Decky Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 What if, for the one year as suggested, the Sir Bobby Robson Foundation paid £1m for it or something. They'd make a shitload in donations. The Sir Bobby Robson Stadium The only thing it could be changed to without chaos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 What if, for the one year as suggested, the Sir Bobby Robson Foundation paid £1m for it or something. They'd make a shitload in donations. what would be even better was if the club offered a donation and renamed the stadium to sbr foundation stadium, but like thats going to happen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The Club aims to maximise its commercial revenues; this includes renegotiating its Club sponsor and kit deal, which expire at the end of this season, as well as welcoming offers for the stadium naming rights for next season. The word renegotiating, meaing they are in talks with Northern Rock and Addidas, becasue if it was other companies, then it would just be negotiating, and not renegotiating, so it looks like both Northern Rock and Addidas are interested in keeping us on. addidas no surprise there and thats a good thing, probably the best shirt makers imo. northern rock i'd be shocked if they were allowed to keep the sponsorship on as they're owned by the British taxpayer. Didn't Northern Rock extend the Falcons or Durham Cricket Club's sponsorship recently?, under British taxpayers rule aswell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The Club aims to maximise its commercial revenues; this includes renegotiating its Club sponsor and kit deal, which expire at the end of this season, as well as welcoming offers for the stadium naming rights for next season. The word renegotiating, meaing they are in talks with Northern Rock and Addidas, becasue if it was other companies, then it would just be negotiating, and not renegotiating, so it looks like both Northern Rock and Addidas are interested in keeping us on. addidas no surprise there and thats a good thing, probably the best shirt makers imo. northern rock i'd be shocked if they were allowed to keep the sponsorship on as they're owned by the British taxpayer. Didn't Northern Rock extend the Falcons or Durham Cricket Club's sponsorship recently?, under British taxpayers rule aswell. I'd have personally thought the British government would take a dim view of spending money on sponsoring a football team but I could be wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The Club aims to maximise its commercial revenues; this includes renegotiating its Club sponsor and kit deal, which expire at the end of this season, as well as welcoming offers for the stadium naming rights for next season. The word renegotiating, meaing they are in talks with Northern Rock and Addidas, becasue if it was other companies, then it would just be negotiating, and not renegotiating, so it looks like both Northern Rock and Addidas are interested in keeping us on. addidas no surprise there and thats a good thing, probably the best shirt makers imo. northern rock i'd be shocked if they were allowed to keep the sponsorship on as they're owned by the British taxpayer. Didn't Northern Rock extend the Falcons or Durham Cricket Club's sponsorship recently?, under British taxpayers rule aswell. I'd have personally thought the British government would take a dim view of spending money on sponsoring a football team but I could be wrong You think NR paid money to sponsor us for the good of the community? NR paid sponsorship because it made business sense, as in why anyone sponsors a high profile football club. They still need to attract customers, whether they can afford to continue is another question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooneyToonArmy Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 at least KitKat Crescent has been taken already Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Would love to see the Sir Bobby Robson Stadium, tbh, if it's gonna be anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 at least KitKat Crescent has been taken already The monster munch monstrosity hasnt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 There have been a few American sports teams that tried a tricky renaming that brought on a corporate sponsor but retained the original ground name. Like 'Northern Rock Stadium at St James Park'. Just as bad of course, but something they might try. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VegasToon Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I can honestly see Ashley making this worse. SPORTS DIRECT.COM STADIUM :-[ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 It's amazing he is still at the club but I don't think many would tolerate this. It's obvious the money will not be reinvested in the club - the fans are wise to what Ashley is about and wouldn't stand for this. If anything could trigger protests and even a mass boycott this would be it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Depressing as fuck seeing ''Newcastle plan to sell the naming rights to their St James' Park ground'' on the BBC Ticker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I just can't understand why he possibly thinks this could be a good idea, given his reputation amongst the fans. Yes, it might bring some money in short-term, but what about the history of the name, it's been that name for over 100 years. For Ashley to try and change that name for a quick buck is nothing short of disrespectful, lets not kid ourselves. It will definitely still be called SJP amongst the fans and probably by the majority of other fans, but it's the principle behind it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GAMMELL Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Someone sniper-rifle this b*stard please... the cheek of this kunt is just unreal... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby_solano Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 he could always sell the naming rights to sarah jessica parker, then it would still be SJP. and there'd be a doppelganger for coloccini Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The best we can do is to inform any company that buys the rights that they will be boycoutted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 All this does is confirm that Ashley has no affinity for the club or it's supporters and is indeed a Cockney wanker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 at least KitKat Crescent has been taken already Canisten Combi Crescent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Has there ever been a successful renaming of an existing stadium? I can't readily think of one. Naming rights work only when it's not trying to replace an existing name. Ashburton Grove may become well known in the future but until then it'll always be known as the Emirates. To all football fans SJP is Newcastle's stadium, always has been, always will be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Has there ever been a successful renaming of an existing stadium? I can't readily think of one. Naming rights work only when it's not trying to replace an existing name. Ashburton Grove may become well known in the future but until then it'll always be known as the Emirates. To all football fans SJP is Newcastle's stadium, always has been, always will be. Its about to be raped tho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Has there ever been a successful renaming of an existing stadium? I can't readily think of one. Naming rights work only when it's not trying to replace an existing name. Ashburton Grove may become well known in the future but until then it'll always be known as the Emirates. To all football fans SJP is Newcastle's stadium, always has been, always will be. True enough but I don't think you lot would be happy if your rights were sold and was called 'White Hart Mansion' or something? Of course fans would still call it by the original, and while it doesn't bother me, I can see why people are opposing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Has there ever been a successful renaming of an existing stadium? I can't readily think of one. Naming rights work only when it's not trying to replace an existing name. Ashburton Grove may become well known in the future but until then it'll always be known as the Emirates. To all football fans SJP is Newcastle's stadium, always has been, always will be. True enough but I don't think you lot would be happy if your rights were sold and was called 'White Hart Mansion' or something? Of course fans would still call it by the original, and while it doesn't bother me, I can see why people are opposing it. Naming rights are being sold on their new ground aren't they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag-ic Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 at least KitKat Crescent has been taken already That deal's about to run out.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I think new grounds are totally different, they don't have any history and so can be called anything. An existing ground with years of heritage is another matter. If it is renamed we should all vow never to type, say or refer to the new name. We don't need money that much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stalker Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 How much would it cost if we all chipped in and renamed it "Mike you're a fat c**t, just f**k off and die" stadium Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now