Comments for Selling stadium history to the sponsors at http://www.wsc.co.uk , comment 0 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.wsc.co.uk Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:30:46 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/3960/38/#pc_1138 Also missed off here, I dislike the way the change of a name is being put down as some crisis for poor Newcastle. Take a trip to Chester and ask them whether they would swap financial solvency for their ground's name officially being something a bit tacky. People will always call it St James Park no matter what it is offically called. - Lincoln Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:18:24 +0100 http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/3960/38/#pc_1137 Clubs have been naming stands for years, not that much difference. Also the indifference to a few million quid in this article is startling. Perhaps clubs should stop charging every tenth fan for entry to games as this only comes to a couple of million quid. At the end of the day it all adds up. The pretence that football hasn't sold its soul if we can holt naming rights is not acceptable. Football is all about money and has been since 1993. Whether a stadium keeps its name or not doesn't mean there is any more or less of a link to the past. When a team begins to change its name to suit sponsors, that is when we should have our collective moral compass spinning. - Lincoln Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:15:51 +0100 http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/3960/38/#pc_1136 Could I use this forum to start the campaign for Newcastle United fans to buy Sports Direct shares until they have enough to table a motion of no-confidence in Ashley and get him the sack? See how he likes it when we mess with HIS company..... - jackofalltrades Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:09:34 +0100 http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/3960/38/#pc_1135 That would be Doncasters Keepmoat Stadium yes? Owned not by Doncaster Rovers, or the Belles, or the rugby boys for that matter, but by Doncaster Council. And Keepmoat would be a contractor mainly employed to provide Council housing. Therefore presumably the naming rights only benefited the council and Donnie Rovers actually made diddly squat out of the Keepmoat naming. - loppy Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:32:47 +0100 http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/3960/38/#pc_1134 There will always be something "sleezy" about re-naming a ground which has been establised for years. Sadly the world of commerce controls clubs and directors will always be on the look-out to build their coffers. An excuse can be offered for brand new stadiums, although sufficent revenue is obtained by the sale of ols grounds for development Presently it is ground names and next it will be something else. IT'S THE WORLD WE LIVE IN ! - Ulsterman Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:00:23 +0100 http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/3960/38/#pc_1133 "Few would begrudge a club such as Doncaster any money they could attract for naming rights" Well, I would. I'd rather there be no money for anyone for any sort of naming rights than for rich clubs to obtain comparatively more money for the opportunity. Ultimately this only puts the weaker clubs at a greater financial disadvantage. - The Exploding Vole Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:21:57 +0100