Change @ St. James

[manc-mag 1]

It all kicked off as I started a long weekend, so I've been frustratingly quiet via my phone, but finally in a hotel with good wifi (and a complimentary Mac in every room ) so, sorry if I repeat any thoughts but I've got loads, so here are my top 10....

 

1. NUFC and Spots Direct aren't Ashley's children. Sports Direct is an only child. He's moved into St James Park like an ambitious parent moves close to the best catholic school and pretends to be religious, to increase opportunity for his child.

 

2. ‘‘Newcastle was a brand to him and he wanted to use it to market his business abroad” said Hall.

 

http://www.thenorthe...s_big_concerns/

 

3. For the above reasons, any suggestion that this will bring in funds is complete hogwash.

 

4. For the above reasons any comparison to Chelsea/Arsenal or any other club with a sponsors name on a stand is hogwash.

 

5. For the above reasons any comparison to a stadium move or the rebuilding of a stand is complete hogwash.

 

6. Even if a name change WAS used to bring in funds, it would not be reinvested in the team. We have a strict policy of not wasting spending money on things like proven goalscorers.

 

7. I don't think he'll have us playing in blue and red strips...I think he'll change a lot of the seats in the stadium to blue and red to spell out "Sports Direct" at some point though.

 

8. I'd be interested to know how many NUFC shirts are sold locally and how many are sold worldwide. I still can't decide if it's financially astute to put the Sports Direct name on the shirt. My initial thought was it would be a financial decision, so it wouldn't happen, as local sales would crash, but given point 1, I think that move would be excellent for his international interests with Sports Direct...so it will happen, whatever the cost to NUFC.

 

9. Following the logic of point 1, any sort of outcry/protest/reaction suits Mike Ashley down to the ground as it increases exposure of Sports Direct. This was true of the Keegan sacking, the first name change, pretending to sell, appointing Kinnear/Shearer, relegation, sacking Hughton etc. What Ashley is doing is a tightrope act of Keeping Newcastle in the upper echelons. and in the news by making many shrewd football decisions and offsetting those with controversial decisions to promote himself...and by extension his company.

 

10. Ashley is a cunt

 

‘‘Newcastle was a brand to him and he wanted to use it to market his business abroad – he had a long term vision,” said Hall.

 

which Toonpack and the grey man have been disputing for years when I've told them this, and still do, but I'm sure they know best

 

1. Making things up again

2. Listen for the first 2 seconds (in case you'd switched off before then). http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15682273.stm

 

Sadly, you're so obsessed by one all consuming agenda you're perversely delighting in these events-as evidenced beyond reasonable doubt by your insane number of wildly dissociated posts in this thread. Suddenly now you were predicting ground name changes etc. Aye, righto you told us he'd do that all along, we should have listened etc etc blah blah ad infinitum. Genuinely childlike behavioural issues basically and nowt more than that.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

The name change will actually negatively effect the brand and make it less likely to attract a sponsor. Wake up peoples. This is a scam pure and simple.

 

Do you think that hasn't been mentioned several times already and that you're the only one clever enough to realise it?

[Park Life 70]

The name change will actually negatively effect the brand and make it less likely to attract a sponsor. Wake up peoples. This is a scam pure and simple.

 

Do you think that hasn't been mentioned several times already and that you're the only one clever enough to realise it?

 

STFU.

[Park Life 70]

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.

 

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

 

The changing rooms will be upgraded surely?

[ChezGiven 0]

All true but you're either bothered about heritage of you're not. The comparison was to arsenal and their loss (not their gain) and that this is somehow worse for our footballing heritage than arsenal turning Highbury into flats. Heritage isn't a series of cost benefit calculations, you either preserve it or destroy it.

 

The pyramid example works best, you want to preserve the heritage of the world so no matter how much money you are offered to do so, you would never tear them down. If you care about heritage, there is no trade-off. This act is more of an affront to fans than previous moves like this because there is no compensation but it's less of an affront to our footballing heritage than all of the stadium moves. The media and some on here said otherwise.

 

I don't think it's as absolute as being bothered or not. Think that's a tad simplistic.

 

If I lived in a flat with my partner and first born, I could be totally gutted about leaving the place I've been happiest in when she gets pregnant with a second kid while also seeing the logistical necessity for a move to somewhere bigger.

 

I don't think the pyramid example bears any relation to football, because its ONLY use is as a heritage site.

The example could have easily been SJP or Grainger town, it was just to emphasise the point that if you value heritage, there is no trade off. Your flat whilst having important sentimental value has no cultural value and hence no heritage. I think you get what am saying, it shouldnt detract from the wrongness of our situation I just think it's bullshit to say football's heritage wasn't affected by multiple stadium moves because of the payoff. It's a perverse argument.

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/8885227/MPs-vow-to-fight-Newcastle-owner-Mike-Ashley-over-renaming-of-St-James-Park.html

 

 

[peasepud 59]

Dear Derek & Mike,

 

I have both of your home addresses. If you don't believe me Derek you have a black & white stair carpet & you decorated the place in the style of Vegas (you also have picture of your grandkid on the bedside table).

 

Anyway I digress, revoke this or I'm passing the details to Deadman, who I'm sure would love to discuss things over a coffee, he said as much in the post earlier.

 

someone shoot this fat thick headed cunterhead faggot ass prick headed motherfucking arsehole wanker bastard

 

Love ya longtime,

 

Pud (and Deaders)

 

 

You still got the ones I gave you?

I wasnt going to let that part slip but yes

[Monroe Transfer 0]

http://www.telegraph...James-Park.html

 

Seen the comment at the bottom?

 

worthy

 

6 minutes ago

it happened to Arsenal......get on with it and deal with it and............ dont forget your tracksuits!

How can people be so stupid?

[peasepud 59]

All true but you're either bothered about heritage of you're not. The comparison was to arsenal and their loss (not their gain) and that this is somehow worse for our footballing heritage than arsenal turning Highbury into flats. Heritage isn't a series of cost benefit calculations, you either preserve it or destroy it.

 

The pyramid example works best, you want to preserve the heritage of the world so no matter how much money you are offered to do so, you would never tear them down. If you care about heritage, there is no trade-off. This act is more of an affront to fans than previous moves like this because there is no compensation but it's less of an affront to our footballing heritage than all of the stadium moves. The media and some on here said otherwise.

 

I don't think it's as absolute as being bothered or not. Think that's a tad simplistic.

 

If I lived in a flat with my partner and first born, I could be totally gutted about leaving the place I've been happiest in when she gets pregnant with a second kid while also seeing the logistical necessity for a move to somewhere bigger.

 

I don't think the pyramid example bears any relation to football, because its ONLY use is as a heritage site.

The example could have easily been SJP or Grainger town, it was just to emphasise the point that if you value heritage, there is no trade off. Your flat whilst having important sentimental value has no cultural value and hence no heritage. I think you get what am saying, it shouldnt detract from the wrongness of our situation I just think it's bullshit to say football's heritage wasn't affected by multiple stadium moves because of the payoff. It's a perverse argument.

Hey! its a very nice flat

[Happy Face 29]

All true but you're either bothered about heritage of you're not. The comparison was to arsenal and their loss (not their gain) and that this is somehow worse for our footballing heritage than arsenal turning Highbury into flats. Heritage isn't a series of cost benefit calculations, you either preserve it or destroy it.

 

The pyramid example works best, you want to preserve the heritage of the world so no matter how much money you are offered to do so, you would never tear them down. If you care about heritage, there is no trade-off. This act is more of an affront to fans than previous moves like this because there is no compensation but it's less of an affront to our footballing heritage than all of the stadium moves. The media and some on here said otherwise.

 

I don't think it's as absolute as being bothered or not. Think that's a tad simplistic.

 

If I lived in a flat with my partner and first born, I could be totally gutted about leaving the place I've been happiest in when she gets pregnant with a second kid while also seeing the logistical necessity for a move to somewhere bigger.

 

I don't think the pyramid example bears any relation to football, because its ONLY use is as a heritage site.

The example could have easily been SJP or Grainger town, it was just to emphasise the point that if you value heritage, there is no trade off. Your flat whilst having important sentimental value has no cultural value and hence no heritage. I think you get what am saying, it shouldnt detract from the wrongness of our situation I just think it's bullshit to say football's heritage wasn't affected by multiple stadium moves because of the payoff. It's a perverse argument.

 

I was trying to show your pyramid argument was extreme and doesn't apply here. I agree my flat has no heritage value, but the pyramids have only heritage value. They're the 2 ends of the spectrum. St James and other football stadia are somewhere between the two. Wrong to say there can be no trade off where they're concerned in terms of cultural significance versus competitive progress.

[ChezGiven 0]

We've gone round in a circle as when I read people saying they would rather keep the name than play in the CL or be relegated rather than change it, I argued for that trade off. They seem to have come round to that anyway as the discussion of how much arsenal gained shows people would be willing to accept the change if the benefits were significant enough.

 

My point remains that no matter how much arsenal gained, the loss of footballing heritage in this country when arsenal converted Highbury into flats was far greater than our name change. The pyramid example was to emphasise that money doesnt make the loss any less, it can only compensate for it. Arsenal's move apparently didn't have any impact on our footballing heritage because they gained so much income because of it. It's perverse: 'money/greed is destroying our game's heritage (SJP) except when so much money is involved it doesnt matter (Emirates)'.

 

The press and now MPs are not arguing that 'compensation in terms of increased club income is not enough to offset the loss' its being presented as a crime against our footballing culture with no reference to money. You either present the argument as a trade off in which we are not going to be compensated for the loss or you present it in the context of destroying stadiums and shifting them to spaces with no cultural heritage across town. MP Catherine Mckinnel is saying we are 'doing away with 130 years of history', she doesn't go to say 'and unlike the disastrous loss of Roker park to our culture, this time Newcastle will get nothing out of it'. Or maybe she did and the press preferred not to report it.

 

With the land on which the stadium is built called SJP, the city council not changing the road signs (and possible legal challenges from them) the fans of all clubs referring to it as SJP for the foreseeable, Ashley's shelf-life at the club unlikely to extend to more than a decade and most importantly matches continue to be played in the same place they always have done, am actually not that worried about preserving the heritage of the club. My concern is whether we will get anything in return or a shirt sponsor in time for next season. Someone on here told me weeks ago that the NR deal was coming to an end and that SD would take it's place on our shirts, it looks horribly like he was spot on.

[Dolly Potter MD 0]

The point I was making about arsenal was that it's an example of the death of tradition or heritage in the game that precedes and on a greater scale than this situation. The fact that it is justified because of the huge commercial gain was not the point. It's a busy thread so some people may be replying to replies but the point was; moving a stadium is a bigger loss to footballing heritage than a reversible name change. My hope is that the name change won't last and that the council's decision to leave signposts round the city will ensure the name will endure and this part won't be lost. The main idea I was trying to convey was a small point about the media portraying it as worse than moving a stadium because the commercial benefits are bigger and clearer. This is unfair because it should be criticised for the affront to heritage or because the benefits don't justify that change. The argument presented was that changing a stadium location, building a new one and naming it something different is less of an affront to heritage than a name change that can be reversed. The size of the commercial gain is not relevant to a simple assessment of the loss of heritage to the game. Arsenal lost more heritage but gain hugely, we lost less heritage but gain fuck all. One loss is smaller than the other but our loss was being presented as the bigger because of the commercial side which is just like saying it's ok to tear down the pyramids if you give the Egyptian govt $100bn.

 

Anyway, the thing about the street signs is the best news of the day as that means part of the heritage is preserved, reducing the loss.

 

As I say, I'm OOT at the moment, but I get the impression just from what I've seen of this thread that the local reaction to the name change is far in excess of the proposal under the Halls to up sticks entirely to build a bigger stadium. People were calling the hippies worse than muck for putting a stop to that at the time as I recall. So it's not the fact that the name is changing that's annoying people imo, it's the reasons given, the actual reasons and the way Ashley goes about it that cause people to react more passionately and cling onto what remaining pieces of the past they have.

 

Under the old plan to move the whole stadium, the reasons were genuine, would have benefited the entire region as well as the club, and would have left something on the old site that honoured the history of the place. Even the opponents of the move could see the benefits and things were done right. So I don't think in a general sense, outside the current situation, Newcastle fans are opposed to change whatever the cost in terms of being able to compete. In this instance though, people can see there is no benefit whatsoever for the club here, only for Mike Ashley and Sports Direct.

 

I know it's another market, and i don't have a concerted interest in baseball, but the most relateable move would be the rebuilt Yankees stadium in NY. There's talk of plans to rebuild Fenway Park too, in Boston, where characteristics (like the Green Monster Wall) will be incorporated into the new design, and of course the name remains. I'm not against keeping up with the times, or keeping on par with the competition in an increasingly commercialised market, but it can be handled with a bit of class & respect to the club's history.

 

It's been tastefully done, with respect to the NY example, and we're taking about upping sticks from more than just an icon - it was a beacon for the blue-collar work sector there. Of any sport in the world i think the some of the old baseball grounds (and possibly some the college football venues) are the only ones that match the heritage value of the European grounds. It would take some set of balls, on the part of a corporation and a club owner to allow it, to sell stadium naming rights of a pre-existing & iconic stadium though.

 

I couldn't imagine the outcry if a 'Johnny Come Lately' club owner akin to Ashley, whose only interest involves the marketing of his 'child' company/conglomerate of brands, re-branded an iconic venue like Wrigley Field.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Year Zero

[McFaul 35]

We've gone round in a circle as when I read people saying they would rather keep the name than play in the CL or be relegated rather than change it, I argued for that trade off. They seem to have come round to that anyway as the discussion of how much arsenal gained shows people would be willing to accept the change if the benefits were significant enough.

 

My point remains that no matter how much arsenal gained, the loss of footballing heritage in this country when arsenal converted Highbury into flats was far greater than our name change. The pyramid example was to emphasise that money doesnt make the loss any less, it can only compensate for it. Arsenal's move apparently didn't have any impact on our footballing heritage because they gained so much income because of it. It's perverse: 'money/greed is destroying our game's heritage (SJP) except when so much money is involved it doesnt matter (Emirates)'.

 

The press and now MPs are not arguing that 'compensation in terms of increased club income is not enough to offset the loss' its being presented as a crime against our footballing culture with no reference to money. You either present the argument as a trade off in which we are not going to be compensated for the loss or you present it in the context of destroying stadiums and shifting them to spaces with no cultural heritage across town. MP Catherine Mckinnel is saying we are 'doing away with 130 years of history', she doesn't go to say 'and unlike the disastrous loss of Roker park to our culture, this time Newcastle will get nothing out of it'. Or maybe she did and the press preferred not to report it.

 

With the land on which the stadium is built called SJP, the city council not changing the road signs (and possible legal challenges from them) the fans of all clubs referring to it as SJP for the foreseeable, Ashley's shelf-life at the club unlikely to extend to more than a decade and most importantly matches continue to be played in the same place they always have done, am actually not that worried about preserving the heritage of the club. My concern is whether we will get anything in return or a shirt sponsor in time for next season. Someone on here told me weeks ago that the NR deal was coming to an end and that SD would take it's place on our shirts, it looks horribly like he was spot on.

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.

[LoveTheBobby 1]

In the following infomercial read the inflatable penis as SD ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR2-xA8TXxQ

[LoveTheBobby 1]

. . . with this covert supplementary footage clearly showing Dekka's *telephoned in from the Bahamas* press briefing captured live .

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYOpPrZZ-5k

[Toonpack 6891]

Under the old plan to move the whole stadium, the reasons were genuine, would have benefited the entire region as well as the club, and would have left something on the old site that honoured the history of the place. Even the opponents of the move could see the benefits and things were done right. So I don't think in a general sense, outside the current situation, Newcastle fans are opposed to change whatever the cost in terms of being able to compete. In this instance though, people can see there is no benefit whatsoever for the club here, only for Mike Ashley and Sports Direct.

 

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 !!!

[Happy Face 29]

We've gone round in a circle as when I read people saying they would rather keep the name than play in the CL or be relegated rather than change it, I argued for that trade off. They seem to have come round to that anyway as the discussion of how much arsenal gained shows people would be willing to accept the change if the benefits were significant enough.

 

My point remains that no matter how much arsenal gained, the loss of footballing heritage in this country when arsenal converted Highbury into flats was far greater than our name change. The pyramid example was to emphasise that money doesnt make the loss any less, it can only compensate for it. Arsenal's move apparently didn't have any impact on our footballing heritage because they gained so much income because of it. It's perverse: 'money/greed is destroying our game's heritage (SJP) except when so much money is involved it doesnt matter (Emirates)'.

 

The press and now MPs are not arguing that 'compensation in terms of increased club income is not enough to offset the loss' its being presented as a crime against our footballing culture with no reference to money. You either present the argument as a trade off in which we are not going to be compensated for the loss or you present it in the context of destroying stadiums and shifting them to spaces with no cultural heritage across town. MP Catherine Mckinnel is saying we are 'doing away with 130 years of history', she doesn't go to say 'and unlike the disastrous loss of Roker park to our culture, this time Newcastle will get nothing out of it'. Or maybe she did and the press preferred not to report it.

 

With the land on which the stadium is built called SJP, the city council not changing the road signs (and possible legal challenges from them) the fans of all clubs referring to it as SJP for the foreseeable, Ashley's shelf-life at the club unlikely to extend to more than a decade and most importantly matches continue to be played in the same place they always have done, am actually not that worried about preserving the heritage of the club. My concern is whether we will get anything in return or a shirt sponsor in time for next season. Someone on here told me weeks ago that the NR deal was coming to an end and that SD would take it's place on our shirts, it looks horribly like he was spot on.

 

Not read the thread in its entirety but I think most would take the trade off. EVERYONE knows that's not the intention behind the change though. You're insisting on a discussion about the fundamentals of football as a business versus heritage just to maintain your CT contrary game when everyone else is talking about the situation at Newcastle which isn't about competing in world football at all, but about competing in global fitness brand marketing.

 

MPs will jump on any bandwagon without understanding the nature of opposition so I wouldn't listen to them. Seem to recall someone mentioned Ryder and Wraith being on telly saying they understand why moves like this in football are afoot, fans and pundits aren't thick, but in this case those reasons aren't Ashley's reasons.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Happy Face

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Great news that all signs in Newcastle will continue to refer to SJP so the name won't be forgotten. Not that it being forgotten is an issue, the club will change the name back when it is sold am sure.

 

Not really got my head round this specious argument that was clearly developed during the embargo period by the nationals that it's ok to rename a stadium if it's moved to a new location. Each one of them rightly pointed out the change in the name dis-respects the history and traditions of the game but then all argued that moving clubs from their traditional homes and changing the stadium name was ok. In what way does moving and renaming the stadium respect the traditions of the game more than renaming it? It seems the nationals used the embargo period to develop arguments that presented this going more against tradition than the recent changes at e.g. Sunderland, Man city, Arsenal. Clearly tradition played a much less important role in those commercial decisions yet it's been presented as the opposite.

 

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 ?

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Leazes, you say the club won't see the money, the club may well do but Pardew may not get it to spend on players. There is a difference you know

[Toonpack 6891]

We've gone round in a circle as when I read people saying they would rather keep the name than play in the CL or be relegated rather than change it, I argued for that trade off. They seem to have come round to that anyway as the discussion of how much arsenal gained shows people would be willing to accept the change if the benefits were significant enough.

 

My point remains that no matter how much arsenal gained, the loss of footballing heritage in this country when arsenal converted Highbury into flats was far greater than our name change. The pyramid example was to emphasise that money doesnt make the loss any less, it can only compensate for it. Arsenal's move apparently didn't have any impact on our footballing heritage because they gained so much income because of it. It's perverse: 'money/greed is destroying our game's heritage (SJP) except when so much money is involved it doesnt matter (Emirates)'.

 

The press and now MPs are not arguing that 'compensation in terms of increased club income is not enough to offset the loss' its being presented as a crime against our footballing culture with no reference to money. You either present the argument as a trade off in which we are not going to be compensated for the loss or you present it in the context of destroying stadiums and shifting them to spaces with no cultural heritage across town. MP Catherine Mckinnel is saying we are 'doing away with 130 years of history', she doesn't go to say 'and unlike the disastrous loss of Roker park to our culture, this time Newcastle will get nothing out of it'. Or maybe she did and the press preferred not to report it.

 

With the land on which the stadium is built called SJP, the city council not changing the road signs (and possible legal challenges from them) the fans of all clubs referring to it as SJP for the foreseeable, Ashley's shelf-life at the club unlikely to extend to more than a decade and most importantly matches continue to be played in the same place they always have done, am actually not that worried about preserving the heritage of the club. My concern is whether we will get anything in return or a shirt sponsor in time for next season. Someone on here told me weeks ago that the NR deal was coming to an end and that SD would take it's place on our shirts, it looks horribly like he was spot on.

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.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Toonpack

[Happy Face 29]

someone change TP's name to Twatty Bollocks.

 

it's ok though tp, we'll all know its still you.

[Toonpack 6891]

someone change TP's name to Twatty Bollocks.

 

it's ok though tp, we'll all know its still you.

 

Don't like the truth eh?

[Happy Face 29]

someone change TP's name to Twatty Bollocks.

 

it's ok though tp, we'll all know its still you.

 

Don't like the truth eh?

 

It's nothing anyone (including me) hasn't said already.....which is why sponsors won't pay much to slap their name over an existing name with over a century of history behind it. history has been thrown away for nowt here, when it's a valuable commodity that could be exploited worldwide, like Old Trafford - the theatre of dreams.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Biffa and Niall have never been more correct:

 

So there we have it. The ground name is being sold because the fans are demanding another striker. Is that finally an admission that no more of the Andy Carroll money is going to be spent on players and all £35m has already been reinvested in the club? Those agents fees really must be extortionate....

 

Let's assume that the £8-10m is an exaggeration and in reality selling this part of the club's heritage will bring in more like £5-7m. Is it worth it? That is not going to help us "compete with the big boys".

 

At the moment clubs like Stoke City, Fulham and QPR are outspending us, while we plead poverty. That's despite 45K season ticket holders, a significant share of TV money, substantial merchandise income (including three new shirts per year) and the fees banked from other player sales - not just big Andy.

 

Why are we not already competing with every team in the Premier League except Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and possibly Arsenal? It can't be put down to massive player wages anymore, unless Alan Smith is still costing us £10m/year....

 

Like the Carroll transfer fee, a lot of us would accept the economics if we thought the money was going to be used purely for team strengthening but recent history suggests otherwise.

 

It seems that over four years on, Ashley's lack of due diligence is still being paid for by everyone connected with the club, except those at fault.

[ChezGiven 0]

Why? Because he highlighted that discussing arsenal isn't a tangent?

 

My point HF is that the reaction has been framed in terms of a 'destruction of 130 years of history' 'tearing pages out of the history books' and 'the nail in the coffin of traditional values in football'. When it will take just a few seconds to reverse this decision, those words are ridiculous when Arsenal, Man city and Sunderland have all upped sticks without anyone saying that.

 

Stevie, I really genuinely think you're a top lad and am full of respect for you so I wouldn't argue against you unless there was a point to be made. Am just saying these other moves were worse than this, not that renaming the stadium is anything other than a pisstake.