Change @ St. James

[Park Life 71]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10. Ashley is a cunt

 

Top darts.

[Christmas Tree 4676]

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

 

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

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,36257.msg3327346.html#msg3327346

 

[Happy Face 29]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited November 11, 2011 by Happy Face

[timnufc 0]

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10. Ashley is a cunt

 

Top darts.

 

Which is why any form of protest should involve KITBAG.COM because that is the only way we can truly get back at Ashley, if his actions result in a competitor gaining more exposure.

[Happy Face 29]

any form of protest should involve KITBAG.COM because that is the only way we can truly get back at Ashley, if his actions result in a competitor gaining more exposure.

 

Every time I hear of supporting a competitor to hurt fatty, it turns out he owns most of their shares. Is it nailed on he doesn't have a stake in it?

 

If not, then I'm all for...

 

We love you Kitbag, we do

We love you Kitbag, we do

We love you Kitbag, we do

oh Kitbag, we love you

[trophyshy 7066]

He would only do something to further spite us imo. Changing the seats to say SD he may not yet have thought of, so thanks for that HF.

 

Be nice to him and he may let us keep our colours/name.

[hostile_statue 0]

They've now replaced every mention of SJP with SDA on .cock.

 

This makes my blood boil:

 

"The Sports Direct Arena, formerly known as St. James' Park, is the oldest football stadium in the North East, football having first played on the turf as early as 1880."

 

 

EDIT: The stadium address is changed too.

Edited November 11, 2011 by hostile_statue

[ChezGiven 0]

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

 

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

[trophyshy 7066]

Do people still get their ashes spread there?

[LeazesMag 0]

Yes we need to be reminded, at least 20 times a day. If only someone could reminds us 20 times a day, ever day.

 

I thought you just said in the "poppy" thread that you were educated ?

 

Has that lemonade gone to your head already ?

 

You still can't read, at your age.

 

Forgot, werthers originals and your teeth. Have fun.

 

lemonade - and coca cola - rot your teeth. Be careful.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

They've now replaced every mention of SJP with SDA on .cock.

 

This makes my blood boil:

 

"The Sports Direct Arena, formerly known as St. James' Park, is the oldest football stadium in the North East, football having first played on the turf as early as 1880."

 

 

EDIT: The stadium address is changed too.

 

Yeah, it gets mentioned in articles like it;s no big deal.

 

http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20111111/sammy-all-smiles-after-england-debut_2281670_2513299

 

Those 79 minutes for England Under 21s were another step in Ameobi's development and the left-sided player is determined to take his international experiences back to the Sports Direct Arena and improve himself even further at club level.

 

No-ones fault there though.

[LeazesMag 0]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10. Ashley is a cunt

 

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

 

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

[Gejon 2]

Yes we need to be reminded, at least 20 times a day. If only someone could reminds us 20 times a day, ever day.

 

I thought you just said in the "poppy" thread that you were educated ?

 

Has that lemonade gone to your head already ?

 

You still can't read, at your age.

 

Forgot, werthers originals and your teeth. Have fun.

 

lemonade - and coca cola - rot your teeth. Be careful.

 

So does alcohol as well as your liver, you too x

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

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

 

top comments. I agree with every word. Apart from saying there remains a - small on here anyway - number of people who think there is a benefit and the Fat Man is doing the proper thing for the football club.

Edited November 11, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Have NUST put in a bid for the naming rights yet?

[LeazesMag 0]

Yes we need to be reminded, at least 20 times a day. If only someone could reminds us 20 times a day, ever day.

 

I thought you just said in the "poppy" thread that you were educated ?

 

Has that lemonade gone to your head already ?

 

You still can't read, at your age.

 

Forgot, werthers originals and your teeth. Have fun.

 

lemonade - and coca cola - rot your teeth. Be careful.

 

So does alcohol as well as your liver, you too x

 

oh, the shame of it, drinking alcohol. You've been watching too many Australian soaps lad.

[hostile_statue 0]

Clarkie seems pissed off: http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/video_audio/120658.html

[Happy Face 29]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited November 11, 2011 by Happy Face

[Gejon 2]

Australian soaps, another very odd Leazism. Not even sure where it comes from, they haven't been on for about 10 years.

 

As is the lemonade thing.

 

Strange old man.

[Monkeys Fist 41932]

Have NUST put in a bid for the naming rights yet?

No, but they whipped out a survey quicker than neutrinos.

 

A survey.

[Kid Dynamite 6973]

Including the question 'would you donate money to us to buy the club' or similar. Mental that people are still members

[trophyshy 7066]

Have NUST put in a bid for the naming rights yet?

No, but they whipped out a survey quicker than neutrinos.

 

A survey.

 

[Brock Manson 0]

Including the question 'would you donate money to us to buy the club' or similar. Mental that people are still members

 

Mental people ever were tbh.

[Toonpack 9126]

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

 

Not really, my argument (not that it's even an argument, more of a premise) is that renaming the Stadium is just another potential revenue stream being exploited (very potentially in this case) and that in terms of cocking a snook at history, it is less violent than a bulldozer. But no different in it's intention.

 

He may not be paying for it (contributing to revenue) but he owns the place lock stock and barrel, he can and will do whatever he wants and to open the can of worms, the club owes him a huge wedge and he aint (yet) charging interest.

 

The bit I don't get, is that SD will have a significant marketing budget (well they should have, but their TV adds maybe suggest they're in Mr Rhaman zips territory) why doesn't he get SD to "really" sponsor the Club/Shirt he could use that cash to reduce his exposure. Club would be debt free quicker and thus a more saleable proposition at no cost to him personally.

 

A sub point is that, for the freebie vehicle to really work, NUFC have to be better than your run of the mill prem team. So the question is, if that is the case, what's the problem if it's a freebie, if the team is doing OK/well.

 

He's done the UK like a kipper, he's after foreign expansion, run of the mill isn't going to get that much exposure.

So do you accept that the talk of bringing in £8m/£10 a year and it paying for a new player is a complete lie then?

 

Not sure what you're driving at tbh.

 

If it brought in £8Mill/£10 Mill a year I would expect it to contribute to the club thus and it's transfer dealings

Do you think that's likely to happen btw?

Howay man.

 

Well you're the one who asked IF 8-10 Mill came in, what did I think it would be used for, I simply answered

[Park Life 71]

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

Edited November 11, 2011 by Park Life