Why renaming St. James' Park works for nobody

The Carnivorous Badger, back in town for one night only.

I'll not bore you with the same thing that, I'm sure, everybody else on here has already said about the stadium name change. My biggest issue is that, even from the perspective of Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias, this move makes absolutely no commercial sense, whatsoever.

Firstly, let us imagine we are all ad-men for large firms, across the globe. We want to see our brand becoming more popular, through association with other popular sporting brands, such as a Premier League football club. What we absolutely would not want, however, is to be associated with something as toxic as not-St.-James'-Park. Any would-be sponsor will, surely, be tarred by association with the top brass at Newcastle; they would be unlikely to see an increase in sales volumes, I suggest.

Essentially, whoever takes up the chance to sponsor our stadium, unless they happen to be called 'Saint James' Park Inc.', will be an object of derision, because the fans will always call our stadium St. James' Park, whether its official title is The Sports Direct Arena, Kitkat Crescent (Oxford United, take a bow) or the Stadium of Light. So what the sponsors are buying is ten seconds of exposure when the tannoy bloke says the name of the stadium, plus whatever tacky ads Mike et al put up around the ground. So, from a sponsors point of view, it is, at best, poor value, and at worst, pointless.

Secondly, any small - and, I believe, if they do sell the rights it will be small - increase in income will inevitably be cancelled out at least to some extent by decreases in revenue elsewhere. This comes from two main areas of revenue loss. Firstly, the loss of the 'St. James' Park brand' will affect income. Nobody, for example, will buy a tea mug which has 'Sports Direct Arena' plastered on the side (those Sports Direct mugs that literally everybody owns are only common because a) they're massive and b) they give them away). Secondly, the effect of disillusionment on the terraces will impact on revenue. Annoyed people may not go to games, not buy shirts, or whatever else. Several people have mentioned that there is a serious risk that Sports Direct will be plastered across our shirts next year; if it is, there is no way I'm buying a shirt (not that I bought one this year; I'm a student, I can only afford them bi-annually!).

So, in conclusion, any benefits from giving up the biggest brand that Newcastle United have, outside of the club itself, are at best negligible, and not worth that bad publicity generated.

Thank you and goodnight.

 

St James' Park forever!

 

The positive to come out of this is that we could have a name that gives us huge revenue like City.

 

Hadn't thought go that, if Mike Ashley pays £1bn over 10 years to call it the Sports Direct Arena, he may just buy my (begrudging) silence.

 

We're not going to get £40m a year that's for sure. That's a crooked deal that FIFA should really investigate further.

I just hope the stadium is renamed (and shirt sponsored) tastefully by a company with a respectable reputation (ie. Not Sports Direct), this is the direction football is taking but I'm sure any investor will keep the historic name in some form, as a peace offering to the fans, even if it's just a sign or two outside the ground whilst the main facings display their chosen name.

(An extra?) £8m a year being invested in the playing staff should keep us competitive in the top half of the table, so long as this isn't just an excuse for more cheap advertising for MA.

What will be interesting is, will the new sponsor take down the current plastering of Sports Direct signs around the inside of the ground or will Ashley insist on keeping them up?

 

Its obviously an attractive option to businesses as they've done it on "lesser" teams grounds.

Surely the exposure of their brand would be in excess of the couple thousand Geordies who despise the brand because they've bought an advertisment oppourtunity.

Putting it bluntley mind you, im not very happy about the name change.

 

This. If it's called SportsDirect Arena I will be fuming. If it's called something less cringeworthy and embarrassing, and we come out of it with the sponsor money spent solely on the club. i.e. transfer fees, wages, staff, etc then it's almost bearable. Meh.

 

Duracell would be better. The Durecell bunny in a Toon shirt would be sweet.

 

What if we had something like Qatar Airways? The money could be big.

 

That was actually York City. We did it as part of an agreement of some kind and it was only for a couple of years. We now play at Bootham Crescent again lol.

Back on point though, I do agree with you. For all intents and purposes, NUFC is a toxic club that no one would wish to really invest in. However globally we are pretty huge an some companies care not for the local community if their global interests are improved upon. Put it this way, it is a deal to make us more money to sign more players. Will it work? I don't know but I hope for MA's sake, it does!

 

I'm having nightmares of it becoming Virgin Stadium

 

Would any potential investors not gain more credit, and thus more revenue, by asking for St James' Park to be reinstated, and they just put their logo in a few places? I'd certainly respect them for that, and I'm sure many others would. If they were however to take the name rights as well as kit sponsor, they'd lose a lot of respect from most in Newcastle, and football people in general.

What surprises me is that Llambias has said he has tried to get new sponsors over the last 18 months but his efforts have failed. Does this alone not speak volumes for MA, as I believe DL is a major part of the poison that is the NUFC board. DL is useless, can't do his job, why does MA stick with him? Also, it's ****ing clear to me that no one wants to be associated with us, as they know they'd lose credibility by poisoning our ground.

Man City brought in £400m by renaming, Arsenal get £100m. We'll get £8m.

I personally believe no company will invest, and we'll be stuck with that stupid name until the **** dies.

St James' Park it will always be!

 

Now now Sid, we expect better than that from you.

 

Read this

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nort...ises-sports-direct-arena-name-72703-29755565/

They own the ground so I guess its St James Park and any change is surely against the law.

 

If the stadium name and the sponsor on the shirt have to change I wouldn't mind 'N Power'

 

Have a day off. We ain't getting a penny for this and Ashley has no intention of selling naming rights to the stadium. He's freeloading on our heritage, he'd tattoo that ****ing logo on a dead baby to get attention for his company. This is about putting his ****ty brand in public view again, not about doing anything for the benefit of the club or the fans.

 

That's the top and bottom of it AG. There ain't no depths that this bloke will sink to.

Then again, in the eyes of everyone black and white, it'll always be St. James' Park. Same as the Leazes end and the Gallowgate. The ground will be the same long after he's gone.

 

Man City - £400m over 10 years. They're sponsoring themselves to get around FFP rules. Dodgy.
Arsenal - £100m over 15 years (including 8 years shirt sponsorship)
Newcastle - £8m-£10m per year

So if we got the terms we're looking for, we'd actually have a better deal than Arsenal!

 

Pretty sure it's just the land they own, not the stadium.