Kid Icarus

Exactly, they don't need to, that's precisely the point, it's not worth doing.

Well, aye, obviously

If you're putting 2 and 2 together, fair enough, but there's nothing in that article that says we have to do it if we want to compete.

Good old Lee Mason, taking an age to get the ref to check the most obvious hand ball you'll ever see.

Show me where they've said we have to do it if we want to compete? Eales has talked about fan consultation, I'd be absolutely astounded if stadium sponsorship was a make or break issue for our success and even more astounded if that being the case they allowed fans to have any influence on the decision.

The levels we're aiming for doesn't change anything does it? The argument earlier was that it brings in money that makes it worth doing, so surely they'd have done it if it's worth doing? Everton have also spent £300m more than we have trying to break through the glass ceiling and are on the bones of their arse now, so you'd think they'd be doing it if it was worth doing, Likewise Villa. Liverpool are pretty shrewd financially too. They wouldn't dare change the name of Anfield. 1 because unlike some of our lot, they have a sense of history and wouldn't allow it, and 2 the money it brings in wouldn't make it worth doing anyway.

They're probably not like, you just want to use that argument Old Trafford, Villa Park, Anfield, Goodison, and plenty of others haven't changed names or took on sponsorship. Until an existing stadium takes up a name change and brings in the amounts being banded about in here, it's a pretty weak argument.

Absolutely fantasy to think we'd get anything near that, even if we could justify it financially. You can keep making claims and throwing about childish insults all you want like, it makes no difference.

It is up for debate though, unless you can cite other sponsorship deals that are comparable.

PIF are that stupid. I'd recommend looking into The Line and Neom if you're just assuming it's some kind of perfect business operation, because it's not. And again, you're just assuming a name change would bring in loads of money, when there's nothing to suggest it would.

If you honestly think the money that a name change would bring in would be worth it, you either need to look at the amounts brought in elsewhere, or you value the St James' Park name very cheaply. It doesn't take a dinosaur to know that. At nun, not WM.

If you're thinking we're getting anywhere near 200m for it, it won't just be us that's left disappointed.

It's funny because Mehrdad, Staveley, Eales, and Howe all seem to disagree. Eales has mentioned stadium sponsorship, but only with fan consultation and nothing like that @st james' park monstrosity.

No it wouldn't. 200m isn't going to make 'Aramco@St James' Park' and shitting on our history worth it.

We've got far more in common with the scousers than most other areas' populations. It's a shame some people have disdain for them and have sided with the people who should be our common enemies.

Yeah, I think the best way to put is - discounting any referee/VAR fuckery - if we're at our best, Man United will need to be at their best to get a result. If we're not, they won't. Nothing overconfident or arrogant about that.

We have about 800m to make up for from the Ashley era before even getting into outlay territory.

Klopp's looking like he's going down the Mourinho darkside path like. I could overlook most of what he's said but that comment about Hamman was weird.

I'd say the overrating and underrating is a two way street, at least.

You've Man United your way to victories though and although that's a powerful thing and stats might say this, that, and the other, beyond that I don't think anyone looking in is really convinced by watching you yet. Sunday could go any way though, I think it's a really hard one to predict.

Don't think that many people had him like.

The whole aesthetic of the city crest is great though imo. It doesn't matter that it's seahorses or whatever, the full thing and its symmetry looks class.

He drove me absolutely crazy and he wasn't so much prolific as he was streaky. I appreciated the need for him to be in the team though, even though I'd question it every time he needlessly lost possession in matches where we regularly had limited possession.

Seahorses and Magpies are both very uncool non-stoic looking animals like, but I kind of like it. It's from an era where we seemingly didn't really attach masculinity to animals, mascots and objects like Lions, Wolves, Tigers Devils, Cats etc. Football clubs and fans were just like, ooh we're the magpies, owls, bees, cherries etc and presumably no one cared.

John Carew was decent at times. I'd have guessed that Yorke had scored more than Agbonlahor like.