Zingari Posted 5 July 2011 Posted 5 July 2011 I'll be honest and say, have you seen the state of our club? It's a bit shit so we have plenty of time to come up with them. you know you want to come and join us , go on , cast off the old sky blue and pull on the royal blue everyone makes mistakes , it's never too late to change and put them right there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents.............etc etc
beduffrich Posted 5 July 2011 Posted 5 July 2011 Insult one of us you insult as all. Being a Cov fan i doubt the word unity means much to you. And it may come as a surprise but the "rest of the footballing world" wont be calling us the WANking power stadium because most other clubs arent just made up of morons like yourself. Have we hit a nerve Larry Love. Some people are just far too sensitive, I'm just reporting the facts. It will and already is being called Wanking Power. No amount of arguing with me can change that.
beduffrich Posted 5 July 2011 Posted 5 July 2011 Rest of the football world? lol A skint West Midlands club with the Incredible Shrinking Fanbase© that nobody gives a stuff about is the football world now?! I imagine most will be calling it the Crisp Bowl as per if they're being disparaging about the place and we've always been big enough to laugh that off. WAN-King Power sounds like the kind of name a primary school child would come out with. Almost as embarrassing as that bunch of ****** on the YouTube video burning a Leicester shirt saying that ITSNORREVUNWURFTWOPENCE! That is pretty stupid burning the shirt really. Prats like that should be booted out of the country. TBH.
Larry_LCFC Posted 5 July 2011 Posted 5 July 2011 Have we hit a nerve Larry Love. Some people are just far too sensitive, I'm just reporting the facts. It will and already is being called Wanking Power. No amount of arguing with me can change that. Not a case of hitting a nerve. Im just sticking up for someone else. Its already being called wanking power by you and you only. That doesnt make it a fact... that just makes you a retard.
Leonisco Posted 5 July 2011 Posted 5 July 2011 Have we hit a nerve Larry Love. Some people are just far too sensitive, I'm just reporting the facts. It will and already is being called Wanking Power. No amount of arguing with me can change that.
The Padster Posted 5 July 2011 Posted 5 July 2011 WANking Power Bet you've got a fair bit of that, what with having an extra digit on each hand and all.
ajthefox Posted 5 July 2011 Posted 5 July 2011 In all honesty I am disappointed it's changed. Say what you like about what it was called but I really liked it and how it still felt, to me at least like a real stadium name because of the local aspect. Having said that, I'm not so naive as to think that it would never change and as sponsors go, King Power doesn't sound too bad so we can be grateful for that. Will always be the Walkers in my eyes though
thybluefox Posted 5 July 2011 Posted 5 July 2011 Bet you've got a fair bit of that, what with having an extra digit on each hand and all. With all the extra digits though, I've always wondered how they didn't manage to clap a bit louder down at the Ricock.
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Have we hit a nerve Larry Love. Some people are just far too sensitive, I'm just reporting the facts. It will and already is being called Wanking Power. No amount of arguing with me can change that. Cov fan?! Relegation Is Coventry's Only Hope
Leicester_Loyal Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Interesting article on the Mirror Football about our name change. CLICK
sdb Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Hmmm, Holt tries to sound all high and mighty about us selling out when we've moved from one massive brand to another (which is smaller too). Guess the guy has column inches to fill and he was struggling last night.
Babylon Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Interesting article on the Mirror Football about our name change. CLICK He's a bit of a dick!! So he can just about live with it if a stadium is called the "Durex Tickler Stadium" when it's built, but dare change it further down the line to the "The Subway Foot long Stadium" and that's somehow a crime against football? That's somewhat hypocritical if you ask me. He says we've sold our soul, but that was sold when we moved to a new stadium. If they were trying to do it to Filbert Street then fair enough, but once the name has been sold you may as well then sell it to the highest bidder. The fact this thread has only got to 8 pages, with the majority not really caring shows he is a bit out of touch. In a time when soon clubs will only be able to spend X amount of their turnover, they are going to look to get money from every conceivable thing. Stadium names being one of them. Personally I think he should write an article on the outrageous wages clubs are forking out to players, it's this that's causing all the problems. He says we've managed a 100 years without having to do it, that's true. But only recently do average players pick up £20,000 a week, the money needs to come from somewhere to fund that.
danlcfc4ever Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 I could understand an article like that when we left Filbo but lets be honest theres nothing sacred about the name 'Walkers'. Guy is a douche.
Len Finsbury Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 I'm old school and would have preferred it if we'd stayed at Filbert Street and did everything in our power to have redeveloped that. I'm sure I remember that we owned all or most of the terraced houses that backed on to the East stand at some part in either the 80's or 90's ready fro redevelopment but later sold them.... probably to buy Akinbiyi I remember all my mates being perplexed at my disappointment at that first game at the Walkers. Whilst the facilities looked great, it lacked soul and history. Memories were lost and although new ones will be made, there was something missing. I've never really embraced our new stadium and for me, a new club stated when we moved. I remember how football was before the money. Our short trip to League 1 was enlightening. Going to some of the grounds during that season was like how football used to be. I'm sure I'm not on my own. But things move on and we have a new ground. As soon as they named it the Walkers, we all knew that the name would continue to change whenever the club were able to secure a good enough income from it. Whatever name they call it now doesn't really bother me now. It's still not Filbert Street. I am confused about one thing though. I know the owners have pumped some serious money into the club and to rename the stadium is their right, but wouldn't they have got more money by having a different company sponsoring the stadium? I can't imagine they're paying anything over and above what they have already for shirt and ground sponsorship so are they missing out on having someone else's money fund our club?
Itsthejoeker Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Interesting article on the Mirror Football about our name change. CLICK Who on earth is this ****? The article looks like a ten year old wrote it for his literacy SAT
marbelladave Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 In reality the change of name is going to cost the club money! King Power own the club and whatever resources the company is prepared to allocate to the club, those resources are finite. You can only spend the money once! King Power has taken the naming rights of the Stadium for itself, whilst I doubt that it has 'paid' for this in any conventional way, it has effectively deprived the Club of a substantial revenue stream of 'new' money from an outside investor. Whilst the Walkers contract was essentially peanuts () a new investor would probably stumped up a decent amount to be associated with a resurgent City under the leadership of one of the highest profile managers in world football. Personally I would have gone for the beer company, new money and much more fun all round........ :thumbup: Sorry Shilts, great minds and all that......
FrankieADZ Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Guess Holt couldn't really think of much interesting to write about, at times some parts of the press speak shite, I'm one for the old skool in just a normal name for the ground...rather than it having sponsored by a company/Brand but if a club can generate further income from having a company buy the naming rights to there ground, i don't see what the problem is, that money can be used for a good use for a club.... imagine if some of these clubs in the lower leagues didn't change there grounds names, i'm sure many could be up shite creek with a paddle. I know its a sad state of affairs but the game now is all about money, and this is another way of bring it in. just one of them sad fact of life we're gonna have to deal with.
Bayfox Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 In reality the change of name is going to cost the club money! King Power own the club and whatever resources the company is prepared to allocate to the club, those resources are finite. You can only spend the money once! King Power has taken the naming rights of the Stadium for itself, whilst I doubt that it has 'paid' for this in any conventional way, it has effectively deprived the Club of a substantial revenue stream of 'new' money from an outside investor. Whilst the Walkers contract was essentially peanuts () a new investor would probably stumped up a decent amount to be associated with a resurgent City under the leadership of one of the highest profile managers in world football. Personally I would have gone for the beer company, new money and much more fun all round........ :thumbup: Sorry Shilts, great minds and all that...... I lost all interest in the name of our ground when we left Filbert St, I think the change of name will mean most City fans start to use Filbert Way when talking about our Home. However the point you raise about COSTING money is not valid, in fact I would suggest as our owners wish to get us into the top flight and into European competition they are actually being very tactful, they cannot bank roll us with personal money if their ambition is to reach Europe, UEFA are making sure of that, So by paying a decent amount in sponsorship for the Shirt and Ground Sponsorship they are ploughing their money into the club accounts in a legitimate manner.
Corky Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Sold the club's soul? We've moved from one sponsor to another. The new sponsor has current links to the club, just as the previous one did. If it had been Filbert Way from the start then I'd be disappointed, but the stadium name will probably always be sponsored so I don't see a massive problem.
Callabinho Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 It's a new era for Leicester City, nothing sinister. It's about the effort and commitment from our backroom staff, the revolution on the pitch, the spine tingling sound of the post horn and the roar of 30 thousand fans relishing the prospect of promotion. Thats LCFC.
Ricey Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Holt is a **** and he has slightly over exaggerated with that article, but I totally agree with what he's getting at. It's a sad state of affairs that clubs, not just us, feel they need to sell the stadium rights. It makes you wonder how much further commercialisation will go in football, I reckon it's only a matter of time before we get a Rochdale Red Bulls. King Power Stadium sounds odd. I honestly think the board, and therefore King Power, will have got more benefits from changing it something like the Fosse Stadium and continuing to plaster King Power all over it and on the shirts. It will have given the stadium an identity that could be used forever. Wouldn't surprise me if we reach the PL that we sell the rights again to make as much money as possible.
ACF Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 We need the Durex Stadium. It's comfortable, capable of expanding, provides excellent protection and you feel really close to the action.
John Matrix Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 solihull fox just ethered him. good work mate. couldn't have put it better myself. solihull fox
Guest MattP Posted 6 July 2011 Posted 6 July 2011 Holt is a **** and he has slightly over exaggerated with that article, but I totally agree with what he's getting at. It's a sad state of affairs that clubs, not just us, feel they need to sell the stadium rights. It makes you wonder how much further commercialisation will go in football, I reckon it's only a matter of time before we get a Rochdale Red Bulls. King Power Stadium sounds odd. I honestly think the board, and therefore King Power, will have got more benefits from changing it something like the Fosse Stadium and continuing to plaster King Power all over it and on the shirts. It will have given the stadium and identity that could be used forever. Wouldn't surprise me if we reach the PL that we sell the rights again to make as much money as possible.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.