St James' Park

[Guest sydneycove]

Randy Lerner is cutting costs, trimming the wage bill after heavy spending at the moment. Villa Park is still Villa Park, yes?

 

At the moment. Will it be within 10 years. I highly doubt it.

 

St James Park is part of 119 years of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.

 

That might not mean anything to you, but it does to the people of this city.

 

It's more than just a f***ing sign.

 

Its a stadium. In the same place it has been for 119 years. I don't care what it is called as long as the club keeps playing at the same place wearing the same black and white stripes in front of the same Geordies who made me fall in love with the club from the other side of the world with the players and fans showing the same passion for the club that makes the club special.

 

 

And what if those black and white stripes go as well some day? If a company offered £20 million to redesign the club's home shirt in their colours would you gladly accept that?

 

But that is a different kettle of fish to stadium naming rights. To answer the question no I wouldn't agree with that. Stadium naming rights however have been sold everywhere else in the world and proven to be a successful income for clubs.

 

Again I will reiterate I am annoyed Sports Direct aren't paying money for this. I am not fussed the club are looking to sell naming rights for the stadium.

 

But the poijt is where do you draw the line? Just because othe clubs have done it for money dosent suddenly mean the line in the sand disapears does it? Like someone said, will the black and white stipes being modified be enough for some? That line isnt there for you, fair enough, it is for me.

 

For the 5th time in the last few pages:

 

I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THE CLUB SELLING THE SHIRT DESIGN, CLUB NAME OR MOVING OUT OF NEWCASTLE FOR MONEY.

 

Ok we all understand right? Do I need to put it in bigger letters?

 

Stadium naming rights however is a successful business model practiced all over the world and all EPL and Championship clubs will be doing this in the next 10 years.

 

Your missing the point.

 

If Spurs modified their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, would that then become acceptable? Just because of the money? The ground name, after all these years, is very much part of our identity to a lot of people, just like the colours. Its not to you, ok then fair enough, simple as that.

 

Well considering it has worked for other clubs (ie Red Bull New York) and I am not championing the club to do that I am going to go with no here.

 

But If Spurs did modify their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, that can easily be classed as something which "worked" for Spurs. But it wouldnt "work" for me, just like changing the ground to Sports Direct Arena dosent work for me.

 

for the 7th time.

 

I would not be happy with or agree with the club changing the jersey, That is completely different to stadium naming rights. FFS people are acting like his moved the club to London.

[Guest sydneycove]

If they named it Sports Direct Arena just for the point of proving they would change the name and advertise it then they should have at least named it the SBR Foundation Arena in the mean time, or something along those lines.

 

Would be nice but in the modern world was never going to happen.

[cfcmagpies]

Pretty much garentee every club in England won't be doing this like, especialy not the likes of Old Trafford, Anfield, Hillsbrough, Villa Park, White Hart Lane, the Boleyn etc. Even Elland Road has maintained it's name, despite been owned by that fucking idiot Bates.

 

I just guess due to the age and nature of the grounds/clubs in England it just means more that it would in Australia or the USA, where 'sports franchising' is much more common. That isn't meant with any disrespect, I just know that 99% of fans from those grounds would be equaly annoyed if there owner changed the name.

 

Not entirely true, most of our football clubs are as old as any professional football club in England. Sydneysiders are a bit different, though. No offence sydneycove.

I had a quick look and most I saw seemed to be founded around the 40s/50s?

 

Sorry, was thinking of the big sports in oz- rugby league and Australian football. They're mostly late nineteenth / early twentieth century. (Association) football here just doesn't have the same support and wouldn't survive as a professional sport without Frank Lowy.

[timnufc22]

Randy Lerner is cutting costs, trimming the wage bill after heavy spending at the moment. Villa Park is still Villa Park, yes?

 

At the moment. Will it be within 10 years. I highly doubt it.

 

St James Park is part of 119 years of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.

 

That might not mean anything to you, but it does to the people of this city.

 

It's more than just a f***ing sign.

 

Its a stadium. In the same place it has been for 119 years. I don't care what it is called as long as the club keeps playing at the same place wearing the same black and white stripes in front of the same Geordies who made me fall in love with the club from the other side of the world with the players and fans showing the same passion for the club that makes the club special.

 

 

And what if those black and white stripes go as well some day? If a company offered £20 million to redesign the club's home shirt in their colours would you gladly accept that?

 

But that is a different kettle of fish to stadium naming rights. To answer the question no I wouldn't agree with that. Stadium naming rights however have been sold everywhere else in the world and proven to be a successful income for clubs.

 

Again I will reiterate I am annoyed Sports Direct aren't paying money for this. I am not fussed the club are looking to sell naming rights for the stadium.

 

But the poijt is where do you draw the line? Just because othe clubs have done it for money dosent suddenly mean the line in the sand disapears does it? Like someone said, will the black and white stipes being modified be enough for some? That line isnt there for you, fair enough, it is for me.

 

For the 5th time in the last few pages:

 

I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THE CLUB SELLING THE SHIRT DESIGN, CLUB NAME OR MOVING OUT OF NEWCASTLE FOR MONEY.

 

Ok we all understand right? Do I need to put it in bigger letters?

 

Stadium naming rights however is a successful business model practiced all over the world and all EPL and Championship clubs will be doing this in the next 10 years.

 

Your missing the point.

 

If Spurs modified their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, would that then become acceptable? Just because of the money? The ground name, after all these years, is very much part of our identity to a lot of people, just like the colours. Its not to you, ok then fair enough, simple as that.

 

Well considering it has worked for other clubs (ie Red Bull New York) and I am not championing the club to do that I am going to go with no here.

 

But If Spurs did modify their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, that can easily be classed as something which "worked" for Spurs. But it wouldnt "work" for me, just like changing the ground to Sports Direct Arena dosent work for me.

 

for the 7th time.

 

I would not be happy with or agree with the club changing the jersey, That is completely different to stadium naming rights. FFS people are acting like his moved the club to London.

 

Not in the eyes of a lot of people! Its not far off at least modifying the club colours! Its a massive part of our identity, and its unacceptable to me, money or no money.

[cfcmagpies]

Pretty much garentee every club in England won't be doing this like, especialy not the likes of Old Trafford, Anfield, Hillsbrough, Villa Park, White Hart Lane, the Boleyn etc. Even Elland Road has maintained it's name, despite been owned by that f***ing idiot Bates.

 

I just guess due to the age and nature of the grounds/clubs in England it just means more that it would in Australia or the USA, where 'sports franchising' is much more common. That isn't meant with any disrespect, I just know that 99% of fans from those grounds would be equaly annoyed if there owner changed the name.

 

Not entirely true, most of our football clubs are as old as any professional football club in England. Sydneysiders are a bit different, though. No offence sydneycove.

I had a quick look and most I saw seemed to be founded around the 40s/50s?

 

MCG which hosts the majority of the biggest games for the biggest sport in the country (AFL) has been around since 1854. And AFL clubs are just as old as other clubs. Football (actual football) is only the 3rd biggest sport down here (though closing in on second but it would take another 100 years for football to catch up with AFL which has the most impressive attendance figures per capita in the world)

 

And they've never renamed the MCG.

[Guest sydneycove]

Pretty much garentee every club in England won't be doing this like, especialy not the likes of Old Trafford, Anfield, Hillsbrough, Villa Park, White Hart Lane, the Boleyn etc. Even Elland Road has maintained it's name, despite been owned by that f***ing idiot Bates.

 

I just guess due to the age and nature of the grounds/clubs in England it just means more that it would in Australia or the USA, where 'sports franchising' is much more common. That isn't meant with any disrespect, I just know that 99% of fans from those grounds would be equaly annoyed if there owner changed the name.

 

Not entirely true, most of our football clubs are as old as any professional football club in England. Sydneysiders are a bit different, though. No offence sydneycove.

I had a quick look and most I saw seemed to be founded around the 40s/50s?

 

Sorry, was thinking of the big sports in oz- rugby league and Australian football. They're mostly late nineteenth / early twentieth century. (Association) football here just doesn't have the same support and wouldn't survive as a professional sport without Frank Lowy.

 

Very debatable. NRL is only surviving because of pokies and we could very well see an end to that with the new laws coming in where as football clubs are owned by a Russian billionaire (Sydney), an Indonesian billionaire (Brisbane), 3 mining moguls (Gold Coast, Newcastle, Perth), John Singleton very soon (Central Coast), Geoff Lord and his other 100 million+ mates and 2 consortium's.

 

That is before Frank Lowy even gets involved now days.

[Guest sydneycove]

Pretty much garentee every club in England won't be doing this like, especialy not the likes of Old Trafford, Anfield, Hillsbrough, Villa Park, White Hart Lane, the Boleyn etc. Even Elland Road has maintained it's name, despite been owned by that f***ing idiot Bates.

 

I just guess due to the age and nature of the grounds/clubs in England it just means more that it would in Australia or the USA, where 'sports franchising' is much more common. That isn't meant with any disrespect, I just know that 99% of fans from those grounds would be equaly annoyed if there owner changed the name.

 

Not entirely true, most of our football clubs are as old as any professional football club in England. Sydneysiders are a bit different, though. No offence sydneycove.

I had a quick look and most I saw seemed to be founded around the 40s/50s?

 

MCG which hosts the majority of the biggest games for the biggest sport in the country (AFL) has been around since 1854. And AFL clubs are just as old as other clubs. Football (actual football) is only the 3rd biggest sport down here (though closing in on second but it would take another 100 years for football to catch up with AFL which has the most impressive attendance figures per capita in the world)

 

And they've never renamed the MCG.

 

The AFL don't get to make that choice though do they. I think a better example might be Docklands and uhhh what is that stadiums name again (Etihad atm I think but it seems to change every few weeks).

[cubaricho]

Wow, what a shame.  At least most people will still call it St James'.

[cfcmagpies]

Randy Lerner is cutting costs, trimming the wage bill after heavy spending at the moment. Villa Park is still Villa Park, yes?

 

At the moment. Will it be within 10 years. I highly doubt it.

 

St James Park is part of 119 years of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.

 

That might not mean anything to you, but it does to the people of this city.

 

It's more than just a f***ing sign.

 

Its a stadium. In the same place it has been for 119 years. I don't care what it is called as long as the club keeps playing at the same place wearing the same black and white stripes in front of the same Geordies who made me fall in love with the club from the other side of the world with the players and fans showing the same passion for the club that makes the club special.

 

 

And what if those black and white stripes go as well some day? If a company offered £20 million to redesign the club's home shirt in their colours would you gladly accept that?

 

But that is a different kettle of fish to stadium naming rights. To answer the question no I wouldn't agree with that. Stadium naming rights however have been sold everywhere else in the world and proven to be a successful income for clubs.

 

Again I will reiterate I am annoyed Sports Direct aren't paying money for this. I am not fussed the club are looking to sell naming rights for the stadium.

 

But the poijt is where do you draw the line? Just because othe clubs have done it for money dosent suddenly mean the line in the sand disapears does it? Like someone said, will the black and white stipes being modified be enough for some? That line isnt there for you, fair enough, it is for me.

 

For the 5th time in the last few pages:

 

I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THE CLUB SELLING THE SHIRT DESIGN, CLUB NAME OR MOVING OUT OF NEWCASTLE FOR MONEY.

 

Ok we all understand right? Do I need to put it in bigger letters?

 

Stadium naming rights however is a successful business model practiced all over the world and all EPL and Championship clubs will be doing this in the next 10 years.

 

Your missing the point.

 

If Spurs modified their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, would that then become acceptable? Just because of the money? The ground name, after all these years, is very much part of our identity to a lot of people, just like the colours. Its not to you, ok then fair enough, simple as that.

 

Well considering it has worked for other clubs (ie Red Bull New York) and I am not championing the club to do that I am going to go with no here.

 

But If Spurs did modify their club colours for a comapny in return for money, and was labelled a succesful business model, that can easily be classed as something which "worked" for Spurs. But it wouldnt "work" for me, just like changing the ground to Sports Direct Arena dosent work for me.

 

for the 7th time.

 

I would not be happy with or agree with the club changing the jersey, That is completely different to stadium naming rights. FFS people are acting like his moved the club to London.

 

It's not so different to changing the colours. Not quite as bad (if he thought he could get away with it, the fat cunt would do it in a flash), but still incredibly crass. He's sussing out where the line is, walking right up to it and giving a big fuck you to United supporters.

[cfcmagpies]

Pretty much garentee every club in England won't be doing this like, especialy not the likes of Old Trafford, Anfield, Hillsbrough, Villa Park, White Hart Lane, the Boleyn etc. Even Elland Road has maintained it's name, despite been owned by that f***ing idiot Bates.

 

I just guess due to the age and nature of the grounds/clubs in England it just means more that it would in Australia or the USA, where 'sports franchising' is much more common. That isn't meant with any disrespect, I just know that 99% of fans from those grounds would be equaly annoyed if there owner changed the name.

 

Not entirely true, most of our football clubs are as old as any professional football club in England. Sydneysiders are a bit different, though. No offence sydneycove.

I had a quick look and most I saw seemed to be founded around the 40s/50s?

 

MCG which hosts the majority of the biggest games for the biggest sport in the country (AFL) has been around since 1854. And AFL clubs are just as old as other clubs. Football (actual football) is only the 3rd biggest sport down here (though closing in on second but it would take another 100 years for football to catch up with AFL which has the most impressive attendance figures per capita in the world)

 

And they've never renamed the MCG.

 

The AFL don't get to make that choice though do they. I think a better example might be Docklands and uhhh what is that stadiums name again (Etihad atm I think but it seems to change every few weeks).

 

Docklands was a purpose built stadium that's all of twelve years old. Not the spiritual home to one of the most recognisable sporting clubs in the world. There is no history to Docklands, no tradition, no nothing.

 

Well if the AFL won't change the name of the G, surely the MCC would? I mean if it's a corporate winner, surely? No, no they won't, because they have a bit of pride.

[Guest sydneycove]

Pretty much garentee every club in England won't be doing this like, especialy not the likes of Old Trafford, Anfield, Hillsbrough, Villa Park, White Hart Lane, the Boleyn etc. Even Elland Road has maintained it's name, despite been owned by that f***ing idiot Bates.

 

I just guess due to the age and nature of the grounds/clubs in England it just means more that it would in Australia or the USA, where 'sports franchising' is much more common. That isn't meant with any disrespect, I just know that 99% of fans from those grounds would be equaly annoyed if there owner changed the name.

 

Not entirely true, most of our football clubs are as old as any professional football club in England. Sydneysiders are a bit different, though. No offence sydneycove.

I had a quick look and most I saw seemed to be founded around the 40s/50s?

 

MCG which hosts the majority of the biggest games for the biggest sport in the country (AFL) has been around since 1854. And AFL clubs are just as old as other clubs. Football (actual football) is only the 3rd biggest sport down here (though closing in on second but it would take another 100 years for football to catch up with AFL which has the most impressive attendance figures per capita in the world)

 

And they've never renamed the MCG.

 

The AFL don't get to make that choice though do they. I think a better example might be Docklands and uhhh what is that stadiums name again (Etihad atm I think but it seems to change every few weeks).

 

Docklands was a purpose built stadium that's all of twelve years old. Not the spiritual home to one of the most recognisable sporting clubs in the world. There is no history to Docklands, no tradition, no nothing.

 

Well if the AFL won't change the name of the G, surely the MCC would? I mean if it's a corporate winner, surely? No, no they won't, because they have a bit of pride.

 

The MCC don't own the ground either. The ONLY reason the MCG, SCG, GABBA etc haven't sold naming rights is because the state governments own them and have locked in contracts. The SCG Trust has tried selling naming rights before and you can't say the won't because they sold the naming rights for Moore Park.

[Zero]

I smell like someone is desperate for a fast sale

[Guest sydneycove]

I smell like someone is desperate for a fast sale

 

/off topic For some reason I read sale as slide and now I have gone and bought myself tickets to go to tobogganing on the weekend.

[TRC]

Name change doesn't bother me, I'll still call it SJP.

[KaKa]

Just been catching up on this. Wullie I think you might have serious mental problems. Have yourself checked out.

[Baggio]

Someone came on here a few weeks ago and said we were in talks with a new sponsor but couldn't say who it was, it looks like they want the whole package so you can see the point of the buffer comments.

 

If it brings in decent money then great and it will always be SJP to me, don't really care what they call it on the telly.

[themanupstairs]

What the fuck's happened in here?

 

Just woke up to this "news". Tis fucking surreal

 

Haven't gone through the thread yet, but I hope I didn't miss the mass wrist-slitting!

[Taylor Swift]

This shit doesn't even happen in America

 

Fenway Park is Fenway Park, Yankee Stadium - even after being rebuilt - is still Yankee Stadium, The Rose Bowl is still The Rose Bowl.

 

It's fair enough if you're building a stadium and you're using the sponsorship money to finance the construction of a new stadium, but even as commercialised as the Americans are, they don't deface stadiums with history and value by 'rebranding' it in such a shameless manner.

 

People saying that it will happen elsewhere in the Premiership. It won't. Not with an old, historic stadium. Old Trafford and Anfield will never have its name changed. Maybe if the new Liverpool owners build a new stadium then it'll have a new name, but there's no way that Anfield will be 'rebranded' like this.

 

The real problem is that these cunts have done jack shit to improve our revenue, so the excuse that they've used to do this is pathetic. We were getting 100m+ under Freddy. There's no need to rebrand the stadium to get that. We can compete with teams in the Premiership without getting money from renaming the stadium. How the hell do Spurs do it? They've got a smaller fucking stadium and they can still compete! Liverpool get 20m from their sponsorship deal because their marketing guy is good at his job. Llambias is shit at his, which is why they've had to resort to this to increase commercial revenue. If he was good at his job, we should be getting 15m from a new kit sponsorship deal.

[Taylor Swift]

These guys don't know how to build a brand which has richness, culture and heritage. Put them in charge of Rolex or Marriott or whatever and they'll just reduce prices and commercialise the shit out of everything. Here, have a brand new Rolex watch sponsored by McDonalds.

 

Ashley's had success by being cheap. The cunt ain't changing what made him a billionaire.

[Guest sydneycove]

Pip it happens in America and much worse. Yankees and the Red Sox may be able to get by without it but take a look at the other teams in the league a lot of them have either sold the naming rights or just demolished their old stadiums and built bigger stadiums on the same site and sold the naming rights then and that is just baseball. Go have a read over the NFL and NBA teams stadiums. These clubs have just as much history as Newcastle and still do the exact same thing.

 

Like RKO said to the fans it will always be SJP but at the same time it can provide some extra revenue for the club.

[Razor]

I don't really understand the business decision, all emotions aside. Purely conjecture here - but considering it was already 'cunts @ SJP' changing it to Sports Direct Arena could be a precursor to another company coming in and buying the rights in the near future. As a name the whole @ SJP is a mouthful, and noone has actually used it, or would, but by changing it prior to an actual buyer coming in it takes the negative backlash of changing the name away from the company. As if you were Emirates, Thomas Cook etc you would hardly be keen on buying the naming rights to an historic stadium if you had to take all the sting from disgruntled supporters. So Derek and Mike may have taken the hit, and have someone lined up, the new sponsors would be seen as an improvement, and 'everyones happy'...

 

I would rather that it was called something (anything) other than Sports Direct Arena, and the club isnt going to make much at all out of having Mike being the 'sponsor', real revenue is only going to come in if a true outside company buys the rights. So that would be better...

 

But on the whole, changing it is a poorly timed and poorly thought-out decision, especially if it is going to remain SDA for the foreseeable future. SJP is right up there with Old Trafford and Anfield as a national heritage badge. The club is on the best wave of positive-feeling and actual results for years, why stir the pot.

[mrmojorisin75]

preferred the @ St. James Park myself, always thought it'd be better to keep it in there than this type of shit (which i agree to some extent is largely inevitable)

 

arseholes mind, utter arseholes

[oldtype]

Media is having a field day with this.

 

Laughing stock of England again in one fells swoop. Congratulations you ridiculous cunts.

[oldtype]

Pip it happens in America and much worse. Yankees and the Red Sox may be able to get by without it but take a look at the other teams in the league a lot of them have either sold the naming rights or just demolished their old stadiums and built bigger stadiums on the same site and sold the naming rights then and that is just baseball. Go have a read over the NFL and NBA teams stadiums. These clubs have just as much history as Newcastle and still do the exact same thing.

 

Like RKO said to the fans it will always be SJP but at the same time it can provide some extra revenue for the club.

 

Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Wrigley Field, Soldiers Field.... All the grounds that have been standing for anywhere near as long as SJP has have kept their original names. I personally can't think of a single comparable example.

 

If this was a new stadium they were naming this would possibly bother me less. Can't even imagine the shitstorm it would cause if they tried to go and rebrand Fenway

[Guest gggg]

These guys don't know how to build a brand which has richness, culture and heritage. Put them in charge of Rolex or Marriott or whatever and they'll just reduce prices and commercialise the shit out of everything. Here, have a brand new Rolex watch sponsored by McDonalds.

 

Ashley's had success by being cheap. The cunt ain't changing what made him a billionaire.

 

Exactly. You can't buy class.