Re-naming of St James' Park

[UlversToon]

Can't find the original thread but this popped up on NUFC.com today:-

From the Times, Wednesday:

Newcastle United officials are prepared to meet with the club’s supporters to discuss renaming St James’ Park.

The club are ready to gauge whether fans will accept a sponsor being added to the name of the stadium they have played at since 1892.

Under a proposed idea being considered by the Newcastle board, St James’ Park would potentially be retained but followed by the name of a sponsor in order to increase commercial income.

Newcastle became 80 per cent owned by Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund in October last year after a £305 million takeover, but a tightening of Premier League rules on sponsorship means they feel constrained by Financial Fair Play regulations.

The move is seen as contentious enough for senior figures to want to meet with supporters in a series of town hall meetings, The Times has learned, before any potential change is made.

Newcastle have spent £215 million on eight players in the two transfer windows since the takeover took place but are keen to overhaul the commercial side of the club and want to dramatically increase revenue streams. They believe this is one potential avenue.

The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium has attracted interest from Google recently, with a reported £25 million-a-year deal being discussed, while other sponsored stadiums include Arsenal’s Emirates and Manchester City’s Etihad.

Newcastle have no plans to move from St James’ Park, despite the present demand for tickets outstripping the 52

[Colly]

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.

[originallad]

f*** no! I hope this isn't serious.

[Valentino's fast feet]

It's nice that they are at least communicating with the fans about it, I suppose. Taking emotion as a fan away from it, it's an obvious revenue stream that is yet to be tapped by this regime. Will help with things like FFP further down the line. I'm not saying I agree with it or think it's a good idea, but I don't, however I can see why the ownership will be exploring it. And as stated, I do like that they are at least making an effort to take fan's temperatures on it. Can't see it going down well, mind. It'll always be St. James. Even during that Sports Direct Arena fiasco, the commentators still knew it by that name, even if they were instructed to call it otherwise.

[originallad]

It's nice that they are at least communicating with the fans about it, I suppose. Taking emotion as a fan away from it, it's an obvious revenue stream that is yet to be tapped by this regime. Will help with things like FFP further down the line. I'm not saying I agree with it or think it's a good idea, but I don't, however I can see why the ownership will be exploring it. And as stated, I do like that they are at least making an effort to take fan's temperatures on it. Can't see it going down well, mind. It'll always be St. James. Even during that Sports Direct Arena fiasco, the commentators still knew it by that name, even if they were instructed to call it otherwise.

I remember watching Soccer Saturday a fee times after the name change and everyone was still calling it St James Park. That was great to see.

[Don Sholeone]

End of the day it's how things are these days so it was inevitable no matter who the ownership is, I think if St James is still the most prominent part of the naming then I personally don't really see the issue.

Also I see this as a lot different to what Mike Ashley did, the naming rights will help the club massively in terms of finances, the situation under MA was all about benefiting his business at the expense of the club.

As long as it's done right then I have no issues with it.

[Colly]

It isn't really how things are these days though, very few existing stadiums have been renamed and especially not at the top level in England. Old Trafford remains Old Trafford despite having owners trying to claw every penny from the club. Is it really worth the hassle to lose a bit of goodwill?

[Remember Colo]

It isn't really how things are these days though, very few existing stadiums have been renamed and especially not at the top level in England. Old Trafford remains Old Trafford despite having owners trying to claw every penny from the club. Is it really worth the hassle to lose a bit of goodwill?

I think there's an important distinction between existing and new stadiums - because most new ones have been corporately named, and many existing ones haven't been renamed. Obviously SJP falls into the later category, and I hope they never intend to replace the stadium (and move to the suburbs), but I do fear if they're limited in their ability to expand SJP (and with that revenue), they'll look to build a new bigger stadium elsewhere. And I'd rather they tack a sponsor name on than replace the stadium altogether.

[originallad]

If in 5 - 10 years time they have built and moved us to some sort of super stadium, then I still wouldn't be happy but then they can all it what they want unfortunately. Changing the name of our current stadium, St James Park is a no no.

[Tsi]

Don't agree with it and wouldn't want to see it happen despite it being nothing like the reasons why Ashley(shameless self promotion for zero benefit to the club) did it.
Building a new stadium is a different proposition for me i wouldn't be against it if all avenues in the expansion of St James Park were exhausted.

[jpg]

No thanks. Feels like a cheap way for the club to make a quick buck. Some things are sacred. I don’t need us to be the richest club in the league. Hopefully the supporters groups see sense and advise against it.

Also, is £25m per year supposed to be the top end of stadium sponsorships? Really doesn’t doesn’t seem like that much/worth it.

[UlversToon]

It's a big NO from me.

[Don Sholeone]

Another reason it doesn't bother me is because it's not like it's irreversible, if they changed the name and say 5 years later we have increased revenues and marketability ten fold and they decided to go back to SJP. It would all just get forgotten about anyways. The only reason the Ashley one is still talked about was because it was a wanker move by a complete wanker of an owner.

[lassassinblanc]

It's a no from me Jeff

[Donkey Toon]

It's a hard no from me.

But the cynic in me suspects that money will win out. If they come in with suggestions of a deal that will bring in enough money per season then the majority of the fans will be won over and it will happen.

The club's soul was effectively sold when the fans welcomed the takeover anyway, from here it is just a case of negotiating the price.

[bodacious benny]

It's a hard no from me.

But the cynic in me suspects that money will win out. If they come in with suggestions of a deal that will bring in enough money per season then the majority of the fans will be won over and it will happen.

The club's soul was effectively sold when the fans welcomed the takeover anyway, from here it is just a case of negotiating the price.

The club was already soulless when the takeover happened.

[originallad]

It's a hard no from me.

But the cynic in me suspects that money will win out. If they come in with suggestions of a deal that will bring in enough money per season then the majority of the fans will be won over and it will happen.

The club's soul was effectively sold when the fans welcomed the takeover anyway, from here it is just a case of negotiating the price.

Would you have preferred Ashley still own the club given the choice between the two?

[Donkey Toon]

It's a hard no from me.

But the cynic in me suspects that money will win out. If they come in with suggestions of a deal that will bring in enough money per season then the majority of the fans will be won over and it will happen.

The club's soul was effectively sold when the fans welcomed the takeover anyway, from here it is just a case of negotiating the price.

Would you have preferred Ashley still own the club given the choice between the two?

Bit of a Hobson's Choice, but yes. Hard as that is to say.

[Remember Colo]

Would you have preferred Ashley still own the club given the choice between the two?

Bit of a Hobson's Choice, but yes. Hard as that is to say.

It's also not a one-or-the-other choice, realistically speaking. Obviously the club was up for sale for a long time, and they were ones to finally seal the deal, but I have to imagine someone else would have paid up for us - and would have been more likely to if the PIF deal wasn't looming for over a year.

[Donkey Toon]

Bit of a Hobson's Choice, but yes. Hard as that is to say.

It's also not a one-or-the-other choice, realistically speaking. Obviously the club was up for sale for a long time, and they were ones to finally seal the deal, but I have to imagine someone else would have paid up for us - and would have been more likely to if the PIF deal wasn't looming for over a year.

Yeah, I think you are right, there probably would have been a third party willing to take over the club but for that. But we can speculate until the cows come home about who that was and how they would compare to those two. Hard to imagine it would have been worse than one or both of those though.