Ronaldo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I like the name. It's quite catchy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 nufc.com have a good piece up. Yep, spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'm confused as to what difference this is going to make. It's already technically called the Sports Direct.com @ st James' park, and nobody actually calls it that. It won't make any difference. I agree though that it is just pointlessly bad PR. Meanwhile our PR lady is up some mountains Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 nufc.com have a good piece up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I simply can't countenance this. It's almost the most disgusting thing imaginable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I like the name. It's quite catchy. I would have preferred The SD Bowl. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 What if this is done as a sort of payback on the money he's lent the club. For example, instead of taking out £120m (?) over a period of 10 years, he will use this to get back his money instead. And making us completely debt free in the process. Yeah, that won't happen. The club haven't received a penny in cash or in kind for any of the SD advertising so far and I don't see why that would change now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'd be pissed off, but it seems like all stadia are up for grabs, name-wise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clintdempsey Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 What if this is done as a sort of payback on the money he's lent the club. For example, instead of taking out £120m (?) over a period of 10 years, he will use this to get back his money instead. And making us completely debt free in the process. Yeah, that won't happen. The club haven't received a penny in cash or in kind for any of the SD advertising so far and I don't see why that would change now. Neither would it by this. That's the point with my argument though isn't it? Free advertising for writing off the debts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Serious question, I wonder if there was such a fuss when clubs started defacing their shirts with sponsors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'd be pissed off, but it seems like all stadia are up for grabs, name-wise. But it again raises the point about other clubs getting money for naming rights/advertising, while NUFC are seemingly getting nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Curls Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Then why has he just put them signs up? Surely he would wait for the name change?. Apologies if this has been covered, i only read this page! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'd be pissed off, but it seems like all stadia are up for grabs, name-wise. The chances of real historic stadia like Old Trafford or Anfield being renamed are absolutely nil. Because the people who run those clubs don't have a compulsion to treat their supporters like shit for the sheer hell of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Serious question, I wonder if there was such a fuss when clubs started defacing their shirts with sponsors? I'm sure there would have been, but at least back then people could look to the money as a positive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cort Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'd be p*ssed off, but it seems like all stadia are up for grabs, name-wise. You can't compare our stadium with the newly built Emirates or Etihad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'd be pissed off, but it seems like all stadia are up for grabs, name-wise. The chances of real historic stadia like Old Trafford or Anfield being renamed are absolutely nil. Because the people who run those clubs don't have a compulsion to treat their supporters like shit for the sheer hell of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Serious question, I wonder if there was such a fuss when clubs started defacing their shirts with sponsors? Most match going blokes had Brown Ale down their tops anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nguyen Van Falk Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Joke title? Please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'd be p*ssed off, but it seems like all stadia are up for grabs, name-wise. The chances of real historic stadia like Old Trafford or Anfield being renamed are absolutely nil. Because the people who run those clubs don't have a compulsion to treat their supporters like s*** for the sheer hell of it. Aye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Occupy St James Park Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'm confused as to what difference this is going to make. It's already technically called the Sports Direct.com @ st James' park, and nobody actually calls it that. It won't make any difference. I agree though that it is just pointlessly bad PR. The name of the ground is part of the clubs heritage and one of the few constants in almost 120 years of the clubs history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Occupy St James Park Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 suttonnick Nick Sutton Thursday's Times back page #tomorrowspaperstoday http://twitpic.com/7cjcm5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Even my mate who doesn't follow football is unimpressed by this. He sees absolutely no benefit to renaming St. James'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 What if this is done as a sort of payback on the money he's lent the club. For example, instead of taking out £120m (?) over a period of 10 years, he will use this to get back his money instead. And making us completely debt free in the process. Yeah, that won't happen. The club haven't received a penny in cash or in kind for any of the SD advertising so far and I don't see why that would change now. Neither would it by this. That's the point with my argument though isn't it? Free advertising for writing off the debts. But he's not writing off the 'debts'. If you cancel debt, then you are making a payment in kind, it's not free. The club haven't done this as yet. 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