Jump to content

Sports Direct


Guest neesy111
[[Template core/global/global/poll is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

By the way, isn't using '@' to mean 'at a location' a fucking annoying thing to do.

 

Aye. It's terrible English however you choose to look at it. Presumably what they meant was "The SportsDirect.com Stadium at St. James' Park"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that people seem to have the idea that IF Sports Direct Sponsored St James' Park that would mean Ashley Sponsoring it with his own money.  Ashley owns a percentage of Sports Direct, its not like their advertising budget comes out of Ashley's pocket..

 

He could have granted the sponsorship to them for free though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Roger Kint

Strange that people seem to have the idea that IF Sports Direct Sponsored St James' Park that would mean Ashley Sponsoring it with his own money.  Ashley owns a percentage of Sports Direct, its not like their advertising budget comes out of Ashley's pocket..

 

He could have granted the sponsorship to them for free though.

 

Do you really think their stock could get any lower round here? Yet their shops still get customers all over the region. Like it or not outside of the North East the sight of their logo in the name/on the stands will be a good advert given the publicity we get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are media outlets legally bound to call it this bollocks?

 

I first read that without the word 'it' and it seemed like such a fantastic idea.

 

:lol:

 

The Times: THIS IS BOLLOCKS, The Guardian: BOLLOCKS @ ST JAMES, The Chronicle: NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S SOME MORE FUCKING BOLLOCKS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are media outlets legally bound to call it this bollocks?

 

I first read that without the word 'it' and it seemed like such a fantastic idea.

 

:lol:

 

The Times: THIS IS BOLLOCKS, The Guardian: BOLLOCKS @ ST JAMES, The Chronicle: NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S SOME MORE FUCKING BOLLOCKS.

 

The Mail: IMMIGRANTS HAVE CAUSED THIS BOLLOCKS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are media outlets legally bound to call it this bollocks?

 

I first read that without the word 'it' and it seemed like such a fantastic idea.

 

:lol:

 

The Times: THIS IS BOLLOCKS, The Guardian: BOLLOCKS @ ST JAMES, The Chronicle: NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S SOME MORE f***ing BOLLOCKS.

 

hehehe nearly spat tea all over the monitor there  :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are media outlets legally bound to call it this bollocks?

 

I first read that without the word 'it' and it seemed like such a fantastic idea.

 

:lol:

 

The Times: THIS IS BOLLOCKS, The Guardian: BOLLOCKS @ ST JAMES, The Chronicle: NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S SOME MORE FUCKING BOLLOCKS.

 

:lol:

 

The Guardian headline is the best and quite a realistic future headline I feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are media outlets legally bound to call it this bollocks?

 

I first read that without the word 'it' and it seemed like such a fantastic idea.

 

:lol:

 

The Times: THIS IS BOLLOCKS, The Guardian: BOLLOCKS @ ST JAMES, The Chronicle: NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S SOME MORE FUCKING BOLLOCKS.

 

The Mail: IMMIGRANTS HAVE CAUSED THIS BOLLOCKS.

 

:mackems:

 

Or:  THANK GOD DIANA ISN'T ALIVE TO SEE THIS BOLLOCKS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are media outlets legally bound to call it this bollocks?

 

I first read that without the word 'it' and it seemed like such a fantastic idea.

 

:lol:

 

The Times: THIS IS BOLLOCKS, The Guardian: BOLLOCKS @ ST JAMES, The Chronicle: NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S SOME MORE FUCKING BOLLOCKS.

 

The Mail: IMMIGRANTS HAVE CAUSED THIS BOLLOCKS.

 

:mackems:

 

Or:  THANK GOD DIANA ISN'T ALIVE TO SEE THIS BOLLOCKS

 

YOUR TAXES ARE PAYING FOR THIS BOLLOCKS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are media outlets legally bound to call it this bollocks?

 

I first read that without the word 'it' and it seemed like such a fantastic idea.

 

:lol:

 

The Times: THIS IS BOLLOCKS, The Guardian: BOLLOCKS @ ST JAMES, The Chronicle: NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS, HERE'S SOME MORE FUCKING BOLLOCKS.

 

The Mail: IMMIGRANTS HAVE CAUSED THIS BOLLOCKS.

 

:mackems:

 

Or:  THANK GOD DIANA ISN'T ALIVE TO SEE THIS BOLLOCKS

 

YOUR TAXES ARE PAYING FOR THIS BOLLOCKS

 

PAEDOPHILES ARE GROOMING YOUR KIDS TO LOVE THIS BOLLOCKS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more annoyed if the name made any sense. It's unacceptable either way of course but this is marketing 101 surely: the name is too long, makes no sense, you get lost half way in it when reading it even.

 

I can't believe they are consistently this retarded in their decision making... as said they must just be taking the piss now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how Ashley and Llambias make out that he puts £20m of HIS OWN MONEY into the club to keep it running afloat, yet he always gets something back in return. Like the thing on the Gallowgate stand, or the name of the stadium. So basically he's paying the club so he can promote his shit business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...