Unbelievable Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 If done with subtlety (“powered by” and not forcing broadcasters to use it as the previous fucker did), after consultation with the fanbase and supported by majority I could live with it as a means to get around FFP and help us build the club. My main gripe with the SDA shit was that the club wasn’t benefitting from it at all. It was even taking space from advertisers willing to pay, hence our pitiful commercial income development vs the competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 Wouldn’t bother me at all if it allowed to us to compete more on the pitch. (As long as it was done tastefully) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 Let’s put it this way: given the choice between staying at Saint James’ but it being renamed “Saint James’ Park powered by Noon” or moving to the “Noon Area” somewhere on an industrial estate, if one of these options was needed in order to allow the owners to get around FFP and make us competitive to challenge for titles and trophies, it would be option #1 wouldn’t it..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 Just do it and embrace it as a kick in the cock to Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 If we keep the ground we have to keep the name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDT Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 'powered by' is a bit grim but can't think of a less grim alternative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 ‘Sponsored by’? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
number37 Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 15 minutes ago, RS said: Tacky and unnecessary. Richest club in the world doesn’t need to rename the stadium (unless they just drop the ‘ and give us £500m spending) I think you might be on to something there. PIF create or fund some trendy, vague company called s, who then sponsor the stadium name for £100m a year on condition their name is incorporated into the stadium name and so we'd have to tolerate: St. James's Park. I could accept that, might have to draw the line at having it in bold though. It's a stadium, not a discotheque. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 37 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said: It won't bring in the money people think, it'll fetch circa half the transfer fee for a decent PL midfielder. Top level football continues to sell away bits of its soul piece by piece and one of the final bits left is that many clubs play at their original grounds with their original names. Keep ours. This. A million times. I must admit as much as I am enjoying this season and the prospect of the immediate future, I am even putting aside the morals a little apprehensive about becoming a soulless super club where everything is a brand tie in and continual 'banter' from every social media orifice (grumble grumble grumble) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 (edited) I think PIF just want to plough as much money into the club as possible to catch up to the big clubs. This is another way of doing that. If there was no FFP I don't think they would bother but they are doing everything possible to legally put as much into the club as they can. Edited October 12, 2022 by Scotty66 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 I agree some is necessary but the comercial side has been so underdeveloped for decades there is so so much low hanging fruit the club can do to raise income before it comes to renaming st james park Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 2 minutes ago, Tiresias said: This. A million times. I must admit as much as I am enjoying this season and the prospect of the immediate future, I am even putting aside the morals a little apprehensive about becoming a soulless super club where everything is a brand tie in and continual 'banter' from every social media orifice (grumble grumble grumble) I'm the same. I thought that with Staveley and her husband involved as well as the Ruebens who've been involved in trying to get the club bought and the city respectively that in spite of our riches we'd (try to) preserve the clubs identity; the crest, the ground, the grounds name etc. This is part of it and I definitely don't want to change it for the sake of ~£25m a year. [/yer_da] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 Powered by seems like a reasonable middle ground for both the die hards and the progressives…. can’t see any problem as long as the money is right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 StJames’ powered by Sports Direct has a ring to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 I would hate to have massive advertising logos on the roof etc. Even if it made financial sense, it would seriously put me off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushimonster85 Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 So long as it's relatively tasteful, I can be bough off with the promise of larger transfer kitties/more for wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 1 hour ago, HaydnNUFC said: It won't bring in the money people think, it'll fetch circa half the transfer fee for a decent PL midfielder. Top level football continues to sell away bits of its soul piece by piece and one of the final bits left is that many clubs play at their original grounds with their original names. Keep ours. It will be a yearly fee not a one off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejaxer Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 As long as it's not like Etihad and Emirates and everyone still calls it St. James Park, I don't really mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 I wouldn't be all that bothered - as has already been said, most people would just shorten it to St James' Park anyway. Which is also why I think it might not work. If no-one referred to the sponsor's name, it's presumably doubtful the sponsorship would be worth all that much. And if it's a related party sponsorship, they'd need to demonstrate that any deal was at fair market value. Which, by the same logic, then wouldn't be all that much. It's not really the same as naming a whole stadium the Emirates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 They're being nice about it, doing the right thing involving the support (the majority will go for it), but at the end of the day it's going to happen. I'm all for it, but then again I would go for a new stadium as long as it's still in the city centre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 15 minutes ago, et tu brute said: It will be a yearly fee not a one off. I'm aware, but £20m-£25m a season for it is a no from me. A Joe Willock a season. Fine with new grounds being renamed, but Chelsea, Man Utd, Everton, Liverpool, Spurs (and yet still) have all managed to spend and compete without renaming their grounds which theyve been playing at more or less for their entire existence. Some have just spent the money they've made better than others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 After putting up with having Sports Direct plastered all over the place and the club getting nowt for it I'd have no objections to this if the money was right. The club needs to generate as much income as possible. We can't expect PIF to prop it up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said: I'm aware, but £20m-£25m a season for it is a no from me. A Joe Willock a season. Fine with new grounds being renamed, but Chelsea, Man Utd, Everton, Liverpool, Spurs (and yet still) have all managed to spend and compete without renaming their grounds which theyve been playing at more or less for their entire existence. Some have just spent the money they've made better than others. 25m a year is roughly a 25% increase of our income, is it not? We can’t expect the owners to keep shelling out their personal wealth to subsidise out rise up the pyramid. FFP won’t even allow them to even if they were willing to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 For me it depends. It would leave bitter taste in my mouth if it was SJP in its current guise. If it was a rebuilt or totally refurbished SJP, that’s a different story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: 25m a year is roughly a 25% increase of our income, is it not? We can’t expect the owners to keep shelling out their personal wealth to subsidise out rise up the pyramid. FFP won’t even allow them to even if they were willing to. Well, nah, because commercial income is not exclusive to stadium naming rights. Man Utd have a ridiculous amount of commercial partners, just from the top of my head they've had Chrevolet, Chivas Regal and what is probably an outrageously lucrative kit supplier deal with adidas. The rest of the big 6 the same, different training wear sponsors, daft things like tyre partners I'd far rather we went down that route first before touching anything to do with the fabric of the club which ultimately to me personally (and probably a few others) is sacrosanct given the way top level football has been going since 1992. Edited October 12, 2022 by HaydnNUFC 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