Bramall Lane - Naming rights ?!

[Tezza1889]

Here here! Can't believe how fickle the majority of comments are.

There's no need for a club of our infrastructure to become corporate sell outs and sell the naming rights to Bramall Lane. We're not going to spend anywhere near half of the incoming PL money so why besmirch the club's heritage for the sake of a few extra £££?

We're not going to spend half of the premier league money because we're probably not going to see half of it, just like the transfer fees etc..

Renaming the stadium should be seen as a positive and progressive move, and while I'm not suggesting it in the slightest some of the very top teams have even moved to new grounds, and continue to be successful on and off the pitch..

Whilst others mention Tampax etc, I see the joke, but if we're going to survive this season we'll need all we can get financially, like I said we know it'll be absorbed into player wages - as was confirmed with Jamie Murphy's fee by Jim Phipps before he got on his bike - but I'm working on the theory the more we get the bigger the amount CW gets to spend.. the standard Wilder miracle might not be enough this season.

Even if we got called the addidas arena, the Nike fans would be upset.. take the money... It doesn't hurt arsenal, they've been doing it a few years you see..

 

[derryblade]

We don't even know who the owner of the club will be in the future, KM wants out allegedly, the Prince said at the outset he hoped to make money. That suggests new owners who ever wins. Will new owners actually consult fans about renaming the ground if that brings a wedge into the club, good luck with that.

 

[guancheblade]

I’ve never liked the idea, and am yet to be won over by the argument that because plenty of others have decided to get a garbage name for one of the most precious parts of a club’s identity that we need to follow suit.

I do worry a bit based on this thread that if the club were to announce it intended to leave Bramall Lane and build a new stadium in a different part of the city we’d have a load of fans jumping to the defence of the club, and pointing to other clubs that have done the same as justification. Having the stadium sponsored isn’t as bad as that obviously, but I do think it treads over the red line of affecting the club’s identity. I hope it never happens.

Wasn’t there outcry elsewhere on this forum about potentially selling and moving the Academy, something that we only established in the last 20 years? I’m surprised at the lack of reaction to this tbh, something I’d suggest is far more chipping away at the club as we know it.

Have a like

 

[bongleblade]

I don't really care what the Lane is called, it'll always be the Lane to us and if it brings in some decent dosh which we can spend on the team then I'm ok with it. As long as its a decent sponsor not something like the Kit Kat Stadium!

York City's ground is called Kit Kat Crescent?! ffs.....

 

[bongleblade]

I do wonder... there were talks on another thread re. USG sponsorship deal about it being an outstanding deal (even in prem terms) - rumoured at £8m in 1st year alone.

If they are talking about those kind of figures... is there a special reason for it? (i.e. naming rights...)

Welcome to the USG stadium

 

[Kevin Arnott]

I’d rather us get relegated than change the name of our beautiful and historic stadium.

I love being a wanker at the Lane.

Indeed. Even if they called the ground something arse why couldn't the 4 stands be called , for instance, Tony Currie stand, Alan Woodward stand, Jimmy Hagan End, Shred Kop. And like people have said, we still walk to, and watch the Blades at Bramall Lane

 

[Bladesway]

I’ve never liked the idea, and am yet to be won over by the argument that because plenty of others have decided to get a garbage name for one of the most precious parts of a club’s identity that we need to follow suit.

I do worry a bit based on this thread that if the club were to announce it intended to leave Bramall Lane and build a new stadium in a different part of the city we’d have a load of fans jumping to the defence of the club, and pointing to other clubs that have done the same as justification. Having the stadium sponsored isn’t as bad as that obviously, but I do think it treads over the red line of affecting the club’s identity. I hope it never happens.

Wasn’t there outcry elsewhere on this forum about potentially selling and moving the Academy, something that we only established in the last 20 years? I’m surprised at the lack of reaction to this tbh, something I’d suggest is far more chipping away at the club as we know it.

This. This thread and the “call it what you want and cream the cash in” attitude is utterly depressing.

 

[Berkshire Blade]

Seeing as how West Ham can't get naming rights for their stadium nor can Spurs for theirs i suspect we'll not have anything to worry about. If new grounds can't get sponsors then i doubt older ones can either. Only Man City with 'family connections' have been able to but i think UEFA are rather upset with their FFP ways and could result in a year ban from European games.

 

[Kevin Arnott]

Generally the 'naming rights' for existing stands/stadia are a bit pointless as they change every few years so nobody can remember what they are actually supposed to be called.

Even if they change the name of the ground to whatever soulless dollar sign, we would still be walking to, getting emergency last minute taxi rides to Bramall Lane. Can't erase 160 years of history with a keyboard click. And if we sat in, for example, The Tony Currie stand, The Alan Woodward Stand, The Jimmy Hagan End and The Shred Kop, then that will do me

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

No. Just, no.

Bramall Lane is Bramall Lane and should remain Bramall Lane forever.

Always thought it's the mark of a shit club by flogging the naming rights to some inane company.

Old Trafford is Old Trafford and Anfield is Anfield. The homes of the two biggest football clubs in English football. If it's good enough for them then it's good enough for us.

Tell any sponsors to fuck off.