Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Wow, if this was wrestling that would be called a 'cheap pop'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 So there we have it. The ground name is being sold because the fans are demanding another striker. Is that finally an admission that no more of the Andy Carroll money is going to be spent on players and all £35m has already been reinvested in the club? Those agents fees really must be extortionate.... Let's assume that the £8-10m is an exaggeration and in reality selling this part of the club's heritage will bring in more like £5-7m. Is it worth it? That is not going to help us "compete with the big boys". At the moment clubs like Stoke City, Fulham and QPR are outspending us, while we plead poverty. That's despite 45K season ticket holders, a significant share of TV money, substantial merchandise income (including three new shirts per year) and the fees banked from other player sales - not just big Andy. Why are we not already competing with every team in the Premier League except Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and possibly Arsenal? It can't be put down to massive player wages anymore, unless Alan Smith is still costing us £10m/year.... Like the Carroll transfer fee, a lot of us would accept the economics if we thought the money was going to be used purely for team strengthening but recent history suggests otherwise. It seems that over four years on, Ashley's lack of due diligence is still being paid for by everyone connected with the club, except those at fault. His lack of due diligence which ultimately will lead to us being stuck with him unless someone of Man City's owners type wealth comes in to save the day. His lack of due dilligence was a godsend, hate to think where we'd have been without it. However bad he's been. I agree with what you're saying, and I too acknowledge what Ashley did- and financially has done for us- but we can't keep saying this after every insult, lie, and catastrophic decision thrown our way. You would think that four years on he would have adapted and learnt from mistakes. But as we continuously see, he simply doesn't. Literally every season he has been here uproar (mid-season, too) has been caused by something rash, needless or completely illogical. I'm very pleased to see where we are in the table and that what we have achieved so far is through prudent spending on players, but as .com have said....will whatever we receive- if we ever do find a sponsor- help us that much? I don't think so. Not one bit. Ashley should be working towards qualifying for Europe as that in itself would bring in good money. He simply cannot keep going the way he is. On the other hand, most of the decisions he has made were incredibly unpopular at the time but actually turned out to not harm us that much or even leave the club in better shape. Pretty much the only exception to this is the gamble on staying up in the relegation season, and even that worked out OK in the end. I don't think the name change fits into this category, as I think some things are more important than finance, but I thought we had started to reassess some os Ashley's past decisions in a better light. Selling Carroll and Nolan now look like good moves and replacing Hughton with Pardew was a great one, all things people were spitting their dummies out about at the time but realise now that it was good moves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 I don't understand the point of saying that "we should already be competing with everyone except the top 4". Should we? Why? The fact is we aren't, the finances speak for themselves. It also conveniently ignores the collection of clubs who are spending a lot less than us, and the like of Everton who are totally skint. And like Toon Pack says, imagine if Ashley had done proper due diligence and decided not to buy us. Fuck knows where we'd be then. None of this justifies the name change, but it's pointless to argue against it based on some magical assumption that our finances should be better than they are. Ashley's naivety didn't cause our financial problems, it just meant he made himself responsible for sorting them out. Which clubs are spending a lot less than us? I can't be bothered to look for exact numbers, but the point is that unless you have guaranteed regular European football must Premier League clubs are spending very modestly. Or if they are spending, they're being charged over the odds for average players and are increasing their levels of debt. I don't want to have the entire Ashley finance debate again from scratch, I just thought that we had started to come round to the way he was running things. I'm as angry about the name change as anyone BTW, I think it's a disgrace, I just don't think those NUFC.com arguments against it are the right ones. The entire justification for the name change is that it will help us 'compete'. Compete with whom? The only reason anyone was starting to come around to his way of doing things was that we currently look like a decent team on a shoestring budget. Is that not already competing with everyone except the top clubs? We're already there ffs. You say you're against this name change but it doesn't read like it when you can justify it on the basis of needing more money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 So there we have it. The ground name is being sold because the fans are demanding another striker. Is that finally an admission that no more of the Andy Carroll money is going to be spent on players and all £35m has already been reinvested in the club? Those agents fees really must be extortionate.... Let's assume that the £8-10m is an exaggeration and in reality selling this part of the club's heritage will bring in more like £5-7m. Is it worth it? That is not going to help us "compete with the big boys". At the moment clubs like Stoke City, Fulham and QPR are outspending us, while we plead poverty. That's despite 45K season ticket holders, a significant share of TV money, substantial merchandise income (including three new shirts per year) and the fees banked from other player sales - not just big Andy. Why are we not already competing with every team in the Premier League except Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and possibly Arsenal? It can't be put down to massive player wages anymore, unless Alan Smith is still costing us £10m/year.... Like the Carroll transfer fee, a lot of us would accept the economics if we thought the money was going to be used purely for team strengthening but recent history suggests otherwise. It seems that over four years on, Ashley's lack of due diligence is still being paid for by everyone connected with the club, except those at fault. His lack of due diligence which ultimately will lead to us being stuck with him unless someone of Man City's owners type wealth comes in to save the day. His lack of due dilligence was a godsend, hate to think where we'd have been without it. However bad he's been. I agree with what you're saying, and I too acknowledge what Ashley did- and financially has done for us- but we can't keep saying this after every insult, lie, and catastrophic decision thrown our way. You would think that four years on he would have adapted and learnt from mistakes. But as we continuously see, he simply doesn't. Literally every season he has been here uproar (mid-season, too) has been caused by something rash, needless or completely illogical. I'm very pleased to see where we are in the table and that what we have achieved so far is through prudent spending on players, but as .com have said....will whatever we receive- if we ever do find a sponsor- help us that much? I don't think so. Not one bit. Ashley should be working towards qualifying for Europe as that in itself would bring in good money. He simply cannot keep going the way he is. On the other hand, most of the decisions he has made were incredibly unpopular at the time but actually turned out to not harm us that much or even leave the club in better shape. Pretty much the only exception to this is the gamble on staying up in the relegation season, and even that worked out OK in the end. I don't think the name change fits into this category, as I think some things are more important than finance, but I thought we had started to reassess some os Ashley's past decisions in a better light. Selling Carroll and Nolan now look like good moves and replacing Hughton with Pardew was a great one, all things people were spitting their dummies out about at the time but realise now that it was good moves. Pure luck imo. How long before it runs out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 It's a bit harsh to put everything bad he does down to incompetence/evil and everything good he does down to pure luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 It's a bit harsh to put everything bad he does down to incompetence/evil and everything good he does down to pure luck. It's also stupid to suggest anyone is doing that. Doesn't stop people suggesting it. Classic straw man (Otter). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 So there we have it. The ground name is being sold because the fans are demanding another striker. Is that finally an admission that no more of the Andy Carroll money is going to be spent on players and all £35m has already been reinvested in the club? Those agents fees really must be extortionate.... Let's assume that the £8-10m is an exaggeration and in reality selling this part of the club's heritage will bring in more like £5-7m. Is it worth it? That is not going to help us "compete with the big boys". At the moment clubs like Stoke City, Fulham and QPR are outspending us, while we plead poverty. That's despite 45K season ticket holders, a significant share of TV money, substantial merchandise income (including three new shirts per year) and the fees banked from other player sales - not just big Andy. Why are we not already competing with every team in the Premier League except Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and possibly Arsenal? It can't be put down to massive player wages anymore, unless Alan Smith is still costing us £10m/year.... Like the Carroll transfer fee, a lot of us would accept the economics if we thought the money was going to be used purely for team strengthening but recent history suggests otherwise. It seems that over four years on, Ashley's lack of due diligence is still being paid for by everyone connected with the club, except those at fault. His lack of due diligence which ultimately will lead to us being stuck with him unless someone of Man City's owners type wealth comes in to save the day. His lack of due dilligence was a godsend, hate to think where we'd have been without it. However bad he's been. I agree with what you're saying, and I too acknowledge what Ashley did- and financially has done for us- but we can't keep saying this after every insult, lie, and catastrophic decision thrown our way. You would think that four years on he would have adapted and learnt from mistakes. But as we continuously see, he simply doesn't. Literally every season he has been here uproar (mid-season, too) has been caused by something rash, needless or completely illogical. I'm very pleased to see where we are in the table and that what we have achieved so far is through prudent spending on players, but as .com have said....will whatever we receive- if we ever do find a sponsor- help us that much? I don't think so. Not one bit. Ashley should be working towards qualifying for Europe as that in itself would bring in good money. He simply cannot keep going the way he is. On the other hand, most of the decisions he has made were incredibly unpopular at the time but actually turned out to not harm us that much or even leave the club in better shape. Pretty much the only exception to this is the gamble on staying up in the relegation season, and even that worked out OK in the end. I don't think the name change fits into this category, as I think some things are more important than finance, but I thought we had started to reassess some os Ashley's past decisions in a better light. Selling Carroll and Nolan now look like good moves and replacing Hughton with Pardew was a great one, all things people were spitting their dummies out about at the time but realise now that it was good moves. Hey disco dekka, selling the stadium name to his company for zero income (based on what he pays now) is stll and always will be a terrible idea. Even if selling the mentioned players turned otu right. This will not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 So there we have it. The ground name is being sold because the fans are demanding another striker. Is that finally an admission that no more of the Andy Carroll money is going to be spent on players and all £35m has already been reinvested in the club? Those agents fees really must be extortionate.... Let's assume that the £8-10m is an exaggeration and in reality selling this part of the club's heritage will bring in more like £5-7m. Is it worth it? That is not going to help us "compete with the big boys". At the moment clubs like Stoke City, Fulham and QPR are outspending us, while we plead poverty. That's despite 45K season ticket holders, a significant share of TV money, substantial merchandise income (including three new shirts per year) and the fees banked from other player sales - not just big Andy. Why are we not already competing with every team in the Premier League except Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and possibly Arsenal? It can't be put down to massive player wages anymore, unless Alan Smith is still costing us £10m/year.... Like the Carroll transfer fee, a lot of us would accept the economics if we thought the money was going to be used purely for team strengthening but recent history suggests otherwise. It seems that over four years on, Ashley's lack of due diligence is still being paid for by everyone connected with the club, except those at fault. His lack of due diligence which ultimately will lead to us being stuck with him unless someone of Man City's owners type wealth comes in to save the day. His lack of due dilligence was a godsend, hate to think where we'd have been without it. However bad he's been. I agree with what you're saying, and I too acknowledge what Ashley did- and financially has done for us- but we can't keep saying this after every insult, lie, and catastrophic decision thrown our way. You would think that four years on he would have adapted and learnt from mistakes. But as we continuously see, he simply doesn't. Literally every season he has been here uproar (mid-season, too) has been caused by something rash, needless or completely illogical. I'm very pleased to see where we are in the table and that what we have achieved so far is through prudent spending on players, but as .com have said....will whatever we receive- if we ever do find a sponsor- help us that much? I don't think so. Not one bit. Ashley should be working towards qualifying for Europe as that in itself would bring in good money. He simply cannot keep going the way he is. On the other hand, most of the decisions he has made were incredibly unpopular at the time but actually turned out to not harm us that much or even leave the club in better shape. Pretty much the only exception to this is the gamble on staying up in the relegation season, and even that worked out OK in the end. I don't think the name change fits into this category, as I think some things are more important than finance, but I thought we had started to reassess some os Ashley's past decisions in a better light. Selling Carroll and Nolan now look like good moves and replacing Hughton with Pardew was a great one, all things people were spitting their dummies out about at the time but realise now that it was good moves. Pure luck imo. How long before it runs out? How was replacing an immobile midfielder with a younger, better footballer luck? How was selling a striker that had half a good Premiership season for a record fee luck? How was replacing a manager that was struggling to beat the weaker teams in the league with a more highly rated manager luck? It's not luck, it's having the balls to bite the bullet and make the call. If it was up to some we would still have Nolan plodding around in midfield with Hughton sat in the dugout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 yeah, but he's just changed the official name of St. James' Park Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 So there we have it. The ground name is being sold because the fans are demanding another striker. Is that finally an admission that no more of the Andy Carroll money is going to be spent on players and all £35m has already been reinvested in the club? Those agents fees really must be extortionate.... Let's assume that the £8-10m is an exaggeration and in reality selling this part of the club's heritage will bring in more like £5-7m. Is it worth it? That is not going to help us "compete with the big boys". At the moment clubs like Stoke City, Fulham and QPR are outspending us, while we plead poverty. That's despite 45K season ticket holders, a significant share of TV money, substantial merchandise income (including three new shirts per year) and the fees banked from other player sales - not just big Andy. Why are we not already competing with every team in the Premier League except Chelsea, the two Manchester clubs and possibly Arsenal? It can't be put down to massive player wages anymore, unless Alan Smith is still costing us £10m/year.... Like the Carroll transfer fee, a lot of us would accept the economics if we thought the money was going to be used purely for team strengthening but recent history suggests otherwise. It seems that over four years on, Ashley's lack of due diligence is still being paid for by everyone connected with the club, except those at fault. His lack of due diligence which ultimately will lead to us being stuck with him unless someone of Man City's owners type wealth comes in to save the day. His lack of due dilligence was a godsend, hate to think where we'd have been without it. However bad he's been. I agree with what you're saying, and I too acknowledge what Ashley did- and financially has done for us- but we can't keep saying this after every insult, lie, and catastrophic decision thrown our way. You would think that four years on he would have adapted and learnt from mistakes. But as we continuously see, he simply doesn't. Literally every season he has been here uproar (mid-season, too) has been caused by something rash, needless or completely illogical. I'm very pleased to see where we are in the table and that what we have achieved so far is through prudent spending on players, but as .com have said....will whatever we receive- if we ever do find a sponsor- help us that much? I don't think so. Not one bit. Ashley should be working towards qualifying for Europe as that in itself would bring in good money. He simply cannot keep going the way he is. On the other hand, most of the decisions he has made were incredibly unpopular at the time but actually turned out to not harm us that much or even leave the club in better shape. Pretty much the only exception to this is the gamble on staying up in the relegation season, and even that worked out OK in the end. I don't think the name change fits into this category, as I think some things are more important than finance, but I thought we had started to reassess some os Ashley's past decisions in a better light. Selling Carroll and Nolan now look like good moves and replacing Hughton with Pardew was a great one, all things people were spitting their dummies out about at the time but realise now that it was good moves. Hey disco dekka, selling the stadium name to his company for zero income (based on what he pays now) is stll and always will be a terrible idea. Even if selling the mentioned players turned otu right. This will not Yet if it brings in a new sponsor that can invest money in to the club it's still a terrible idea? St James' will always be St James' and the Leazes will always be the Leazes, who cares what they call them on the telly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 They don't get it and you sure as fuck don't get it Baggio, that's very clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 yeah, but he's just changed the official name of St. James' Park But no-one who matters (fans, locals etc) will use the "new" name. It makes no odds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 yeah, but he's just changed the official name of St. James' Park But no-one who matters (fans, locals etc) will use the "new" name. It makes no odds. ...to you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 This is so obvious it's barely worth posting, but here it is anyway. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/10/newcastle-sports-direct-arena-sponsorship Newcastle may struggle to find stadium sponsors, warn industry experts • St James' Park to be called the Sports Direct Arena • Sponsors will be wary of damaging brand due to fans' anger Newcastle United's hopes of raising £8m-10m a year in new income from their stadium naming rights are highly unlikely to be realised because the plan breaks the "golden rules" of a successful sponsorship property, industry experts have warned. Newcastle are third in the Premier League after an 11-match unbeaten start to the season and announced on Wednesday that St James' Park is to be renamed the Sports Direct Arena. Derek Llambias, the club's managing director, said : "I would hope to generate between £8m-10m a year, that will give us another player." It was, in the eyes of sponsorship consultants, the worst possible thing he could have said. Shaun Whatling, the chief executive of the management and brand consultancy company Red Mandarin, cast doubt on Llambias's forecasts, saying: "They're unwise to raise expectations of £10m incremental revenue and creating linkage with new signings – there's already antagonism amongst fans to the sale of naming rights and Derek Llambias is now preparing a frosty welcome for any sponsor buying in 'on the cheap'." Tim Crow, the chief executive at the sponsorship consultancy Synergy, believes the best way to avoid the risk of brand damage for interested sponsors would be to stay away. "I'd be very surprised if any brand came forward and if any of my clients asked me for my opinion I'd advise them in the strongest possible terms not to," said Crow. "Or they could do the shirt sponsorship on its own, which would be entirely positive." Crow has devised six "golden rules" for a successful naming-rights proposition and it is clear the latest development breaches them. His advice is never to rename an existing stadium with a strong heritage and, 119 years after the club first played football there, St James' Park certainly qualifies as that. The exception, Crow has written, is when stadium operators rebuild or relaunch an unloved or decrepit stadium, when a sponsor's cash provides tangible improvements to the facility. This happened at the Millennium Dome (now the O2) and Dublin's Lansdowne Road (now the Aviva Stadium). But at Newcastle, which Mike Ashley owns through a group combining his shareholdings in Sports Direct and in the club, the extra money would go towards players; the likely net effect being only that this remote group company is spared the expense. "They've driven a cart and horses through the golden rules," said Crow, who described the stadium's former incarnation as SportsDirect.com@St James' Park as "a horror". Andy Westlake is the chief executive of the sponsorship and management firm Fast Track and advises clients including Emirates, which signed a successful shirt and stadium deal with Arsenal in 2004. The deal was worth £6.5m a year in shirt sponsorship and only about £2.75m in naming rights. Those were more buoyant economic times but Arsenal discounted the sponsorship value to receive cash up front, without which their new home could not have been built. Manchester City's £200m-plus, 10-year deal with Etihad bucked a declining trend in naming-rights values but the relationship between Abu Dhabi's national flag-carrier airline and its Premier League proxy may have distorted the value of that contract. Westlake cannot see Newcastle achieving anything like that amount. "I don't think any brand will be buying in to naming rights at Newcastle unless they are focusing on building a relationship with fans," said Westlake. With Ashley trending on Twitter on Thursday in a far from complimentary context, that is unlikely. "In this [recessionary] market you have to recognise what sponsorship is about: adding value for fans in the club they love," added Westlake. "But Newcastle fans are universally against this. Perhaps he's[Ashley] is generating the wrath so that a brand coming in can restore the St James' Park name and be loved for it. Otherwise, I can't explain it." Joey Barton, who left Newcastle in August to join QPR, thinks he can. "Ashley and his subordinates, know the cost of everything but the value of nothing…" he tweeted. "N#numpties." • This article was amended on 11 November 2011. The original said Newcastle is "a wholly owned subsidiary of the retailer Sports Direct". This has been corrected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Hmmm and Ashley and Lambias who have been in business for how long wouldn't have known this? Honestly how can people STILL not think that the aim of everything they do is to recoup the money they lost? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Let's not kid ourselves. The name of the stadium is not going to become anything other than Sports Direct Arena at any point during Mike Ashley's tenure here, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Let's not kid ourselves. The name of the stadium is not going to become anything other than Sports Direct Arena at any point during Mike Ashley's tenure here, QFT shirt sponsors is a different matter imo, be fucking mental to turn down an existing revenue stream Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Honestly how can people STILL not think that the aim of everything they do is to recoup the money they lost? Shame that they could sponsor the stadium and shirt for the next 119 years and we'll still owe him £100m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosenrot Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Along the same lines as a few people who have already posted, I really wish Greggs would buy the sponsorship. I wouldn't mind the Greggs brand on the shirt and it is one of the few national 'Newcastle' brands that are left. They could also open a greggs in the stadium? I'm not sure if there is one already as I haven't been for a while but I'm pretty sure no one would have hard feelings against the company. However, I don't think they make enough money to afford £10,000,000 a year. It's a sad state of affairs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 All these fans anger / bad branding stories are rubbish IMO. Fans anger: the consensus seems to be that this anger will erupt into positive singing at SJP! Also someone like O2 would weigh up the millions around the world seeing their name as opposed to a few upset locals. I would almost guarantee that even if O2 took it, the majority of angered fans would not rush out and change their contract. The reality is this will all have blow over by Christmas. Sad but true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 They don't get it and you sure as fuck don't get it Baggio, that's very clear. I get that you're crying like a girl over what the name is going to be on tv, despite everyone in the area and at the games referring to it as St James' Park. I only found out the other day that's West Ham's ground isn't even called Upton Park It's what people know it as though and SJP will be the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Not upton park? Didn't know that either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teohgk Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 i'm not local and i felt disgusting about changing the name of a historic stadium , i find it extremely hard to understand why some Geordies who were born there would actually support such thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Not upton park? Didn't know that either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boleyn_Ground Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Let's not kid ourselves. The name of the stadium is not going to become anything other than Sports Direct Arena at any point during Mike Ashley's tenure here, QFT shirt sponsors is a different matter imo, be fucking mental to turn down an existing revenue stream He might be daft enough to try it. Shirt sponsorship from other company = money for NUFC Sports Direct shirt sponsorship = money for Sports Direct I've always defended him when people claimed that he was "pocketing club money," saying that would be illegal/impossible. Well, it looks like he's gone and found a legal/feasible way of doing just that 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