Walkers Stadium RIP

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn't the stadium crumble if we had Aretha Franklin performing there? ;)
 
I'd certainly Say a Little Prayer for it.
 
beighton155 said:
Forget insulting each other, declaring things or players Shit seems to be the new thing at the minute on here. I've not seen so much overreactive swearing since Lako's angry phase a fee years back.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong. It doesnt seem to matter what is going on, its all shit.

Ridiculous.
 
Profondo Rosso said:
Honestly, some fans really do care about some bizarre things. How much "soul" their stadium has (maybe we should book Aretha Franklin to perform then), how big their crowds are, how much they are hated, whether they get to stand up or sit down, how much association they have with the city
Click to expand...

Why would you not care about the size of crowds we are pulling in? it says a lot about the health of our club. I've been in a less than 10,000 attendance for a league game at Filbert Street, it's never nice to see empty terraces.

Back in the day there was quite a lot about the matchday experience that was special to me that has been lost since our move to the current premisis. I guess having soul is having identity, which for me is all about supporting a football club

It sounds from your post you love your football more than your club PR, which I guess isn't a bad thing? Would you though prefer to watch the most exciting match ahead of the team you support each week?
 
I would have preferred 'Leicester City Football Ground' - but they can call it what they like. The spnsors/ owners names for stadia are for the media, image building and other brand marketing purposes. I doubt if too many ordinary fans will be regularly referring to 'going down the City' - 'as I'm off to the King Power Stadium'.
 
Billyjof said:
Why would you not care about the size of crowds we are pulling in? it says a lot about the health of our club. I've been in a less than 10,000 attendance for a league game at Filbert Street, it's never nice to see empty terraces.

Back in the day there was quite a lot about the matchday experience that was special to me that has been lost since our move to the current premisis. I guess having soul is having identity, which for me is all about supporting a football club

It sounds from your post you love your football more than your club PR, which I guess isn't a bad thing? Would you though prefer to watch the most exciting match ahead of the team you support each week?
Click to expand...

When I say not caring about the size of the crowds, I didn't mean rough crowd sizes, I meant analysing figures and fans arguing over which team has the biggest attendances and caring about whether we had on average 200 people less or more than Norwich City did last season, it's one of the most boring and base discussions there is.

I went to watch Leicester beat Nottm Forest 1-0 on a cold November Monday night last season in a pretty mediocre game over watching Barcelona beat Real Madrid 5-0 last season, so no, I'd still rather watch Leicester than another game, but just because of the emotional involvement with watching the team is different. i.e. I don't get anywhere near the same emotional rush when I see another team score, neither do I get anywhere near the same enjoyment in seeing another team do well, despite the fact there are other teams I follow. I'd just take Leicester being successful over things like the club having integrity or soul any day. Those things are artificial and why you can claim some faux moral high ground out of them, seeing your team do well and play entertaining football is what I find really enjoyable about supporting a football team. It's about seeing the games live as well, which is always far more enjoyable than watching them on tv.

I am a massive hypocrite though as I'll happily criticise Manchester City and Chelsea for their lack of integrity. :icon_lol:
 
Last edited:
Profondo Rosso said:
When I say not caring about the size of the crowds, I didn't mean rough crowd sizes, I meant analysing figures and fans arguing over which team has the biggest attendances and caring about whether we had on average 200 people less or more than Norwich City did last season, it's one of the most boring and base discussions there is.

:
Click to expand...

Agreed although I haven't seen it mentioned so much on here. There were times when it might have mattered to me but that was when we were averaging 14-15K on a home gate. Leicester's crowds were often compared to Coventry Southampton and Norwich's, as they were established Premier League clubs at that time and used as an example of why we should be competing with them.

I've not paid much attention to our average gates for a while though. I just remember a near sell out for that terrible Shef Weds match we lost on our way to being relegated. We would have struggled for half that in the Pleat era.
 
Last edited:
Oliver Holt is a ****. So it's alright to be named after a corporate sponsor if it sounds ok and you've had the name for a few years, but if you change it you're selling out and losing all your dignity? And what the **** was that rubbish about the stadium name sounding 'vaguely like a tribute to a male porn star'? Cretinous.

That whole piece is just a contradiciton in terms, he goes on to say it's ok to have sponsors' names plastered everywhere else - for some reason that's acceptable - but not in the stadium name. What's the difference? Of course, he offers no logical explanation as to why one form of sponsorship is acceptable and one unnacceptable - just a bunch of vague platitudes mixed in with a healthy dollop of rhetoric and nostalgia.

So good luck to the Leicester owners and the club’s board. Congratulations. You made a few quid. And in the process, you lost something you can never get back.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was ****ing devastated when I found out we wouldn't be sponsored by a snack manufacturer any more, I don't think I'll ever come to terms with it. FFS.

EDIT: Plus, how does he know we made 'a few quid' off of the deal? The owners bought the stadium rights themselves?!
 
Last edited:
indierich06 said:
Oliver Holt is a ****. So it's alright to be named after a corporate sponsor if it sounds ok and you've had the name for a few years, but if you change it you're selling out and losing all your dignity? And what the **** was that rubbish about the stadium name sounding 'vaguely like a tribute to a male porn star'? Cretinous.

That whole piece is just a contradiciton in terms, he goes on to say it's ok to have sponsors' names plastered everywhere else - for some reason that's acceptable - but not in the stadium name. What's the difference? Of course, he offers no logical explanation as to why one form of sponsorship is acceptable and one unnacceptable - just a bunch of vague platitudes mixed in with a healthy dollop of rhetoric and nostalgia.



Yeah, I was ****ing devastated when I found out we wouldn't be sponsored by a snack manufacturer any more, I don't think I'll ever come to terms with it. FFS.

EDIT: Plus, how does he know we made 'a few quid' off of the deal? The owners bought the stadium rights themselves?!
Click to expand...
A truly superb post.
 
My point was "legacy deal" is a bit of spin. They're not different to any other corporate partner.

And talking about overreactions, everything I say seems to get jumped on for no real reason. Hypocritical don't you think?
 
Last edited:
I was genuinely gutted when we left Filbo. I have so many great memories but we could no longer stand still and reside in a facility that had such a small commercial turnover. As we all know, the football world has changed massively over the past couple of decades. Perhaps not for the better, especially for the football romantic but we don't really have a choice. Holt needs to move on, as most of us have had to.
 
indierich06 said:
Oliver Holt is a ****. So it's alright to be named after a corporate sponsor if it sounds ok and you've had the name for a few years, but if you change it you're selling out and losing all your dignity? And what the **** was that rubbish about the stadium name sounding 'vaguely like a tribute to a male porn star'? Cretinous.

That whole piece is just a contradiciton in terms, he goes on to say it's ok to have sponsors' names plastered everywhere else - for some reason that's acceptable - but not in the stadium name. What's the difference? Of course, he offers no logical explanation as to why one form of sponsorship is acceptable and one unnacceptable - just a bunch of vague platitudes mixed in with a healthy dollop of rhetoric and nostalgia.



Yeah, I was ****ing devastated when I found out we wouldn't be sponsored by a snack manufacturer any more, I don't think I'll ever come to terms with it. FFS.

EDIT: Plus, how does he know we made 'a few quid' off of the deal? The owners bought the stadium rights themselves?!
Click to expand...

:038: good post.
 
indierich06 said:
Oliver Holt is a ****. So it's alright to be named after a corporate sponsor if it sounds ok and you've had the name for a few years, but if you change it you're selling out and losing all your dignity? And what the **** was that rubbish about the stadium name sounding 'vaguely like a tribute to a male porn star'? Cretinous.

That whole piece is just a contradiciton in terms, he goes on to say it's ok to have sponsors' names plastered everywhere else - for some reason that's acceptable - but not in the stadium name. What's the difference? Of course, he offers no logical explanation as to why one form of sponsorship is acceptable and one unnacceptable - just a bunch of vague platitudes mixed in with a healthy dollop of rhetoric and nostalgia.



Yeah, I was ****ing devastated when I found out we wouldn't be sponsored by a snack manufacturer any more, I don't think I'll ever come to terms with it. FFS.

EDIT: Plus, how does he know we made 'a few quid' off of the deal? The owners bought the stadium rights themselves?!
Click to expand...

Spot on. It's an absolutely nauseating article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool2150
2Arsenal2244
3Nottm F2141
4Newcastle2238
5Chelsea2137
6Bournemouth2237
7Aston Villa2236
8Manchester C  2135
9Fulham2233
10Brighton2131
11Brentford2228
12Palace2227
13Manchester U2126
14West Ham2226
15Tottenham 2124
16Everton2017
17Wolves2116
18Ipswich2116
19Leicester2214
20Southampton216

Latest posts

Back
Top