Change @ St. James

[Toonpack 8789]

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 ?

 

He's not (yet)

 

See previous club history for a demonstration of pocketing

[sammynb 3194]

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.

 

Does it really?

It's not like buying shares in Lonsdale, NUFC is a different beast entirely.

[Toonpack 8789]

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.

 

didn't you say a few days ago that its what happens on the pitch that is important ?

 

Mind you, the last time you said that, you then babbled on about anything but that for months on end afterwards too.

 

Yes I did, where have I said different.

[manc-mag 1]

Gemmill, you can keep repeating the same invalid point over and over but it doesn't change the fact that moving a stadium from it's traditional location, removing the historical location of events, destroying architecture (however dilapidated) is more of an affront to tradition and history than re-naming. You use the word neccessity but without saying for what? For survival, for improvement, to move the club forward? Fine, they are commercial reasons and are trumping traditions. More tradition and heritage is disposed of by tearing down a stadium and moving it than a re-naming that will take just 10 seconds to reverse. The media have presented this as the biggest affront to tradition in the modern game, a wholly specious argument that is based on the knowledge that fuelling anger will make the story bigger.

 

'tradition': objective (in other words 'the status quo'), so yes

'affront to': subjective. ie you're less 'affronted' depending on the motives for doing something.

 

Moving grounds is undoubtedly a bigger 'change' to tradition, but this is biggery affrontery as far as I'm concerned.

 

your use of apostrophes is almost as amusing as the sitting on the fence rubbish you've been spouting for years.

 

Oh well, at least you are now finally coming round to saying what I've been telling you all this time.

 

How obsessed are you with me btw? I've actually directly contradicted a lot of what you've been saying in my last few posts and yet you're trying to claim I'm agreeing with you you bizarre manchild. Give it a rest. You basically didn't want the last lot to go, we all know that, but stop trying to graft random and frequently conflicting subsequent events into some unified clairvoyance theory you reckon you've had from day one. You're talking out of your arse.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

That's the bit I don't get. In all this talk of destruction of history, for example, Arsenal built flats on their's, Highbury is gone completely. THAT is destruction of history, SJP is and always will be SJP.

 

Actually he may have played a blinder, he's taking all the shit, new sponsor (maybe) comes a long and it becomes FedEx at St James Park, "oooh look they've respected history and brought the name back" acceptance all round. (not that the name will go anywhere anyway).

 

Don't some of these clubs have to move though as their current grounds aren't big enough and they can't develop them? It's still a kick in histories balls but is a bit more understandable imo.

 

It's exactly the same in principle, need more revenue = fuck history.

The issue here is, this isn't bringing in more revenue.

 

he doesn't get it man Alex. He said he would "revaluate" his views on Mike Ashleys ambitions for the club, he thought we would spend the 35m for Carroll, but instead its been pocketed.

 

The same as money from this name change will go.

 

NUFC is just a vehicle to promote Sports Direct now, this is what he wanted, and there will be more to come yet. The likes of Toonpack etc will defend him until the day he sells, then they will change their position - but by then they will be tired of competing among the dross clubs again, although they won't admit it.

 

Pocketed !! my favourite Leazes buffonery

 

To do that effectively NUFC have to be succesfull

 

P.S. I never said we would spend the Carroll money, but as ever comprehension remains incomprehensible to you.

 

my favourite Toonpack denial state, he knows that he said for months that he would "give Ashley until 1st September", so maybe he will clarify what exactly he was waiting to see happen ?

 

I won't hold my breath on this one.

 

How many times

 

Now for the last time (I promise), I said that come the 1st September we would know his intentions, he would either spend or recoup. It would appear he is recouping .

 

 

 

in other words, its taken you too, years to get around to realising I was right in what I have been telling you about his intentions, and he is pocketing the cash rather than backing his managers ?

 

He's not (yet)

 

See previous club history for a demonstration of pocketing

 

oh yes he is.

 

Maybe in a couple of more years, you may revise your "opinion".......I'm just trying to save you time and posting space.

[Toonpack 8789]

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.

 

Does it really?

It's not like buying shares in Lonsdale, NUFC is a different beast entirely.

 

Not talking about buying shares, it's about £130 Mill in loans I believe.

[ChezGiven 0]

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

[manc-mag 1]

Gemmill, you can keep repeating the same invalid point over and over but it doesn't change the fact that moving a stadium from it's traditional location, removing the historical location of events, destroying architecture (however dilapidated) is more of an affront to tradition and history than re-naming. You use the word neccessity but without saying for what? For survival, for improvement, to move the club forward? Fine, they are commercial reasons and are trumping traditions. More tradition and heritage is disposed of by tearing down a stadium and moving it than a re-naming that will take just 10 seconds to reverse. The media have presented this as the biggest affront to tradition in the modern game, a wholly specious argument that is based on the knowledge that fuelling anger will make the story bigger.

 

'tradition': objective (in other words 'the status quo'), so yes

'affront to': subjective. ie you're less 'affronted' depending on the motives for doing something.

 

Moving grounds is undoubtedly a bigger 'change' to tradition, but this is biggery affrontery as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree, it will take seconds to reverse this but would take months to rebuild roker park. The place where history took place, where all the great games in our history took place still exists. The place where the great games at Roker Park took place is no longer there.

 

It'll take seconds to reverse it starting from when he no longer owns the club, which is anyone's guess.

[Toonpack 8789]

 

 

oh yes he is.

 

Maybe in a couple of more years, you may revise your "opinion".......I'm just trying to save you time and posting space.

 

Please substantiate that, go on, really

 

P.S. Is it an unforgivable and heinous crime (if he was) ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Gemmill, you can keep repeating the same invalid point over and over but it doesn't change the fact that moving a stadium from it's traditional location, removing the historical location of events, destroying architecture (however dilapidated) is more of an affront to tradition and history than re-naming. You use the word neccessity but without saying for what? For survival, for improvement, to move the club forward? Fine, they are commercial reasons and are trumping traditions. More tradition and heritage is disposed of by tearing down a stadium and moving it than a re-naming that will take just 10 seconds to reverse. The media have presented this as the biggest affront to tradition in the modern game, a wholly specious argument that is based on the knowledge that fuelling anger will make the story bigger.

 

'tradition': objective (in other words 'the status quo'), so yes

'affront to': subjective. ie you're less 'affronted' depending on the motives for doing something.

 

Moving grounds is undoubtedly a bigger 'change' to tradition, but this is biggery affrontery as far as I'm concerned.

 

your use of apostrophes is almost as amusing as the sitting on the fence rubbish you've been spouting for years.

 

Oh well, at least you are now finally coming round to saying what I've been telling you all this time.

 

How obsessed are you with me btw? I've actually directly contradicted a lot of what you've been saying in my last few posts and yet you're trying to claim I'm agreeing with you you bizarre manchild. Give it a rest. You basically didn't want the last lot to go, we all know that, but stop trying to graft random and frequently conflicting subsequent events into some unified clairvoyance theory you reckon you've had from day one. You're talking out of your arse.

 

no I'm not. You've disagreed with me for years, when I've been telling you exactly what is happening now. And you know it.

 

You're an idiot with a superiority complex, you have no opinions, no views, you're The Grey Man of Toontastic. You sit on the fence and babble on about things after the event when they have became patently obvious to everybody.

 

How come a clever boy like you didn't know all this was going to happen, because I most certainly have been telling you for years.

 

You're a sad case, you can't admit you have been wrong.

[manc-mag 1]

 

Leazes, I'm not getting into it man. Your inadequacies are palpable and genuinely obsessive.

[LeazesMag 0]

oh yes he is.

 

Maybe in a couple of more years, you may revise your "opinion".......I'm just trying to save you time and posting space.

 

Please substantiate that, go on, really

 

P.S. Is it an unforgivable and heinous crime (if he was) ?

 

I thought you said that it was what happens on the pitch that counts ? When is he going to match the league positions and european qualifications on the pitch, which will not be achieved if he pockets the cash while he owns the club and doesn't back his managers while he owns the club ?

 

I have my doubts that you will see this, even though he has dragged the average position massively downwards [another thing you quoted recently as "proof" of something, fuck knows what]

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Leazes, I'm not getting into it man. Your inadequacies are palpable and genuinely obsessive.

 

ah. The response I expected.

 

Sad man.

 

Nobody will laugh at you if you admit that you have been wrong man

[Gemmill 42956]

Gemmill, you can keep repeating the same invalid point over and over but it doesn't change the fact that moving a stadium from it's traditional location, removing the historical location of events, destroying architecture (however dilapidated) is more of an affront to tradition and history than re-naming. You use the word neccessity but without saying for what? For survival, for improvement, to move the club forward? Fine, they are commercial reasons and are trumping traditions. More tradition and heritage is disposed of by tearing down a stadium and moving it than a re-naming that will take just 10 seconds to reverse. The media have presented this as the biggest affront to tradition in the modern game, a wholly specious argument that is based on the knowledge that fuelling anger will make the story bigger.

 

Righto Gordon Gecko. I'm stuck on me PS3 game. I can't afford to be going round in circles in two fantasy worlds.

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes you're like a dog with a bone (covered in shit).

[Toonpack 8789]

oh yes he is.

 

Maybe in a couple of more years, you may revise your "opinion".......I'm just trying to save you time and posting space.

 

Please substantiate that, go on, really

 

P.S. Is it an unforgivable and heinous crime (if he was) ?

 

I thought you said that it was what happens on the pitch that counts ? When is he going to match the league positions and european qualifications on the pitch, which will not be achieved if he pockets the cash while he owns the club and doesn't back his managers while he owns the club ?

 

I have my doubts that you will see this, even though he has dragged the average position massively downwards [another thing you quoted recently as "proof" of something, fuck knows what]

 

 

What a surprise, same old same old

 

Wheres the substantiation??

 

Also I shall reiterate (that means say again, or repeat) my second question, is pocketing the cash whilst owning/being in charge the act of a twat ??

[David Kelly 1205]

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

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

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

[LeazesMag 0]

So, is Toonpack trying to say something like Mike Ashley will pour this 8-10m quid fully into the transfer kitty handed to the manager, and this money will bridge the gap between us winning trophies galore instead of plodding around getting nowhere and selling our best players to make him a profit ?

 

Funny like, but macbeth on Newcastle Online used to absurdly claim exactly the same thing with regard to a couple of million quid in dividends under the old regime while they were actually backing our managers and we were playing in the champions League.

[LeazesMag 0]

oh yes he is.

 

Maybe in a couple of more years, you may revise your "opinion".......I'm just trying to save you time and posting space.

 

Please substantiate that, go on, really

 

P.S. Is it an unforgivable and heinous crime (if he was) ?

 

I thought you said that it was what happens on the pitch that counts ? When is he going to match the league positions and european qualifications on the pitch, which will not be achieved if he pockets the cash while he owns the club and doesn't back his managers while he owns the club ?

 

I have my doubts that you will see this, even though he has dragged the average position massively downwards [another thing you quoted recently as "proof" of something, fuck knows what]

 

 

What a surprise, same old same old

 

Wheres the substantiation??

 

Also I shall reiterate (that means say again, or repeat) my second question, is pocketing the cash whilst owning/being in charge the act of a twat ??

 

not backing your managers, and selling your best players and pocketing the cash......does 35m quid ring any bells......

 

As you said, your man is "recouping"....I told you that years ago man.

[sammynb 3194]

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.

 

Does it really?

It's not like buying shares in Lonsdale, NUFC is a different beast entirely.

 

Not talking about buying shares, it's about £130 Mill in loans I believe.

 

It's not a loan if you own the thing, it's called subsidising an investment - totally different.

 

The guy thought we could be a Lonsdale/slazenger, turns out we weren't so any money he puts in is his own fault.

[Toonpack 8789]

So, is Toonpack trying to say something like Mike Ashley will pour this 8-10m quid fully into the transfer kitty handed to the manager, and this money will bridge the gap between us winning trophies galore instead of plodding around getting nowhere and selling our best players to make him a profit ?

 

Funny like, but macbeth on Newcastle Online used to absurdly claim exactly the same thing with regard to a couple of million quid in dividends under the old regime while they were actually backing our managers and we were playing in the champions League.

 

[Toonpack 8789]

oh yes he is.

 

Maybe in a couple of more years, you may revise your "opinion".......I'm just trying to save you time and posting space.

 

Please substantiate that, go on, really

 

P.S. Is it an unforgivable and heinous crime (if he was) ?

 

I thought you said that it was what happens on the pitch that counts ? When is he going to match the league positions and european qualifications on the pitch, which will not be achieved if he pockets the cash while he owns the club and doesn't back his managers while he owns the club ?

 

I have my doubts that you will see this, even though he has dragged the average position massively downwards [another thing you quoted recently as "proof" of something, fuck knows what]

 

 

What a surprise, same old same old

 

Wheres the substantiation??

 

Also I shall reiterate (that means say again, or repeat) my second question, is pocketing the cash whilst owning/being in charge the act of a twat ??

 

not backing your managers, and selling your best players and pocketing the cash......does 35m quid ring any bells......

 

As you said, your man is "recouping"....I told you that years ago man.

 

Recouping is somewhat different to pocketing.

 

Please detail the amounts pocketed.

[Toonpack 8789]

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.

 

Does it really?

It's not like buying shares in Lonsdale, NUFC is a different beast entirely.

 

Not talking about buying shares, it's about £130 Mill in loans I believe.

 

It's not a loan if you own the thing, it's called subsidising an investment - totally different.

 

The guy thought we could be a Lonsdale/slazenger, turns out we weren't so any money he puts in is his own fault.

 

Oh I absolutely agree it's his own fault, always have, but thank fuck he did.

[sammynb 3194]

Oh I absolutely agree it's his own fault, always have, but thank fuck he did.

 

You've alluded to this a number of times, it's time you fested up with some proof or relegate it to the realms of fiction.

[McFaul 35]

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

Couldn't disagree more. Fair enough if it was at Highbury it was a new ground called Ashburton Grove, sounded like a road off Stanhope Street.