Dr Venkman Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 why is ot such a heinous crime to rename the stadium but ok to splash advertising over the strip ? We're not called 'Northern Rock', based on what's on our strip. Are we? we're not called sports direct FC either. no-one complained when the stands were re named. No, but the stadium will be referred to as 'Sports Direct Arena', on TV and in the media. That's my point, which you knew, of course. but the people that matter will still call it SJP. unfortunatly the people that matter, if they want to wear the clubs colours have to advertise some other company. I don't know what you're getting at. Do you just want an argument? Because I can't be arsed. nope, just pointing out apparent double standards as i honestly can't see why one is seen as terrible and the other tolerated if not encouraged. It's a bloody terrible analogy,you're comparing micro details to macro details. it's more a question of being honest. the name change will actually have less effect than the shirt sponsorship. think match days. no-one outside the media will use the name, you don't say in the pub "what time are we going up to St James' park ?" but you can't help but notice the sponsorship on every single top. the only thing with the shirt sponsorship is that A) people have become accustomed to it, and B) we weren't the first major club to do it. honesty? being honest about your own subjective opinion you mean? your whole post is based on the assumption that everyone's annoyance with the name change is based on how many times they might hear or speak the name of the stadium. mine certainly isn't, it's based on the fact that the name of the stadium has been officially changed, that's bad enough for me to hate it no matter how many times i have to hear or speak it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooonDoom Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 why is ot such a heinous crime to rename the stadium but ok to splash advertising over the strip ? We're not called 'Northern Rock', based on what's on our strip. Are we? we're not called sports direct FC either. no-one complained when the stands were re named. No, but the stadium will be referred to as 'Sports Direct Arena', on TV and in the media. That's my point, which you knew, of course. but the people that matter will still call it SJP. unfortunatly the people that matter, if they want to wear the clubs colours have to advertise some other company. I don't know what you're getting at. Do you just want an argument? Because I can't be arsed. nope, just pointing out apparent double standards as i honestly can't see why one is seen as terrible and the other tolerated if not encouraged. It's a bloody terrible analogy,you're comparing micro details to macro details. it's more a question of being honest. the name change will actually have less effect than the shirt sponsorship. think match days. no-one outside the media will use the name, you don't say in the pub "what time are we going up to St James' park ?" but you can't help but notice the sponsorship on every single top. the only thing with the shirt sponsorship is that A) people have become accustomed to it, and B) we weren't the first major club to do it. honesty? being honest about your own subjective opinion you mean? your whole post is based on the assumption that everyone's annoyance with the name change is based on how many times they might hear or speak the name of the stadium. mine certainly isn't, it's based on the fact that the name of the stadium has been officially changed, that's bad enough for me to hate it no matter how many times i have to hear or speak it. Why so upset? It's only had the previous name for about a year... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 why is ot such a heinous crime to rename the stadium but ok to splash advertising over the strip ? We're not called 'Northern Rock', based on what's on our strip. Are we? we're not called sports direct FC either. no-one complained when the stands were re named. No, but the stadium will be referred to as 'Sports Direct Arena', on TV and in the media. That's my point, which you knew, of course. but the people that matter will still call it SJP. unfortunatly the people that matter, if they want to wear the clubs colours have to advertise some other company. I don't know what you're getting at. Do you just want an argument? Because I can't be arsed. nope, just pointing out apparent double standards as i honestly can't see why one is seen as terrible and the other tolerated if not encouraged. It's a bloody terrible analogy,you're comparing micro details to macro details. it's more a question of being honest. the name change will actually have less effect than the shirt sponsorship. think match days. no-one outside the media will use the name, you don't say in the pub "what time are we going up to St James' park ?" but you can't help but notice the sponsorship on every single top. the only thing with the shirt sponsorship is that A) people have become accustomed to it, and B) we weren't the first major club to do it. honesty? being honest about your own subjective opinion you mean? your whole post is based on the assumption that everyone's annoyance with the name change is based on how many times they might hear or speak the name of the stadium. mine certainly isn't, it's based on the fact that the name of the stadium has been officially changed, that's bad enough for me to hate it no matter how many times i have to hear or speak it. we allowed shirt sponsorship, we changed the names of parts of the ground with barely a whimper , we were quite happy to ditch the history and tradition and move,yet now people are up in arms over this ? my guess is that had fred done it in the months after signing shearer there wouldn't have been this resistance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 why is ot such a heinous crime to rename the stadium but ok to splash advertising over the strip ? We're not called 'Northern Rock', based on what's on our strip. Are we? we're not called sports direct FC either. no-one complained when the stands were re named. No, but the stadium will be referred to as 'Sports Direct Arena', on TV and in the media. That's my point, which you knew, of course. but the people that matter will still call it SJP. unfortunatly the people that matter, if they want to wear the clubs colours have to advertise some other company. I don't know what you're getting at. Do you just want an argument? Because I can't be arsed. nope, just pointing out apparent double standards as i honestly can't see why one is seen as terrible and the other tolerated if not encouraged. It's a bloody terrible analogy,you're comparing micro details to macro details. it's more a question of being honest. the name change will actually have less effect than the shirt sponsorship. think match days. no-one outside the media will use the name, you don't say in the pub "what time are we going up to St James' park ?" but you can't help but notice the sponsorship on every single top. the only thing with the shirt sponsorship is that A) people have become accustomed to it, and B) we weren't the first major club to do it. honesty? being honest about your own subjective opinion you mean? your whole post is based on the assumption that everyone's annoyance with the name change is based on how many times they might hear or speak the name of the stadium. mine certainly isn't, it's based on the fact that the name of the stadium has been officially changed, that's bad enough for me to hate it no matter how many times i have to hear or speak it. we allowed shirt sponsorship, we changed the names of parts of the ground with barely a whimper , we were quite happy to ditch the history and tradition and move,yet now people are up in arms over this ? my guess is that had fred done it in the months after signing shearer there wouldn't have been this resistance. In my opinion putting sponsors on a shirt and renaming stands within the stadium is not analogous to renaming the stadium as a whole, being a historic landmark of the city. Hence the reaction of people who aren't particularly interested in football, who don't care what the stands are called. Stands only had names as a function of the stadium existing anyway, the stadium is it's own entity made up of individual stands, the two aren't the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 @lee_ryder Lee Ryder For #nufc fans asking about Northern Rock, deal runs out end of season. My info is that it was always to be reviewed at end of each season 59 minutes ago Who cares what that cunt e fuck has to say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 why is ot such a heinous crime to rename the stadium but ok to splash advertising over the strip ? We're not called 'Northern Rock', based on what's on our strip. Are we? we're not called sports direct FC either. no-one complained when the stands were re named. No, but the stadium will be referred to as 'Sports Direct Arena', on TV and in the media. That's my point, which you knew, of course. but the people that matter will still call it SJP. unfortunatly the people that matter, if they want to wear the clubs colours have to advertise some other company. I don't know what you're getting at. Do you just want an argument? Because I can't be arsed. nope, just pointing out apparent double standards as i honestly can't see why one is seen as terrible and the other tolerated if not encouraged. It's a bloody terrible analogy,you're comparing micro details to macro details. it's more a question of being honest. the name change will actually have less effect than the shirt sponsorship. think match days. no-one outside the media will use the name, you don't say in the pub "what time are we going up to St James' park ?" but you can't help but notice the sponsorship on every single top. the only thing with the shirt sponsorship is that A) people have become accustomed to it, and B) we weren't the first major club to do it. honesty? being honest about your own subjective opinion you mean? your whole post is based on the assumption that everyone's annoyance with the name change is based on how many times they might hear or speak the name of the stadium. mine certainly isn't, it's based on the fact that the name of the stadium has been officially changed, that's bad enough for me to hate it no matter how many times i have to hear or speak it. we allowed shirt sponsorship, we changed the names of parts of the ground with barely a whimper , we were quite happy to ditch the history and tradition and move,yet now people are up in arms over this ? my guess is that had fred done it in the months after signing shearer there wouldn't have been this resistance. I'd interested to know how you can back these claims up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 why is ot such a heinous crime to rename the stadium but ok to splash advertising over the strip ? We're not called 'Northern Rock', based on what's on our strip. Are we? we're not called sports direct FC either. no-one complained when the stands were re named. No, but the stadium will be referred to as 'Sports Direct Arena', on TV and in the media. That's my point, which you knew, of course. but the people that matter will still call it SJP. unfortunatly the people that matter, if they want to wear the clubs colours have to advertise some other company. I don't know what you're getting at. Do you just want an argument? Because I can't be arsed. nope, just pointing out apparent double standards as i honestly can't see why one is seen as terrible and the other tolerated if not encouraged. It's a bloody terrible analogy,you're comparing micro details to macro details. it's more a question of being honest. the name change will actually have less effect than the shirt sponsorship. think match days. no-one outside the media will use the name, you don't say in the pub "what time are we going up to St James' park ?" but you can't help but notice the sponsorship on every single top. the only thing with the shirt sponsorship is that A) people have become accustomed to it, and B) we weren't the first major club to do it. honesty? being honest about your own subjective opinion you mean? your whole post is based on the assumption that everyone's annoyance with the name change is based on how many times they might hear or speak the name of the stadium. mine certainly isn't, it's based on the fact that the name of the stadium has been officially changed, that's bad enough for me to hate it no matter how many times i have to hear or speak it. we allowed shirt sponsorship, we changed the names of parts of the ground with barely a whimper , we were quite happy to ditch the history and tradition and move,yet now people are up in arms over this ? my guess is that had fred done it in the months after signing shearer there wouldn't have been this resistance. I'd interested to know how you can back these claims up. i was there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Where? Canvassing the opinion of hundreds on the street? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Where? in newcastle upon tyne. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 How many responses did you get? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Where? Canvassing the opinion of hundreds on the street? i never asked anyone if they were happy we signed shearer, through keeping my eyes and ears open you learn to pick things up though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 @lee_ryder Lee Ryder For #nufc fans asking about Northern Rock, deal runs out end of season. My info is that it was always to be reviewed at end of each season 59 minutes ago He' such a shite journalist, unless he's towing the party line. The deal was agreed till 2014 - providing we are playing in the premier league every year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8465058.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Where? Canvassing the opinion of hundreds on the street? i never asked anyone if they were happy we signed shearer, through keeping my eyes and ears open you learn to pick things up though. I would say the thousands lining the streets to personally welcome the signing of the best striker in England is proof of that. What a stupid argument. By this logic it's perfectly fine to throw bananas at black players because people did it in the past and there wasn't mass outrage at the time. Can't be arsed any more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 bit sad to see a usually good poster jump on the contrary for the sake of it band wagon. we're being drowned in devil's advocates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Where? Canvassing the opinion of hundreds on the street? i never asked anyone if they were happy we signed shearer, through keeping my eyes and ears open you learn to pick things up though. I would say the thousands lining the streets to personally welcome the signing of the best striker in England is proof of that. What a stupid argument. By this logic it's perfectly fine to throw bananas at black players because people did it in the past and there wasn't mass outrage at the time. Can't be arsed any more. then ask yourself why there wan't the mass outrage in past to sponsorship, renaming etc. think of what billytray has recently posted as it is very similar to what people i've spoken to have said. it's only in the lands of the internet where the professionally outraged live that it kicks off. personally i'd rather we weren't the first ones to do this but it will become commonplace. had half the division already done it there'd be little protestation and i'd also get rid of kit sponsorship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 bit sad to see a usually good poster jump on the contrary for the sake of it band wagon. we're being drowned in devil's advocates. Nowt wrong with having a different opinion (though playing devil's advocate is so common for madras that I'm not sure he ever agrees with the majority), I just can't see how anything can ever be wrong or argued against if you use the logic of it being okay in some other situation and/or in the past. As I implied before, if we're going on this basis how would society ever move forward or evolve? In the past all sorts of behaviour was perfectly acceptable, doesn't mean it is now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 bit sad to see a usually good poster jump on the contrary for the sake of it band wagon. we're being drowned in devil's advocates. Nowt wrong with having a different opinion (though playing devil's advocate is so common for madras that I'm not sure he ever agrees with the majority), I just can't see how anything can ever be wrong or argued against if you use the logic of it being okay in some other situation and/or in the past. As I implied before, if we're going on this basis how would society ever move forward or evolve? In the past all sorts of behaviour was perfectly acceptable, doesn't mean it is now. racism and sponsorship are hardly the comparable though dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Where? Canvassing the opinion of hundreds on the street? i never asked anyone if they were happy we signed shearer, through keeping my eyes and ears open you learn to pick things up though. I would say the thousands lining the streets to personally welcome the signing of the best striker in England is proof of that. What a stupid argument. By this logic it's perfectly fine to throw bananas at black players because people did it in the past and there wasn't mass outrage at the time. Can't be arsed any more. then ask yourself why there wan't the mass outrage in past to sponsorship, renaming etc. think of what billytray has recently posted as it is very similar to what people i've spoken to have said. it's only in the lands of the internet where the professionally outraged live that it kicks off. Well that's why I asked you to explain your comment. Unless you were out there asking hundreds if not thousands of people their opinion then I'm not sure how you can claim there wasn't any outrage. Are you saying the existence of the internet has meant people are now angrier than ever before? I would say it's more likely that it's now simply far easier for people to come together with others of similar opinion regardless of their physical location. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 bit sad to see a usually good poster jump on the contrary for the sake of it band wagon. we're being drowned in devil's advocates. Nowt wrong with having a different opinion (though playing devil's advocate is so common for madras that I'm not sure he ever agrees with the majority), I just can't see how anything can ever be wrong or argued against if you use the logic of it being okay in some other situation and/or in the past. As I implied before, if we're going on this basis how would society ever move forward or evolve? In the past all sorts of behaviour was perfectly acceptable, doesn't mean it is now. racism and sponsorship are hardly the comparable though dave. Never said they are. Fuck this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 I'm only 14 FYP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 @lee_ryder Lee Ryder For #nufc fans asking about Northern Rock, deal runs out end of season. My info is that it was always to be reviewed at end of each season 59 minutes ago He' such a s**** journalist, unless he's towing the party line. The deal was agreed till 2014 - providing we are playing in the premier league every year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8465058.stm Indeed but it's been made aware recently that there was a get-out clause in the contract which could be activated after 2 years - something which Northern Rock has decided to take up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 a sponsor on a shirt and changing the name of a stand is COMPLETELY different to changing the name of a local landmark though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 @lee_ryder Lee Ryder For #nufc fans asking about Northern Rock, deal runs out end of season. My info is that it was always to be reviewed at end of each season 59 minutes ago He' such a s**** journalist, unless he's towing the party line. The deal was agreed till 2014 - providing we are playing in the premier league every year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8465058.stm Indeed but it's been made aware recently that there was a get-out clause in the contract which could be activated after 2 years - something which Northern Rock has decided to take up. Anything from Northern Rock on this? No mention of a clause before... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Colocho: Nothing new apart from saying it was a decision made by Northern Rock on financial grounds. Northern Rock has ended its sponsorship deal with Newcastle United early, the BBC has learned. The £10m deal was renewed in January last year and was due to last four years. It included a clause allowing the bank to get out after two years, which it has now taken up. It is understood the decision was made on financial grounds. On Thursday, the club announced its ground St James' Park was being renamed the Sports Direct Arena. Newcastle-based state-run bank Northern Rock said the end of the sponsorship was nothing to do with the stadium name change, but following a change in the way it spends money on marketing. In the last few years, Northern Rock has ended its sponsorship deals with Durham County Cricket Club, basketball outfit Newcastle Eagles and rugby union side Newcastle Falcons. Neither Northern Rock nor Newcastle United would be interviewed on the decision. 'Different way' But in an interview with BBC Newcastle on Thursday about the stadium name change, Newcastle United managing director Derek Llambias said they were looking for a new shirt sponsor. He said: "I need to find a new shirt sponsor by the end of December - and that's the latest. "Puma need to put the shirt sponsor on, they're manufacturing, and they would like it last month. "I've got a very small window to sell the shirt and naming rights and, if I have to sell them separately, then I have to sell them separately." Newcastle United, who are currently third in the Premier League, said a change to the Sports Direct Arena was a prelude to securing a new global sponsor which would generate more revenue. It said the club could generate up to £10m a season by attracting a joint shirt and stadium sponsor. But the announcement about the stadium rename was greeted with anger by fans. Labour leader Ed Miliband urged Newcastle United to abandon plans to rename its ground. The Labour leader said football clubs were owned not just by individuals but their supporters, and that given the "overwhelming" opposition of fans the club had a responsibility to find a "different way forward". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-15699182 No official comment from Northern Rock as such really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts