Change @ St. James

[TheMoog 0]

The way things are going we'll lose the black and white stripes next, just so Ashley can 'showcase' the potential of a company displaying their colours on our kit. For me it's like they're gradually chipping away at what makes Newcastle Utd the club that it is. Disregarding all tradition and what the club is made of, hell they could change the name to Sports Direct FC if it made some money! Do we really want to be a faceless, plastic football club just to win something or do we want something we can identify with, special to us and only us? For those that say they don't care I assume (rightly or wrongly) that you would have been the same as those Wimbledon 'fans' who continued to follow the club when the whole thing moved and became MK Dons, even when it was sitting in a new town. I for one will never cease in referring to the ground as St James Park but that's not enough, it makes no difference what I call it to everyone else, the fact that another part of the club's heritage is being changed to supposedly finance better things, other fans and the media with no connection to the club will forget and from that we will just become another club in the football league as opposed to Newcastle United, a club with a rich history, a club that's know the world over.

[ChezGiven 0]

NR have confirmed it's shirt sponsorship is finishing early too, so SD is going on the shirts as someone on here said privately weeks ago. If that whole deal is for free then we need to get the pitchforks out.

[Toonpack 9126]

NR have confirmed it's shirt sponsorship is finishing early too, so SD is going on the shirts as someone on here said privately weeks ago. If that whole deal is for free then we need to get the pitchforks out.

 

Agree on that mind.

 

Edit, having thought about it a bit more: I'd be surprised if it was free mind, SD's cash isn't his per se, they will have a marketing budget and he could quite properly use that to sponsor NUFC, where he is really personally exposed, diverting some to reduce said exposure.

 

I also don't hold with the "he bought the club solely to promote SD" theory, certainly the link does SD no harm, but it has cost him (personally, not SD) in total around £280 Million, he could have got the much better exposure for SD by not spending a penny of his own cash and simply sponsoring a club via SD at much less cost. For less he could have had SD on Man U shirts for the last 5 years, as an example. He's nothing if not a brilliant businessman and spending more to get less doesn't fit the "brilliant businessman" model.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Toonpack

[Gemmill 44179]

NR have confirmed it's shirt sponsorship is finishing early too, so SD is going on the shirts as someone on here said privately weeks ago. If that whole deal is for free then we need to get the pitchforks out.

 

Aye, if this is what he wants to do, then he owns the club and it's his prerogative. But it should absolutely be done on an arms length, commercial going rate basis. I very much doubt it will be.

 

Don't think this is exactly news, but spoke to someone last night who confirmed that the stadium renaming IS designed to "take the hit" for a potential buyer, and that in the absence of a buyer coming to light, the plan is for Sports Direct to go on the shirts next season. Which, Is fine (not really, but you know...) if its done on commercial terms. Otherwise he can fuck off.

[Happy Face 29]

Petition should be to get sbr foundation to 'showcase'. Expose the lies when they refuse.

[Mag Max 0]

I know I'm in a minority here but for me this name change issue is not a problem. SJP will be referred to as the SDA on official media but it will always remain SJP for us and for everyone else.

 

In a way it's like a stage name. Louise Ciccone is known as Madonna but she's still Louise Ciccone.

 

Those of the fairer sex will probably relate the whole issue to a girl who changes her surname after getting married. We are kind of married to Mike Ashley after all . . . .

 

Now on to the shirt sponsorship issue. Again I have to go against the flow. Quite frankly I prefer to be associated with a successful retail company than with a bank that has been bailed out by the taxpayer!

[Gemmill 44179]

[peasepud 59]

I know I'm in a minority here but for me this name change issue is not a problem. SJP will be referred to as the SDA on official media but it will always remain SJP for us and for everyone else.

 

In a way it's like a stage name. Louise Ciccone is known as Madonna but she's still Louise Ciccone.

 

Those of the fairer sex will probably relate the whole issue to a girl who changes her surname after getting married. We are kind of married to Mike Ashley after all . . . .

 

Now on to the shirt sponsorship issue. Again I have to go against the flow. Quite frankly I prefer to be associated with a successful retail company than with a bank that has been bailed out by the taxpayer!

 

Yep, you're right.

 

 

You are in a minority

[Brock Manson 0]

Change his username to Tampax and see if he still feels the same.

[ewerk 30175]

Comparing SJP to Madonna is by far the best argument that his been put forward.

[Park Life 71]

We've gone round in a circle as when I read people saying they would rather keep the name than play in the CL or be relegated rather than change it, I argued for that trade off. They seem to have come round to that anyway as the discussion of how much arsenal gained shows people would be willing to accept the change if the benefits were significant enough.

 

My point remains that no matter how much arsenal gained, the loss of footballing heritage in this country when arsenal converted Highbury into flats was far greater than our name change. The pyramid example was to emphasise that money doesnt make the loss any less, it can only compensate for it. Arsenal's move apparently didn't have any impact on our footballing heritage because they gained so much income because of it. It's perverse: 'money/greed is destroying our game's heritage (SJP) except when so much money is involved it doesnt matter (Emirates)'.

 

The press and now MPs are not arguing that 'compensation in terms of increased club income is not enough to offset the loss' its being presented as a crime against our footballing culture with no reference to money. You either present the argument as a trade off in which we are not going to be compensated for the loss or you present it in the context of destroying stadiums and shifting them to spaces with no cultural heritage across town. MP Catherine Mckinnel is saying we are 'doing away with 130 years of history', she doesn't go to say 'and unlike the disastrous loss of Roker park to our culture, this time Newcastle will get nothing out of it'. Or maybe she did and the press preferred not to report it.

 

With the land on which the stadium is built called SJP, the city council not changing the road signs (and possible legal challenges from them) the fans of all clubs referring to it as SJP for the foreseeable, Ashley's shelf-life at the club unlikely to extend to more than a decade and most importantly matches continue to be played in the same place they always have done, am actually not that worried about preserving the heritage of the club. My concern is whether we will get anything in return or a shirt sponsor in time for next season. Someone on here told me weeks ago that the NR deal was coming to an end and that SD would take it's place on our shirts, it looks horribly like he was spot on.

Everything you've said is obvious though. The whole lot. It's obvious there's a ven diagram out there somewhere, where you could gauge a financial benefit that would meet public acceptance for the bastardisation of 130 years of history and culture. Only an idiot could see there isn't but to me and I respect you a lot, clearly a very bright astute intelligent lad, but the vast majority of your posts on this thread are like when someones in sixth form in the common room hoping to be voted debater of the month. Beginning to talk about the Arsenal example is a ridiculous tangent and at this moment in time, there's little or strong evidence (based on past history) there's a willingness to generate additional income for the football club by "show casing" the naming rights. They aren't that stupid, they will have calculated what the reaction would be, they are aware that the adverse reaction will short term and long term put big business off. Why??? To show case his scabby company. It's that simple, going off at tangents about the heritage of the city I find almost antagonistic when the basic subject hits you in the face.

 

Chez IS clever (and it's one of the reasons I like him) but he's gone straight to the zero sum game... I'd kill him at chess like.

[Dr Gloom 21768]

Biffa and Niall have never been more correct:

 

So there we have it. The ground name is being sold because the fans are demanding another striker. Is that finally an admission that no more of the Andy Carroll money is going to be spent on players and all £35m has already been reinvested in the club? Those agents fees really must be extortionate....

 

Let's assume that the £8-10m is an exaggeration and in reality selling this part of the club's heritage will bring in more like £5-7m. Is it worth it? That is not going to help us "compete with the big boys".

 

At the moment clubs like Stoke City, Fulham and QPR are outspending us, while we plead poverty. That's despite 45K season ticket holders, a significant share of TV money, substantial merchandise income (including three new shirts per year) and the fees banked from other player sales - not just big Andy.

 

Why are we not already competing with every team in the Premier League except Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and possibly Arsenal? It can't be put down to massive player wages anymore, unless Alan Smith is still costing us £10m/year....

 

Like the Carroll transfer fee, a lot of us would accept the economics if we thought the money was going to be used purely for team strengthening but recent history suggests otherwise.

 

It seems that over four years on, Ashley's lack of due diligence is still being paid for by everyone connected with the club, except those at fault.

 

they've never been more spot on.

[Park Life 71]

someone change TP's name to Twatty Bollocks.

 

it's ok though tp, we'll all know its still you.

 

Don't like the truth eh?

 

It's nothing anyone (including me) hasn't said already.....which is why sponsors won't pay much to slap their name over an existing name with over a century of history behind it. history has been thrown away for nowt here, when it's a valuable commodity that could be exploited worldwide, like Old Trafford - the theatre of dreams.

 

Basically MA was (maybe by luck or chance or whatever or Pardew) on the way to rebuilding the competitive nature and seriousness of the club which has in turn raised expectations and then he goes and does THIS. PR blunder: Total.

[peasepud 59]

Sick of seeing the new name? want to read news reports, official club web pages or match reports as if none of this ever happened? then this is for you, the toontastic "sports direct doesnt exist" web reader.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/st_james_park/

[Park Life 71]

I know I'm in a minority here but for me this name change issue is not a problem. SJP will be referred to as the SDA on official media but it will always remain SJP for us and for everyone else.

 

In a way it's like a stage name. Louise Ciccone is known as Madonna but she's still Louise Ciccone.

 

Those of the fairer sex will probably relate the whole issue to a girl who changes her surname after getting married. We are kind of married to Mike Ashley after all . . . .

 

Now on to the shirt sponsorship issue. Again I have to go against the flow. Quite frankly I prefer to be associated with a successful retail company than with a bank that has been bailed out by the taxpayer!

 

Smash and grab Wummimg at its best.

[ChezGiven 0]

NR have confirmed it's shirt sponsorship is finishing early too, so SD is going on the shirts as someone on here said privately weeks ago. If that whole deal is for free then we need to get the pitchforks out.

 

Aye, if this is what he wants to do, then he owns the club and it's his prerogative. But it should absolutely be done on an arms length, commercial going rate basis. I very much doubt it will be.

 

Don't think this is exactly news, but spoke to someone last night who confirmed that the stadium renaming IS designed to "take the hit" for a potential buyer, and that in the absence of a buyer coming to light, the plan is for Sports Direct to go on the shirts next season. Which, Is fine (not really, but you know...) if its done on commercial terms. Otherwise he can fuck off.

You would have hoped that the deal would be better than the current £2m from NR as the value to SD's business must be much higher than for NR's? Otherwise it will actually cost the club money to carry a sponsor on it's shirt which is too backwards to contemplate.

[peasepud 59]

You would have hoped that the deal would be better than the current £2m from NR as the value to SD's business must be much higher than for NR's? Otherwise it will actually cost the club money to carry a sponsor on it's shirt which is too backwards to contemplate.

Ive given my thoughts on how and why that will happen (about 50 pages ago), Im yet to see anyone give a valid argument why it couldnt be the case.

[ChezGiven 0]

People disagreed with me all day yesterday pud and then this morning I get told the same point I was making was 'obvious' which just goes to show the value of repeating yourself. You'll have to do the same for me, mainly because am on my phone.

[Park Life 71]

...........and he could have done these kinds of things so much better with a little thought and a little nod to the history and supporters of the club - if he was really concerned about such things - he's clearly not. He should understand that SD is not a top tier brand and associating TOO HEAVILY with NUFC is to the detriment of the latter - if he was really concerned about enlarging the image and profitability of the club beyond the UK - but he clearly isn't that bothered. When last year I saw that he was opening new shops in Europe I did for a moment believe that he would enlarge the NUFC brand carefully and methodically with good advice...This is just the dropping of a huge turd onto our branding lanscape and has scared off anybody who had thoughts of getting involved.

 

I was involved with a big big company a couple of years ago and we discussed for nearly two weeks on wether a new range of price sensitive airline seats should be called a 'product' or not on billboards. Product being a negative term with regard to the 'homely' image big carriers try and sell (witness Virgin and BA in the past)...

 

Soemtimes I think MA just needs someone around him who can give good advice. The reason he hasn't after all this time is that he clearly doesn't give a shit. Which is a shame cause this club has all the jigsaw pieces to be top 10 football brand europe wide.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

People disagreed with me all day yesterday pud and then this morning I get told the same point I was making was 'obvious' which just goes to show the value of repeating yourself. You'll have to do the same for me, mainly because am on my phone.

 

Don't worry about people disagreeing with you it brings balance to threads.

[Toonpack 9126]

I know I'm in a minority here but for me this name change issue is not a problem. SJP will be referred to as the SDA on official media but it will always remain SJP for us and for everyone else.

 

In a way it's like a stage name. Louise Ciccone is known as Madonna but she's still Louise Ciccone.

 

Those of the fairer sex will probably relate the whole issue to a girl who changes her surname after getting married. We are kind of married to Mike Ashley after all . . . .

 

Now on to the shirt sponsorship issue. Again I have to go against the flow. Quite frankly I prefer to be associated with a successful retail company than with a bank that has been bailed out by the taxpayer!

 

Yep, you're right.

 

 

You are in a minority

 

A tiny monority on here, yes, elsewhere strangely not.

[peasepud 59]

I know I'm in a minority here but for me this name change issue is not a problem. SJP will be referred to as the SDA on official media but it will always remain SJP for us and for everyone else.

 

In a way it's like a stage name. Louise Ciccone is known as Madonna but she's still Louise Ciccone.

 

Those of the fairer sex will probably relate the whole issue to a girl who changes her surname after getting married. We are kind of married to Mike Ashley after all . . . .

 

Now on to the shirt sponsorship issue. Again I have to go against the flow. Quite frankly I prefer to be associated with a successful retail company than with a bank that has been bailed out by the taxpayer!

 

Yep, you're right.

 

 

You are in a minority

 

A tiny monority on here, yes, elsewhere strangely not.

 

 

youre going to have enlighten me to these sites

[hostile_statue 0]

Let me take you down cause I'm going to

St James' Park

this is what's real

and this is what it's all about

St James' Park forever

 

[peasepud 59]

People disagreed with me all day yesterday pud and then this morning I get told the same point I was making was 'obvious' which just goes to show the value of repeating yourself. You'll have to do the same for me, mainly because am on my phone.

 

 

No doubt people will make the argument that hes not gaining anything by not paying but I honestly believe he is. Additional advertising raises the profile of SD and in turn the profits. As major shareholder he gains from those both in "paper wealth" and actual dividends. NUFC however is different' date=' the more profit it makes then the more the fans expect to see investing in the team etc and him taking money out will not be seen well.

 

So he gives away the advertising and the club end up 2,3,4 or more millions down however all that does is reduce the amount we can spend on players so hes not out of pocket at all. SD however reaps the benefits of world wide exposure, not only in the amount of ads in and around the ground but other things as mentioned on here by others. [/quote']

 

Basic premise is that he cant be seen to be taking money out of the club even if it does make a profit therefore he ensures we dont, ideally breaking even ie no profit and no losses he has to cover. In the meantime he takes the free advertising etc to boost the exposure of SD and reaps his rewards that way.

[LoveTheBobby 1]

On the stagename thing - Shirley Crabtree became Big Daddy .

 

He knew the score .