St.James's

[sherwoodmag]

With 80 per cent of the club to be owned by Saudies would these strict Muslims find it offensive to have a ground named after a Christian Saint.

I know many would balk at a name change but personally it is something I would put up with so that we could go for trophies and compete with the big boys yet again.

[Zippity]

I wouldn't have thought they'd have a problem with it but I would also imagine that it will be renamed after something that will raise their profile over here (in a positive sense! )

Can't really complain, either. I don't think anyone will like having the name changed but if that's one of the 'sacrifices' that have to be made then so be it.

And to think, at one stage we were still owned by Ashley and the ground was the Sports Direct Arena. Eurgh.

[tooslomofo]

The thing I’d Ashley never paid a penny when changing the stadium name.


Now changing the stadium name will be one way to inject capital to offset the FFP regulations

Everyone’s a winner baby thats the truth

[ex_pat_magpie]

I wouldn't like a change from the traditional but if it did happen it would always be St. James' Park to the locals and the faithful

[toptoon]

IMO you can’t be against a name change with one owner in charge and then not mind when it’s another.
For a club with a tradition and importance to the city as ours, the name should not be changed and it was one of the worst things the FCB did.
Anyway, England was a Christian country the last time I looked and so I have no idea why a saint’s name would cause a problem (unless the Saudi’s have a plan to annex the North East).

[ex_pat_magpie]

IMO you can’t be against a name change with one owner in charge and then not mind when it’s another.
For a club with a tradition and importance to the city as ours, the name should not be changed and it was one of the worst things the FCB did.
Anyway, England was a Christian country the last time I looked and so I have no idea why a saint’s name would cause a problem (unless the Saudi’s have a plan to annex the North East).

Spot on with that reasoning.

[Zippity]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm still against it.

But...it wouldn't be a deal breaker and wouldn't be done to piss us off like fatso did. As Bill said, it would still be St James' to the rest of us. For how long, I know, but it's happened to so many clubs and we'd just be one more. It's inevitable, I reckon so I'm just trying to get used to the idea.

[Sclox]

Surely when/if the club is bought then St James Park is bought too...and is seen as an asset, not something to be offended by or want to change....unless there are financial/commercial benefits involved in which case you could have ".whatever" @ St James Park.

I dont see a problem with this....its all about the intent and respectful acknowledgement that the name is important and isn't cheapened in anyway and still remains.

[Ragatino]

With 80 per cent of the club to be owned by Saudies would these strict Muslims find it offensive to have a ground named after a Christian Saint.

I know many would balk at a name change but personally it is something I would put up with so that we could go for trophies and compete with the big boys yet again.

Living in Islamic countries for more than a decade I can assure you that Islam is respectful of all other religions and SJP will not be renamed.

so wouldn't worry about it.