St James' Park

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Also Sports Direct is the tackiest brand in the world, with the worst design. Whether he paid wasn’t the main issue for me, it was the way it looked and the representation of Ashley possessing the club. 
 

Personally I don’t want anything on the top of the east stand though, should just go back to the club name in a new font. 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by AyeDubbleYoo

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, kisearch said:

 

Possibly an extreme example, but if the big SD signs in the Leazes, Gallowgate, and either side of Newcastle United are just replaced with Visit Saudi (just for example) that's going to be sound with everyone because it'll be paid for?
 

That's hugely eyeopening for me tbh, I always thought the fact Ashley didn't pay for it was a secondary issue to the fact it made SJP look cheap and shit. 

 

 

 

I understand and would agree if FFP wasn’t a thing. 
 

Unfortunately in order to compete we have to maximise commercial revenue. Those clubs that don’t will be left behind. 

[Dokko]

3 minutes ago, kisearch said:

 

It depends on what your main issue with it was I guess. This takeover has definitely shown me that what I thought were the main gripes issues with what Ashley had done to our club and its history and heritage weren't as universally shared as I thought. The fact Ashley didn't pay for his tat emporium sponsorship was purely a side issue for me and until recently I thought most people felt that way too tbh.

 

 

 

 

PL are going to block every opportunity they can for us to get money in to the club. We'll have to accept things like Stadium branding etc are fair game whilst we recover & repair. Ideally this wouldn't happen, ideally KSA wouldn't be involved, ideally we'd have squeaky clean owners. The ideal rarely exists and certainly doesn't in football.

 

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, r0cafella said:

I understand and would agree if FFP wasn’t a thing. 
 

Unfortunately in order to compete we have to maximise commercial revenue. Those clubs that don’t will be left behind. 

 

FFP doesn't dictate that all of those signs would need to be up there like they are with SD though, no? I agree if it's just one, or it's smattered around the place tastefully, but if it's purely like-for-like it's absolutely shit imo and I'll hate it as much as I hated all the SD shite being plastered everywhere. Let's hope it's not. 

[Rich]

2 minutes ago, kisearch said:

 

Possibly an extreme example, but if the big SD signs in the Leazes, Gallowgate, and either side of Newcastle United are just replaced with Visit Saudi (just for example) that's going to be sound with everyone because it'll be paid for?
 

That's hugely eyeopening for me tbh, I always thought the fact Ashley didn't pay for it was a secondary issue to the fact it made SJP look cheap and shit. 

 

 

 

 

Aye, for me anyway. I'd prefer it not to be there, of course, but I'm not naive enough to think that they won't want their own branding in place and with the antics the rest of the PL are up to they'll possibly need to justify any sponsorship deals that are cut.

 

If that's the price to pay for SJP in general getting a massive upgrade and the team competing again, rather than both being left to rot, is it not worth the trade? We literally got no benefit from it when it was SD.

[Guest neesy111]

1 minute ago, Dokko said:

 

PL are going to block every opportunity they can for us to get money in to the club. We'll have to accept things like Stadium branding etc are fair game whilst we recover & repair. Ideally this wouldn't happen, ideally KSA wouldn't be involved, ideally we'd have squeaky clean owners. The ideal rarely exists and certainly doesn't in football.

 

 

PL clubs*

 

I think the PL don't like what the clubs are doing.

[cookidge]

I would prefer if there was no replacement signage.

 

However, I did expect that after Ashley utilised the stadium for SD signs, there would be replacements by new sponsors, that ad space in itself is an advertisement for potential new owners to exploit and must've been part of the appeal of purchasing the club.

 

Also, when/if these new "market value" sponsorship rules come in, the ownership would need to maximise what is available for sponsorship. Reducing to shirt only sponsorship for example would prevent receipt of the largest "market value" sponsorship deals.

 

I just hope the stadium isn't renamed.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by cookidge

[Dokko]

Just now, neesy111 said:

 

PL clubs*

 

I think the PL don't like what the clubs are doing.

 

Possibly. But if that was the case the PL could accept what they want as long as all deals current and previous are put through the same testing. They'd soon shut up when 80% of the PL fail FFP.

[Sima]

Aye, I'm not comfortable with another brand simply replacing it.

 

Totally misses the point imo.

[Kid Icarus]

 

1 minute ago, Rich said:

 

Aye, for me anyway. I'd prefer it not to be there, of course, but I'm not naive enough to think that they won't want their own branding in place and with the antics the rest of the PL are up to they'll possibly need to justify any sponsorship deals that are cut.

 

If that's the price to pay for SJP in general getting a massive upgrade and the team competing again, rather than both being left to rot, is it not worth the trade? We literally got no benefit from it when it was SD.

 

It wouldn't be worth it for me nah, not at all. If there's a happy medium where the club gets investment without the sponsorship just replacing all of the SD signs inside SJP then would be ideal, but if they just replace all the existing SD signs with a new sponsor then definitely not. Hopefully it shouldn't be a case of all or nothing.

[Dokko]

2 minutes ago, cookidge said:

I would prefer if there was no replacement signage.

 

However, I did expect that after Ashley utilised the stadium for SD signs, there would be replacements by new sponsors, that ad space in itself is an advertisement for potential new owners to exploit and must've been part of the appeal of purchasing the club.

 

Also, when/if these new "market value" sponsorship rules come in, the ownership would need to maximise what is available for sponsorship. Reducing to shirt only sponsorship for example would prevent reciept of the largest "market value" sponsorship deals.

 

I just hope the stadium isn't renamed.

 

 

 

Think you'll be disappointed soon enough. Stadium renaming could bring in a huge amount of money, especially due to the uproar it caused last time. They could say its worth £50m a year to the fans, otherwise they'd never accept it and would have a negative reaction to the sponsorship. Say £5m a year, no one is going to accept it. £50m direct on a player? Aye go on then. 

 

Sorry like but soul is sold now, lets just accept it and move on up. 

[Guest neesy111]

1 minute ago, Dokko said:

 

Possibly. But if that was the case the PL could accept what they want as long as all deals current and previous are put through the same testing. They'd soon shut up when 80% of the PL fail FFP.

 

The PL itself can't do anything as it was allowed in the rules for clubs to put in a rule like this if it got voted through, there's no veto etc.  One of the issues of having the setup the PL has.

[NE27]

Let's save the pantaloon pissing for another date, for now let us rejoice in what was merely a dream the start of this year!

[Kid Icarus]

Put it this way, I've never seen anyone either make or drool over photoshops of SJP where the SD signs are just replaced with ones for another company. 

[cookidge]

1 minute ago, Dokko said:

Think you'll be disappointed soon enough. Stadium renaming could bring in a huge amount of money, especially due to the uproar it caused last time. They could say its worth £50m a year to the fans, otherwise they'd never accept it and would have a negative reaction to the sponsorship. Say £5m a year, no one is going to accept it. £50m direct on a player? Aye go on then. 

 

Sorry like but soul is sold now, lets just accept it and move on up. 

 

Yeah I agree, sadly it is the way the game is going / has gone generally. We're not a special case as much as I would like us to be.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by cookidge

[kingxlnc]

The irony of all this is that with the amount of signage Ashley had up, it was effectively the Sports Direct stadium in all but name. So I’d say there’s bigger fish to fry, that is prime advertising real estate that can bring in millions and give much needed wriggle room. Would Man City have fallen foul of FFP if they didn’t get that etihad upgrade? 

[Elliottman]

I cant for a second believe the new owners and sponsors will be as tacky as Ashley was. There will be branding but I'd be amazed if they just hoy it up anywhere it sticks.

 

It'll be done properly.

[Dokko]

Just now, neesy111 said:

 

The PL itself can't do anything as it was allowed in the rules for clubs to put in a rule like this if it got voted through, there's no veto etc.  One of the issues of having the setup the PL has.

 

Christ, no wonder they believe they can get away with owt they like.

 

When does the current pause run out? Guess all this movement suggests it has or is close and no vote is intended to stop it again.

[Yorkie]

Biggest issue for me was the sheer abundance of it, and the fact it looked crap. That it wasn't paid for was obviously awful too but definitely the secondary issue for me. 

 

I desperately hope the East Stand and Gallowgate fascias are left relatively untouched. There's plenty opportunities for advertising without being totally obnoxious about it.

[Danh1]

Personally happy for new logos etc to go up as long as the club are benefiting from it. Would be delighted if they were just going up under the scoreboard and on the boards in the stand and the signage on the East Stand roof bit was removed completely, with the NEWCASTLE UNITED lettering changed back. 

[Guest neesy111]

1 minute ago, Dokko said:

 

Christ, no wonder they believe they can get away with owt they like.

 

When does the current pause run out? Guess all this movement suggests it has or is close and no vote is intended to stop it again.

 

Not sure, so I think they were allowed to put in a emergency rule but the permanent rule would need to pass certain requirements.  It's a mess like.

[Dokko]

Just now, neesy111 said:

 

Not sure, so I think they were allowed to put in a emergency rule but the permanent rule would need to pass certain requirements.  It's a mess like.

 

Aye. Total mess like and I doubt any of it would stand up in court as well. This lot will only be delayed, they won't be stopped. At some point everyone against gets sick of it and by then it'll be too big to derail. 

[cookidge]

1 minute ago, Danh1 said:

Personally happy for new logos etc to go up as long as the club are benefiting from it. Would be delighted if they were just going up under the scoreboard and on the boards in the stand and the signage on the East Stand roof bit was removed completely, with the NEWCASTLE UNITED lettering changed back. 

 

I have a feeling they won't go through with reverting the styling.

[NE27]

I'm right in thinking the only real problematic signage was the east stand roof, the leazes which is pictured being removed, and the gallowgate roof (now gone)?

 

My other gripe was mainly the sheer amount of SD signage which just seemed OTT. No other club does it like this even for title sponsors!

[Anderson]

I can just about get away with the other adverts simply being replaced with less tacky alternatives, but would hope they restore the East Stand facia. Was the iconic image of the ground before MA tore it down and replaced it with his own shit font & adverts.