Cronky

Where do you live? I only ask because most of the people I know would fit in to the "older" age range, not that they post on here. I know a few on here have said that they have seen no or little reaction away from the forum. I spend more time away from the forum than on it and the people I know are totally pissed off about the name change. I don't know a single person away from the forum who has agreed with the name change. Most of the people I spend my non- forum time with would be classed as professionals and I've heard some surprising comments from them about what they would say or do if they ever met Ashley or Llambias. I have no doubt they’d do or say nothing, the fact that they are saying things like wanting to knock 10 bells out of them is surprising. I don't live in the North-East, so I'm not going by local opinion. I'm going by what I'm reading on here. And whilst there's bound to be quite a few exceptions, I've genuinely felt that the older posters seem to be more philosophical about this. I'm not saying agreeing with the decision - I'm saying accepting it.

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat. I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years. I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd. Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm. So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

Actually enraged by this. If you're referring to the quotes in the opening post, you're crazy to think that they're a 'criticism'. I think you've just proved my point. Lighten up.

It's frustrating that so many of you seem to act like mother hens fussing over their precious chicks, whenever Keegan or Shearer get criticised. They're human beings with flaws just like the rest of us.

Just seen a recording, and he still looked very fragile. Piers Morgan's relentless optimism wasn't at all convincing. Perhaps things were always likely to turn bad for him, but the moves to Spurs and then Lazio weren't the best ones. It was sad to hear the account of Spurs gazumphing Man U's offer by saying they'd buy his parents a house, and then members of his family all pitching in to see what they could get out of the deal. It didn't sound like they were really thinking of what was best for him.

why should we be a laughing stock? the press are printing this garbage because they think they will get a big reaction from us, the toon army. and we are playing into their hands. every time! i personally don't give a damn what llambias has said because he isnt that far from the truth. whats the big controversy??? Keegan - absolutely correct Shearer - looks correct Hughton - not sure, may be correct, but calling him indecisive is hardly the worst thing ever Carroll - so far, correct the media always play with us like this, pull on our heart strings bacause they know easy it is to get an uproar reaction from our fans, they know we the most emotional and passionate fans out there, and i feel sick and tired of our gullable fans falling for it hook line and sinker everytime. can't we just bloody ignore that twat llambias and the press for once and just fukking carry own supporting our eleven men out on the field thats actually doing the business for us, its them that really matters, not derek or ashley. or the fukking press or any kunt that goes around recording peoples conversations. Yeah, same here. Not much to surprise us and plenty to agree with. However, if he says things when he's drinking that he wouldn't say when sober, he shouldn't be drinking in public places. Interesting the idea that Keegan was brought in to please potential buyers. Perhaps that was one consideration, though I doubt if it would be the only one. I suspect that by around that time, Ashley had fully realised the financial difficulties that the club was in, and didn't fancy the long haul of sorting it out.

I tend to believe this is true. We're essentially a massive advertising board for his company at the moment, and the one grain of blind optimism I can take from that is the notion that the better we do, the more global advertising Sports Direct will receive. Therefore Ashley will probably see it as being in his best interests to maximize the club's exposure (and therefore his company's exposure) by competing in continental competitions, which may actually mean that he'll start investing to get us there. Decent point. We don't know how things will turn out but if Sports Direct do end up getting this exposure - whether by accident or design - it would be pointless for the company to be associated with failure.

Two points on this - I don't think we can rely too much on experts either for or against this, because I don't think this precise step of re-naming the stadium of a major English club has been tried before. Secondly, they seem to be trying to sell the idea to an international market. They're trying to demonstrate how a sponsor's name will get a very high profile on international TV by the various advertising spots around the ground (presently occupied by Sports Direct), and by the naming of the stadium. Local fans choosing to keep calling it St James's Park might not put anyone off. The ambition is to get an international sponsor, not a local one or even a British one.

Well said. The way he played the last couple of games makes him a midtable midfielder. Really good enough for us as back up. I feel frustrated at the reluctance to give the lad proper praise. His last two performances have been the equal of anything we've seen from Tiote and Cabaye this season IMO. Why shoe-horn him into a back-up role when he has shown the potential to be something more? And it's perfectly possible to play all three together in the right formation. He may have benefitted from coming out of the shadow of fellow scousers Nolan and Barton. As Pardew said, when leaders go, it gives the chance for new leaders to emerge.

He fits our profile of talented players whose careers have stalled and who may be eager for the chance to get started again. Risky, but great if it comes off. I wouldn't be at all surprised about this one.

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field. I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny. earth shudderingly stupid WEAPONS grade stupidity Infinity times stupid. I win.

Llambias reckons this particular bit of heritage is worth giving up for £8m-10m per year. One player, he says. Just how much more competitive do you think that will make us? May I ask how much it would cost to convince you to drop 'Newcastle United Football Club'? One of the regular difficulties in getting into a debate about Ashley is that people keep on bringing up things that he hasn't done. I need to start chilling now. Night all.

Okay, if people would genuinely pass up the chance of the extra income for the sake of keeping the St James's Park name, then fine. That's the issue on which we differ. Personally, I'd be prepared to accept it, because it at least as the potential of making us more competitive through driving up the income stream. Yes, I'm prepared to sacrifice that bit of our heritage. It just strikes me that in a number of posts, some people have been ducking that issue by resorting to the usual comfort zone of Ashley's a crook and a liar. All is so much simpler when seen in that light.

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field. I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny. But it's what they say will happen. Why doubt them? Nobody knows whether this is going to succeed. Renaming a stadium is a new venture, as far as I know, never been tried by a major English club. I think Llambias himself said that it was a matter of giving things a go, in this particular window of opportunity where the naming rights and the shirt sponsorship would both be up for sale. Of course it's a risk. The question is, do you want it to succeed? they've not decided to rename the stadium after new sponsors though. they've decided to rename it the "sports direct arena" with no financial benefit for the club. that's the facts of the case and how the name will remain indefinitely. the rest is speculation. Just to clarify - are you saying that Ashley has no intention of selling the naming rights to another company? If you're not, I don't see how you can dismiss the idea that someone's going to come in. where did i "dismiss" it? maybe you are confused and used the wrong word. I have simply stuck to the facts of the current situation, something you seem loath to do. Your first post didn't acknowledge that the club's stated plan was to use the 'Sports Direct Arena' name as a prelude to getting in sponsorship from somewhere else. I wanted to clarify whether that was because you felt that the club actually had no intention of getting another sponsor, or whether you felt they were bound to fail.

Nobody wanted to lend their name to the blah-de-blah@stjames'spark stadium. It was a naff idea that came about because they didn't have the nerve to offer the proper naming rights. That's what they're offering now.

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field. Having the stadium as Sports Direct Arena will not increase the club's income, nor will it lead to it increasing its income. The name rights were on sale two years ago - nowt has changed, noone is interested. This is what's pissing me off most. Anyone not against this has the argument of 'well, it increases income'. It f***ing isn't. They're not spending a penny on this 'sponsorship'. They're 'advertising' the opportunity another company can have. If no one takes it up, the club isn't getting a penny for this monstrosity. And if it does get taken up, what would be your feelings about that? If we get taken over by a trillionaire and win the league with 11 Geordies in the team, I'll be over the moon. What's your point? My question was - do you want a sponsor to come in and pay £8-10 million per year for the naming rights on the stadium, or don't you? Quite simple.

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field. I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny. But it's what they say will happen. Why doubt them? Nobody knows whether this is going to succeed. Renaming a stadium is a new venture, as far as I know, never been tried by a major English club. I think Llambias himself said that it was a matter of giving things a go, in this particular window of opportunity where the naming rights and the shirt sponsorship would both be up for sale. Of course it's a risk. The question is, do you want it to succeed? they've not decided to rename the stadium after new sponsors though. they've decided to rename it the "sports direct arena" with no financial benefit for the club. that's the facts of the case and how the name will remain indefinitely. the rest is speculation. Just to clarify - are you saying that Ashley has no intention of selling the naming rights to another company? If you're not, I don't see how you can dismiss the idea that someone's going to come in.

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field. Having the stadium as Sports Direct Arena will not increase the club's income, nor will it lead to it increasing its income. The name rights were on sale two years ago - nowt has changed, noone is interested. This is what's pissing me off most. Anyone not against this has the argument of 'well, it increases income'. It fucking isn't. They're not spending a penny on this 'sponsorship'. They're 'advertising' the opportunity another company can have. If no one takes it up, the club isn't getting a penny for this monstrosity. And if it does get taken up, what would be your feelings about that?

If Ashley really only cared about progress for the club and was in this for our best interests, then you might have a point. But that's not the case. He's in this game to make a profit, it's become abundantly clear over the recent past. Not that this in itself is a bad thing, all businesses should be profitable, but he'll not be happy with just breaking even and giving us a good team in the process. He's here to make as much as he can like a fucking locust swarm over a field of crops before fucking off and leaving us to pick up the scraps. Maybe his intentions were different at one point, but not now, not after he felt that his nose had been put out by the fans after the Keegan debacle. You've obviously got quite an agenda against Ashley which extends far beyond the re-naming of the stadium. Fair enough, you're not alone in that, but the difficulty I have in reading this thread is knowing how much it's yet another series of We-Hate-Ashley rants, and how much it's a weighing up of the pros and cons of selling the stadium rights in what's a very competitive and commercial field.

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field. I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny. But it's what they say will happen. Why doubt them? Nobody knows whether this is going to succeed. Renaming a stadium is a new venture, as far as I know, never been tried by a major English club. I think Llambias himself said that it was a matter of giving things a go, in this particular window of opportunity where the naming rights and the shirt sponsorship would both be up for sale. Of course it's a risk. The question is, do you want it to succeed?

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field. Look, forgetting the distastefulness of renaming the stadium, they haven't even managed to spend the Carroll money yet. They're not short of cash, they're fucking rolling in it at the moment. Suggesting that they need more money to not spend on top of the money they're already not spending is hardly going to do anything to increase our chances of success on the pitch. Without getting into debates about how much of the Carroll money has been spent, and how much money they've got to spend in general, this is a highly competitive business. There are richer clubs out there who are trying to scoop up all the best players. The club are saying that they have to do everything possible to maximise their income.

I can understand people being unhappy about the situation, but now that the proposal is out there, and the club is committed to it, do you want it to succeed or to fail? That's the real question now. It strikes me that the likely consequences of failure would be instability and uncertainty.

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club? You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

I get so pissed off with all this self-righteous hysteria. The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

I had to laugh at Sir John Hall and his talk about tradition. One of his early proposals - expounded in a match programme - was to sell St James's Park and build a new stadium in Washington jointly with Sunderland.