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?!