St James' Park

[JH]

It's been St James' Park for 120 years man, then some fat muppet comes in and turns it into his own personal advertising board. People are rightly angered by it like.

 

I'd imagine you would feel similar if some tubby tycoon bought the Sydney Opera House, renamed it Jimmy's Tool-Shed and smeared it from tip to toe in his own s***.

 

Wouldn't give a flying crap. They have renamed so many stadiums so many times in Australia everyone in the public just refers to them by the original name anyway and the extra TV exposure for the brand still makes the brand money. It is an inevitable way of life in the modern sporting world. Who says we won't receive money from this. Has Llambis said we will be providing this service free of charge. If the stadium naming rights still haven't bee sold by this time next year and the books come out and show the club aren't charging Sports Direct sure be upset but if he has sold the brand to somebody else or is charging himself then I really don't see a problem with this.

 

Although the Barlcays Premier League club will not benefit immediately from the deal...

[Guest sydneycove]

How will the signs coming down take away part of our history ffs. People need to accept that every club in England is going to be doing this and it isn't going to change a single thing in history.

[JH]

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 fucking sign.

[Guest sydneycove]

It's been St James' Park for 120 years man, then some fat muppet comes in and turns it into his own personal advertising board. People are rightly angered by it like.

 

I'd imagine you would feel similar if some tubby tycoon bought the Sydney Opera House, renamed it Jimmy's Tool-Shed and smeared it from tip to toe in his own s***.

 

Wouldn't give a flying crap. They have renamed so many stadiums so many times in Australia everyone in the public just refers to them by the original name anyway and the extra TV exposure for the brand still makes the brand money. It is an inevitable way of life in the modern sporting world. Who says we won't receive money from this. Has Llambis said we will be providing this service free of charge. If the stadium naming rights still haven't bee sold by this time next year and the books come out and show the club aren't charging Sports Direct sure be upset but if he has sold the brand to somebody else or is charging himself then I really don't see a problem with this.

 

Although the Barlcays Premier League club will not benefit immediately from the deal...

 

Fair enough to be annoyed we aren't profiting from Sports Direct having the naming rights but I would hope that is the only thing people are annoyed at. Naming rights are sold on every major sporting teams stadium in the modern world and it hasn't re written history for any of those clubs.

[Guest sydneycove]

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.

[Decky]

How will the signs coming down take away part of our history ffs. People need to accept that every club in England is going to be doing this and it isn't going to change a single thing in history.

 

Every club in England? Really? I don't think so. You are also failing to see the point here, 99% of the clubs that do sell their naming rights get financially compensated for it, we are not. Do you really think for one second Ashley is forking out the tens of millions for the advertising boards, the signs above the stands, the sign on the Gallowgate roof, the signs around the stadium, the adverts on the website and club stores, the naming rights for the past 2 years and now this? Ashley is selling a part of the clubs soul for nothing but personal gain. The club and fans have to simply deal with it until he moves on, that is the point here.

[Decky]

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?

[Guest sydneycove]

How will the signs coming down take away part of our history ffs. People need to accept that every club in England is going to be doing this and it isn't going to change a single thing in history.

 

Every club in England? Really? I don't think so. You are also failing to see the point here, 99% of the clubs that do sell their naming rights get financially compensated for it, we are not. Do you really think for one second Ashley is forking out the tens of millions for the advertising boards, the signs above the stands, the sign on the Gallowgate roof, the signs around the stadium, the adverts on the website and club stores, the naming rights for the past 2 years and now this?

 

Fair enough to be annoyed we aren't profiting from Sports Direct having the naming rights but I would hope that is the only thing people are annoyed at. Naming rights are sold on every major sporting teams stadium in the modern world and it hasn't re written history for any of those clubs.

 

You are a fool if you think any stadium in England's top 2 flights owned by their clubs will not be re named within the next 10 seasons. It has been proven worldwide that selling stadium naming rights is a successful source of income for every club in the world and a successful way of advertising for sponsors.

[timnufc22]

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

[Decky]

How will the signs coming down take away part of our history ffs. People need to accept that every club in England is going to be doing this and it isn't going to change a single thing in history.

 

Every club in England? Really? I don't think so. You are also failing to see the point here, 99% of the clubs that do sell their naming rights get financially compensated for it, we are not. Do you really think for one second Ashley is forking out the tens of millions for the advertising boards, the signs above the stands, the sign on the Gallowgate roof, the signs around the stadium, the adverts on the website and club stores, the naming rights for the past 2 years and now this?

 

Fair enough to be annoyed we aren't profiting from Sports Direct having the naming rights but I would hope that is the only thing people are annoyed at. Naming rights are sold on every major sporting teams stadium in the modern world and it hasn't re written history for any of those clubs.

 

You are a fool if you think any stadium in England's top 2 flights owned by their clubs will not be re named within the next 10 seasons. It has been proven worldwide that selling stadium naming rights is a successful source of income for every club in the world and a successful way of advertising for sponsors.

 

Do you think the likes of Old Trafford would be sold for financial gain? Do you think we'd have sold the naming rights under the previous administration? An administration despite it's faults, had some pride in the club and recognised the heritage and history of the club, something that is important and needs to be preserved. If it is all about money then why not just rename the club after a company for a fee? Or as I said, redesign the kits? The stadium is just as important as both when it is one such as St James'.

[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.

[Hanshithispantz]

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.

 

EDIT: I don't know if "sports franchising was the right term or not", i'm fucking shattered in fairness.

[Guest sydneycove]

How will the signs coming down take away part of our history ffs. People need to accept that every club in England is going to be doing this and it isn't going to change a single thing in history.

 

Every club in England? Really? I don't think so. You are also failing to see the point here, 99% of the clubs that do sell their naming rights get financially compensated for it, we are not. Do you really think for one second Ashley is forking out the tens of millions for the advertising boards, the signs above the stands, the sign on the Gallowgate roof, the signs around the stadium, the adverts on the website and club stores, the naming rights for the past 2 years and now this?

 

Fair enough to be annoyed we aren't profiting from Sports Direct having the naming rights but I would hope that is the only thing people are annoyed at. Naming rights are sold on every major sporting teams stadium in the modern world and it hasn't re written history for any of those clubs.

 

You are a fool if you think any stadium in England's top 2 flights owned by their clubs will not be re named within the next 10 seasons. It has been proven worldwide that selling stadium naming rights is a successful source of income for every club in the world and a successful way of advertising for sponsors.

 

Do you think the likes of Old Trafford would be sold for financial gain? Do you think we'd have sold the naming rights under the previous administration? An administration despite it's faults, had some pride in the club and recognised the heritage and history of the club, something that is important and needs to be preserved. If it is all about money then why not just rename the club after a company for a fee? Or as I said, redesign the kits? The stadium is just as important as both when it is one such as St James'.

 

Yes to both. Old Trafford will end up being the biggest naming rights deal in the world as well when they do sell. I believe we would have sold under the old administration to try and sort out the financial mess the club was in and we would have sold for a lot less than what we could have made.

[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.

[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.

 

Levy is actively trying to sell the naming rights for WHL. Sheffield Wednesday are currently in League 1. If they make a push for the EPL they will sell the stadium naming rights. Old Trafford will be the biggest naming rights deal in history when it is sold. Chelsea are currently trying to sell their stadium naming rights. It is an inevitable part of modern sport.

[Decky]

IMO it's only different if you are a club like Wigan with no history worth mentioning, or an Arsenal building a new stadium and needing money to pay for it. With Newcastle though we have a ground as old as the club. 119 years of history right there. It IS as important as the kit and name for me, if anything those 3 things make the club (the crest too, but as we know that can change). The name, the colours and the stadium, together for all those years. It might sound like im romanticising the whole thing, but what is wrong with that? This is football, it means more to people than selling everything and anything for a few quid.

[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.

[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.

[timnufc22]

IMO it's only different if you are a club like Wigan with no history worth mentioning, or an Arsenal building a new stadium and needing money to pay for it. With Newcastle though we have a ground as old as the club. 119 years of history right there. It IS as important as the kit and name for me, if anything those 3 things make the club (the crest too, but as we know that can change). The name, the colours and the stadium, together for all those years. It might sound like im romanticising the whole thing, but what is wrong with that? This is football, it means more to people than selling everything and anything for a few quid.

 

Thats is what football is about, ultimately.

[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.

[Hanshithispantz]

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?

[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.

[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)

[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.

[Eveready]

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.