peasepud 59 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Irish club, All welcome to discuss current goings on. Last time we had one of these it resulted in NUSC. Still that shouldn't put you off You have a view on this then come along and put it forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Been meaning to have a mooch along to one of these , might get along after work . Is this a continuation of the ones Wraith (sure it was him anyway ?) has been involved with PP ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 Been meaning to have a mooch along to one of these , might get along after work . Is this a continuation of the ones Wraith (sure it was him anyway ?) has been involved with PP ? Yeah Steve chairs them but its frankly open forum, all fans can have their say and nobody is derided for it. Open discussion and an attempt to gain a concewrted view. I'll be hopefully going with a general view of toontastic, I cant capture every view but give an overall "almost everybody (well all but Toonpack) think the renaming is shit". etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Will I recognise you as the one with the "I'm not Toonpack" T'er on ? Going to try to get along if I haven't had my soul removed courtesy of a Monday at graft . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 In the morning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 In the morning? yup, bacon sarnies all round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Class. Free coffees as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Been meaning to have a mooch along to one of these , might get along after work . Is this a continuation of the ones Wraith (sure it was him anyway ?) has been involved with PP ? Yeah Steve chairs them but its frankly open forum, all fans can have their say and nobody is derided for it. Open discussion and an attempt to gain a concewrted view. I'll be hopefully going with a general view of toontastic, I cant capture every view but give an overall "almost everybody (well all but Toonpack) think the renaming is shit". etc I never said it wasn't btw, for the record, I do not agree with it, I simply don't think it's that big a deal in the grand scheme of things and it is utterly predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Geordie Jackpot at halftime n that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 You have my permission to print out some of my posts and read from them at the meeting, if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Been meaning to have a mooch along to one of these , might get along after work . Is this a continuation of the ones Wraith (sure it was him anyway ?) has been involved with PP ? Yeah Steve chairs them but its frankly open forum, all fans can have their say and nobody is derided for it. Open discussion and an attempt to gain a concewrted view. I'll be hopefully going with a general view of toontastic, I cant capture every view but give an overall "almost everybody (well all but Toonpack) think the renaming is shit". etc Focus after recent events has to be about holding them to account. If our society will allow certain parts of our heritage and culture to be sacrificed for commercial (and therefore usually community) gain, then the public has a right to know the exact nature of the benefits they will receive. If a building stands in the way of a motorway or a new high speed rail link and this holds cultural value, there would be a full disclosure of the economic benefits that would justify removing it. This must be common in any public projects undertaken and am sure it would be even when private interests are involved. Obviously if the building is listed, the trade-off between heritage value and commercial value is considered too high and no planning permission will be granted. There is still an implicit valuation and this is what should guide holding Ashley and Llambias to account. If the decision to remove the heritage associated with the name St James' Park can not be reversed then political pressure should be applied to SD and Ashley to disclose the commercial benefits. This is nothing for now but when it materialises (as we all expect) that no sponsor has come in, then the question they need to be asked is what exactly will SD be giving to the local community to compensate for this? Now we already know that Llambias has said that if no one comes in, they will leave the brand name there to keep it 'advertised to prospective buyers'. However, whether they can and will answer the question is moot for me, what matters far more than people realise is the application of pressure and questions. SD is a British company doing its main business on these shores and therefore relies on the existence of a favourable relationship with the UK government. All companies of its size have whats called and 'external affairs' department which deal with any issues in the regulatory or legal environment relating to its business. I think Ed Balls said something about this, there has been some noise on a Labour party blog ( http://labourlist.org/2011/11/the-sports-direct-arena-is-a-symptom-of-a-sick-game/ ) and this is an issue for the Department of Culture. The Minister for Culture with Heritage in his portfolio is John Penrose MP (Weston Super Mare) http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/our_ministers/7051.aspx My view would be engage the politicians to put pressure on SD to engage in activity that preserves the heritage (e.g. giving a grant to fund the History department at the university to provide a history of the stadium, that may already exist but you get my drift). Pressure should be applied to disclose next season if no one comes in what money is being directed to the club for the naming rights, even if this is just pressure on them to publicly announce what we all know. I used this form to write to them on friday http://www.culture.gov.uk/contact_us/default.aspx I wouldn't dismiss the political process too quickly, no company wants letters off Ministers demanding answers to questions when they do all or most of their business in that country. What i'm saying might not produce any immediate tangible results but it will certainly not make anyone involved at the club smirk. Its an avenue i would encourage at the meeting if i was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 The SJP name does not have a high enough level of interest that is justifies statutory protection obviously but this definition puts this firmly under DoC's remit. http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/historic_environment/6258.aspx Heritage assets Those parts of the historic environment that are valued because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are known as 'heritage assets'. Some heritage assets have a level of interest that justifies statutory protection through designation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I fear the best we can hope for is a blue plaque...."here stood st James' park" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Been meaning to have a mooch along to one of these , might get along after work . Is this a continuation of the ones Wraith (sure it was him anyway ?) has been involved with PP ? Yeah Steve chairs them but its frankly open forum, all fans can have their say and nobody is derided for it. Open discussion and an attempt to gain a concewrted view. I'll be hopefully going with a general view of toontastic, I cant capture every view but give an overall "almost everybody (well all but Toonpack) think the renaming is shit". etc Focus after recent events has to be about holding them to account. If our society will allow certain parts of our heritage and culture to be sacrificed for commercial (and therefore usually community) gain, then the public has a right to know the exact nature of the benefits they will receive. If a building stands in the way of a motorway or a new high speed rail link and this holds cultural value, there would be a full disclosure of the economic benefits that would justify removing it. This must be common in any public projects undertaken and am sure it would be even when private interests are involved. Obviously if the building is listed, the trade-off between heritage value and commercial value is considered too high and no planning permission will be granted. There is still an implicit valuation and this is what should guide holding Ashley and Llambias to account. If the decision to remove the heritage associated with the name St James' Park can not be reversed then political pressure should be applied to SD and Ashley to disclose the commercial benefits. This is nothing for now but when it materialises (as we all expect) that no sponsor has come in, then the question they need to be asked is what exactly will SD be giving to the local community to compensate for this? Now we already know that Llambias has said that if no one comes in, they will leave the brand name there to keep it 'advertised to prospective buyers'. However, whether they can and will answer the question is moot for me, what matters far more than people realise is the application of pressure and questions. SD is a British company doing its main business on these shores and therefore relies on the existence of a favourable relationship with the UK government. All companies of its size have whats called and 'external affairs' department which deal with any issues in the regulatory or legal environment relating to its business. I think Ed Balls said something about this, there has been some noise on a Labour party blog ( http://labourlist.org/2011/11/the-sports-direct-arena-is-a-symptom-of-a-sick-game/ ) and this is an issue for the Department of Culture. The Minister for Culture with Heritage in his portfolio is John Penrose MP (Weston Super Mare) http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/our_ministers/7051.aspx My view would be engage the politicians to put pressure on SD to engage in activity that preserves the heritage (e.g. giving a grant to fund the History department at the university to provide a history of the stadium, that may already exist but you get my drift). Pressure should be applied to disclose next season if no one comes in what money is being directed to the club for the naming rights, even if this is just pressure on them to publicly announce what we all know. I used this form to write to them on friday http://www.culture.gov.uk/contact_us/default.aspx I wouldn't dismiss the political process too quickly, no company wants letters off Ministers demanding answers to questions when they do all or most of their business in that country. What i'm saying might not produce any immediate tangible results but it will certainly not make anyone involved at the club smirk. Its an avenue i would encourage at the meeting if i was there. You'll never get all that on a bed sheet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I fear the best we can hope for is a blue plaque...."here stood st James' park" it would be blue and red though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 I fear the best we can hope for is a blue plaque...."here stood st James' park" it would be blue and red though. Once I'd smashed Dekka's fuckin melon off've-it it would . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38586 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Been meaning to have a mooch along to one of these , might get along after work . Is this a continuation of the ones Wraith (sure it was him anyway ?) has been involved with PP ? Yeah Steve chairs them but its frankly open forum, all fans can have their say and nobody is derided for it. Open discussion and an attempt to gain a concewrted view. I'll be hopefully going with a general view of toontastic, I cant capture every view but give an overall "almost everybody (well all but Toonpack) think the renaming is shit". etc Focus after recent events has to be about holding them to account. If our society will allow certain parts of our heritage and culture to be sacrificed for commercial (and therefore usually community) gain, then the public has a right to know the exact nature of the benefits they will receive. If a building stands in the way of a motorway or a new high speed rail link and this holds cultural value, there would be a full disclosure of the economic benefits that would justify removing it. This must be common in any public projects undertaken and am sure it would be even when private interests are involved. Obviously if the building is listed, the trade-off between heritage value and commercial value is considered too high and no planning permission will be granted. There is still an implicit valuation and this is what should guide holding Ashley and Llambias to account. If the decision to remove the heritage associated with the name St James' Park can not be reversed then political pressure should be applied to SD and Ashley to disclose the commercial benefits. This is nothing for now but when it materialises (as we all expect) that no sponsor has come in, then the question they need to be asked is what exactly will SD be giving to the local community to compensate for this? Now we already know that Llambias has said that if no one comes in, they will leave the brand name there to keep it 'advertised to prospective buyers'. However, whether they can and will answer the question is moot for me, what matters far more than people realise is the application of pressure and questions. SD is a British company doing its main business on these shores and therefore relies on the existence of a favourable relationship with the UK government. All companies of its size have whats called and 'external affairs' department which deal with any issues in the regulatory or legal environment relating to its business. I think Ed Balls said something about this, there has been some noise on a Labour party blog ( http://labourlist.org/2011/11/the-sports-direct-arena-is-a-symptom-of-a-sick-game/ ) and this is an issue for the Department of Culture. The Minister for Culture with Heritage in his portfolio is John Penrose MP (Weston Super Mare) http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/our_ministers/7051.aspx My view would be engage the politicians to put pressure on SD to engage in activity that preserves the heritage (e.g. giving a grant to fund the History department at the university to provide a history of the stadium, that may already exist but you get my drift). Pressure should be applied to disclose next season if no one comes in what money is being directed to the club for the naming rights, even if this is just pressure on them to publicly announce what we all know. I used this form to write to them on friday http://www.culture.gov.uk/contact_us/default.aspx I wouldn't dismiss the political process too quickly, no company wants letters off Ministers demanding answers to questions when they do all or most of their business in that country. What i'm saying might not produce any immediate tangible results but it will certainly not make anyone involved at the club smirk. Its an avenue i would encourage at the meeting if i was there. Superb This sounds the kind of thing that will make the Fatman sweat a bit, not singing songs against him at the match ( although he needs to hear them too ). God help your neighbours if they put a dodgy shed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34190 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Been meaning to have a mooch along to one of these , might get along after work . Is this a continuation of the ones Wraith (sure it was him anyway ?) has been involved with PP ? Yeah Steve chairs them but its frankly open forum, all fans can have their say and nobody is derided for it. Open discussion and an attempt to gain a concewrted view. I'll be hopefully going with a general view of toontastic, I cant capture every view but give an overall "almost everybody (well all but Toonpack) think the renaming is shit". etc Focus after recent events has to be about holding them to account. If our society will allow certain parts of our heritage and culture to be sacrificed for commercial (and therefore usually community) gain, then the public has a right to know the exact nature of the benefits they will receive. If a building stands in the way of a motorway or a new high speed rail link and this holds cultural value, there would be a full disclosure of the economic benefits that would justify removing it. This must be common in any public projects undertaken and am sure it would be even when private interests are involved. Obviously if the building is listed, the trade-off between heritage value and commercial value is considered too high and no planning permission will be granted. There is still an implicit valuation and this is what should guide holding Ashley and Llambias to account. If the decision to remove the heritage associated with the name St James' Park can not be reversed then political pressure should be applied to SD and Ashley to disclose the commercial benefits. This is nothing for now but when it materialises (as we all expect) that no sponsor has come in, then the question they need to be asked is what exactly will SD be giving to the local community to compensate for this? Now we already know that Llambias has said that if no one comes in, they will leave the brand name there to keep it 'advertised to prospective buyers'. However, whether they can and will answer the question is moot for me, what matters far more than people realise is the application of pressure and questions. SD is a British company doing its main business on these shores and therefore relies on the existence of a favourable relationship with the UK government. All companies of its size have whats called and 'external affairs' department which deal with any issues in the regulatory or legal environment relating to its business. I think Ed Balls said something about this, there has been some noise on a Labour party blog ( http://labourlist.org/2011/11/the-sports-direct-arena-is-a-symptom-of-a-sick-game/ ) and this is an issue for the Department of Culture. The Minister for Culture with Heritage in his portfolio is John Penrose MP (Weston Super Mare) http://www.culture.gov.uk/about_us/our_ministers/7051.aspx My view would be engage the politicians to put pressure on SD to engage in activity that preserves the heritage (e.g. giving a grant to fund the History department at the university to provide a history of the stadium, that may already exist but you get my drift). Pressure should be applied to disclose next season if no one comes in what money is being directed to the club for the naming rights, even if this is just pressure on them to publicly announce what we all know. I used this form to write to them on friday http://www.culture.gov.uk/contact_us/default.aspx I wouldn't dismiss the political process too quickly, no company wants letters off Ministers demanding answers to questions when they do all or most of their business in that country. What i'm saying might not produce any immediate tangible results but it will certainly not make anyone involved at the club smirk. Its an avenue i would encourage at the meeting if i was there. I'd print copies out, and hand this out at the meeting if I were you, pud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 The whole fans vs the club stance is why NUST was always going to fail. While it wouldn't go down well in one of these lynch mob meetings - we should really be looking how we can build on the positive steps the club has taken and look to see if they can be more regular/improved. Like the Q&A, half price season tickets, Pardew/Llambias interviews. Sure these pale in comparison to the negatives, but the club simple isnt going to discuss a decision that has already been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38586 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) I'd guess there're still neck deep in ale. kebab. Edit; just realised the time. Edited November 14, 2011 by Monkeys Fist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 A successful meeting by the looks of things. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,36257.msg3338830.html#msg3338830 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now