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.
Isn’t that enough? Football managed without defiling the names of its stadia for more than a century but now, apparently, it can manage no more.

Twat! It also managed without live tv, substitutes, sports science and all sorts of other new modern fandangled things. Perhaps we should go back to playing in black and white with the goalkeeper leaning against the post smoking a pipe.

:icon_roll
 
Twat! It also managed without live tv, substitutes, sports science and all sorts of other new modern fandangled things. Perhaps we should go back to playing in black and white with the goalkeeper leaning against the post smoking a pipe.

:icon_roll

Honestly, is this guy seriously a professional journalist? Surely one of the first things they should have taught him is critical thinking and that appeals to history are one of the most basic fallacies in debates and arguments? Surely that was one of the most basic things he should have been taught in wherever he studied to be a journalist? I was taught that in my secondary school general studies lessons at 14 years old, ffs!
 
Last edited:
Oliver Holt is a ****.
He's also a **** that rehashes his own articles. He wrote the same thing a few weeks back about Chesterfield, who are mentioned in the article. As someone pointed out at the time, according to Holt it is OK for Arsenal ( who have squillions of quid ) to sell the name of their ground, but not for Chesterfield, who have the square root of feck all.
 
Anyway - I just hope that the owners fully consulted with the Foxes Trust before making the historic decision of re-naming their ground....and of course that the Foxes Trust fully consulted with its entire membership.
 
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?!

:038:
 
So it was sponsored by Walkers who are owned by Pepsico who have assets in excess of 68 billion US Dollars. Who put pennies in this club for a poxy ten year deal. It will now be sponsored by a company who will spend more money that any other investor at this club ever did. Seems a fair deal to me.
 
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