http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25492085 OOps no, forget the roosters, they managed to secure it without adopting a tacky childish name.
Meh. Their reality and the details of the ownership of their club and ground are totally different to us. Trolling is trolling.
Yeah.. not many replies because it was a stupid opening post. Are we going to get similar every time a club gets new sponsors?
One thing about their ground, it is better designed. They can get within about 50 of capacity with just one aisleway for segregation and alter the configuration according to how many away tickets are sold. We need about 600 for segregation even when the away tickets are sold out and can't sell all the remaining spaces if the away fans don't sell out. That is what you get when councillors get involved in the design of a stadium. How far below capacity do you think the crowd will be on Boxing Day despite being a "sell out" with many more wanting tickets? Something, unfortunately, we will never be able to alter without owning the stadium and getting another Stadium Advisory Group and Police force? Still, we are in the running for the club with the most fans who are silent at home games and the prize for the moat away fans at away games who sit like dummies. At least for the more glamorous games and ones with free transport. Without those types at WBA less fans made more noise and the atmosphere was far better.
Maybe we should only know about clubs getting sponsorship because they have thrown away a century or more of tradition and changing the name has brought in more money? That would back up their owners claims and justify all the sad types going along with it. Be sure to give us any examples, won't you?
Urgh, this is why people don't respond to a thread like this. It's laced with antagonism, such as in this reply.
It's not a new sponsor, it's a new owner, because the Russian billionaire seems to have decided after getting relegated and missing out on the TV money it wasn't worth him completing the last stage of his takeover so him and Madjeski are on about 50% each, with the latter having expected to have sold up by now.
Oh, you poor little dear. Upset by all this antagonism. What antagonism? It asked a few questions and requested some replies? And this is coming from the person who aggressively opened his post with "meh", something I found really distressing. And ended it with a remark about trolling. Which I found absolutely devastating. Or I would have if I was as delicate a little thing as you are.
Ok I'll take the bait. Reading moved from their old ground into an out of town stadium. The local millionaire Majestki who's Autotrader business was/is floundering needed an investment vehicle. Cheap land to the south of Reading was filled with the stadium, hotel, retail and business park. All of that funded a push into the PL. Reading have links to different academies around the world, but their biggest link is in India. They ground share with London Irish, who have themselves just found a new owner who has brought big money in. The Russians realised that all of the money has been made out of the club, and has been put into Majeskis pocket. So the only way to make money is to get back into the PL, but actually that unless Reading became the new Man U, there was no chance of getting a return. Compare Reading to Hull. If Assem Allam had been gifted the KC stadium he would have been able to recover his "loan" and make a tidy profit from the areas development. But after that? As I see it the is a fundamental problem with investment in football clubs like, City, Reading, Swansea, Cardiff, Southampton, Wigan, Blackburn or Wolves. The money needed to maintain sustainable high level football is very difficult to find. Investment in developments around the ground brings in short term funds and the initial investor can get his money back in most cases. But after that the only money comes from further developments, or from rents. If Walton Street for instance was developed, where will the money come from after that? We have a shortfall of 11m this season. What size of property portfolio would service that shortfall? Year on year profits, that only feed the wage bill of the club, are not going to attract investment. Even the TV rights money still only dampens the loss, it doesn't remove it. So we have to find a LONG term solution, if the objective is to stay in the PL. There is only one way of doing this. Investment in players. Build a football business around bringing in players to develop them and then sell them on. The model that Southampton have adopted, is sound and works.
The trolling wasn't yours, for which my apologies, a bit too much festive cheer had been consumed. But the antagonism bit wasn't. And the points about that still stand.
Not many replies because people are bored of this now. Seems to me that certain people on here, such as yourself and Stuart Blampey, are trying to convince yourselves that the name change won't happen. It will. Get used to it. In any event the link does not say the "Roosters" have new investment. It says they are hopeful of getting some. It says they need some, and that they messed up by not staying in the PL. So wish away, keep licking Stuarts arse, when the name changes, you can car share with him to the Reading games in the Championship.
Did I say I was bored? No, I'm enjoying watching the desperate wriggling of the nay sayers as they try to convince themselves it isn't going to happen. Does that answer your question?
