Jump to content

St James' Park


Delima

Recommended Posts

I don't see how it's different tbh, the whole argument at the time about the club not benefitting financially from the name change was as an aside to the much bigger, more popular argument about the name being sacred. The only thing I disagree with TheGuv on there is being surprised, because it's clear everything has its price. May as well start putting product placement in the 'what is a club in any case...' quote tbh.  

 

 

Edited by kisearch

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kisearch said:

I don't see how it's different tbh, the whole argument at the time about the club not benefitting financially from the name change was as an aside to the much bigger, more popular argument about the name being sacred. The only thing I disagree with TheGuv about is being surprised, because it's clear everything has its price. 

It’s clearly very different. Ashley changed the name to benefit himself it was the sole goal. 
 

The current owners are consulting the fan basis firstly and the beneficiary would be the club as a whole. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

It’s clearly very different. Ashley changed the name to benefit himself it was the sole goal. 
 

The current owners are consulting the fan basis firstly and the beneficiary would be the club as a whole. 
 

 

I also think the new owners know how precious the name is and what it means to the fan base, and will treat it sensitively during up and coming discussions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It’s clearly very different. Ashley changed the name to benefit himself it was the sole goal. 
 

The current owners are consulting the fan basis firstly and the beneficiary would be the club as a whole. 
 

 

 

I get that those things are different, what I'm saying is that the overwhelming argument and outrage at the time was about the name being sacred and in that sense this should be no different, but it is because everything has its price. 

 

 

Edited by kisearch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Encorporate our name with the new and I will be fine with it. If all our moves are being scrutinised then you would expect us to have to adhere to FFP if we get the money and its reinvested I will stomach it. More than likely if they do go with a hyphenated name we will all still use SJP anyway but helps the balance sheet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, POOT 2.0 said:

I'd prefer no name change. Or at least let us have good footy at "SJP" for a while. Like, let's not jump straight into this naming shite...they know it's a touchy subject. 


Thing is without these sponsorship deals you probably won’t have “good footy’ at SJP as they massively need to increase revenue streams to allow spending through FFP. That’s the fact of the matter in the current market. We are already massively behind other clubs revenue streams due to Ashley. The new owners know exactly that it will be a touchy subject, but are still putting it out on the table (it seems) at an early stage, they’re not going to do that on a whim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that "everyone will still call it St James' Park" is completely deluded imo. Yes you will, and I will and people in Newcastle will, but the wider public won't. Kids in ten years time won't even know the name. These things stick really easily.

 

If you put into Twitter the phrase "Call it Eastlands" you will see Man City fans from 2011 who were absolutely adamant that nobody would ever actually refer to it as The Etihad. 

 

Nobody ever believes that advertising actually works. Newsflash: it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kanji said:

City’s stadium deal is like £20m a year I believe. 

 

The way transfer fees are going I can't even see that being worth it.

 

Say we also get £20mil a year and we save it all up for the next four or five years we might be able to get a striker out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Papavasiliou said:

 

The way transfer fees are going I can't even see that being worth it.

 

Say we also get £20mil a year and we save it all up for the next four or five years we might be able to get a striker out of it.


True but when you add in a shirt sponsor on par with the top 6 at say 30-50m a year it does start becoming quite impactful. 
 

 

 

Edited by Kanji

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Papavasiliou said:

 

The way transfer fees are going I can't even see that being worth it.

 

Say we also get £20mil a year and we save it all up for the next four or five years we might be able to get a striker out of it.


It’s not the 20 mill per year to spend on a player. It’s the increased revenue streams which allow you via FFP to spend 100 million on one player in one year not five years. PIF can outspend any club on transfer fees, but they need revenue streams via commercial and sponsorship deals to increase massively to be able to get round FFP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...