CornwallRam Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Why on Clough's green earth would anyone be proud of the stadium naming rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Because it gives us the money to have Darren Bent as our back up striker instead of Michael Boulding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Our club........ ....in the middle of our street. (well someone had to do it for all us old Madness fans) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 ah didems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateDerby Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Agree with everything in the first post apart from the Pride Park naming rights, disgraceful for a club that says they value history and tradition as much as ours. Only bad decision so far but a fooking big one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Yes, but that doesn't make it a source of pride. Are you proud of the advertising hoardings? Are you proud of Just Eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't like naming rights thing. For me, Bolton is the Reebok, Huddersfield is the McAlpine. I don't even know what they currently are (and can't be arsed to look it up) but a stadium should have a permanent name and not a the whim of some marketing executive/corporate sponsor every few years. The £7m over 10 years we get from iPro isn't worth it but football sold it's soul to the money men a long time ago...At least we can call ours Pride Park and be geographically correct, even if the stadium is called something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaragozaram Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't like naming rights thing. For me, Bolton is the Reebok, Huddersfield is the McAlpine. I don't even know what they currently are (and can't be arsed to look it up) but a stadium should have a permanent name and not a the whim of some marketing executive/corporate sponsor every few years. The £7m over 10 years we get from iPro isn't worth it but football sold it's soul to the money men a long time ago...At least we can call ours Pride Park and be geographically correct, even if the stadium is called something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Is it just me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Agree with everything in the first post apart from the Pride Park naming rights, disgraceful for a club that says they value history and tradition as much as ours. Only bad decision so far but a fooking big one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Eh?. Both were new stadiums quite understandably given a new name. My point is that those names should have been permanent.He's making the point that naming a new stadium after a product or company is as bad, if not worse, than flogging the rights to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I don't like naming rights thing. For me, Bolton is the Reebok, Huddersfield is the McAlpine. I don't even know what they currently are (and can't be arsed to look it up) but a stadium should have a permanent name and not a the whim of some marketing executive/corporate sponsor every few years. The £7m over 10 years we get from iPro isn't worth it but football sold it's soul to the money men a long time ago...At least we can call ours Pride Park and be geographically correct, even if the stadium is called something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 He's making the point that naming a new stadium after a product or company is as bad, if not worse, than flogging the rights to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I agree. The point I was trying to get across (badly) was that the new stadiums should have been given a permanent name - which logically excludes any commercial sponsorship. I'm not saying it was good to have a stadium called the Reebok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 But why should we miss out on commercial opportunities that the clubs we aspire to be (in terms of reputation etc) make the most of? We have emulated them in terms of releasing three new kits per season and many other things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I agree, hence my comment about football selling its' soul. The genie left the bottle years ago and we've got no choice but to follow others to compete with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So in essence, you're not ashamed of Derby doing it, in fact you might even be proud that Derby are capable of doing it? You're ashamed of the modern corporate world exploiting everything with theoretical monetary value! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashz09 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I was against the idea re-naming the stadium. In the end I came around to the idea of x millions being pumped into the club along with the big screen both brilliant revens makers. I don't think we'd have the new players we got with out them.. I'm actually coming around to the idea of the I-Pro name! I'm still confused is the stadium called I-Pro but the are around it Pride park?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramos Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Unfortunately football is all about money now so if there is anyway the club can make more money it makes business sense to sell the naming rights of the ground. Like a lot of people I wasn't particularly thrilled to hear the stadiums name was changing but if it means the club can make more money to progress, compete and be more sustainable I am completely on board. Plus like people say, its not technically wrong to say "I am going to Pride Park". Its like people call West Hams ground Upton park but thats not actually the name of the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Agree with everything in the first post apart from the Pride Park naming rights, disgraceful for a club that says they value history and tradition as much as ours. Only bad decision so far but a fooking big one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.