St James' Park

[Benwell Lad]

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

 

I got a mental picture of that and laughed out loud 

After he crashed that is.

[Guest TheSummerOf69]

So: if we get a sponsor in and the stadium renaming brings cash some of us may grudgingly accept it as the modern way.

 

How long does our patience last if companies look at it as bad PR and avoid the opportunity, and we're stuck with the media having to call it the SDA (and having those chatty signs plastered everywhere) while getting no cash in for it at all???

 

[Dave]

So: if we get a sponsor in and the stadium renaming brings cash some of us may grudgingly accept it as the modern way.

 

How long does our patience last if companies look at it as bad PR and avoid the opportunity, and we're stuck with the media having to call it the SDA (and having those chatty signs plastered everywhere) while getting no cash in for it at all???

 

You should know by now that for some that point will never arrive. There will be some new excuse by then, and if not we can always point to Shepherd or some such.

[afar]

That's the key for me, I'm not much of a traditionalist, I'm proud of our history, but happy to move with the times to stay competitive. I still think we made a big mistake in expanding the ground rather than moving to new stadium at another location. But right now we have the worst of it with a crappy name change that generates zero revenue.

[dilligaf]

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.

 

How old is 'older'?  Ive never been an 'exception' before

If we were actually getting paid for all the advertising/name change etc supporters would at least see the point, might not like it, but would at least see the reasoning behind it.

As it stands there is no benefit at all for us as a club changing the stadium name.

Im pretty sure that is the way the majority see it, age has nothing to do with it

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I think its easier for fans who do not live in and around Newcastle to be more "meh" about the name change and that's because (IMO) they are more detached emotionaly to the club itself these days due to not living and breathing the club on a daily basis whereas if you live here you are emotionaly attached much more. Living away fans will be attached emotionally to the team and its results but the club not so much, that's the sense I get reading posts from Cronky, Ozzie etc. - all good posters who obviously care deeply about the club but emotionally perhaps have detcahed themselves somewhat due to living outside the area. Perhaps in many ways that's a good thing because it can allow for logic and impartiality and sound reasoning.

[JH]

The fact is - with exceptions of course - everyone thinks changing the stadium name is a shit idea.

 

[Sifu]

The fact is - with exceptions of course - everyone thinks changing the stadium name is a s*** idea.

 

 

That's pretty much safe to say.

[dilligaf]

'with exceptions of course'

Its the forum 'Get Out of Jail Free' card

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think its easier for fans who do not live in and around Newcastle to be more "meh" about the name change and that's because (IMO) they are more detached emotionaly to the club itself these days due to not living and breathing the club on a daily basis whereas if you live here you are emotionaly attached much more. Living away fans will be attached emotionally to the team and its results but the club not so much, that's the sense I get reading posts from Cronky, Ozzie etc. - all good posters who obviously care deeply about the club but emotionally perhaps have detcahed themselves somewhat due to living outside the area. Perhaps in many ways that's a good thing because it can allow for logic and impartiality and sound reasoning.

 

Except that football is all about history, tradition, tribalism and emotion. Without that it's just a game, and IMO very much less worth following.

[OzzieMandias]

I think its easier for fans who do not live in and around Newcastle to be more "meh" about the name change and that's because (IMO) they are more detached emotionaly to the club itself these days due to not living and breathing the club on a daily basis whereas if you live here you are emotionaly attached much more. Living away fans will be attached emotionally to the team and its results but the club not so much, that's the sense I get reading posts from Cronky, Ozzie etc. - all good posters who obviously care deeply about the club but emotionally perhaps have detcahed themselves somewhat due to living outside the area. Perhaps in many ways that's a good thing because it can allow for logic and impartiality and sound reasoning.

 

Or you could say that travel and/or living in other cultures broadens the mind and gives you less of a goldfish-bowl perspective. I live in a country, for example, where all but two of the top-tier clubs play in branded stadiums and the world of football has not come to an end.

 

My brother, fwiw, slightly younger than me but who also went to his first games in the 1960s, lives in Newcastle and broadly shares my view of all this -- ie the name change is a bit of a shame, but ultimately no big deal.

[Cronky]

Thanks to all for their comments.

 

The 'age' issue was possibly a dodgy generalisation, and I was a bit nervous about how it would be received. Over the years, you do see lots of things that are regarded as outrageous at one time and then completely accepted at another. That applies to things other than football, but within our game, there was a time when paying players at all was seen as cheating and contrary to the spirit of the game, and money used to get secretly stuck into people's socks. So I don't think this is a 'step too far', though on an emotional issue such as a name, I accept that there's going to be differences of opinion.

 

I get a bit narked about outsiders like Jeff Stelling getting into a public lather about this though. He accepts his salary from Sky Sports - who are more responsible than any organisation for the commercialisation of the modern Premiership. He then talks quite happily about the Barclays Premier League and the Emirates Stadium, but he's outraged at the idea of renaming St James's Park and poses as a man of great principle on that issue. Sorry, no.

 

I can accept HTT's point that supporters in the North East may well be more affected by this. Ashley is often accused of not understanding local feelings and running roughshod over the emotions of supporters. He is, in fact, the first outsider to run the club and though more than once he's tried to get a divorce, it looks like we're lumbered with him and vice versa. However, having an outsider at the reins may just be what the club needs, however painful it seems at times.

 

Over the years, I've felt that the devotion of the fans - which I do think is second to none in this country - has sometimes been a double-edged sword. That's brought a lot of pressure on players, managers and owners and so many have buckled under it. Players have frozen on the big occasion, managers have lost confidence and chairmen have made silly decisions to secure a short term fix rather than build for success in the long-term. One thing you can say about Ashley is he's not afraid of being unpopular, and he's prepared to take a considered risk. To give one example, the decision to replace Hughton with Pardew at a time when the team was doing well and nearly everyone was wanting Chris to get a new contract was very bold and unorthodox. Ashley really put his gonads on the line there. In that kind of situation, it's probably an advantage to be an outsider, a bit detached from the local pressures. The challenge is to harnass that enormous energy that's behind the club, but not be overwhelmed or dictated by it.

 

On other parts of the picture, we're 3rd in the league, the reserve and the youth teams have never been in a better state, we've got state of the art training and medical facilities and virtually no debt other than that carried by the owner. We're looking an increasingly attractive proposition for foreign players and perhaps foreign investment through sponsorship. So if that momentum carries on, I'm not going to get too worked up about how much of the £35m we've spent so far, or whatever the official name of the stadium turns out to be.

[Cronky]

I think its easier for fans who do not live in and around Newcastle to be more "meh" about the name change and that's because (IMO) they are more detached emotionaly to the club itself these days due to not living and breathing the club on a daily basis whereas if you live here you are emotionaly attached much more. Living away fans will be attached emotionally to the team and its results but the club not so much, that's the sense I get reading posts from Cronky, Ozzie etc. - all good posters who obviously care deeply about the club but emotionally perhaps have detcahed themselves somewhat due to living outside the area. Perhaps in many ways that's a good thing because it can allow for logic and impartiality and sound reasoning.

 

Except that football is all about history, tradition, tribalism and emotion. Without that it's just a game, and IMO very much less worth following.

 

It's not 'all' about that though, is it? You're making it sound like a ritual. It's also a competitive sport, and involves winning and losing. Winning is what this club has found difficult for a long time.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I think its easier for fans who do not live in and around Newcastle to be more "meh" about the name change and that's because (IMO) they are more detached emotionaly to the club itself these days due to not living and breathing the club on a daily basis whereas if you live here you are emotionaly attached much more. Living away fans will be attached emotionally to the team and its results but the club not so much, that's the sense I get reading posts from Cronky, Ozzie etc. - all good posters who obviously care deeply about the club but emotionally perhaps have detcahed themselves somewhat due to living outside the area. Perhaps in many ways that's a good thing because it can allow for logic and impartiality and sound reasoning.

 

Except that football is all about history, tradition, tribalism and emotion. Without that it's just a game, and IMO very much less worth following.

 

I agree and history and traditions should never be tampered with in such extreme ways as is happening right now regarding the renaming of a stadium. A stadium with over 120 years of history, a world-wide sporting landmark recognised by any with a true interest in football. SJP is one of the game's better stadiums not just here in the UK but throughout the world too.

[midds]

The fact is - with exceptions of course - everyone thinks changing the stadium name is a shit idea.

 

 

Haven't bumped into anyone who actually likes the idea but some dislike it far more than others. Which is fair enough, it's their prerogative.

 

Agree with most of Cronky's post too. 

[jdckelly]

doubt theres anyone anywhere who actually likes the idea but some may have a grudging acceptance of it (guessing)

 

me I just take it not as an Ashley issue but a modern football issue

[matta]

They can "name" it whatever they want, will always be st james' park.

[JH]

They can "name" it whatever they want, will always be st james' park.

 

On that argument, they can name whatever they want, sell whoever they want and change whatever they want. Perfect for them

[loki679]

He then talks quite happily about the Barclays Premier League and the Emirates Stadium, but he's outraged at the idea of renaming St James's Park and poses as a man of great principle on that issue. Sorry, no.

 

I'm not going to address the rest of your post (hey, it's late ) but i've heard the emirates and a few others mentioned many times both on and off the forum relating to this debate but to my mind those stadia have no relevance at all.  Those are brand new arenas and hence they have no history behind them.  Their relevance to St James' Park is zero as they were, on the whole, not named anything else before they were named as they are now or they were initially named for a corporate sponsor and have since switched to another different corporate sponsor.

 

Had Arsenal decided to rename Highbury then i'm sure there would have been the same sense of outrage from their fans.  Similarly the scousers or the fake mancs would go beserk should Trampfield or Old Trafford be renamed.  Those fans would be outraged at the besmirchment of their history and tradition even with the extra funds that the desecration would bring, a consolation we inevitably find ourselves without.

[James]

Apparently UEFA are not going to allow Man City's income to include their new sponsorship deal because it is clearly money coming from the owners and excessive when considering the market rates. My Man City housemate reckons they are looking to sponsor a few other clubs to set the new market rate so UEFA can not dispute the market price.

[Guest]

That's not allowed though is it?

[oldtype]

Apparently UEFA are not going to allow Man City's income to include their new sponsorship deal because it is clearly money coming from the owners and excessive when considering the market rates. My Man City housemate reckons they are looking to sponsor a few other clubs to set the new market rate so UEFA can not dispute the market price.

 

Fucking hell, I suppose that's one way of solving that problem

[Toonpack]

He then talks quite happily about the Barclays Premier League and the Emirates Stadium, but he's outraged at the idea of renaming St James's Park and poses as a man of great principle on that issue. Sorry, no.

 

I'm not going to address the rest of your post (hey, it's late ) but i've heard the emirates and a few others mentioned many times both on and off the forum relating to this debate but to my mind those stadia have no relevance at all.  Those are brand new arenas and hence they have no history behind them.  Their relevance to St James' Park is zero as they were, on the whole, not named anything else before they were named as they are now or they were initially named for a corporate sponsor and have since switched to another different corporate sponsor.

 

Had Arsenal decided to rename Highbury then i'm sure there would have been the same sense of outrage from their fans.  Similarly the scousers or the fake mancs would go beserk should Trampfield or Old Trafford be renamed.  Those fans would be outraged at the besmirchment of their history and tradition even with the extra funds that the desecration would bring, a consolation we inevitably find ourselves without.

 

The mention(s) of the Emirates are totally valid IMO, Arsenal totaly obliterated their heritage, but hey that's OK apparently, a name change pales in significance compared to the bulldozers going  in.

 

I don't like the name change, but it's just another example of erosion of heritage in the search for more money. It is much less of an erosion than total destruction for the same purpose.

 

If you believe OT or Anfield would be sacrosanct if either Man U or Liverpool really needed the money, you are extremely naive.

 

When and how much money we will get is another topic, but the name change itself was utterly predictable.

 

But SJP is still there and will always be SJP

 

Check out the Stadium names in the Bundesliga ?? (a league btw where commercial revenues outstrip the Prem).

[Hughesy]

Apparently UEFA are not going to allow Man City's income to include their new sponsorship deal because it is clearly money coming from the owners and excessive when considering the market rates. My Man City housemate reckons they are looking to sponsor a few other clubs to set the new market rate so UEFA can not dispute the market price.

 

That can't be right..  To set a market rate that allowed them to pay City £300 million, they would have to pay some other clubs what they are paying Man City.  So it would cost them - for example - £1.2 billion to enable them to give City £300 million?  Unless I have completely misunderstood what you are saying..

[James]

That is for 10 years. He thinks they would do it for 2-3 years at 20-25 a season (man city more expensive because of being the better team) until HERS shut up. For the interest of hoodwinkling everyone it would be different abu dhabi companies for each team. Probably bullshit though.

 

Continuing from the fair play theories, could someone not wanting to play by these rules sponsor us first, then buy us a year later and HERS be unable to dispute the deal.