Re-naming of St James' Park

[PTAO?]

Not for me. And I don't like the fact that the Twitter reaction is that doing the shitty things that Mike Ashley did is now fine because the money will go into new players. f*** our identity, shiny players.

I'm 100% against a name change, but this is a **** take.
It's completely acceptable to be pissed off at Ashley for using the club and stadium name to promote his other business with zero benefit to the club, whilst accepting that FFP requires us to open revenue streams to grow.

[Remember Colo]

Not for me. And I don't like the fact that the Twitter reaction is that doing the shitty things that Mike Ashley did is now fine because the money will go into new players. f*** our identity, shiny players.

I'm 100% against a name change, but this is a **** take.
It's completely acceptable to be pissed off at Ashley for using the club and stadium name to promote his other business with zero benefit to the club, whilst accepting that FFP requires us to open revenue streams to grow.

I think there's some revisionist history if you think people wouldn't still have been mad about the renaming to Sports Direct Arena if he'd promised to spend an extra 25m per year as a trade-off. People will now say it's always been about money, but I reject that. It's that right now people are grateful the football is good and will forgive things that were previously objected to in the name of history or ethics.

Edit: I also think Ashley would have spent even less on the club if he hadn't been able to derive benefits for his other benefits.

[PTAO?]

I'm 100% against a name change, but this is a **** take.
It's completely acceptable to be pissed off at Ashley for using the club and stadium name to promote his other business with zero benefit to the club, whilst accepting that FFP requires us to open revenue streams to grow.

I think there's some revisionist history if you think people wouldn't still have been mad about the renaming to Sports Direct Arena if he'd promised to spend an extra 25m per year as a trade-off. People will now say it's always been about money, but I reject that. It's that right now people are grateful the football is good and will forgive things that were previously objected to in the name of history or ethics.

Edit: I also think Ashley would have spent even less on the club if he hadn't been able to derive benefits for his other benefits.

You might be right for some fans, but for a lot one of the biggest issues with Ashley was his lack of investment, and taking value from the club. If Ashley had taken sponsorship money and used it to build/cement after the 5th season, people wouldn't have been nearly as angry as they were. Like I said, I'm not one of those that would ever have been happy to be called the Sport Direct Arena, but I'd have hated it a s*** tonne less if it was benefiting the club.

[Remember Colo]

I think there's some revisionist history if you think people wouldn't still have been mad about the renaming to Sports Direct Arena if he'd promised to spend an extra 25m per year as a trade-off. People will now say it's always been about money, but I reject that. It's that right now people are grateful the football is good and will forgive things that were previously objected to in the name of history or ethics.

Edit: I also think Ashley would have spent even less on the club if he hadn't been able to derive benefits for his other benefits.

You might be right for some fans, but for a lot one of the biggest issues with Ashley was his lack of investment, and taking value from the club. If Ashley had taken sponsorship money and used it to build/cement after the 5th season, people wouldn't have been nearly as angry as they were. Like I said, I'm not one of those that would ever have been happy to be called the Sport Direct Arena, but I'd have hated it a s*** tonne less if it was benefiting the club.

Fair. I guess I'm just skeptical they need to do this. Sure, FFP requires a bunch of accounting magic - especially when we'll inevitably leverage other PIF owned businesses for the naming rights. But just take that [insert amount here] and reallocate it to any other number of mirage sponsorships we'll have going forward. It's basically going to be one big shell game of moving money from one pocket to another anyway.

At the end of the day, it'll likely be done in the name of player investment and FFP, when instead it's promotion - as the whole thing is. And we'll come out looking like a load of hypocritical supporters willing to forgive them redesigning the club in their image for the price of a Swedish starlet striker.

[PTAO?]

You might be right for some fans, but for a lot one of the biggest issues with Ashley was his lack of investment, and taking value from the club. If Ashley had taken sponsorship money and used it to build/cement after the 5th season, people wouldn't have been nearly as angry as they were. Like I said, I'm not one of those that would ever have been happy to be called the Sport Direct Arena, but I'd have hated it a s*** tonne less if it was benefiting the club.

Fair. I guess I'm just skeptical they need to do this. Sure, FFP requires a bunch of accounting magic - especially when we'll inevitably leverage other PIF owned businesses for the naming rights. But just take that [insert amount here] and reallocate it to any other number of mirage sponsorships we'll have going forward. It's basically going to be one big shell game of moving money from one pocket to another anyway.

At the end of the day, it'll likely be done in the name of player investment and FFP, when instead it's promotion - as the whole thing is. And we'll come out looking like a load of hypocritical supporters willing to forgive them redesigning the club in their image for the price of a Swedish starlet striker.

I agree with you that we can, and I hope we do, grow without it, I just think it's not totally hypocritical to be upset about doing it for free, and ok with doing it for investment.

[Colly]

That's not what I said though, I didn't call it hypocritical as I fully accept that the difference is the money. I still don't like it.

[Remember Colo]

That's not what I said though, I didn't call it hypocritical as I fully accept that the difference is the money. I still don't like it.

I don't think that was directed at you? I think it was a response to me saying why I'd expect us as fans to be criticised as hypocrites if we welcomed the change for the right price. I think the whole thing will be a gotcha moment against us pretending with the sale "we got our club back" if the ownership then starts renaming something like SJP after their national companies and general fan consensus is it was worth it for the money.

[Colly]

I maybe should have quoted the post at the top but I thought the conversation had moved on a bit. My point is essentially yours, the only difference between Ashley and here is money. It's literally a "what would you do for £200" scenario, and that's not what I want this club to be, and I'm saddened if that's what it will be. If it's St James Park or a new full back I want St James Park.

That might make me a hopeless romantic, but as someone once said "what is a club in any case?"...

[Sir Bobby]

I was randomly thinking about this the other day and I had a thought; could they buy the naming rights for abroad only? I imagine most local fans don’t care if SJP was called Aramco Stadium when talked about abroad (if the money was right), since it would almost never be noted here. Obviously international fans might be annoyed but, given we’re not an absolutely massive club, that’s a relatively small number of fans that would be annoyed, which, given the potential benefits, might be acceptable for the fan base as a whole.

[overseasTOON]

It'll always be St James' Park to me because I'm an old bugger and I 100% get why they've an inkling to change it as it's a quick and effective way to add £25 million per annum to the bottom line with very little cost to implement.

Would I be happy? Not really.
Will it make a difference to my support? Not really.

So for a little animosity which could likely be offset as long as it's invested well, it's a no brainer to proceed

[Blue & Maroon]

Would I prefer it didnt happen ? Yes.

Am I that arsed? No. Was always SJP to me when Ashley renamed it and will be if the new owners do.

What is gripping me is the hypocrisy of some of our fans saying its fine because they are asking. I'd eat my hat of they pay any attention to what fans say unless there is a major major kick off which there wont be because they've headed it off by pretending they are interested in what fans think

[gola]

not arsed tbh

[Colly]

What is gripping me is the hypocrisy of some of our fans saying its fine because they are asking. I'd eat my hat of they pay any attention to what fans say unless there is a major major kick off which there wont be because they've headed it off by pretending they are interested in what fans think

I'm really curious as to what this will entail. Will they ask the Supporters Trust (95%+ in favour of the takeover), or will they actually be contacting matchgoing fans?

[bodacious benny]

Personally I think there is a difference between why Ashley did it (100% personal gain and nothing else) and if the current owners did it (to be able to increase the spending power of the club) so it is a different argument.

If it was something like “XXXX @ SJP” stadium it wouldn’t particularly bother me, but I like having the heritage of the SJP name so wouldn’t want to lose it.

[Remember Colo]

Personally I think there is a difference between why Ashley did it (100% personal gain and nothing else) and if the current owners did it (to be able to increase the spending power of the club) so it is a different argument.

If it was something like “XXXX @ SJP” stadium it wouldn’t particularly bother me, but I like having the heritage of the SJP name so wouldn’t want to lose it.

But would it actually be about the spending power of the club? That'll be the sales pitch for sure, but the entire investment was in the name of promoting Saudi interests, and slapping Aramco or whatever on an internationally televised stadium was surely always part of the plan.

[bodacious benny]

Personally I think there is a difference between why Ashley did it (100% personal gain and nothing else) and if the current owners did it (to be able to increase the spending power of the club) so it is a different argument.

If it was something like “XXXX @ SJP” stadium it wouldn’t particularly bother me, but I like having the heritage of the SJP name so wouldn’t want to lose it.

But would it actually be about the spending power of the club? That'll be the sales pitch for sure, but the entire investment was in the name of promoting Saudi interests, and slapping Aramco or whatever on an internationally televised stadium was surely always part of the plan.

I’m sure it may have been, but if they want to be successful (which they will as it promotes Saudi Arabia further) then they need to pump a s*** load of money in, and they can only do that in line with FFP and via new and more lucrative sponsorship / naming deals. Fans aren’t always going to be privy to plans from day one, and why would they be. Any organisation releases information they want to when they want to and keeps things back, football clubs will be the same.

[Blue & Maroon]

Personally I think there is a difference between why Ashley did it (100% personal gain and nothing else) and if the current owners did it (to be able to increase the spending power of the club) so it is a different argument.

If it was something like “XXXX @ SJP” stadium it wouldn’t particularly bother me, but I like having the heritage of the SJP name so wouldn’t want to lose it.

People weren't kicking off about whether it was for Ashley's gain at the time though, it was literally just you can't change SJPs name. No qualifiers just you cant do it.

I realise this debate is a bit picky but it is a forum after all

[bodacious benny]

Personally I think there is a difference between why Ashley did it (100% personal gain and nothing else) and if the current owners did it (to be able to increase the spending power of the club) so it is a different argument.

If it was something like “XXXX @ SJP” stadium it wouldn’t particularly bother me, but I like having the heritage of the SJP name so wouldn’t want to lose it.

People weren't kicking off about whether it was for Ashley's gain at the time though, it was literally just you can't change SJPs name. No qualifiers just you cant do it.

I realise this debate is a bit picky but it is a forum after all

Lol yeah doesn’t bother me!

I wonder (hypothetically) if it would have been a total firm no under Ashley if he’d said “we’ll get £30m and it will go on new signings” or if people would still have been 100% no. I suspect the latter, but presumably there’d be more people at least on the fence.

[Remember Colo]

People weren't kicking off about whether it was for Ashley's gain at the time though, it was literally just you can't change SJPs name. No qualifiers just you cant do it.

I realise this debate is a bit picky but it is a forum after all

Lol yeah doesn’t bother me!

I wonder (hypothetically) if it would have been a total firm no under Ashley if he’d said “we’ll get £30m and it will go on new signings” or if people would still have been 100% no. I suspect the latter, but presumably there’d be more people at least on the fence.

Reasonable question. I don't think people were cool when he said the new plan was for [insert non-Sports Direct sponsor] @ St. James' Park, but I guess it still would have carried the skepticism that new commercial income actually would go towards player investment.

This feels slightly different too in that it's not as if it would even necessarily be real outside investment, since it'll just be money from one of their other companies/investments, and it would theoretically be about getting around FFP, not actually bringing in new money to invest.

[Colly]

I know the sums are different, but it is literally going to be the owners changing the name to promote their own interests again...