|
Post by sage on Apr 22, 2016 1:50:12 GMT
Great that the corner is being filled in, and in defence of the new name, it would be embarrassing but for the fact that loads of other teams have been whoring their naming rights out to morally dubious sponsors for years, it's not really noteworthy anymore. The only time you'll ever hear the new name used is on Sky/MOTD where I believe they are contractually obliged to use the official names. And it's not like PC hasn't given our club enough backing to justify a bit more exposure for his company.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 6:19:33 GMT
Reading all the negativity about the last few games (and I've moaned enough myself), surely the club are not going to fill this corner in without knowing that the team as a whole is not going to be improved on during the summer. There's always been this feeling about getting those extra 1000 or so fans in, according to what I read on here. Obvious to me is the fact that all the big clubs are going to strengthen, and to keep up with those could become, and probably will get even harder. My holy grail is winning the F.A. Cup, and that will be harder IMHO. As many people have commented, we need to offload a good few players, and bring in more quality to the squad. It should be a very interesting close season, but for now, let's get back behind OUR team, and try and encourage them for the last few games. This is OUR team. Get behind them lads!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 6:31:58 GMT
I think it's a brilliant move. Can't wait to hear Lineker say, "And now to the Bet 365 Arena where Stoke..." Job done. The BBC might as well throw their non-advertising stance out with a few of their crap pundits. OS. You've confirmed something I have been thinking since I heard the news, Mick . You said "bet365 arena" instead of the correct name - bet365 Stadium. To my ear bet365 arena does roll off the tongue better than bet365 stadium - although I have no idea why. I'd much prefer it to be the bet365 Britannia but if that isn't going to happen I'd prefer it to be an arena rather than a stadium
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 6:37:05 GMT
I think it's a brilliant move. Can't wait to hear Lineker say, "And now to the Bet 365 Arena where Stoke..." Job done. The BBC might as well throw their non-advertising stance out with a few of their crap pundits. OS. You've confirmed something I have been thinking since I heard the news, Mick . You said "bet365 arena" instead of the correct name - bet365 Stadium. To my ear bet365 arena does roll off the tongue better than bet365 stadium - although I have no idea why. I'd much prefer it to be the bet365 Britannia but if that isn't going to happen I'd prefer it to be an arena rather than a stadium An arena by definition doesn't have any un filled corners ..... we are not even half way there yet!
|
|
|
Post by mumf on Apr 22, 2016 6:44:34 GMT
I hate the new name and prefer the old one .
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Apr 22, 2016 6:49:33 GMT
I hate the new name and prefer the old one . That is all. Let's keep the old name and stop any potential income. Maybe even go down? Sound good? Or, let the coated family who, have had their wealth increase 1.4 billion giving a total worth of 3.75 billion put money into the club for us to grow? That is all.
|
|
|
Post by penkvillepotter on Apr 22, 2016 7:04:49 GMT
I take it the materials being used for the outside of the ground have been outside for some years already getting shitty and weather beaten to match the rest of the Stadium.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 7:09:20 GMT
I take it the materials being used for the outside of the ground have been outside for some years already getting shitty and weather beaten to match the rest of the Stadium. As yesterday's story promised a big rebranding of the stadium this summer, I think it is likely that they will spruce up the exterior and interior as well as replacing the logos.
|
|
|
Post by mumf on Apr 22, 2016 8:01:19 GMT
I hate the new name and prefer the old one . That is all. Let's keep the old name and stop any potential income. Maybe even go down? Sound good? Or, let the coated family who, have had their wealth increase 1.4 billion giving a total worth of 3.75 billion put money into the club for us to grow? That is all. Yes ....indeed . Because its all about money isn't it ? How many tins of spam would that get you ?
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Apr 22, 2016 8:18:37 GMT
Of course football like everything in life changes or evolves we all have to accept that and move with the times. They may be little or even trivial changes but the dumbing down of our club crest to one seemingly designed by a 10 yr old, changing the name of the stadium that was genuinely recognised world wide as the home of SCFC saddens me a little. What next? How about a change of name from Stoke City to Stoke Gamblers all of course in the name of commercialism? Oops sorry, that should be Stoke Responsible Gamblers. It might just help the branding and marketing of Bet 365.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Apr 22, 2016 8:24:17 GMT
Why not move the away fans to the new seats? Then our players can run out to Stoke fans by the tunnel, instead of the away fans.
|
|
|
Post by Fenparkpotter on Apr 22, 2016 8:28:13 GMT
Why not move the away fans to the new seats? Then our players can run out to Stoke fans by the tunnel, instead of the away fans. Really hope this happens. Might improve the atmosphere having Stoke fans directly either side of the away end and in good eyeshot of everyone!
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Apr 22, 2016 8:34:29 GMT
I take it the materials being used for the outside of the ground have been outside for some years already getting shitty and weather beaten to match the rest of the Stadium. As yesterday's story promised a big rebranding of the stadium this summer, I think it is likely that they will spruce up the exterior and interior as well as replacing the logos. I quite like the green and yellow striped kit it makes a nice change from red and white.
|
|
|
Post by block23 on Apr 22, 2016 9:28:09 GMT
A question regarding the new corner, apologies if I have missed it in the thread - the artist impression looks to encompass something similar to Delilah's in the other corner. Are there to be additional facilities, or is it just the additional seats?
Regarding the name change, it was always going to happen. As I am clearly a grumpy old man, the killer for me was the move from the Victoria ground site. Once that happened, the way was paved for many things to change, badge change, ground name change, etc. Just have to live with it, I would rather concentrate on the performances on the pitch, and I have resisted commenting of late, a position I think it better that I maintain!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 10:43:42 GMT
Think they should have given a few options to the season ticket holders. I would have preferred The Coates Stadium. Bet365 stadium just doesn't roll off the tongue. Most people will still call it the brit anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 10:56:47 GMT
A question regarding the new corner, apologies if I have missed it in the thread - the artist impression looks to encompass something similar to Delilah's in the other corner. Are there to be additional facilities, or is it just the additional seats? Regarding the name change, it was always going to happen. As I am clearly a grumpy old man, the killer for me was the move from the Victoria ground site. Once that happened, the way was paved for many things to change, badge change, ground name change, etc. Just have to live with it, I would rather concentrate on the performances on the pitch, and I have resisted commenting of late, a position I think it better that I maintain! It has an area at the top of the stand for disabled fans and helpers and this is reached by an internal lift. It also has a deeper concourse which should be less cramped than the concourses in the DPD, the South Stand and the Boothen - that is why it looks a bit deeper than those stands.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 22, 2016 11:01:35 GMT
I think it's a brilliant move. Can't wait to hear Lineker say, "And now to the Bet 365 Arena where Stoke..." Job done. The BBC might as well throw their non-advertising stance out with a few of their crap pundits. OS. You've confirmed something I have been thinking since I heard the news, Mick . You said "bet365 arena" instead of the correct name - bet365 Stadium. To my ear bet365 arena does roll off the tongue better than bet365 stadium - although I have no idea why. I'd much prefer it to be the bet365 Britannia but if that isn't going to happen I'd prefer it to be an arena rather than a stadium I don't understand why you think it would be a good idea to keep the old sponsor's name in there John. If the new sponsor was (say) Coca Cola, would you expect Coca Cola to be happy if we kept the old sponsor's name as a part of the new title of the stadium? There's no way that ANY sponsor would agree to it and even though the owners of the club are also the owners of the new sponsor, you can't expect them to dilute their branding because of this.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 11:15:39 GMT
You've confirmed something I have been thinking since I heard the news, Mick . You said "bet365 arena" instead of the correct name - bet365 Stadium. To my ear bet365 arena does roll off the tongue better than bet365 stadium - although I have no idea why. I'd much prefer it to be the bet365 Britannia but if that isn't going to happen I'd prefer it to be an arena rather than a stadium I don't understand why you think it would be a good idea to keep the old sponsor's name in there John. If the new sponsor was (say) Coca Cola, would you expect Coca Cola to be happy if we kept the old sponsor's name as a part of the new title of the stadium? There's no way that ANY sponsor would agree to it and even though the owners of the club are also the owners of the new sponsor, you can't expect them to dilute their branding because of this. The thing is Paul that no one thinks of Britannia as a sponsor's name these days. First, the name goes back a thousand years. Second, the Britannia Building Society no longer exists. And third, the stadium carried on with the name of a non existant sponsor since the Britannia B/S name disappeared. No one can copyright the name Britannia. The Building society had copyrighted the font and the colour (when combined with the name Britannia). Why would bet365 mind having Britannia as part of the stadium name when there is no other company using the name Britannia?
|
|
|
Post by block23 on Apr 22, 2016 11:31:37 GMT
A question regarding the new corner, apologies if I have missed it in the thread - the artist impression looks to encompass something similar to Delilah's in the other corner. Are there to be additional facilities, or is it just the additional seats? Regarding the name change, it was always going to happen. As I am clearly a grumpy old man, the killer for me was the move from the Victoria ground site. Once that happened, the way was paved for many things to change, badge change, ground name change, etc. Just have to live with it, I would rather concentrate on the performances on the pitch, and I have resisted commenting of late, a position I think it better that I maintain! It has an area at the top of the stand for disabled fans and helpers and this is reached by an internal lift. It also has a deeper concourse which should be less cramped than the concourses in the DPD, the South Stand and the Boothen - that is why it looks a bit deeper than those stands. Thanks mate
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 22, 2016 12:00:28 GMT
I don't understand why you think it would be a good idea to keep the old sponsor's name in there John. If the new sponsor was (say) Coca Cola, would you expect Coca Cola to be happy if we kept the old sponsor's name as a part of the new title of the stadium? There's no way that ANY sponsor would agree to it and even though the owners of the club are also the owners of the new sponsor, you can't expect them to dilute their branding because of this. The thing is Paul that no one thinks of Britannia as a sponsor's name these days. First, the name goes back a thousand years. Second, the Britannia Building Society no longer exists. And third, the stadium carried on with the name of a non existant sponsor since the Britannia B/S name disappeared. No one can copyright the name Britannia. The Building society had copyrighted the font and the colour (when combined with the name Britannia). Why would bet365 mind having Britannia as part of the stadium name when there is no other company using the name Britannia? Scholes is claiming it is a 'trademark' issue which is incredibly misleading. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Stoke-City-couldn-t-Britannia-Stadium-anymore/story-29154022-detail/story.html
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Apr 22, 2016 12:06:17 GMT
On my god thats just a horrible name. Im sure Denise Coates will be behind that Selling our souls to the devil. At least we arent owned by Tampax I suppose[/quote) "Tampax stadium". Has a nice ring attached to it?!! Nah. Too many strings attached!
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on Apr 22, 2016 12:07:11 GMT
Exactly. It's now or never. There wil be some disruption/re-numbering of seats etc. while the building work goes on, so why not say that Away fans will get the corner + (what is currently) Block 35 and 36 if needed. Fans currently in those blocks get first shout at a seat move to the blocks by the tunnel. Sorted. They aren't going to move the away fans next to the family stand are they It's still do-able in my opinion. Looking at the image below, the construction work will mean that whole area to the rear of the South Stand and the corner area itself will have all that fencing removed for work to be done and vehicles to be able to get in and out. Not to mention I can see the need for some more civil engineering going on at the bottom of the slope that comes down from SSM Way - part of that grass bank would be "scooped out" surely? Another path could be built coming straight down from SSM Way by Gordon Banks' statue for home fans to get to the blocks in the DPD/Seddon (East) Stand. Then the metal fencing could be strategically put back in to navigate away fans back to their transport and keep home fans in Blocks 38-40 away from them. Inside the ground on a matchday there are a good few seats lost due to the need for netting between the away fans and Block 36, so the same would apply between the Corner and the family stand. Of course the only other solution would be to move the Tunnel/dressing rooms and whatever other matchday facilities are at the South end of the ground all the way up to the opposite corner - where there currently isn't any structure for them to go.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 12:07:29 GMT
The thing is Paul that no one thinks of Britannia as a sponsor's name these days. First, the name goes back a thousand years. Second, the Britannia Building Society no longer exists. And third, the stadium carried on with the name of a non existant sponsor since the Britannia B/S name disappeared. No one can copyright the name Britannia. The Building society had copyrighted the font and the colour (when combined with the name Britannia). Why would bet365 mind having Britannia as part of the stadium name when there is no other company using the name Britannia? Scholes is claiming it is a 'trademark' issue which is incredibly misleading. www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Stoke-City-couldn-t-Britannia-Stadium-anymore/story-29154022-detail/story.htmlHe's sort of right and also wrong, I think . I'm not a lawyer but, as I understand it, we couldn't carry on using the name Britannia in that font and colour. but we can use the name Britannia in another font and colour.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 22, 2016 12:18:30 GMT
They aren't going to move the away fans next to the family stand are they It's still do-able in my opinion. Looking at the image below, the construction work will mean that whole area to the rear of the South Stand and the corner area itself will have all that fencing removed for work to be done and vehicles to be able to get in and out. Not to mention I can see the need for some more civil engineering going on at the bottom of the slope that comes down from SSM Way - part of that grass bank would be "scooped out" surely? Another path could be built coming straight down from SSM Way by Gordon Banks' statue for home fans to get to the blocks in the DPD/Seddon (East) Stand. Then the metal fencing could be strategically put back in to navigate away fans back to their transport and keep home fans in Blocks 38-40 away from them. Inside the ground on a matchday there are a good few seats lost due to the need for netting between the away fans and Block 36, so the same would apply between the Corner and the family stand. Of course the only other solution would be to move the Tunnel/dressing rooms and whatever other matchday facilities are at the South end of the ground all the way up to the opposite corner - where there currently isn't any structure for them to go. I think, long term, if/when we fill in all the corners, the tunnel and changing rooms would be best at the Boothen/Main stand corner. The current tunnel corner once built would hold 2,500 and this might be best for away fans with an extra 500 being accommodated in a small section of the South stand with a common concourse with the away fans in what is now the tunnel corner. I still can't see the club changing their minds about not putting away fans next to the family stand. I think families would have every right to object to their children being too close to away fans. We don't have much trouble at the Brit but we do have some - I seem to recall West Ham fans trying to reach the home fans in the south stand. That is no place for a family area. Incidentally the netted area is as wide as it is because of the cramped nature of the concourse in the south stand whose design is such that it is difficult to segregate the concourse with a sufficient degree of flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 12:23:46 GMT
Somebody has already mentioned that Staffs, but I agree. Move the away fans to the new seats! Makes sense to me!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 22, 2016 12:24:07 GMT
He's sort of right and also wrong, I think . I'm not a lawyer but, as I understand it, we couldn't carry on using the name Britannia in that font and colour. but we can use the name Britannia in another font and colour. Exactly. It is of no consequence as to what the Stadium is actually called as long as no trademark is breached. It's deliberately misleading presumably to avoid heat on 365 that doesn't actually exist!
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Apr 22, 2016 12:29:14 GMT
It is 28,300 less segregation for league games. For Cup games if the away side has the whole of the south stand, (as Man U and Everton have done in the past) then the crowd could reach 28,300 and with the extra 1,800 in the new corner it could reach 30,100. They could cut the number of seats lost to segregation in league games by expanding the south stand concourse. It is the cramped size and lack of flexibility of the concourse which causes the problem. The concourse is at the legal minimum size it can be. Bigger concourse = more flexibility = fewer seats lost to segregation. If the size of the south stand concourse is the problem that causes us to lose so many seats to segregation, do we know why it isn't a problem for those cup matches where the away team has the whole stand and there are therefore MORE people in the stand? Is it because when you split the stand in two, the H&S rules say you have to have proportionatly LESS people in each part of the divided stand relative to the size of the each concourse?
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Apr 22, 2016 12:47:05 GMT
Maybe Bet365 will change their name to Brittania Bet365. That would solve all the problems. BTW, that photo above is arse about back'ards cus not many pictures are taken of it from that angle and it makes it look wider than longer. It flummoxed me for a while. OS.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Apr 22, 2016 13:38:21 GMT
He's sort of right and also wrong, I think . I'm not a lawyer but, as I understand it, we couldn't carry on using the name Britannia in that font and colour. but we can use the name Britannia in another font and colour. Exactly. It is of no consequence as to what the Stadium is actually called as long as no trademark is breached. It's deliberately misleading presumably to avoid heat on 365 that doesn't actually exist! Britannia, not in the BS's font and colour, is an ancient Latin name now in generic use over which no trade mark could have been registered forbidding its usage.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 22, 2016 13:59:25 GMT
I don't understand why you think it would be a good idea to keep the old sponsor's name in there John. If the new sponsor was (say) Coca Cola, would you expect Coca Cola to be happy if we kept the old sponsor's name as a part of the new title of the stadium? There's no way that ANY sponsor would agree to it and even though the owners of the club are also the owners of the new sponsor, you can't expect them to dilute their branding because of this. The thing is Paul that no one thinks of Britannia as a sponsor's name these days. First, the name goes back a thousand years. Second, the Britannia Building Society no longer exists. And third, the stadium carried on with the name of a non existant sponsor since the Britannia B/S name disappeared. No one can copyright the name Britannia. The Building society had copyrighted the font and the colour (when combined with the name Britannia). Why would bet365 mind having Britannia as part of the stadium name when there is no other company using the name Britannia?
I don't think any of that is relevant John.
If you asked Coca Cola would they prefer to call it the Coca Cola stadium or the Coca Cola Britannia, which one do you think they would go for?
The same applies to Shell, Barclays and any other sponsor you can think of including bet365.
The sponsor are paying a huge amount of money to call the stadium what they want to call it, as Old Stokie says above, maybe bet365 should change their name to bet365 Britannia.
|
|