Change @ St. James

[Gemmill 44900]

4 years ago, you said Mike Ashley would get us back into the Champions League, genius.

 

Edit: for the crazy man obv.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Gemmill

[trophyshy 7083]

Listen to what I say in future?

 

You should set up an Agony Uncle thread in general chat Leazes.

[Craig 6682]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

[LeazesMag 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.

[Gejon 2]

4 years ago, you said Mike Ashley would get us back into the Champions League, genius.

 

Edit: for the crazy man obv.

 

He should have listened to me instead of spouting hot air, I have never said Ashley would get us back into the Champions League.i

Edited November 11, 2011 by Gejon

[LeazesMag 0]

4 years ago, you said Mike Ashley would get us back into the Champions League, genius.

 

Edit: for the crazy man obv.

 

er......if he backed Keegan, which he didn't, and I didn't think he would [see my sig]. And you backed Souness to build a good team and should have been given limitless funds to do it.

[Kid Dynamite 7031]

I see NUST have identified this as the perfect opportunity to try and buy the club again

[LeazesMag 0]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

of course it is. What are people "disagreeing" for ?

[Toonpack 9432]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

It may well be, but for the chosen vehicle to work, NUFC has to have a decent profile.

[trophyshy 7083]

This is all over the fucking shop for me like. Firstly, on it’s most basic, emotional level it is just an utter, utter kick in the teeth. Then you sort of find yourself asking, well okay, if it'll always be SJP to the fans, are there any circumstances at all where you’d be accepting of a name change-and the club’s argument is perhaps the only one, ie if it was a revenue stream for the good of the club. Only you know that that isn’t actually going to happen because they’re lying about that aspect of it.

 

Then you hear the stuff on here about “renaming was always his intention from the beginning and I’ve always called it that way” etc etc and that’s a load of old shite too, because 1. he’d have done it far earlier and 2. he’s tried to sell the club at least once. Then you hear John Hall being “quoted” on here as saying it was always Ashley’s intention to do this, and then you see him coming out and saying “I’m as surprised as anyone else and it’s wrong etc blah blah”

 

Then it begs the hypothetical question for the ‘just increase revenues and we’ll be back in the Champions League’ element– ie (ignoring the fact the club is lying), would this hypothetically be an acceptable way of raising money if it was ploughed into the club? ie how much are you willing to accept in pursuit of those revenues, because otherwise it is just a case of asking for Ashley subsidies, which is a weak argument.

 

Then theres the fact this is completely unprecedented in English top flight football as a renaming exercise ie it’s not to finance a ground move, it’s not the naming of a new ground, it is simply slapping a logo over 130 years of history and hence it's just a fucking insult.

 

At the end of the day I can’t help but just come to the basic conclusion that it represents cash and hence it’s up for grabs as far as MA is concerned. It is simply THE ONLY factor he considers and literally nothing else is of relevance to him. So we continue to be constantly affected by decisions like this on a whim as and when things opportunistically occur to him. I genuinely can’t think of any other consistent ‘narrative’ than that.

 

Fuck me gently.

 

Good post but I don't agree it's all about cash, I think he likes to flex his power and seek vengeance for his bruised ego. If it was simply about the cash why not do it sooner, why not do it when we were relegated when we 'needed' the cash? I can't believe a company would risk coming in and anyone from 'international branding experts' to the fucking tea lady would say don't do this, no-one will buy it and you'll be hated. He knows this, he's not daft.

 

So it's free advertising to SD and another fuck you to the fans who sing nasty things about him.

 

'Dekka they're still singing that fahkin song!'

 

'Okay boss, I'll have a word with them'...../releases condescending guff

 

'I heard that song again Del Boy! What did I say you specky cahnt!'

 

'I'm sorry Mike, I don't know what else to do.'

 

'I fahkin do, let's do away with St James' Park.'

 

..........

 

Ego's got him all that cash.

 

You might be right mate purely on the psychology I don't know. Ego no doubt plays a massive part in everything he does, but I spose if you were being less sentimental about it (in absolutely no way a criticism of you as if you don't experience an emotional reaction to this then you've no business as a fan), you might equally characterise it as 'instinct' rather than ego. Ie "fuck it and screw the consequences, it's got SD written on it so it'll line my pockets". His instinct is pure, unsentimental commercialism.

 

If that is the truth that is possible worse then the spiteful megalomaniac I put forward. It would mean he does not even consider the fans, it would mean he is a cold blooded cunt.

 

Didn't he have some relationship with the fans in the early days that suggested some room for non commercial thinking?

Edited November 11, 2011 by trophyshy

[LeazesMag 0]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

It may well be, but for the chosen vehicle to work, NUFC has to have a decent profile.

 

do you mean "trophy signings" or is the likes of Shola Ameobi going to sell shirts in the far east and attract the likes of you back to games ? And why do you still think he will back his managers ? How gullible are you ?

[Craig 6682]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

It may well be, but for the chosen vehicle to work, NUFC has to have a decent profile.

 

No, NUFC has to have a public profile - doesn't actually matter whether it's decent or not. He's employing one of Branson's principles of business - use the popular media to carry your advertisment.

 

Whether it's good press or bad press is irrelevant, SD is getting more and more exposure.

[Toonpack 9432]

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.

 

Why don't you put that in your sig so you don't forget it.

 

Maybe I could post it in pictures, maybe then you'd understand, though probably not.

[ChezGiven 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.

 

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.

[Gemmill 44900]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

It may well be, but for the chosen vehicle to work, NUFC has to have a decent profile.

 

They're in the premiership, you gonk. He doesn't need to do any more than that.

[Toonpack 9432]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

It may well be, but for the chosen vehicle to work, NUFC has to have a decent profile.

 

No, NUFC has to have a public profile - doesn't actually matter whether it's decent or not. He's employing one of Branson's principles of business - use the popular media to carry your advertisment.

 

Whether it's good press or bad press is irrelevant, SD is getting more and more exposure.

 

If they're shit, they're not going to be on telly much (Sky minimum would be all).

 

He's got the UK sorted, he's looking farther afield now. For the vehicle to truly work we have to be half decent (or better).

 

Whether it works out or not is another matter.

[manc-mag 1]

This is all over the fucking shop for me like. Firstly, on it’s most basic, emotional level it is just an utter, utter kick in the teeth. Then you sort of find yourself asking, well okay, if it'll always be SJP to the fans, are there any circumstances at all where you’d be accepting of a name change-and the club’s argument is perhaps the only one, ie if it was a revenue stream for the good of the club. Only you know that that isn’t actually going to happen because they’re lying about that aspect of it.

 

Then you hear the stuff on here about “renaming was always his intention from the beginning and I’ve always called it that way” etc etc and that’s a load of old shite too, because 1. he’d have done it far earlier and 2. he’s tried to sell the club at least once. Then you hear John Hall being “quoted” on here as saying it was always Ashley’s intention to do this, and then you see him coming out and saying “I’m as surprised as anyone else and it’s wrong etc blah blah”

 

Then it begs the hypothetical question for the ‘just increase revenues and we’ll be back in the Champions League’ element– ie (ignoring the fact the club is lying), would this hypothetically be an acceptable way of raising money if it was ploughed into the club? ie how much are you willing to accept in pursuit of those revenues, because otherwise it is just a case of asking for Ashley subsidies, which is a weak argument.

 

Then theres the fact this is completely unprecedented in English top flight football as a renaming exercise ie it’s not to finance a ground move, it’s not the naming of a new ground, it is simply slapping a logo over 130 years of history and hence it's just a fucking insult.

 

At the end of the day I can’t help but just come to the basic conclusion that it represents cash and hence it’s up for grabs as far as MA is concerned. It is simply THE ONLY factor he considers and literally nothing else is of relevance to him. So we continue to be constantly affected by decisions like this on a whim as and when things opportunistically occur to him. I genuinely can’t think of any other consistent ‘narrative’ than that.

 

Fuck me gently.

 

Good post but I don't agree it's all about cash, I think he likes to flex his power and seek vengeance for his bruised ego. If it was simply about the cash why not do it sooner, why not do it when we were relegated when we 'needed' the cash? I can't believe a company would risk coming in and anyone from 'international branding experts' to the fucking tea lady would say don't do this, no-one will buy it and you'll be hated. He knows this, he's not daft.

 

So it's free advertising to SD and another fuck you to the fans who sing nasty things about him.

 

'Dekka they're still singing that fahkin song!'

 

'Okay boss, I'll have a word with them'...../releases condescending guff

 

'I heard that song again Del Boy! What did I say you specky cahnt!'

 

'I'm sorry Mike, I don't know what else to do.'

 

'I fahkin do, let's do away with St James' Park.'

 

..........

 

Ego's got him all that cash.

 

You might be right mate purely on the psychology I don't know. Ego no doubt plays a massive part in everything he does, but I spose if you were being less sentimental about it (in absolutely no way a criticism of you as if you don't experience an emotional reaction to this then you've no business as a fan), you might equally characterise it as 'instinct' rather than ego. Ie "fuck it and screw the consequences, it's got SD written on it so it'll line my pockets". His instinct is pure, unsentimental commercialism.

 

If that is the truth that is possible worse then the spiteful megalomaniac I put forward. It would mean he does not even consider the fans, it would mean he is a cold blooded cunt.

 

Didn't he have some relationship with the fans in the early days that suggested some room for non commercial thinking?

 

My belief to this day was that he bought it as a plaything, hang on to it for a few years, have a bit of fun (ego) and then you sell on at an inevitable profit. I'm convinced of it, simply because thats what was happening all around with clubs being sold for daft sums to chancy speculators. Look at Portsmouth.

 

I think all that's backed up by no due diligence, continuing to pay silly money signings/wages etc and pissing about in the Bigg Market with the fans. It was that type of climate. Then when the banking sector collapsed, 99% of his exit strategy disappeared overnight, causing it to dawn on him that he had something that was actually costing shed loads of cash which nee fucker could afford to buy. That's when he had to start to look at it in a different light and start to put the austerity measures in.

 

That's why for me when people say this was his plan from the word go and it was obvious to them they're just talking out of their arses. It's clearly changed over time-the only thing that hasn't is him as a person. And on that point I buy what Alex says because its the only thing that makes sense.

[Gemmill 44900]

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.

 

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.

[Craig 6682]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

It may well be, but for the chosen vehicle to work, NUFC has to have a decent profile.

 

No, NUFC has to have a public profile - doesn't actually matter whether it's decent or not. He's employing one of Branson's principles of business - use the popular media to carry your advertisment.

 

Whether it's good press or bad press is irrelevant, SD is getting more and more exposure.

 

If they're shit, they're not going to be on telly much (Sky minimum would be all).

 

He's got the UK sorted, he's looking farther afield now. For the vehicle to truly work we have to be half decent (or better).

 

Whether it works out or not is another matter.

 

Going by the bit in bold then, by your own definition the 'chosen vehicle is working'.

 

Glad we've finally got that one through to you...

[Guest alex]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

It may well be, but for the chosen vehicle to work, NUFC has to have a decent profile.

 

No, NUFC has to have a public profile - doesn't actually matter whether it's decent or not. He's employing one of Branson's principles of business - use the popular media to carry your advertisment.

 

Whether it's good press or bad press is irrelevant, SD is getting more and more exposure.

 

If they're shit, they're not going to be on telly much (Sky minimum would be all).

 

He's got the UK sorted, he's looking farther afield now. For the vehicle to truly work we have to be half decent (or better).

 

Whether it works out or not is another matter.

I believe we were on the telly loads last season despite finishing 12th and loads the season before despite being in the Championship just as we were on the telly loads in seasons prior to that despite (as you like to remind us) being in terminal decline. So that's that little theory put to bed. Also, it's hardly like SD are prestigious brands that needs to be linked with marque players or Champions League qualification.

[Toonpack 9432]

It's an attempt to generate cash all right but it's for Sports Direct and not NUFC IMO.

 

It may well be, but for the chosen vehicle to work, NUFC has to have a decent profile.

 

They're in the premiership, you gonk. He doesn't need to do any more than that.

 

Far too simplistic, to really leverage the brand they have to be better than the average.

 

That's why DHL paid Man U £40 Mill to put a badge on thier training kit, why didn't they choose Bolton, they're in the Prem as well, and just up the road from Old Trafford, would have been cheaper an all.

[manc-mag 1]

I remember ripping the piss out of the NUFC-branded polo shirts (not the adidas / puma ones etc) and Renton turned up at the Trent the week after wearing one.

 

:lol:

 

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

[Toonpack 9432]

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.

 

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

[Howmanheyman 33246]

I tell you what. I love Leazes' 'I told you 4 years ago' and 'you never listened' patter.

 

(FWIW, I agree with a lot of his sentiments but the way he puts it, it comes across like a scene with a Scooby doo baddie, '....And I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for Leazes Mag those meddling kids.

[Gemmill 44900]

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.

 

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.