St James' Park

[Dave]

Well the very least I'd like is to be able to mouth off about decisions like this on a fucking internet forum (ie rather than at a protest, or at the match) without a load of smartarse wankers taking the piss. But seemingly even that's worthy of mocking too. We should all shut up and bend over.

[Mick]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

Where do you live?  I only ask because most of the people I know would fit in to the "older" age range, not that they post on here.

 

I know a few on here have said that they have seen no or little reaction away from the forum.  I spend more time away from the forum than on it and the people I know are totally pissed off about the name change.

 

I don't know a single person away from the forum who has agreed with the name change.  Most of the people I spend my non- forum time with would be classed as professionals and I've heard some surprising comments from them about what they would say or do if they ever met Ashley or Llambias.  I have no doubt they’d do or say nothing, the fact that they are saying things like wanting to knock 10 bells out of them is surprising.

 

[Cronky]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

Where do you live?  I only ask because most of the people I know would fit in to the "older" age range, not that they post on here.

 

I know a few on here have said that they have seen no or little reaction away from the forum.  I spend more time away from the forum than on it and the people I know are totally pissed off about the name change.

 

I don't know a single person away from the forum who has agreed with the name change.  Most of the people I spend my non- forum time with would be classed as professionals and I've heard some surprising comments from them about what they would say or do if they ever met Ashley or Llambias.  I have no doubt they’d do or say nothing, the fact that they are saying things like wanting to knock 10 bells out of them is surprising.

 

 

I don't live in the North-East, so I'm not going by local opinion. I'm going by what I'm reading on here. And whilst there's bound to be quite a few exceptions, I've genuinely felt that the older posters seem to be more philosophical about this. I'm not saying agreeing with the decision - I'm saying accepting it.

[Mick]

 

 

I don't live in the North-East, so I'm not going by local opinion. I'm going by what I'm reading on here. And whilst there's bound to be quite a few exceptions, I've genuinely felt that the older posters seem to be more philosophical about this. I'm not saying agreeing with the decision - I'm saying accepting it.

 

Fair enough, I was just wondering as I've been surprised at the reaction of people who don't even follow football, I few people who don't seem to go to football have also been shown on local TV.

[dilligaf]

Some people keep trotting out the 'Financial Fair Play rules ' line. If SD havent paid Nufc a penny, how is this relevent? as our income from advertising in and around the stadium must be down

[Guest BooBoo]

Cronky: some reasonable well thought out sense amidst the hand wringing. Top marks.

[Dr Venkman]

Cronky: some reasonable well thought out sense amidst the hand wringing. Top marks.

 

Means nothing if it doesn't bring any money in.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Cronky: some reasonable well thought out sense amidst the hand wringing. Top marks.

 

I agree with almost everything in Cronky's post, but I can simultaneously want to kill Mike Ashley for renaming SJP. I'm one of his least harsh critics (aka sympathiser) but I still hate this idea more than anything else he has done.

[NG32]

Good points cronky, but who are the older ones on here who are ok with the name change?

 

And what do you count as old? 

 

 

[Christmas Tree]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

Top Post 

[OzzieMandias]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

Good post, Cronky. I'd been thinking of making some of the same observations myself.

[Dave]

Is there something in the financial fair play rules about getting extra points if you have major sponsors who don't pay anything? I'd much, much rather we didn't do this at all, but at the very least we need to be making money out of it before anyone praises it as forward thinking.

[robm]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

[Benwell Lad]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

Good post, Cronky. I'd been thinking of making some of the same observations myself.

 

Yep. Cronky seems to have an ability to bring a balanced perspective to some of the more emotive topics on here.

I'd echo much of what he says, adding that I haven't heard one person in favour of name change but many who just disregard it as it will ALWAYS be St.James' whoever pays for the naming rights.

[Dave]

*if someone pays

[Parky]

Is there something in the financial fair play rules about getting extra points if you have major sponsors who don't pay anything? I'd much, much rather we didn't do this at all, but at the very least we need to be making money out of it before anyone praises it as forward thinking.

 

The more you dilute a brand and the more you alienate the core audience the less you can sell its attractivity. Putting all else aside this is a fuck up even on a basic level.

[Yorkie]

Is there something in the financial fair play rules about getting extra points if you have major sponsors who don't pay anything? I'd much, much rather we didn't do this at all, but at the very least we need to be making money out of it before anyone praises it as forward thinking.

 

Precisely. We're not even making money out of this whole fiasco. Cronky's post would have a lot more credibility if this move was actually generating cash for us. If we get Samsung on the phone and the masterplan comes off (and doesn't just represent another way for Ashley to get his brand name out there), i'll consider applauding their forward-thinking. But i still probably won't because a name-change isn't necessary, even in today's footballing/financial climate.

[Benwell Lad]

Is there something in the financial fair play rules about getting extra points if you have major sponsors who don't pay anything? I'd much, much rather we didn't do this at all, but at the very least we need to be making money out of it before anyone praises it as forward thinking.

 

Precisely. We're not even making money out of this whole fiasco. Cronky's post would have a lot more credibility if this move was actually generating cash for us. If we get Samsung on the phone and the masterplan comes off (and doesn't just represent another way for Ashley to get his brand name out there), i'll consider applauding their forward-thinking. But i still probably won't because a name-change isn't necessary, even in today's footballing/financial climate.

 

I think it would be wise to give them a little time to find a buyer as once again much of the criticism and teeth gnashing is about something that hasn't happened yet. If post-Northern Rock there is no sponsor in place the criticism will be a valid one.

If the worst case scenario arrives and it is SD, I'd imagine there will be a cost from the club to SD which will be on the books and included in the financial fair play reckoning, although I'd admit to not knowing a great deal about how it works or about the financial fair play rules in general.

Is there a thread already on here or do we have someone who is financial fair play savvy who can enlighten us ?

[Dave]

 

This thread is about the stadium renaming. That's happened already.

[Guest ykmkmdd]

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think.

 

More applause for Cronky's post here, especially the bit above - I sadly probably count as one of the older generation (certainly on here anyway) and have to say that's nailed it for me.

 

You also have to admit that over the last few years Ashley has done a great job of rendering protests ineffective - he knows he owns the lot, never says a word and genuinely appears to not give a shit what people think of him - if he can ride out the furore after KK left he probably thinks he's weathered the worst we have to offer.

 

Plus, credit where it's due, he's massively outperforming expectations despite the end of the world being declared by large sections of the fanbase several times in the last few years - in fact, he's probably feeling pretty smug right about now.

[quayside]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

Well thought out post 

 

Ashley is a package deal - there are advantages to having him as our owner and there is also a very crap aspect to it. At the risk of being boringly repetitive I think Llambias is a major hindrance with his day to day running of the club, and Ashley could find a better person to do that job.

[Benwell Lad]

 

This thread is about the stadium renaming. That's happened already.

 

Sorry, you may have mis-understood me. Sure the renaming has happened but I thought the posts I replied to alluded to it not being sold on to an "external" organisation. That of course may or may not happen and my point was best wait and see before we decide whether they're making money out of it or not.

FWIW I'm doubtful that they will sell it externally in the present climate and with the stadium already being so well known by it's correct name, but some Sunday's reported otherwise so I guess we'll see ??

[Benwell Lad]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

Well thought out post 

 

Ashley is a package deal - there are advantages to having him as our owner and there is also a very crap aspect to it. At the risk of being boringly repetitive I think Llambias is a major hindrance with his day to day running of the club, and Ashley could find a better person to do that job.

 

So a bit like "Shola in the boardroom" then 

[quayside]

My honest impression is - with exceptions of course - that the older posters on here are more accepting of this move than the younger ones. In a sense, that's the opposite of what you'd expect, with tradition being under threat.

 

I can only think that, as is natural, the older you are, the more changes in the game you've seen and the more you come to the view that a) some change is inevitable and b) the heart and soul of the game is not as easily threatened as you might think. Football followers and journos tend to be a bit conservative and the cry that the game is on the verge of ruin has been a regular one over the last 40 + years.

 

I've been a supporter of the club since the sixties, and during that period we've usually seemed to be behind the times, as if what other clubs did yesterday, we'd do tomorrow. We were late in developing the stadium, getting modern training facilities and developing our youth system. Sir John Hall was a dynamic figure, eager to bring the club into the modern era, but even then I don't think we quite caught up in every aspect, and then the club fell into the hands of a fool in Shepherd.

 

Ashley blundered in his first two years and all things being equal I'd rather not change the name of the stadium. But he's got a bold approach and a plan for the future, and some of his more recent decisions - whilst being opposed by most fans and scoffed at by so-called experts - have turned out to be good (eg replacing Hughton with Pardew, selling Carroll, getting rid of Nolan and Barton) The guy makes me a bit nervous because the boundary between being daring and being reckless is often a fine one. I can't say I trust him 100%, but at least we're starting to try to get ahead of the game, rather than trailing along behind, which from my long-term perspective has been the usual norm.

 

So I'm prepared to still cut the guy some slack. And to those who would rather go to war, I'd ask what the alternative is. There doesn't seem to be any oil billionaires on the horizon, and in any case the Financial Fair Play rules might discourage another wealthy ego-tripper. We've had local ownership for the previous 50+ years and it didn't bring us success.

 

Well thought out post 

 

Ashley is a package deal - there are advantages to having him as our owner and there is also a very crap aspect to it. At the risk of being boringly repetitive I think Llambias is a major hindrance with his day to day running of the club, and Ashley could find a better person to do that job.

 

So a bit like "Shola in the boardroom" then 

 

That would be a good simile if the advantages of Shola were more obvious 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I doubt if Ashley's ever eaten an apple or ridden a bicycle, never mind both at once.