Change @ St. James

[DEADMAN 0]

get this if you remove direct from the sports direct arena get this title. s for sports a for arena and fc for football club that makes safc sunderland afc get it im suprised no one noticed it

[McFaul 35]

Chez gunning for CT's vacant Mary, Mary crown

It will take seconds to reverse this and a couple of days to pull down the SD branding from the round the ground so I think it's fair to argue against (mainly media driven) arguments about this being the biggest insult to football traditions in the modern game. I think the media are trying to fuel anger. The early editions of the nationals yesterday all talked of fan fury, articles sub-edited by 10pm the evening before, a full 2 hours before the news properly broke. They got it right of course but they made sure they stoked it too.

I don't see any relevance in this paragraph to anything, anything at all.

[ChezGiven 0]

DK you're just repeating Gemmill's argument, you're either pissed off at the lack of respect for tradition or you're pissed off that the trade off or pay-off for the loss of tradition is not big enough. If it's the latter then that's fine, my point is that the affront to tradition itself of moving a stadium is bigger, the media argued the opposite (not people on here that much), I just wanted to highlight that seemed unfair to me.

Personally I'm pissed off at the needless affront to tradition. I could accept it if their was a benefit to the club but I would still be pissed off. I can't accept it in this case because it's being done soley to benefit a fat cunt.

Your point about moving a stadium being a bigger affront is valid but you have to accept that the pain people have felt and would feel about that is eased by the benefit it brings to their club and in our case we don't have any benefit and that is what makes this different and more hurtful.

I agree and it looks like we will be playing with SD on the shirts next year. I can't understand how or why they would give shirt sponsorship away for free but it is possible!

 

On the upside, the calculatedness of events suggests they will bring in a striker in January. Instead of it being positioned as use of the Carroll money, they will make reference to this but we're all used to the bullshit and we do need another striker.

[Guest alex]

I agree with Chez's point that something like, for example, The Emirates was, if anything, more of an attack on tradition that this. Arsenal also got a fuck load more out of the deal than we are getting out of this though, which is why it's more acceptable in the eyes of supporters.

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.

You need to look at the whole point I was making tbh. Also, moving away from their home and turned their old home into flats. Well, that's about as much of an attack as you can get on that particular tradition, i.e. Highbury. Like I said though, there's a reason why that was more acceptable. I was agreeing with Chez on that narrow point but I wasn't justifying Ashley's actions in any way, shape or form. Arsenal did it for a good reason, Ashley hasn't.

[trophyshy 6453]

get this if you remove direct from the sports direct arena get this title. s for sports a for arena and fc for football club that makes safc sunderland afc get it im suprised no one noticed it

 

Remove the s and replace 'club' with 'team'.

[Toonpack 7077]

get this if you remove direct from the sports direct arena get this title. s for sports a for arena and fc for football club that makes safc sunderland afc get it im suprised no one noticed it

 

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

[DEADMAN 0]

what that made no sense lol

[manc-mag 1]

 

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

 

Jesus O' Reilly.

[Toonpack 7077]

what that made no sense lol

 

Exactly, just like Leazes

[Gejon 2]

Even if this £8m-10m does go back into the team in respect of transfers I have little doubt that will be the only money available, is that acceptable?

 

Did Ashley and Llambias really expect to run us as a remotely competitive club (even their top 10 every year) target without spending and selling the better players?

[ChezGiven 0]

I agree with Chez's point that something like, for example, The Emirates was, if anything, more of an attack on tradition that this. Arsenal also got a fuck load more out of the deal than we are getting out of this though, which is why it's more acceptable in the eyes of supporters.

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.

[Gejon 2]

get this if you remove direct from the sports direct arena get this title. s for sports a for arena and fc for football club that makes safc sunderland afc get it im suprised no one noticed it

 

The Mackems noticed it and it's retarded, no offence.

[Guest alex]

TP, if I've read you right, your whole argument is predicated on a brand coming forward and taking over the naming rights / shirt sponsorship, aye?

 

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?

Edited November 11, 2011 by alex

[David Kelly 1117]

DK you're just repeating Gemmill's argument, you're either pissed off at the lack of respect for tradition or you're pissed off that the trade off or pay-off for the loss of tradition is not big enough. If it's the latter then that's fine, my point is that the affront to tradition itself of moving a stadium is bigger, the media argued the opposite (not people on here that much), I just wanted to highlight that seemed unfair to me.

Personally I'm pissed off at the needless affront to tradition. I could accept it if their was a benefit to the club but I would still be pissed off. I can't accept it in this case because it's being done soley to benefit a fat cunt.

Your point about moving a stadium being a bigger affront is valid but you have to accept that the pain people have felt and would feel about that is eased by the benefit it brings to their club and in our case we don't have any benefit and that is what makes this different and more hurtful.

I agree and it looks like we will be playing with SD on the shirts next year. I can't understand how or why they would give shirt sponsorship away for free but it is possible!

 

On the upside, the calculatedness of events suggests they will bring in a striker in January. Instead of it being positioned as use of the Carroll money, they will make reference to this but we're all used to the bullshit and we do need another striker.

I hope so but fear it actually makes the signing of a new striker less likey. When they don't get this £8m=£10m in they have already set up their excuse for not spending and they go on to blame it on us for kicking up a storm and frightening off investment.

[manc-mag 1]

I agree with Chez's point that something like, for example, The Emirates was, if anything, more of an attack on tradition that this. Arsenal also got a fuck load more out of the deal than we are getting out of this though, which is why it's more acceptable in the eyes of supporters.

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.

[sammynb 2934]

I agree with Chez's point that something like, for example, The Emirates was, if anything, more of an attack on tradition that this. Arsenal also got a fuck load more out of the deal than we are getting out of this though, which is why it's more acceptable in the eyes of supporters.

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.

[Toonpack 7077]

TP, if I've read you right, your whole argument is predicated on a brand coming forward and taking over the naming rights / shirt sponsorship, aye?

 

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

[manc-mag 1]

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

[Toonpack 7077]

I agree with Chez's point that something like, for example, The Emirates was, if anything, more of an attack on tradition that this. Arsenal also got a fuck load more out of the deal than we are getting out of this though, which is why it's more acceptable in the eyes of supporters.

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) ???

[Guest alex]

TP, if I've read you right, your whole argument is predicated on a brand coming forward and taking over the naming rights / shirt sponsorship, aye?

 

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.

[DEADMAN 0]

hey up lambeyarse says there gonna need new sponser shirts here we go sports direct on the shirts is coming.

Edited November 11, 2011 by DEADMAN

[manc-mag 1]

hey up lambeyarse says there gonna need new sponser shirts here we go sports direct on the shirts is coming.

 

How do you always stay once step ahead, Deaders?

[Barney 0]

shit loads of porno.

[McFaul 35]

I agree with Chez's point that something like, for example, The Emirates was, if anything, more of an attack on tradition that this. Arsenal also got a fuck load more out of the deal than we are getting out of this though, which is why it's more acceptable in the eyes of supporters.

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.

Regarding the media being frenzied and reporting that there are wild objections two hours before they could have known is a moot point for me. It's irrelevant because it was obvious that it would get the adverse reaction, the only plausible way I can see for anyone to have another point of view is to wind people up like Adrian Durham clearly did last night.

 

Alex the point about them changing Highbury in to a block of flats, lets face it Arsenal should be one of the five best clubs in the world. They really should, I've said this before and it's true, if you added up all of the football fans in South East England my guess is over 40% of them would support Arsenal, every fucka supports them. They have a bigger worldwide support than all bar Man Utd, Africans love them, Asians love them, the French love them they're fucking massive. They couldn't continue at Highbury to compete at the level they had, as sad as it was for them to leave there was NO OPPOSITION. 38,000 wasn't enough for them to compete.

 

Don't get me wrong I'm sure you've been to Highbury loads of times the same as I have, and you will know there's a main road behind the East Stand, gardens behind the North Bank and Clock End, and behind the East End 6 bedroom Edwardian mansions. So they couldn't do anything at all. As for turning them in to flats it made them £100m and the flats actually look very stylish and the buildings are still intact.

 

We're not moving anywhere, we're staying in our home, just making ourselves look like Gwhat Shops at every corner. He is to Newcastle United what T Dan Smith was to Old Eldon Square. Younguns might not remember Reggie Perrin, but he was a self made millionaire, he was thick as fuck, didn't have a clue what he was doing, he was a psychopath, and he made his millions by literally selling absolute shite. Reggie Perrin is Ashley to a t, and I'm sorry like but I reject the notion of what Arsenal did being worse, for one the public accepted it, no one, apart from people trying to be clever accepts this.

Edited November 11, 2011 by McFaul

[sammynb 2934]

I agree with Chez's point that something like, for example, The Emirates was, if anything, more of an attack on tradition that this. Arsenal also got a fuck load more out of the deal than we are getting out of this though, which is why it's more acceptable in the eyes of supporters.

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) ???

 

Fine line, son, fine fucking line and you know it's bullshite - now answer.

 

btw, if it's purely buns on seats and allegedly we could sell out the "stadium" (fuck off to the arena crap) wouldn't it be more profitable in the long run to expand the stadium by 5000 seats?