AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 New stadiums are different though, they don't have an existing name or any history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 New stadiums are different though, they don't have an existing name or any history. I know that, but it's not just small clubs who sell the rights. Ohmelads point seemed to be he didn't like the tackiness of it and that it was a small club thing, but much bigger clubs than us do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 New stadiums are different though, they don't have an existing name or any history. I know that, but it's not just small clubs who sell the rights. Ohmelads point seemed to be he didn't like the tackiness of it and that it was a small club thing, but much bigger clubs than us do it. Fair enough, you're probably right. Did Bayern sell the rights to an existing ground BTW? No idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 No they built a new ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 New stadiums are different though, they don't have an existing name or any history. I know that, but it's not just small clubs who sell the rights. Ohmelads point seemed to be he didn't like the tackiness of it and that it was a small club thing, but much bigger clubs than us do it. Fair enough, you're probably right. Did Bayern sell the rights to an existing ground BTW? No idea. allianz arena Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 It's that sort of thing that will eventually lead to other clubs selling the rights to the ground name though. Other big clubs who already have big stadia and don't need to move grounds will eventually start thinking well if other clubs are making £x amount for the name of the ground, why shouldn't we? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 There are SIXTEEN parts to the letter section on True Faith today Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Five o Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 It's that sort of thing that will eventually lead to other clubs selling the rights to the ground name though. Other big clubs who already have big stadia and don't need to move grounds will eventually start thinking well if other clubs are making £x amount for the name of the ground, why shouldn't we? So, its not relevant imo what everyone else does. This is a case about Newcastle United, our club, our identety. I dont give a flying fuck if Spurs, Everton, Man u whatever club does it, so be it, let em flush down everything that is tradition. We wont accept it, we are proud of our stadium, and its legacy. It would simpley be a direct hit at the spine of the club and city. Cant belive people take so easy on it, just bend over and let Ashley bumfuck the living shit out of the supporters and club... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 It's that sort of thing that will eventually lead to other clubs selling the rights to the ground name though. Other big clubs who already have big stadia and don't need to move grounds will eventually start thinking well if other clubs are making £x amount for the name of the ground, why shouldn't we? So, its not relevant imo what everyone else does. This is a case about Newcastle United, our club, our identety. I dont give a flying fuck if Spurs, Everton, Man u whatever club does it, so be it, let em flush down everything that is tradition. We wont accept it, we are proud of our stadium, and its legacy. It would simpley be a direct hit at the spine of the club and city. Cant belive people take so easy on it, just bend over and let Ashley bumfuck the living shit out of the supporters and club... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcdefg Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Still, if it is going to happen I hope it's by a firm with strong ties to the area http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a69/burchill/DSC00108.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Steak bake stand ftw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 New stadiums are different though, they don't have an existing name or any history. I know that, but it's not just small clubs who sell the rights. Ohmelads point seemed to be he didn't like the tackiness of it and that it was a small club thing, but much bigger clubs than us do it. Would Arsenal or Bayern ever have even considered selling the naming rights to their original stadium? The one they'd proudly called home for a century. If some new owner came in and sold off Highbury's name there'd have been an uproar. Same with Bayern. I don't know of any big club that's done it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I'm not sure Ashley will definitely go through with this. He may have announced the intention early as a way of testing the water. The majority are against it, but the opposition is by no means unanimous, and people may get used to the idea as time passes. I can understand people being against it, but to say that the soul of the club is at stake is a bit much. We play in the Coca-Cola Championship, with ambitions to get into the Barclays Premiership. Fans sit there with an advert plastered over their replica shirts. It seems okay to name a new stadium after a sponsor, but not to re-name an old one. Given the way the game has gone over the last few years, I can't see that this is a huge step beyond any of the other commercial deals that are now customary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Still, if it is going to happen I hope it's by a firm with strong ties to the area http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a69/burchill/DSC00108.jpg Shepherd Offshore Bowl ? Cameron Hall Developments (Gibraltar) Ltd Arena ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 A line has to be drawn somewhere though, doesn't it bob? I mean, we could rename the club, or move to another city... if history doesn't matter at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I'm not sure Ashley will definitely go through with this. He may have announced the intention early as a way of testing the water. The majority are against it, but the opposition is by no means unanimous, and people may get used to the idea as time passes. I can understand people being against it, but to say that the soul of the club is at stake is a bit much. We play in the Coca-Cola Championship, with ambitions to get into the Barclays Premiership. Fans sit there with an advert plastered over their replica shirts. It seems okay to name a new stadium after a sponsor, but not to re-name an old one. Given the way the game has gone over the last few years, I can't see that this is a huge step beyond any of the other commercial deals that are now customary. But it doesn't have to happen at all. Having a sponsor on your shirt has become an industry standard, a fact of life, and who knows, in time selling the stadium's name may become the norm. But right now it isn't, respectable clubs just don't do it and never have. We would not be following the trend on this one, and supporters of any major club would be up in arms if it were them too. I agree with you that people might get used to the idea after a while and the anger will die down, but I honestly think Ashley would be pushing his luck too far this time. People say he owns the club but it's financed by our money and he's screwed without that. As ever, a lot would depend on performances on the pitch - when you're winning games it's easier to pacify the fans, but I think for many their patience has run out with this guy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Sack Nicky Butt, thats a couple of mill a year saved for a start Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs038.snc3/12569_192509950265_612965265_4312402_2452023_n.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I'm not sure Ashley will definitely go through with this. He may have announced the intention early as a way of testing the water. The majority are against it, but the opposition is by no means unanimous, and people may get used to the idea as time passes. I can understand people being against it, but to say that the soul of the club is at stake is a bit much. We play in the Coca-Cola Championship, with ambitions to get into the Barclays Premiership. Fans sit there with an advert plastered over their replica shirts. It seems okay to name a new stadium after a sponsor, but not to re-name an old one. Given the way the game has gone over the last few years, I can't see that this is a huge step beyond any of the other commercial deals that are now customary. But it doesn't have to happen at all. Having a sponsor on your shirt has become an industry standard, a fact of life, and who knows, in time selling the stadium's name may become the norm. But right now it isn't, respectable clubs just don't do it and never have. We would not be following the trend on this one, and supporters of any major club would be up in arms if it were them too. I agree with you that people might get used to the idea after a while and the anger will die down, but I honestly think Ashley would be pushing his luck too far this time. People say he owns the club but it's financed by our money and he's screwed without that. As ever, a lot would depend on performances on the pitch - when you're winning games it's easier to pacify the fans, but I think for many their patience has run out with this guy. Would that be a "respectable club" sold by philandering locals who paid themselves huge amounts out of club funds to often dubious offshore accounts and then sold it to a sports retailing wide boy. Seriously though, I agree with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I'm not sure Ashley will definitely go through with this. He may have announced the intention early as a way of testing the water. The majority are against it, but the opposition is by no means unanimous, and people may get used to the idea as time passes. I can understand people being against it, but to say that the soul of the club is at stake is a bit much. We play in the Coca-Cola Championship, with ambitions to get into the Barclays Premiership. Fans sit there with an advert plastered over their replica shirts. It seems okay to name a new stadium after a sponsor, but not to re-name an old one. Given the way the game has gone over the last few years, I can't see that this is a huge step beyond any of the other commercial deals that are now customary. But it doesn't have to happen at all. Having a sponsor on your shirt has become an industry standard, a fact of life, and who knows, in time selling the stadium's name may become the norm. But right now it isn't, respectable clubs just don't do it and never have. We would not be following the trend on this one, and supporters of any major club would be up in arms if it were them too. I agree with you that people might get used to the idea after a while and the anger will die down, but I honestly think Ashley would be pushing his luck too far this time. People say he owns the club but it's financed by our money and he's screwed without that. As ever, a lot would depend on performances on the pitch - when you're winning games it's easier to pacify the fans, but I think for many their patience has run out with this guy. Would that be a "respectable club" sold by philandering locals who paid themselves huge amounts out of club funds to often dubious offshore accounts and then sold it to a sports retailing wide boy. Seriously though, I agree with you. It does raise the question about - what is a step too far? So called 'respectable' clubs have sold the names of their new stadiums, so I can't see that we're crossing some enormous bridge here. The fact that this precise move hasn't been done before isn't that significant, because there's always a first time. Changing the actual name of the club to suit a sponsor would be the real step too far, I feel. People support a club over a period of time, despite changes of manager, players, competition and even stadium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pav Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs038.snc3/12569_192509950265_612965265_4312402_2452023_n.jpg Yeah, protests being arranged. FB Group linked in my sig. Staying back in the groud after FT is a great way to show our disgust. Try and get behind the team for the 90 mins though, leave protesting for after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 "staying behind after KO?" Not much of a protest staying to watch the match tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe_next_year Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 "staying behind after KO?" Not much of a protest staying to watch the match tbh. usually all for the protests, but i'm abit apathetic to this one, cant see it changing anything, any decent company can realise that cponsering the stadium would link them to ashley, thereby rendering the advertising useless, so i doubt the stadium's name will change. and i think the fat cunt couldnt care less about what we think anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 It's that sort of thing that will eventually lead to other clubs selling the rights to the ground name though. Other big clubs who already have big stadia and don't need to move grounds will eventually start thinking well if other clubs are making £x amount for the name of the ground, why shouldn't we? So, its not relevant imo what everyone else does. This is a case about Newcastle United, our club, our identety. I dont give a flying fuck if Spurs, Everton, Man u whatever club does it, so be it, let em flush down everything that is tradition. We wont accept it, we are proud of our stadium, and its legacy. It would simpley be a direct hit at the spine of the club and city. Cant belive people take so easy on it, just bend over and let Ashley bumfuck the living shit out of the supporters and club... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/3227/72867175.th.jpg It cant do harm having banners like that all over the papers surley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.f2d92e50efb89579ccca9ca610dd29c6.jpg)
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