City are idiots. No pride like their rivals MAN UTD. WOOOOOOP. brilliant team. hwoever, city are just total money-grabbers. I HATE THEM.
Printable View
City are idiots. No pride like their rivals MAN UTD. WOOOOOOP. brilliant team. hwoever, city are just total money-grabbers. I HATE THEM.
Come on then kiddy, explain to me how we have no pride. Once you've done that we'll assess it and hopefully move on to the next subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiffee1000
Also, what Wenger and Liverpool's dude is saying is probably true.
LOL. Youre Manchester city, that should already explain it. As for the proper reason, City only wanted the money by changing their stadium name, united will never do that. I cant see arsenmal doing that again. Nor liverpool, chelsea spurs etc. I mean cmon, "etihad stadium" HAHAHAHAHAHA. Fail. So what are we going to asses next "kiddy"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
Chelsea were interested and looking into doing it for a long time, but nobody wanted to pay the £100m it was planning to charge.
I don't really think its a big deal as more and more now stadiums are being renamed for sponsorship reasons. As most people have said it'll still be called by its old name. You have to at least buy the rights for a new stadium (like Arsenal's Emirates) if you want the maximum impact.
What does me being a Manchester City fan explain? Does it explain that I stuck by my club through thick and thin, staying with them when they're two goals down at Wembley, staying with them when we invaded the Blackburn pitch following our next promotion, staying with them on the day we were at the pre-season friendly only to hear rumours SWP was leaving us, staying with them the day we thought we were going to go bust with our Thai owner, staying with them the following day to hear we've been purchased by a Sheikh, staying with them to hear this Sheikh is pretty blooded minted? Come on, what does it explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiffee1000
Well done on seeing we wanted the money? I think that's the whole point of a name change? Arsenal sold the name for the new stadium, we sold ours nine years into our new ground. If it was Maine Road you'd have uproar across Manchester, this however is Eastlands. Not the City of Manchester Stadium, not CoMS, not Maine Road, it's Eastlands. Fans called it Eastlands, they'll no doubt continue calling it Eastlands unless like me' they enjoy seeing other fans raging at our 'unfair deal' so they'll use the 'Etihad Stadium' when in the company of other fans who they know will get round up.
Arsenal will do it again as they're contracted for some years, when that contract is over they will assess the contract, will they resign it with Emirates or choose another company is up to them as a club to assess financially.
Liverpool and Spurs are looking into the possibility of doing so, it's easy money for the FFP. Manchester United won't do so as just like it would have been with Maine Road, the fans will not be too happy. They make enough money out of the name 'Old Trafford' already.
Etihad Stadium a fail? Come on then, how is it a 'fail'? Whilst telling me how it's a 'fail' you can then go back to your original point of explaining what me being a Manchester City fan means. Please note Etihad means unity, which can translate to united however it's all about semantics. Would you call Manchester United 'Manchester Unity'? No? So you won't be calling it the 'United Stadium'. Anyway, come on. What does me being a Manchester City mean and why is the 'Etihad Stadium' a 'fail'.
Hurry up now before mummy sends for your warm milk before bed time.
Most clubs would do it actually :PQuote:
Originally Posted by wiffee1000
I'm pretty sure all three of the clubs that you named (spurs, chelsea & liverpool) were looking into the possiblilty too.