ronan99:

leeman:

ronan99:

i'm totally against it, selling history for money is disgusting. if it happened i would stop supporting the club.

I dont see why you would stop supporting the club, at the end of the day its still going to be old trafford regardless of who puts naming rights on it but i do have to concede that im totally against the idea. I think having naming rights cheapens the club slightly.

Because if thats the direction the club is going in then its not the club i fell in love with 25 years ago.

Its not the club you fell in love with 25 years ago anyway footballers were on £400 a week and played for the shirt then mate being one example ! not the ludicrous amount that need subsidizing today just to get them to play for the shirt and there were no such thing as sugar daddies changing the footballling landscape . This is a very different game and we're a very different club as are everybody now.

leeman:

ronan99:

i'm totally against it, selling history for money is disgusting. if it happened i would stop supporting the club.

I dont see why you would stop supporting the club, at the end of the day its still going to be old trafford regardless of who puts naming rights on it but i do have to concede that im totally against the idea. I think having naming rights cheapens the club slightly.

Because if thats the direction the club is going in then its not the club i fell in love with 25 years ago.

ronan99:

i'm totally against it, selling history for money is disgusting. if it happened i would stop supporting the club.

I dont see why you would stop supporting the club, at the end of the day its still going to be old trafford regardless of who puts naming rights on it but i do have to concede that im totally against the idea. I think having naming rights cheapens the club slightly.

i'm totally against it, selling history for money is disgusting. if it happened i would stop supporting the club.

if we managed to talk the band Dream Theater into paying £400 Million for naming rights I might consider it otherwise i would say no way ;p

Don't know why this is still being debated. Ultimately it is about WHERE will the money go to. If for argument sake good old M is willing to pay 300M upfront for 20 years of naming right (make it 12 or 15 if you think it is too cheap) and if Glazer promise to pay off all debt with this 300m (together with the 100m from IPO), plus willing to provide 50m p.a. to the squad, would fans still complaining about stadium being called Old Mac instead of OT? Season ticket holders will have to live with shake and big mac instead of fish and chips but to majority of fans this should be positive move.

If on the other hand Glazer will pocket all proceeds then no matter it is sold for 300m or 30b, everyone will complain.

personaly if i knew old trafford naming rights were to be sold and the money would be added to reinvestment of the squad i wouldnt have much against it. but the question is would it be so or that would be spended on paying for glazers.... it really isnt the name that makes a place but the people in there...:)

garp01us:

United road75:

Nibor1:

Refuse to answer this, as it might be a secret Glazier post to gauge the strength of opposition to it.

I can assure you mate i'm not Glazer's biatch lol

i also find it amusing that American owners are met with such disdain no matter what they try to do to appease the supporters but those same people have no issue with some known terrorists backing, oil/blood money rich family from the middle east owning the club. That just puzzles me to no end.

Blimey mate...calm down! This has nothing to do with their nationality, and how dare you make the assumption that I or 'United road' are supporters of any terrorist groups. This is verging on slander, so engage your tiny brain - get someone to help you remove that enormous chip from your shoulder - and think before you type!

fergo93:

United road75:

bevninja:

I can see that 'american non football owners' who are heavily in debt just might see it as a good idea, they have probably been thinking along those lines for a while trying to gauge if they could put up with all the furore it would cause, but no doubt the money must be a strong driver for them.

The furore would be justified if Old Tafford was totally dropped from the name and lets say remamed McDonald arena but surely common sense would prevail we get a reputable sponsor such as Nike or Aon etc to have there brand added to the stadium name ?

Yeah. I understand the romantic beauty of football and United's history, but if a sponsor were willing to pay the club £400m-£500m straight up, just to change the name to "Nike Stadium" or "Aon Arena" for 10 years, I'd say yes. It's smart. Some fans may not like it, but it gets money and would potentially erase our debts completely. The club would run smoother and profits would soar (no more debt servicing or repayments). Surprised the Glazers haven't done it already.

And yeah lol, surely it wouldn't be "McDonalds Arena." As I said above, it'd be along the lines of "Nike Stadium" or "Aon Arena."

And anway, we'd all still call it Old Trafford. The only change would be the words on the stadium itself, and the official name referred to by EPL, CL draws, pundits, etc

The Cinema of Dreams....in 3D?

United road75:

bevninja:

I can see that 'american non football owners' who are heavily in debt just might see it as a good idea, they have probably been thinking along those lines for a while trying to gauge if they could put up with all the furore it would cause, but no doubt the money must be a strong driver for them.

The furore would be justified if Old Tafford was totally dropped from the name and lets say remamed McDonald arena but surely common sense would prevail we get a reputable sponsor such as Nike or Aon etc to have there brand added to the stadium name ?

Yeah. I understand the romantic beauty of football and United's history, but if a sponsor were willing to pay the club £400m-£500m straight up, just to change the name to "Nike Stadium" or "Aon Arena" for 10 years, I'd say yes. It's smart. Some fans may not like it, but it gets money and would potentially erase our debts completely. The club would run smoother and profits would soar (no more debt servicing or repayments). Surprised the Glazers haven't done it already.

And yeah lol, surely it wouldn't be "McDonalds Arena." As I said above, it'd be along the lines of "Nike Stadium" or "Aon Arena."

And anway, we'd all still call it Old Trafford. The only change would be the words on the stadium itself, and the official name referred to by EPL, CL draws, pundits, etc

manu wr10:

redmancr:

garp01us:

United road75:

Nibor1:

Refuse to answer this, as it might be a secret Glazier post to gauge the strength of opposition to it.

I can assure you mate i'm not Glazer's biatch lol

i also find it amusing that American owners are met with such disdain no matter what they try to do to appease the supporters but those same people have no issue with some known terrorists backing, oil/blood money rich family from the middle east owning the club. That just puzzles me to no end.

I'd rather the Glazers be here forever than have the terrorists own my club mate

I doubt that any terrorist has the money to even own Dagenham and Redbridge

Yes, if there's one thing them terrorist orgs are known for its being poor.

redmancr:

garp01us:

United road75:

Nibor1:

Refuse to answer this, as it might be a secret Glazier post to gauge the strength of opposition to it.

I can assure you mate i'm not Glazer's biatch lol

i also find it amusing that American owners are met with such disdain no matter what they try to do to appease the supporters but those same people have no issue with some known terrorists backing, oil/blood money rich family from the middle east owning the club. That just puzzles me to no end.

I'd rather the Glazers be here forever than have the terrorists own my club mate

I doubt that any terrorist has the money to even own Dagenham and Redbridge

therealry:

bevninja:

I can see that 'american non football owners' who are heavily in debt just might see it as a good idea, they have probably been thinking along those lines for a while trying to gauge if they could put up with all the furore it would cause, but no doubt the money must be a strong driver for them.

What is interesting is how many of the stadiums in the UK where naming rights have been sold were for clubs owned by Americans at the time the naming rights were sold?

Overall not a big fan of naming rights stuff, obviously very commin here in the US but it is just weird when stadiums change names every 5 years or so based on who the sponser is.

Wouldn't have thought that was overly interesting at all really.(Meaning the number of).

Can see how owners of a club with a lot of debt would have undoubtedly been considering whether or not they would be able to whether the storm of what would be seen by a lot of supporters as messing with something hallowed in many eyes.

If all monies gained from it were absolutely set in stone to pay back into the debt mountain, and it was done with respect by keeping 'Old Trafford' very prominent then this may well change the viewpoint of many who could see how this would help the day to day running of the Club. Arsenal for instance were able to get the new stadium.

People expecting it to pay off the whole amount would be disappointed however, people quoting Citeh as an example, forget that this was a 'family sponsorship' done also with a view to make the club's position better in light of FFP as the primary reason.

Current economic climate means we would get nowhere near £400M unless the Glaziers have a hidden rich bother-in-law somewhere.

garp01us:

United road75:

Nibor1:

Refuse to answer this, as it might be a secret Glazier post to gauge the strength of opposition to it.

I can assure you mate i'm not Glazer's biatch lol

i also find it amusing that American owners are met with such disdain no matter what they try to do to appease the supporters but those same people have no issue with some known terrorists backing, oil/blood money rich family from the middle east owning the club. That just puzzles me to no end.

I'd rather the Glazers be here forever than have the terrorists own my club mate

garp01us:

United road75:

Nibor1:

Refuse to answer this, as it might be a secret Glazier post to gauge the strength of opposition to it.

I can assure you mate i'm not Glazer's biatch lol

i also find it amusing that American owners are met with such disdain no matter what they try to do to appease the supporters but those same people have no issue with some known terrorists backing, oil/blood money rich family from the middle east owning the club. That just puzzles me to no end.

I can assure you its the debt they've incurred on us that is the problem not because they're American mate .Some people like to point out they're American just because of the debt i'm sure the reaction would be the same no matter what nationality the owners were.