by Linden Jones' Tash » 29 May 2012 20:34
by Ian Royal » 29 May 2012 20:36
winchester_royal Ermm...the 106 record is the history. The memories are the history. The players are the history. The staff are the history.
The name of the stadium..is not.
by winchester_royal » 29 May 2012 20:40
Ian Royalwinchester_royal Ermm...the 106 record is the history. The memories are the history. The players are the history. The staff are the history.
The name of the stadium..is not.
Is associated with the history. And how exactly do you think you build history with a stadium name, if it doesn't stay the same?
by wolsey » 29 May 2012 20:48
winchester_royalIan Royalwinchester_royal Ermm...the 106 record is the history. The memories are the history. The players are the history. The staff are the history.
The name of the stadium..is not.
Is associated with the history. And how exactly do you think you build history with a stadium name, if it doesn't stay the same?
John Oster was associated with the 106 season...should we have kept him?
Maybe I'm just not a sentimental person, but I feel absolutely no attachment to the stadium name, and can't really understand why anyone would get upset at changing the name. History is built through success, success is built through investment, investment is enabled by revenue enhancement.
by TheLawnMowerMan » 29 May 2012 20:53
Victor Meldrew Serious question-will this mean a stadium name change?
Mr Mad always said that he didn't really want to have the stadium named after him so do we think that he will modestly suggest that now is an appropriate time for change as with The Emirates,Etihad,galpharm,KC etc?
by Friday's Legacy » 29 May 2012 20:54
ZacNaloentomrfcurz 100% Madejski said on BBCRB that Anton's dad was a billionaire twice over
Yep I recall this as well
by CJC » 29 May 2012 20:55
by RockheadRumple » 29 May 2012 21:05
by Mr Cinema » 29 May 2012 21:32
CJC Great news to finally get this all sorted, was getting worried it would drag on all summer. As for the stadium name, i very much doubt Sir John would allow it to be changed in the near future.....we all know how he likes his name on pretty much everything. it may even be part of the deal!
by Chaney » 29 May 2012 21:35
Mr CinemaCJC Great news to finally get this all sorted, was getting worried it would drag on all summer. As for the stadium name, i very much doubt Sir John would allow it to be changed in the near future.....we all know how he likes his name on pretty much everything. it may even be part of the deal!
Madejski paid to have his name on the stadium, I would imagine someone would have to pay a fair few bob to take it off.
by Royal With Cheese » 29 May 2012 21:35
Mr CinemaCJC Great news to finally get this all sorted, was getting worried it would drag on all summer. As for the stadium name, i very much doubt Sir John would allow it to be changed in the near future.....we all know how he likes his name on pretty much everything. it may even be part of the deal!
Madejski paid to have his name on the stadium, I would imagine someone would have to pay a fair few bob to take it off.
by Fluff » 29 May 2012 21:36
by bigmike » 29 May 2012 21:43
by Ian Royal » 29 May 2012 21:48
wolseywinchester_royalIan Royal Is associated with the history. And how exactly do you think you build history with a stadium name, if it doesn't stay the same?
John Oster was associated with the 106 season...should we have kept him?
Maybe I'm just not a sentimental person, but I feel absolutely no attachment to the stadium name, and can't really understand why anyone would get upset at changing the name. History is built through success, success is built through investment, investment is enabled by revenue enhancement.
Absolutely: if it was Auto Trader Park or Hurst Stadium (which, if it had made commercial sense to SJM at the time, it could have been) would you (Ian) have been bothered?
by blueroyals » 29 May 2012 21:48
ChaneyMr CinemaCJC Great news to finally get this all sorted, was getting worried it would drag on all summer. As for the stadium name, i very much doubt Sir John would allow it to be changed in the near future.....we all know how he likes his name on pretty much everything. it may even be part of the deal!
Madejski paid to have his name on the stadium, I would imagine someone would have to pay a fair few bob to take it off.
so being the club owner he paid himself
by winchester_royal » 29 May 2012 21:56
Ian Royal Personally Winch... I think there is a world of difference between keeping a player (they change regularly anyway) and changing a stadium name. If it earnt us a few million quid would you be happy for our name to change to Tesco Royals FC? I doubt very much that you would. You (presumably) draw the line before that. I draw the line before stadium name changes instead.
by RoyalBlue » 29 May 2012 21:56
Mike Hunt
"Swansea > Liverpool - bah!"
He said that he wasnt leaving Watford for Reading. He will go to Liverpool. Get Gylfi In
by Tommy Youlden's Ears » 29 May 2012 21:59
Friday's LegacyZacNaloentomrfcurz 100% Madejski said on BBCRB that Anton's dad was a billionaire twice over
Yep I recall this as well
Ah, well it's not twice over
by winchester_royal » 29 May 2012 22:00
by RoyalBlue » 29 May 2012 22:04
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 203 guests