wormy

Really tempted to chuck a few on us at that price.

I'm only 22 so I can't comment with much authority, but weren't shirt sponsorships derided as much as, if not more, than stadium ren-amings when they first came to the fore, as no one was used to that level of commercialism in football? For the majority of football fans, we've known nothing but shirt sponsorships, it's run of the mill. For me, personally, the stadium renaming in itself isn't the problem. When we've got one of the tightest owners who will look to get any financial upshot he can, it doesn't surprise me. I'm not happy about it, but it doesn't surprise me. The only reason I'm against it is that obviously we're not going to get money from him for advertising his company, and I don't believe a word that they're going get true sponsorships that will pay for the privilege. I'll be vehemently against shirt sponsorship, also, if Sports Direct gets splattered on the shirt, purely because it's another avenue of income gone from the club just so he can shove his shitheap of a company down the nation's throat just that little bit more.

That flyer posted has liquid gold written on it ffs.

http://www.soccerscene.co.uk/Images/sportslogov2.png Much slicker, no?

So nearly a month ago and it hasn't come out until now Fair point. Read this thread drunk last night at 4am and was getting so irate, like.

That Idiot Abroad mash up is fantastic, purely for the last few seconds of Beckham/Ronaldo and the Gervais reaction.

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? I honestly can't see it happening, Cronky. If it does, then okay. I'm not one for the heritage argument. If we can get some cash in the coffers then whatever. But why do we believe it's going to happen? Havn't they been attempting this for the past 2 years? Why do people suddenly think, because they've taking '@St James' Park' from the stadium name, prospective sponsors will now be more interested after having 2 years to consider it?

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.

Got it in one. money talks.

Money talks according to all of those. we will forget that there's no fucking money coming in for it.

Aye. So glad we got the financial income that city got for theirs, like. Fuck sake.

The saddest thing is, even if they dont call the stadium by it, the average Joe, when thinking of Newcastle, will soon start thinking sports direct. Why would another company try to move in on that now? They won't get any value for money because they'll forever share people's thoughts with the previous 'sponsors'.

Aye, the idea that this is a good way of getting sponsors interested in a joke. 'hey! Are you a believer of 'any publicity is good publicity?' Stick your name on our stadium!!' watching the fallout from this will just confirm no one will touch it. And people wonder why we dont like this prick still. I dont believe one second that he hasn't thought of that.

My thoughts on it. This idea of an extra stream of revenue doesn't sit with me. No other club has to do a 'this could be you' to interest potential sponsors, why are we doing it? And the signs, the fact that the stadium name has, officially, had sports direct in the name for a couple of years now, makes me not believe a single word they're saying about it pulling in prospective sponsors. Until the day it changes and it's confirmed were receiving money for the privilege, that won't change. I won't hold my breath.

Fuck off is that real.

Mike Williamson 'championing' him for it on ssn last night, too.

I don't get the deep discussion about it all, tbh. As far as I can see, Ashley simply held on for an off her deemed worth it. Liverpool held out for the same with Chelsea. They were both, especially in hindsight, over the odds. Just because they happened one after the other, doesn't mean there was some agreement in place between particular clubs. They just managed to persuade each other to squeeze the ridiculous amount they wanted out of each other.

Can't argue with that., like.

What the fuck has happened in here? :lol:

This has seriously become the new Ashley v shepherd debate, hasn't it?

Aye, that's the only thing in that picture to haunt them. :lol:

Really sad. I want to see too.

Fucking motivator extraordinaire