we (as a club) gain income from it is moot, it is simply yet another example of the commercialism/exploitation that has killed the game (in terms of it's heritage). Just think how seriously some teams take the FA Cup these days for example. Go on, think about it. In terms of destruction of heritage, someone wanting to call a ground something else ranks way below many other things that have been accepted in the last 20 years or so, including the bulldozing of stadiums. No doubt this will be interpretted by some as me supporting the move. I do not, but it is utterly predictable, and I am totally abivalent towards it and we certainly won't be the last.

top comments. I agree with every word. Apart from saying there remains a - small on here anyway - number of people who think there is a benefit and the Fat Man is doing the proper thing for the football club. No-one has said that at all. Comprehension again !!!

Not really, my argument (not that it's even an argument, more of a premise) is that renaming the Stadium is just another potential revenue stream being exploited (very potentially in this case) and that in terms of cocking a snook at history, it is less violent than a bulldozer. But no different in it's intention. He may not be paying for it (contributing to revenue) but he owns the place lock stock and barrel, he can and will do whatever he wants and to open the can of worms, the club owes him a huge wedge and he aint (yet) charging interest. The bit I don't get, is that SD will have a significant marketing budget (well they should have, but their TV adds maybe suggest they're in Mr Rhaman zips territory) why doesn't he get SD to "really" sponsor the Club/Shirt he could use that cash to reduce his exposure. Club would be debt free quicker and thus a more saleable proposition at no cost to him personally. A sub point is that, for the freebie vehicle to really work, NUFC have to be better than your run of the mill prem team. So the question is, if that is the case, what's the problem if it's a freebie, if the team is doing OK/well. He's done the UK like a kipper, he's after foreign expansion, run of the mill isn't going to get that much exposure. So do you accept that the talk of bringing in £8m/£10 a year and it paying for a new player is a complete lie then? Not sure what you're driving at tbh. If it brought in £8Mill/£10 Mill a year I would expect it to contribute to the club thus and it's transfer dealings Do you think that's likely to happen btw? Howay man. Well you're the one who asked IF 8-10 Mill came in, what did I think it would be used for, I simply answered

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. I call Bullshit. Arsenal moved because they needed a bigger stadium, tradition or no tradition - it was purely about seats for bums and to argue it was about a commercial reason is rewriting history. What, if not commercial reasons, are bums on seats (and increased prices btw) ???

Not really, my argument (not that it's even an argument, more of a premise) is that renaming the Stadium is just another potential revenue stream being exploited (very potentially in this case) and that in terms of cocking a snook at history, it is less violent than a bulldozer. But no different in it's intention. He may not be paying for it (contributing to revenue) but he owns the place lock stock and barrel, he can and will do whatever he wants and to open the can of worms, the club owes him a huge wedge and he aint (yet) charging interest. The bit I don't get, is that SD will have a significant marketing budget (well they should have, but their TV adds maybe suggest they're in Mr Rhaman zips territory) why doesn't he get SD to "really" sponsor the Club/Shirt he could use that cash to reduce his exposure. Club would be debt free quicker and thus a more saleable proposition at no cost to him personally. A sub point is that, for the freebie vehicle to really work, NUFC have to be better than your run of the mill prem team. So the question is, if that is the case, what's the problem if it's a freebie, if the team is doing OK/well. He's done the UK like a kipper, he's after foreign expansion, run of the mill isn't going to get that much exposure. So do you accept that the talk of bringing in £8m/£10 a year and it paying for a new player is a complete lie then? Not sure what you're driving at tbh. If it brought in £8Mill/£10 Mill a year I would expect it to contribute to the club thus and it's transfer dealings

Exactly, just like Leazes

Genius If you take the S and apostrophy from St James' Park and put it in the middle of Leazesmag'Sgotalzheimers you get Leazesmag'sgotalzheimers Surprised no-one noticed it

Not really, my argument (not that it's even an argument, more of a premise) is that renaming the Stadium is just another potential revenue stream being exploited (very potentially in this case) and that in terms of cocking a snook at history, it is less violent than a bulldozer. But no different in it's intention. He may not be paying for it (contributing to revenue) but he owns the place lock stock and barrel, he can and will do whatever he wants and to open the can of worms, the club owes him a huge wedge and he aint (yet) charging interest. The bit I don't get, is that SD will have a significant marketing budget (well they should have, but their TV adds maybe suggest they're in Mr Rhaman zips territory) why doesn't he get SD to "really" sponsor the Club/Shirt he could use that cash to reduce his exposure. Club would be debt free quicker and thus a more saleable proposition at no cost to him personally. A sub point is that, for the freebie vehicle to really work, NUFC have to be better than your run of the mill prem team. So the question is, if that is the case, what's the problem if it's a freebie, if the team is doing OK/well. He's done the UK like a kipper, he's after foreign expansion, run of the mill isn't going to get that much exposure. Does it really? It's not like buying shares in Lonsdale, NUFC is a different beast entirely. Not talking about buying shares, it's about £130 Mill in loans I believe. It's not a loan if you own the thing, it's called subsidising an investment - totally different. The guy thought we could be a Lonsdale/slazenger, turns out we weren't so any money he puts in is his own fault. Oh I absolutely agree it's his own fault, always have, but thank fuck he did.

Please substantiate that, go on, really P.S. Is it an unforgivable and heinous crime (if he was) ? I thought you said that it was what happens on the pitch that counts ? When is he going to match the league positions and european qualifications on the pitch, which will not be achieved if he pockets the cash while he owns the club and doesn't back his managers while he owns the club ? I have my doubts that you will see this, even though he has dragged the average position massively downwards [another thing you quoted recently as "proof" of something, fuck knows what] What a surprise, same old same old Wheres the substantiation?? Also I shall reiterate (that means say again, or repeat) my second question, is pocketing the cash whilst owning/being in charge the act of a twat ?? not backing your managers, and selling your best players and pocketing the cash......does 35m quid ring any bells...... As you said, your man is "recouping"....I told you that years ago man. Recouping is somewhat different to pocketing. Please detail the amounts pocketed.

Please substantiate that, go on, really P.S. Is it an unforgivable and heinous crime (if he was) ? I thought you said that it was what happens on the pitch that counts ? When is he going to match the league positions and european qualifications on the pitch, which will not be achieved if he pockets the cash while he owns the club and doesn't back his managers while he owns the club ? I have my doubts that you will see this, even though he has dragged the average position massively downwards [another thing you quoted recently as "proof" of something, fuck knows what] What a surprise, same old same old Wheres the substantiation?? Also I shall reiterate (that means say again, or repeat) my second question, is pocketing the cash whilst owning/being in charge the act of a twat ??

Please substantiate that, go on, really P.S. Is it an unforgivable and heinous crime (if he was) ?

Not really, my argument (not that it's even an argument, more of a premise) is that renaming the Stadium is just another potential revenue stream being exploited (very potentially in this case) and that in terms of cocking a snook at history, it is less violent than a bulldozer. But no different in it's intention. He may not be paying for it (contributing to revenue) but he owns the place lock stock and barrel, he can and will do whatever he wants and to open the can of worms, the club owes him a huge wedge and he aint (yet) charging interest. The bit I don't get, is that SD will have a significant marketing budget (well they should have, but their TV adds maybe suggest they're in Mr Rhaman zips territory) why doesn't he get SD to "really" sponsor the Club/Shirt he could use that cash to reduce his exposure. Club would be debt free quicker and thus a more saleable proposition at no cost to him personally. A sub point is that, for the freebie vehicle to really work, NUFC have to be better than your run of the mill prem team. So the question is, if that is the case, what's the problem if it's a freebie, if the team is doing OK/well. He's done the UK like a kipper, he's after foreign expansion, run of the mill isn't going to get that much exposure. Does it really? It's not like buying shares in Lonsdale, NUFC is a different beast entirely. Not talking about buying shares, it's about £130 Mill in loans I believe.

Not really, my argument (not that it's even an argument, more of a premise) is that renaming the Stadium is just another potential revenue stream being exploited (very potentially in this case) and that in terms of cocking a snook at history, it is less violent than a bulldozer. But no different in it's intention. He may not be paying for it (contributing to revenue) but he owns the place lock stock and barrel, he can and will do whatever he wants and to open the can of worms, the club owes him a huge wedge and he aint (yet) charging interest. The bit I don't get, is that SD will have a significant marketing budget (well they should have, but their TV adds maybe suggest they're in Mr Rhaman zips territory) why doesn't he get SD to "really" sponsor the Club/Shirt he could use that cash to reduce his exposure. Club would be debt free quicker and thus a more saleable proposition at no cost to him personally. A sub point is that, for the freebie vehicle to really work, NUFC have to be better than your run of the mill prem team. So the question is, if that is the case, what's the problem if it's a freebie, if the team is doing OK/well. He's done the UK like a kipper, he's after foreign expansion, run of the mill isn't going to get that much exposure. didn't you say a few days ago that its what happens on the pitch that is important ? Mind you, the last time you said that, you then babbled on about anything but that for months on end afterwards too. Yes I did, where have I said different.

That's the bit I don't get. In all this talk of destruction of history, for example, Arsenal built flats on their's, Highbury is gone completely. THAT is destruction of history, SJP is and always will be SJP. Actually he may have played a blinder, he's taking all the shit, new sponsor (maybe) comes a long and it becomes FedEx at St James Park, "oooh look they've respected history and brought the name back" acceptance all round. (not that the name will go anywhere anyway). Don't some of these clubs have to move though as their current grounds aren't big enough and they can't develop them? It's still a kick in histories balls but is a bit more understandable imo. It's exactly the same in principle, need more revenue = fuck history. The issue here is, this isn't bringing in more revenue. he doesn't get it man Alex. He said he would "revaluate" his views on Mike Ashleys ambitions for the club, he thought we would spend the 35m for Carroll, but instead its been pocketed. The same as money from this name change will go. NUFC is just a vehicle to promote Sports Direct now, this is what he wanted, and there will be more to come yet. The likes of Toonpack etc will defend him until the day he sells, then they will change their position - but by then they will be tired of competing among the dross clubs again, although they won't admit it. Pocketed !! my favourite Leazes buffonery To do that effectively NUFC have to be succesfull P.S. I never said we would spend the Carroll money, but as ever comprehension remains incomprehensible to you. my favourite Toonpack denial state, he knows that he said for months that he would "give Ashley until 1st September", so maybe he will clarify what exactly he was waiting to see happen ? I won't hold my breath on this one. How many times Now for the last time (I promise), I said that come the 1st September we would know his intentions, he would either spend or recoup. It would appear he is recouping . in other words, its taken you too, years to get around to realising I was right in what I have been telling you about his intentions, and he is pocketing the cash rather than backing his managers ? He's not (yet) See previous club history for a demonstration of pocketing

Not really, my argument (not that it's even an argument, more of a premise) is that renaming the Stadium is just another potential revenue stream being exploited (very potentially in this case) and that in terms of cocking a snook at history, it is less violent than a bulldozer. But no different in it's intention. He may not be paying for it (contributing to revenue) but he owns the place lock stock and barrel, he can and will do whatever he wants and to open the can of worms, the club owes him a huge wedge and he aint (yet) charging interest. The bit I don't get, is that SD will have a significant marketing budget (well they should have, but their TV adds maybe suggest they're in Mr Rhaman zips territory) why doesn't he get SD to "really" sponsor the Club/Shirt he could use that cash to reduce his exposure. Club would be debt free quicker and thus a more saleable proposition at no cost to him personally. A sub point is that, for the freebie vehicle to really work, NUFC have to be better than your run of the mill prem team. So the question is, if that is the case, what's the problem if it's a freebie, if the team is doing OK/well. He's done the UK like a kipper, he's after foreign expansion, run of the mill isn't going to get that much exposure.

That's the bit I don't get. In all this talk of destruction of history, for example, Arsenal built flats on their's, Highbury is gone completely. THAT is destruction of history, SJP is and always will be SJP. Actually he may have played a blinder, he's taking all the shit, new sponsor (maybe) comes a long and it becomes FedEx at St James Park, "oooh look they've respected history and brought the name back" acceptance all round. (not that the name will go anywhere anyway). Don't some of these clubs have to move though as their current grounds aren't big enough and they can't develop them? It's still a kick in histories balls but is a bit more understandable imo. It's exactly the same in principle, need more revenue = fuck history. I wouldn't say it's exactly the same, at least a stadium move due to expansion gives more fans a chance to follow their team. Obviously the club will be happy with the increased revenue but put it this way, I doubt the Arsenal fans kicked off as much as we are about this. That's true and more importantly maybe alex's response is too. However the point I was making was that the media, who have had this story for a few days, have jumped through a massive bullshit hoop to peg this as the defining example of modern football's attitudes to tradition in the game. Moving a stadium may mean that the PR is easier and it's more easy to sell to fans because of clear commercial reasons but it does not mean that move is less dis-respectful to tradition than just re-naming a stadium. That line was peddled by the telegraph, the mail, the guardian and the times. For all I know thes rest did too. It's true that there are clearer reasons but the traditions of the game and the history of clubs is far more dis-respected when the stadium is hauled down, moved and 'named', than by a re-naming. Alex rightly points out that these moves had commercial benefits but that implies that if there were commercial benefits for us, re-naming would be ok, which am not sure is true. When a club relocates, it's generally because they've outgrown their old ground, and there isn't the space/infrastructure to develop on the current site. It's not just a difference in PR, it's a completely different issue to just changing the name of a ground for some free advertising, in that one is brought about by necessity to exploit revenue. Tidied How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that we aren't getting any revenue from this? This is just to "showcase" what a good idea it is. So what, if the "showcase" does work, it will generate revenue. Even if it he has no intention of it working (in terms of an external sponsor) as his freebie vehicle the team/performance has to be decent. Even with their Oligarch, Chelsea are doing it next season btw

That's the bit I don't get. In all this talk of destruction of history, for example, Arsenal built flats on their's, Highbury is gone completely. THAT is destruction of history, SJP is and always will be SJP. Actually he may have played a blinder, he's taking all the shit, new sponsor (maybe) comes a long and it becomes FedEx at St James Park, "oooh look they've respected history and brought the name back" acceptance all round. (not that the name will go anywhere anyway). Don't some of these clubs have to move though as their current grounds aren't big enough and they can't develop them? It's still a kick in histories balls but is a bit more understandable imo. It's exactly the same in principle, need more revenue = fuck history. I wouldn't say it's exactly the same, at least a stadium move due to expansion gives more fans a chance to follow their team. Obviously the club will be happy with the increased revenue but put it this way, I doubt the Arsenal fans kicked off as much as we are about this. That's true and more importantly maybe alex's response is too. However the point I was making was that the media, who have had this story for a few days, have jumped through a massive bullshit hoop to peg this as the defining example of modern football's attitudes to tradition in the game. Moving a stadium may mean that the PR is easier and it's more easy to sell to fans because of clear commercial reasons but it does not mean that move is less dis-respectful to tradition than just re-naming a stadium. That line was peddled by the telegraph, the mail, the guardian and the times. For all I know thes rest did too. It's true that there are clearer reasons but the traditions of the game and the history of clubs is far more dis-respected when the stadium is hauled down, moved and 'named', than by a re-naming. Alex rightly points out that these moves had commercial benefits but that implies that if there were commercial benefits for us, re-naming would be ok, which am not sure is true. When a club relocates, it's generally because they've outgrown their old ground, and there isn't the space/infrastructure to develop on the current site. It's not just a difference in PR, it's a completely different issue to just changing the name of a ground for some free advertising, in that one is brought about by necessity to exploit revenue. Tidied