Change @ St. James

[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.

 

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.

Thanks for repeating my point, commercial reasons trump tradition and the stadium move is the more prevalent and better example of this. In diametric opposition to how it's been presented. Just because the commercial argument is clearer doesn't mean the impact of tradition is less. Re-naming a stadium is far less an affront to tradition than a stadium move, arguing for the commercial reasons for the move doesn't change that one bit.

[Guest alex]

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

[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.

 

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.

 

We are on Sky constantly cos we give them good ratings. And that happens whether we are shit or brilliant. We just happen to be good box office.

 

Quite what your Man United comparison is intended to achieve is anyone's guess.

[Craig 6682]

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?

 

....and a brand other than Sports Direct.

[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.

Thanks for repeating my point, commercial reasons trump tradition and the stadium move is the more prevalent and better example of this. In diametric opposition to how it's been presented. Just because the commercial argument is clearer doesn't mean the impact of tradition is less. Re-naming a stadium is far less an affront to tradition than a stadium move, arguing for the commercial reasons for the move doesn't change that one bit.

 

My point is that relocation is seen as less of an assault on tradition because it's born out of necessity. Mike Ashley changing the name of the club ground for some free advertising is not. If it was really about revenue and moving the club forward, I think people would have less of an issue with it. But, as things currently stand, that simply isn't what this change is about. It's about turning us into a Sports Direct billboard, on the cheap, and while the going's good.

[trophyshy 7083]

Just to repeat what's been said several times, for those of you in black and white, the club will never see a fucking penny from this renaming.

[Guest alex]

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

[Guest alex]

Chez gunning for CT's vacant Mary, Mary crown

[Toonpack 9431]

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.

 

So what, if the "showcase" does work, it will generate revenue. Even if it he has no intention of it working (in terms of an external sponsor) as his freebie vehicle the team/performance has to be decent.

 

Even with their Oligarch, Chelsea are doing it next season btw

[sweetleftpeg 0]

The more I look at this the more obvious it becomes that Ashley has known all along that no-one will dare come in and take over the name and he may as well piss us off and get free advertising at the same time. If no-one in Britian knew who S***** D***** were before, they do now. Cunt!

[Guest alex]

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.

 

So what, if the "showcase" does work, it will generate revenue. Even if it he has no intention of it working (in terms of an external sponsor) as his freebie vehicle the team/performance has to be decent.

 

Even with their Oligarch, Chelsea are doing it next season btw

The showcase that hasn't worked over the past two years you mean? Also, are Chelsea getting actual revenue for their change?

[manc-mag 1]

The more I look at this the more obvious it becomes that Ashley has known all along that no-one will dare come in and take over the name and he may as well piss us off and get free advertising at the same time. If no-one in Britian knew who S***** D***** were before, they do now. Cunt!

 

True dat, Laurence!

[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.

 

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.

 

everybody but Toonpack [and his chums elsewhere] know the club won't see this money. Maybe he will now give Mike Ashley until September 1st 2017 before casting judgement on him ?

[ChezGiven 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.

[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.

 

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 ?

Edited November 11, 2011 by LeazesMag

[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.

[ChezGiven 0]

Chez gunning for CT's vacant Mary, Mary crown

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

[David Kelly 1245]

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.

Surely it's more of an affront to tradition because it's been done purely to benefit the owner and his prime concern rather the football club?

Clubs have moved grounds throughout the history of the sport to benefit the club.

Going back to when shirt sponsorship first came about (i'm far too young to remember this) fans probably weren't too happy with the defacing of the club strip with gaudy advertising but they accepted it because it brought in additional revenue to the club which helped it survive/grow/prosper. If it had been used by club owners just to advertise their other business without any payment to the club (a scenario which we are rapidly heading towards) there would have been a similar outcry.

Clubs have used and will continue to use whatever means are at their disposal to increase revenue which is fine (as long as it doesn't effect the fans ability to enjoy their team and sport) but to do its simplly for the owners benefit is something else entirely.

[manc-mag 1]

Surprised Pardew wasn't wheeled out to do the Press Con for this on his tod btw.

[sammynb 3357]

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?

 

....and a brand other than Sports Direct.

 

NOT.GOING.TO.HAPPEN!

[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.

[Toonpack 9431]

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.

[ChezGiven 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.

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.

[sammynb 3357]

Chez gunning for CT's vacant Mary, Mary crown

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

 

So what is club/stadium advertising worth now out of interest?

[LeazesMag 0]

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.