St James' Park

[Guest bimpy474]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/8882563/Newcastle-United-insist-Sports-Direct-Arena-name-change-is-essential-to-help-pay-for-new-striker.html

 

 

"Telegraph Sport understands the mobile phone company O2 is one possible partner" <-------- this line here.

 

02 Arena.........meh....

 

 

[timnufc22]

I've not read the whole thread, but here's my 2p worth:

 

I'll not be lauching any protests or shouting at the players or ruining the atmosphere inside, but I'll quietly make sure that I never spend another single penny inside a Sports Direct shop as long as the club is called something other than St James' Park.

 

And on top of that, if they sell the rights on and call it after another company then I shall avoid giving that company a single penny for as long as that deal lasts as well.

 

I'd suggest that everyone considers doing likewise. Vote with your wallets, it's all this greedy c*** will understand. Shouting won't work, protesting won't work, hit the f***er in the pocket and make sure that any company that takes over the rights KNOWS that they'll be hit in the pocket as well, it'll act as a nice deterrent. I'm sure that between all of us we can take more than £10m profit each year from Sports Direct, the touted sum that this bell-end is trying to raise by selling the name, thus making it a loss-making venture for him. It's the only language he understands, profit and loss. Let's make it a loss for him.

 

I can understand people being unhappy about the situation, but now that the proposal is out there, and the club is committed to it, do you want it to succeed or to fail? That's the real question now. It strikes me that the likely consequences of failure would be instability and uncertainty.

 

Its the principle. It should be St. James' Park, anything else is bad form and classless. So that would be the right message to send out imo, in the hope it will 'officially' be SJP again.

[Wullie]

I get so pissed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny.

[Big Geordie]

I wonder if this O2 link is from the insider/Llambias - he who also said "There have been more than two bids of £100million for the club", a couple of years ago. It's a smokescreen, IMO.

[JH]

Oh, and if this is "to help pay for a new striker" then we never intended to sign one in the summer?

[Dave]

I get so pissed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny.

 

But it's what they say will happen. Why doubt them?

[SteveMc]

"We have exhausted all our other revenue streams, retail is not good - that produces next to nothing, quite honestly - so we need to bring in more, quite honestly.

 

I'm glad i've paid 60 quid for all those fooking nylon shirts in the naive assumption i was helping the club i love to progress. cunt

[Cronky]

I get so p*ssed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

Look, forgetting the distastefulness of renaming the stadium, they haven't even managed to spend the Carroll money yet. They're not short of cash, they're fucking rolling in it at the moment. Suggesting that they need more money to not spend on top of the money they're already not spending is hardly going to do anything to increase our chances of success on the pitch.

 

Without getting into debates about how much of the Carroll money has been spent, and how much money they've got to spend in general, this is a highly competitive business. There are richer clubs out there who are trying to scoop up all the best players. The club are saying that they have to do everything possible to maximise their income.

 

[Chris_R]

I've not read the whole thread, but here's my 2p worth:

 

I'll not be lauching any protests or shouting at the players or ruining the atmosphere inside, but I'll quietly make sure that I never spend another single penny inside a Sports Direct shop as long as the club is called something other than St James' Park.

 

And on top of that, if they sell the rights on and call it after another company then I shall avoid giving that company a single penny for as long as that deal lasts as well.

 

I'd suggest that everyone considers doing likewise. Vote with your wallets, it's all this greedy c*** will understand. Shouting won't work, protesting won't work, hit the f***er in the pocket and make sure that any company that takes over the rights KNOWS that they'll be hit in the pocket as well, it'll act as a nice deterrent. I'm sure that between all of us we can take more than £10m profit each year from Sports Direct, the touted sum that this bell-end is trying to raise by selling the name, thus making it a loss-making venture for him. It's the only language he understands, profit and loss. Let's make it a loss for him.

 

I can understand people being unhappy about the situation, but now that the proposal is out there, and the club is committed to it, do you want it to succeed or to fail? That's the real question now. It strikes me that the likely consequences of failure would be instability and uncertainty.

 

I want it to fail, indeed fail spectacularly, so that any business associated with the club (including Sports Direct) is hit extremely hard financially as a result. This will mean the only option is to rename the stadium back to St James' Park, or for the business associated with it to suffer massive and continuing losses.

 

How realistic that proposal is I'm not sure, but that's what I'd like to see happen in an ideal world.

 

I don't see why this would create financial instability. If it's another company, they've already paid up hence no problem. They'll just not renew their deal at the end when they realise it's been a catastrophe and resultingly there'll be no other sponsors taking it up. On the other hand if it's still in the name of Sports Direct and Ashley starts haemoragging money then the only thing he needs to do to stop it is to change the name back, something that can be done just as quickly as changing it from St Jame's Park in the first place. Problem immediately solved, financial instability avoided.

[Guest bimpy474]

I get so pissed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny.

 

And this is the divide, those supporting the move/not too bothered/accept it as the future believe the money will go into the team.

 

The rest believe and quite rightly so given all the evidence from the last few transfers windows, lies and pathetic statements that no money will be put into the team.

 

 

[johnnypd]

I get so p*ssed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

Look, forgetting the distastefulness of renaming the stadium, they haven't even managed to spend the Carroll money yet. They're not short of cash, they're fucking rolling in it at the moment. Suggesting that they need more money to not spend on top of the money they're already not spending is hardly going to do anything to increase our chances of success on the pitch.

 

Without getting into debates about how much of the Carroll money has been spent, and how much money they've got to spend in general, this is a highly competitive business. There are richer clubs out there who are trying to scoop up all the best players. The club are saying that they have to do everything possible to maximise their income.

 

 

a change of name from Newcastle United to something like Newcastle Red Bull would give us a tonne of money and a distinct edge on all of our rivals. good, no?

[Guest bimpy474]

I wonder if this O2 link is from the insider/Llambias - he who also said "There have been more than two bids of £100million for the club", a couple of years ago. It's a smokescreen, IMO.

 

In a few weeks i reckon we will find out, wooooo i cant wait like

[Guest bimpy474]

I get so p*ssed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

Look, forgetting the distastefulness of renaming the stadium, they haven't even managed to spend the Carroll money yet. They're not short of cash, they're fucking rolling in it at the moment. Suggesting that they need more money to not spend on top of the money they're already not spending is hardly going to do anything to increase our chances of success on the pitch.

 

Without getting into debates about how much of the Carroll money has been spent, and how much money they've got to spend in general, this is a highly competitive business. There are richer clubs out there who are trying to scoop up all the best players. The club are saying that they have to do everything possible to maximise their income.

 

 

a change of name from Newcastle United to something like Newcastle Red Bull would give us a tonne of money and a distinct edge on all of our rivals. good, no?

 

FA have to approve a name change, although i think our FA are cack, i dont think they will allow it.

[Cronky]

I get so pissed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny.

 

But it's what they say will happen. Why doubt them?

 

Nobody knows whether this is going to succeed. Renaming a stadium is a new venture, as far as I know, never been tried by a major English club. I think Llambias himself said that it was a matter of giving things a go, in this particular window of opportunity where the naming rights and the shirt sponsorship would both be up for sale.

 

Of course it's a risk. The question is, do you want it to succeed?

[Chris_R]

 

Without getting into debates about how much of the Carroll money has been spent, and how much money they've got to spend in general, this is a highly competitive business. There are richer clubs out there who are trying to scoop up all the best players. The club are saying that they have to do everything possible to maximise their income.

 

 

If Ashley really only cared about progress for the club and was in this for our best interests, then you might have a point. But that's not the case. He's in this game to make a profit, it's become abundantly clear over the recent past.

 

Not that this in itself is a bad thing, all businesses should be profitable, but he'll not be happy with just breaking even and giving us a good team in the process. He's here to make as much as he can like a fucking locust swarm over a field of crops before fucking off and leaving us to pick up the scraps. Maybe his intentions were different at one point, but not now, not after he felt that his nose had been put out by the fans after the Keegan debacle.

[Si]

This sponsorship being necessary to buy a new striker makes us sound proper desperado.

 

 

"If you could give just £5 million pounds a year you could by the Geordie Nation a Carlton Cole, £8Million pounds a year would by the impoverished Geordies Mobido Maiga, please give generously and help us end the goal draught in Newcastle. Thank you"

 

 

 

 

 

[wormy]

I get so p*ssed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

Having the stadium as Sports Direct Arena will not increase the club's income, nor will it lead to it increasing its income. The name rights were on sale two years ago - nowt has changed, noone is interested.

 

This is what's pissing me off most. Anyone not against this has the argument of 'well, it increases income'. It fucking isn't. They're not spending a penny on this 'sponsorship'. They're 'advertising' the opportunity another company can have. If no one takes it up, the club isn't getting a penny for this monstrosity.

[JH]

Personally, I want it to fail and I make no secret of that fact.

 

Mainly because I can't see a single penny of any future income from stadium sponsorship being invested into the team under this regime. That, and it's just shit.

[Chris_R]

This sponsorship being necessary to buy a new striker makes us sound proper desperado.

 

 

"If you could give just £5 million pounds a year you could by the Geordie Nation a Carlton Cole, £8Million pounds a year would by the impoverished Geordies Mobido Maiga, please give generously and help us end the goal draught in Newcastle. Thank you"

 

 

Or sell Carroll for £35m in January, spend a net of about 0.5m in the summer, spend the rest on Ginsters pies then plead poverty in November.

 

Fat c***.

[Carlito]

Anyone who believes they'll spend any of this "income" on players is a mug. Like it's been said, we're still waiting for them to spend the Carroll money. They're nothing but lying crooks.

[SteveMc]

If we've learned sommat these last 3 years it is to ignore all this and see what happens.  I nearly had a coronary when we were relegated and trying to sell.  Ruined me birthday day oot in Brum with the Mrs for me birthday checking me phone for news of Malaysians in a helicopter buzzing the training ground.  A cracking holiday in Bergerac fooked up by checking the interweb for news of Barry Moat. Sillius Soddus and all that.  Fuck it - we have no control over this shit.  I'm going to the citeh game having a beer and enjoying meself

[Cronky]

 

Without getting into debates about how much of the Carroll money has been spent, and how much money they've got to spend in general, this is a highly competitive business. There are richer clubs out there who are trying to scoop up all the best players. The club are saying that they have to do everything possible to maximise their income.

 

 

If Ashley really only cared about progress for the club and was in this for our best interests, then you might have a point. But that's not the case. He's in this game to make a profit, it's become abundantly clear over the recent past.

 

Not that this in itself is a bad thing, all businesses should be profitable, but he'll not be happy with just breaking even and giving us a good team in the process. He's here to make as much as he can like a fucking locust swarm over a field of crops before fucking off and leaving us to pick up the scraps. Maybe his intentions were different at one point, but not now, not after he felt that his nose had been put out by the fans after the Keegan debacle.

 

You've obviously got quite an agenda against Ashley which extends far beyond the re-naming of the stadium. Fair enough, you're not alone in that, but the difficulty I have in reading this thread is knowing how much it's yet another series of We-Hate-Ashley rants, and how much it's a weighing up of the pros and cons of selling the stadium rights in what's a very competitive and commercial field.

[johnnypd]

I get so pissed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny.

 

But it's what they say will happen. Why doubt them?

 

Nobody knows whether this is going to succeed. Renaming a stadium is a new venture, as far as I know, never been tried by a major English club. I think Llambias himself said that it was a matter of giving things a go, in this particular window of opportunity where the naming rights and the shirt sponsorship would both be up for sale.

 

Of course it's a risk. The question is, do you want it to succeed?

 

they've not decided to rename the stadium after new sponsors though. they've decided to rename it the "sports direct arena" with no financial benefit for the club. that's the facts of the case and how the name will remain indefinitely. the rest is speculation.

[Dave]

I get so pissed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

I worry about how naive you'd have to be to think this will increase our income by a single penny.

 

And this is the divide, those supporting the move/not too bothered/accept it as the future believe the money will go into the team.

 

The rest believe and quite rightly so given all the evidence from the last few transfers windows, lies and pathetic statements that no money will be put into the team.

 

There isn't any money. If at some point in the future under this regime a third party company decides to pour money into the club for the sponsorship of the stadium then we can discuss the worth of the concept, and if that money will go into the team. Until that point it's just mugging the fans off with yet more crass advertising for the owner's other major interest daubed all over the stadium and now the media. For Ashley's benefit and nobody else's.

 

If anyone genuinely believes that we need to do this to show a company capable of this level of sponsorship deal then I fear for their sanity. Even if the argument about SD taking the flak now is true, what kind of company would look at all this anger and resentment and think it's a good thing to jump into with millions of pounds? As Ian was saying earlier, would it being renamed the Aldi Arena or anything else be any less of an insult to the history of the stadium? Would it fuck.

[Cronky]

I get so p*ssed off with all this self-righteous hysteria.

 

The part of our heritage that I really want to ditch is the last 40+ years of failure. If this helps, then I'm fine about it. It would be nice to keep the name, but it's a sacrifice that I'd be prepared to make.

 

In what world do you live where a stadium name change correlates to the success of a football club?

 

You already know the answer to that, don't you? If the club increases its income and it spends the money wisely, you increase the chances of success on the field.

 

Having the stadium as Sports Direct Arena will not increase the club's income, nor will it lead to it increasing its income. The name rights were on sale two years ago - nowt has changed, noone is interested.

 

This is what's pissing me off most. Anyone not against this has the argument of 'well, it increases income'. It fucking isn't. They're not spending a penny on this 'sponsorship'. They're 'advertising' the opportunity another company can have. If no one takes it up, the club isn't getting a penny for this monstrosity.

 

And if it does get taken up, what would be your feelings about that?