Ashley ends 120 years of history by changing St James Park to the Sports Direct Arena

Blatter

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/EXCLUSIVE-Newcastle-s-St-James-Park-stadium-renamed-the-Sports-Direct-Arena-as-Mike-Ashley-ends-120-years-of-history-article828848.html

Newcastle will today controversially end 120 years of history and scrap the St James’ Park stadium name.

Owner Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias are renaming the venue the Sport Direct Arena.

And they have kicked off the search for a £15 million combined shirt and stadium sponsorship deal with global companies.

The move is likely to spark anger among Geordie fans and bring charges of wrecking a piece of Tyneside heritage.


But Newcastle’s chiefs argue they need to tap into the lucrative blue-chip branding market - with money raised reinvested in Alan Pardew’s squad, and keeping ticket prices down.

Ashley first announced plans to sell the naming rights to St James’s Park in October 2009, and a watered down version SportsDirect@St James’s Park has been used ever since, maintaining the historical link.

But United have tested that concept and potential sponsors have shied away - demanding complete stadium rebranding as the preferred option.

The stadium naming rights will be sold as a package with the shirt sponsorship - because Northern Rock, the current name on United’s strip have decided not to renew their deal when it expires in May.

Newcastle hope to raise the equivalent of buying a decent young player every season from the deal.

The Sports Direct Arena, as St James’s Park will now be known as from this morning, will “showcase” what is on offer for new sponsors.

Newcastle know that the plan will reignite the fury of two years ago when the idea was mooted. That even triggered an Early Day Motion in Parliament signed by MPs.

A senior United source last night said the move was to maximise revenue and push annual turnover beyond the £100 million mark.

A source said: “We are not disrespecting the history or heritage or the fans. We are doing this to keep ticket prices down - we have already had two popular offers for season tickets, the 10 year deals and the recent deal for the rest of the season.”

Newcastle want to fill the stadium this season with an average of 49-50,000 near sell outs and have tried to do ticket deals to help generate near sell out crowds and extra atmosphere.

United believe with extra revenue and careful buying of players they can eventually compete with the likes of Spurs nibbling away behind the top four or five.

The club hierarchy will ask to be trusted on their latest move, after the success of other unpopular changes including sacking Chris Hughton last season.

They insist the money raised will be reinvested in the club and not taken out as profit.

A source said: “It is a golden opportunity and something we have to explore.”

Plenty of other media outlets running with this, sounds like it's happening.

That_Guy

Fúcking disgusted.

M5

Not really a surprise given whats gone before with the Sports Direct @ SJP debacle. Hopefully its ignored like that was......

Just as things seemed to be going nicely at SJP its sh*t storm time again.

That_Guy

They insist the money raised will be reinvested in the club and not taken out as profit.

Worked well for the Carroll money alright. :rolleyes:

flahavaj

That_Guy wrote: »

Fúcking disgusted.

If the money was used to buy ye a striker in January who shot ye into the CL would you still feel the same way?

Football is a business now. All revenue streams have to be maximised or ckubs will get left behind very fast.

That_Guy

flahavaj wrote: »

If the money was used to buy ye a striker in January who shot ye into the CL would you still feel the same way?

Football is a business now. All revenue streams have to be maximised or ckubs will get left behind very fast.

We haven't bought a decent striker in the past 3 or 4 transfer windows. Why would it start now?

flahavaj

That_Guy wrote: »

We haven't bought a decent striker in the past 3 or 4 transfer windows. Why would it start now?

So you're more annoyed that the money won't be well spent than the fact the stadium has been renamed?

CSF

Ah jaysus, just when things were looking so good. More controversy. I like Newcastle and all.

Blatter

flahavaj wrote: »

If the money was used to buy ye a striker in January who shot ye into the CL would you still feel the same way?

Football is a business now. All revenue streams have to be maximised or ckubs will get left behind very fast.

There is that way of looking at it(if indeed Ashley invests the money in the club and not his back pocket).


At the same time, if Old Trafford was renamed for more revenue, I'm not sure how I'd feel. I suppose I'd be initially disgusted but would see some sense in it at the same time if it was to help us to become even more competitive.

M5

flahavaj wrote: »

So you're more annoyed that the money won't be well spent than the fact the stadium has been renamed?

He was responding to your point.... Why address something else?

CSF

M5 wrote: »

He was responding to your point.... Why address something else?

Because its very easy for people to twist arguments to suit theirs.

M5

Blatter wrote: »

There is that way of looking at it(if indeed Ashley invests the money in the club and not his back pocket).


At the same time, if Old Trafford was renamed for more revenue, I'm not sure how I'd feel. I suppose I'd be initially disgusted but would see some sense in it at the same time if it was to help us to become even more competitive.

HAve you looked at Newcastle's transfers since he took over? We have spent approx 1 million a year, the money wont be reinvested. The Carroll money has already been reinvested according to the chairman

flahavaj

M5 wrote: »

He was responding to your point.... Why address something else?

I just want to know is he annoyed at the renaming or that the money may not be spent on players....

Ordinary man

That_Guy wrote: »

We haven't bought a decent striker in the past 3 or 4 transfer windows. Why would it start now?

Isn't ba one of the league top scorers so far? Seems pretty decent to me:p Maybe newcastle could swap him for carroll?;)

M5

flahavaj wrote: »

I just want to know is he annoyed at the renaming or that the money may not be spent on players....

I would say both, we'll be told the money will be reinvested as per Andy Carroll, then nothing will happen and we'll release a statement saying that the money has already been invested....

This has been the pattern since MA took over at the club. Lies and lies about lies


4th Nov 2009 ''Asked if the name "St James' Park" would always remain - Llambias said: "Absolutely. In our reign, absolutely''

Le King

Ashley leaving the books healthy for a new owner?

If he is going to sell, sell while the stock is high.

When the PL eventually roll out some FFP rules it will all be like this eventually anyway.

That_Guy

flahavaj wrote: »

So you're more annoyed that the money won't be well spent than the fact the stadium has been renamed?

What?

I'm annoyed about the lies of transfer money and this latest stunt.

Saying that the money will be invested in the squad has proven to be a crock of shít with the Carroll money.

There was Pardew "marking our cards" on the 35 million before the season had started. What kind of message is that?

Forgive me if I don't trust them on this Flah.

flahavaj

I wouldn't really mind if Old Trafford was renamed. I'd still call it OT and it would always be OT to me. I'd say United could get an absolute fortune out of any such deal.

bazual

It was bound to happen really. Cant say i like it but its what alot of clubs are doing, just look at City. Stuff changes, players, managers and owners come and go so it may be the Google stadium in a couple of years. It will still always be known as St James to the true fans and the fans always remain loyal. As long as we as supporters get behind the players every game thats what being a newcastle supporter is all about and is what makes Newcastle united.

That_Guy

Ordinary man wrote: »

Isn't ba one of the league top scorers so far? Seems pretty decent to me:p Maybe newcastle could swap him for carroll?;)

Got him on a free but yeah he has been quite good. We desperately need back up due to the ACON in January.

M5

Le King wrote: »

Ashley leaving the books healthy for a new owner?

If he is going to sell, sell while the stock is high.

When the PL eventually roll out some FFP rules it will all be like this eventually anyway.

Fair point, might all work to our advantage in the end.... Can unfortunately see the likes of City causing the rules to be bent though

flahavaj

That_Guy wrote: »

What?

I'm annoyed about the lies of transfer money and this latest stunt.

Saying that the money will be invested in the squad has proven to be a crock of shít with the Carroll money.

There was Pardew "marking our cards" on the 35 million before the season had started. What kind of message is that?

Forgive me if I don't trust them on this Flah.

Not trying to cause a row lads. Just trying to see where ye are coming from. It wouldn't really bother me if United did the same.

Obvioulsy being lied to is a different story.

M5

flahavaj wrote: »

Not trying to cause a row lads. Just trying to see where ye are coming from. It wouldn't really bother me if United did the same.

Obvioulsy being lied to is a different story.

Fair enough...

bucketybuck

Blatter wrote: »

At the same time, if Old Trafford was renamed for more revenue, I'm not sure how I'd feel.

As a Utd fan I would most certainly be disgusted, but more importantly, I think it would signify the club moving away from me as a fan. I don't want my club to shove it in my face that I am just a customer and they are just a business. Should that happen, I think it would be very hard not to drift away from the club and more than likely replace that attachment with something outside of football.

I don't like the slippery slope argument, but this is just the first step on the road to franchising, and when I see how soulless and empty that has left American teams, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth to think of all the great histories that might be sacrificed on that alter.

That_Guy

flahavaj wrote: »

Not trying to cause a row lads. Just trying to see where ye are coming from. It wouldn't really bother me if United did the same.

Obvioulsy being lied to is a different story.

I probably wouldn't have minded as such if the owners in charge could be trusted and didn't go about it in a sneaky manner. Communication is key and we ain't getting any of that.

The half price season ticket initiative was a very good incentive and should be applauded but seeing a full house in "the Sports Direct Arena" is a clever marketing scheme for his company.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

I wouldn't really mind if Old Trafford was renamed. I'd still call it OT and it would always be OT to me. I'd say United could get an absolute fortune out of any such deal.

I'm not convinced.

I remember reading a while back that the idea of renaming an existing Anfield wasn't particularly attractive as no one would ever refer to it as anything other than Anfield. It'd be similar with Old Trafford.

Blatter

That_Guy wrote: »

I probably wouldn't have minded as such if the owners in charge could be trusted and didn't go about it in a sneaky manner. Communication is key and we ain't getting any of that.

Top 3 in the Premiership, in the middle of an international break. He picked his timing to announce it carefully alright.

flahavaj

bucketybuck wrote: »

As a Utd fan I would most certainly be disgusted, but more importantly, I think it would signify the club moving away from me as a fan. I don't want my club to shove it in my face that I am just a customer and they are just a business. Should that happen, I think it would be very hard not to drift away from the club and more than likely replace that attachment with something outside of football.

I don't like the slippery slope argument, but this is just the first step on the road to franchising, and when I see how soulless and empty that has left American teams, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth to think of all that great histories that might be sacrificed on that alter.

This has been happening for years now in fairness. Renaming stadia (and I guarantee it'll be as normal as sponsors on jersies in ten years' time) is just the next step.

Its a bit hypocritical of us to enjoy the trappings of the commercialisation of football but condemn it only when it suits.

Le King

The problem is for the likes of St. James Park, Old Trafford, Anfield would be that everybody would still call them by their old names so is it really going to be that much of a cash cow?

I mean to the scale where money becomes more important than history and tradition? The game really is losing its core values.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm not convinced.

I remember reading a while back that the idea of renaming an existing Anfield wasn't particularly attractive as no one would ever refer to it as anything other than Anfield. It'd be similar with Old Trafford.

All the TV, radio stations, newspapers would call it by it's new name I guess and I'd say Liverpool and United would rake in an absolute fortune if they sold the naming rights.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm not convinced.

I remember reading a while back that the idea of renaming an existing Anfield wasn't particularly attractive as no one would ever refer to it as anything other than Anfield. It'd be similar with Old Trafford.

I see the point but even so it would guerantee a certain amount of coverage. When you have the likes of DHL shelling out a fortune to sponsor training gear I'd say you could get someone to plaster their name all over a stadium.

Look at Landsdowne - the oldest ground in Europe (AFAIR) but it is now called the Aviva in every newspaper and TV report you read, even if fans might still call it Landsdowne (and I'm not even sure they do!). It gives the sponsor unbelieveable coverage. Old Trafford would be no different - in fact it'd be on a more global scale. You'd have your company's name being dropped on TV sttions all over the world every single week.

That_Guy

Blatter wrote: »

Top 3 in the Premiership, in the middle of an international break. He picked his timing to announce it carefully alright.

And we've not got a home game til the 3rd of December.

Le King

Blatter wrote: »

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm not convinced.

I remember reading a while back that the idea of renaming an existing Anfield wasn't particularly attractive as no one would ever refer to it as anything other than Anfield. It'd be similar with Old Trafford.

All the TV, radio stations, newspapers would call it by it's new name I guess and I'd say Liverpool and United would rake in an absolute fortune if they sold the naming rights.

It would work for a new stadium but older ones. I don't think there would be a fortune in it because the Glazers would of pushed it far more if there was a fortune in it.

Mr Alan

Blatter wrote: »

All the TV, radio stations, newspapers would call it by it's new name I guess and I'd say Liverpool and United would rake in an absolute fortune if they sold the naming rights.

Would they call it that? I'm not convinced they would. If it were a new stadium, yea definitely, there'd be money galore & they would would call it that as it'd be a different structure & location, but commentators/journalists would be under no obligation whatsoever to refer to an existing stadium by a new name if they purely sold the naming rights.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

I see the point but even so it would guerantee a certain amount of coverage. When you have the likes of DHL shelling out a fortune to sponsor training gear I'd say you could get someone to plaster their name all over a stadium.

Look at Landsdowne - the oldest ground in Europe (AFAIR) but it is now called the Aviva in every newspaper and TV report you read, even if fans might still call it Landsdowne (and I'm not even sure they do!). It gives the sponsor unbelieveable coverage. Old Trafford would be no different - in fact it'd be on a more global scale. You'd have your company's name being dropped on TV sttions all over the world every single week.

The Aviva was totally rebuilt though, just on the same site. That's a different proposition. Also, Old Trafford & Anfield would be slightly more famous than Landsdowne Rd!!!

niallo27

Mr Alan wrote: »

Would they call it that? I'm not convinced they would. If it were a new stadium, yea definitely, there'd be money galore & they would would call it that as it'd be a different structure & location, but commentators/journalists would be under no obligation whatsoever to refer to an existing stadium by a new name if they purely sold the naming rights.

I think they should call it The Duff Beer Krusty Burger Buzz Cola Costington's Department Store Kwik-E-Mart Stupid Flanders Park

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

The Aviva was totally rebuilt though, just on the same site. That's a different proposition. Also, Old Trafford & Anfield carry slightly more weight than Landsdowne Rd!!!

Well yeah but even though it was rebuilt people would still call it Landsdowne if they were so inclined. Obviously its not as well known as OT/Anfield but to Irish people its the national stadium, the home of soccer and rugby in the country, yet teh adopted sponsors name has very much entered the vernacular.

I also think the BBC and Sky would refer to the ground as whetever its correct name is - now you might get comentators calling it Anfield but you'd still get the sponsors name dropped an awful lot of times throughout a broadcast. As time went on eventually a new generation would come through who wouldn't know it as well by the former name and the sponsors name would become established.

M5

flahavaj wrote: »

I see the point but even so it would guerantee a certain amount of coverage. When you have the likes of DHL shelling out a fortune to sponsor training gear I'd say you could get someone to plaster their name all over a stadium.

Look at Landsdowne - the oldest ground in Europe (AFAIR) but it is now called the Aviva in every newspaper and TV report you read, even if fans might still call it Landsdowne (and I'm not even sure they do!). It gives the sponsor unbelieveable coverage. Old Trafford would be no different - in fact it'd be on a more global scale. You'd have your company's name being dropped on TV sttions all over the world every single week.

Its a new stadium, while that has happened on several occasions no stadium has been renamed IIRC

flahavaj

M5 wrote: »

Its a new stadium, no stadium has been renamed IIRC

I acept that but the point was more in relation to whether people would use the old name or the new one. Where you have a stadium in exactly the same spot then there's some merit at least in the comparison. You would expect a fair few people to call it Landsdowne still, but the sponsors obviously still thought the deal worth doing.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

but the sponsors obviously still thought the deal worth doing.

Do I really need to go into that? :eek:

M5

This also has more to do with Ashleys attempts to get into markets in China than balancing the books at SJP, to try to dress it as anything else is treating the fans as muppets.

Sure it may "bring in" 8-10 million from the person who would have to pay anyway but its surely worth triple that to SD

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

Do I really need to go into that? :eek:

Heh - you know what I meant.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

Would they call it that? I'm not convinced they would. If it were a new stadium, yea definitely, there'd be money galore & they would would call it that as it'd be a different structure & location, but commentators/journalists would be under no obligation whatsoever to refer to an existing stadium by a new name if they purely sold the naming rights.

I would imagine the likes of Sky Sports and most other TV stations would call it by the new name. They almost always do things the official way.

Newspapers and Radio stations? I think most would go down the official line and call it by the new name also. Journalists are sticklers when it comes to things like names of players, managers etc. and I think most would call a stadium by it's new name. Some probably wouldn't on principal.

I know it's a poor enough example because it was a relatively new stadium that had no real history attached to it's original name, but The City of Manchester Stadium I would say has been successfully renamed the Etihad, as in most TV stations, radio stations, newspapers refer to it as the Etihad.


I guess we'll have a much greater idea when we find out how Newcastle's stadium name change is treated within the media.

NufcNavan

Not really bothered by it to be honest.

I mean, it was officially called SportsDirect@SJP or some b*llocks like that anyway but nobody took any notice.

It will still be called St. James' Park by those who matter.

M5

Blatter wrote: »

I would imagine the likes of Sky Sports and most other TV stations would call it by the new name. They almost always do things the official way.

NufcNavan wrote: »

Not really bothered by it to be honest.

I mean, it was officially called SportsDirect@SJP or some b*llocks like that anyway but nobody took any notice.

It will still be called St. James' Park by those who matter.

I could well be ignored, the last attempt was ridiculed, that will be critical to the "success" of the renaming

NufcNavan

M5 wrote: »

I could well be ignored, the last attempt was ridiculed, that will be critical to the "success" of the renaming

If it means more coin for transfers then happy days.

bucketybuck

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm not convinced.

I remember reading a while back that the idea of renaming an existing Anfield wasn't particularly attractive as no one would ever refer to it as anything other than Anfield. It'd be similar with Old Trafford.

As others have noted, the media will to a man call it by the new, official name. After a few months or years of Jamie Redknapp and Gary Linker talking about the Durex stadium, people will soon start to forget the name of Anfield.

And yes, football is very much a commercial enterprise these days. But this removes even the vain illusion that it might not be. Old Trafford for example has been a constant for decades no matter what players, staff or sponsors came and went. If that changes, that is a link to the past gone, and as I say attachments will start to fade in the future.

bucketybuck

Blatter wrote: »

I know it's a poor enough example because it was a relatively new stadium that had no real history attached to it's original name, but The City of Manchester Stadium I would say has been successfully renamed the Etihad, as in most TV stations, radio stations, newspapers refer to it as the Etihad.

Anybody remember the Eastlands stadium?

flahavaj

bucketybuck wrote: »

As others have noted, the media will to a man call it by the new, official name. After a few months or years of Jamie Redknapp and Gary Linker talking about the Durex stadium, people will soon start to forget the name of Anfield.

And yes, football is very much a commercial enterprise these days. But this removes even the vain illusion that it might not be. Old Trafford for example has been a constant for decades no matter what players, staff or sponsors came and went. If that changes, that is a link to the past gone, and as I say attachments will start to fade in the future.

:pac: Legit LOL.

M5

NufcNavan wrote: »

If it means more coin for transfers then happy days.

How many times have you heard that before?

Dotrel

Get used to it I suppose.

Anyone who watches a lot of American sport will know that practically every major venue in Baseball/Football/Basketball/Hockey/Soccer is now branded and to hear the commentators rattle off their names without even a hint of irony or lamentation tells you things are only gonna get worse in the part of the world.

I'm trying to hold onto the name Lansdowne Road but I know it's a lost cause. Ireland will be playing in a branded stadium until the day I die and in time public perception will have moved that way also.