Your Opinion: Who Should Sponsor the Stadium?

All Ur Stadium Are Belong to Us.

If you read An Epic Swindle: 44 Months with a Pair of Cowboys, you already know the proposed stadium design was one of the early rifts between Hicks and Gillette. Early on, it was clear the club needed more seating to increase revenue to be competitive. A sensible design was mocked up in 2003 and approved. The new stadium would have increased the capacity to a sensible 60,000 with room to grow. Unfortunately, no one had the money to pay for it. Hicks and Gillette took over in 2006 and Tom Hicks shredded the plans and hired a Dallas-based firm to design a spaceship looking monstrosity.

The Hicks plans have officially been buried forever as FSG as opted to proceed with the original stadium design from 2003. Using this design means they can tweak it a bit without having to get designs re-approved by the planning people which apparently takes years…and years…and years. This really is not surprising news at all. Judging by early reports a few months ago and even comments from Tom Werner and John W. Henry, it seemed that this would be the eventual course of action. The bigger question, however, is what shall this new home be called? Naming rights are key for the development so it has to be called SOMETHING.

What do you think, Kopites? If you had your choice of sponsors, who would it be? Would it be called Pepsi Arena? McDonald’s Park? Qantas Field? The News Desk would personally go for something like Trojan Personal Massager Bowl, but the News Desk is a sick little monkey.

 

31 thoughts on “Your Opinion: Who Should Sponsor the Stadium?

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:10 am
    Permalink

    Well, if the reported kit deal with Warrior comes off, and they want to extend their relationship with the club… WARRIOR STADIUM sounds awesome! Or cringe-worthily awful. Not decided which yet.

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:15 am
    Permalink

    Carlsberg Arena
     

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:15 am
    Permalink

    WHY NOT SPONSOR EACH STAND INDIVIDUALLY – AS WELL AS THE STADIUM ITSELF – A LADBROKES STAND (WITH A CASINO UNDERNEATH) – A CARLSBERG STAND MAYBE – THEY COULD STILL HAVE SHANKLY AND PAISLEY SUITES FOR FUNCTIONS ETC

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:16 am
    Permalink

    The “Where are We” stadium?

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:29 am
    Permalink

    is it wigan or warrington who have warriors ?

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:30 am
    Permalink

    LFC have Warrior starting 2012/13

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:37 am
    Permalink

    Double Cheeseburger Arena, or if its an overseas sponsor krankupthang Arena..haha. Just Kidding

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:43 am
    Permalink

    Apple Arena sounds like lots of  £££££££££££££££££ to me

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:43 am
    Permalink

    Stadium naming rights are a disgrace our home stadium should only be called one thing and that is ANFIELD…just look at all the p’eed off toon fans after it was announced that there home would be subject to a name change…. Y.N.W.A

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:47 am
    Permalink

    Apple’s too greedy to let go of any of their cash.

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:48 am
    Permalink

    Unfortunately, that’s the reality we live in. 

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:51 am
    Permalink

    agree.(Red) Apple arena was my first thought. if not maybe Sony Stadium

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:51 am
    Permalink

    Benji I understand your sentiments on this, but the club needs a partner to fund the stadium. We cant have it both ways, the stadium and no sponsors to fund it. Its the reality. Im sorry.

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:53 am
    Permalink

    Wigan warriors, and Warrington wolves.

  • January 17, 2012 at 9:57 am
    Permalink

    I think their more annoyed that it’s named after their owners company so their not generating extra money for it. But I do agree with you I don’t like the concept, but to be fair you can’t let your feelings and memories get in the way of the fact that this needs to be done to generate more money. Look how rich City are and theyve done it.

  • January 17, 2012 at 10:04 am
    Permalink

    Apple Park…

  • January 17, 2012 at 10:04 am
    Permalink

    The designed and built by Manc architects arena.

  • January 17, 2012 at 10:18 am
    Permalink

    Most likely gonna be a company from the states.
    Wall Mart Stadium ewwww
    Chevron Stadium nah.
    But we have to get used to this if we wanna be competitive in the long run.

  • January 17, 2012 at 11:11 am
    Permalink

    NEW ANFIELD ADIDAS ARENA

  • January 17, 2012 at 11:14 am
    Permalink

    APPLE all the way, richest company in the world and not a penny in dept. no brainer!

  • January 17, 2012 at 11:28 am
    Permalink

    How many supporters are there around the world? How about if it was sponsored by the supporters? If you got the supporters to give £10-£100 what they could afford then we could keep the name – Maybe New Anfield or Anfield Park

  • January 17, 2012 at 11:47 am
    Permalink

    They’re looking at the 2008 plans,not the 2003plans ! FACT !

  • January 17, 2012 at 11:49 am
    Permalink

    Anfield sponsored by coca cola. Will do me. Flagship company right colour brand and most importantly for me… The word anfield still involved. Saying that if anfield is to be broken away from…. Stanley park stadium sponsored by coca cola or even standard chartered also has a ring to it IMO

  • January 17, 2012 at 11:49 am
    Permalink

    surely ‘Apple Bowl’ would be more apt

  • January 17, 2012 at 1:12 pm
    Permalink

    I think Chartered Bank, the world’s local bank, should come in and sponsor this Stadium.

  • January 17, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    Permalink

    Goldman Sachs

  • January 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm
    Permalink

    Thats HSBC

  • January 17, 2012 at 5:51 pm
    Permalink

    no matter what it’s called, it’ll still be home.

Leave a Reply