http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 920888.ece
Ahhh... the cost of progress!
Lord's redevelopment
-
Boba Fett
- Silver
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:20 pm
- Location: Sydney
-
the crow
- Gold
- Posts: 2487
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:26 pm
- Location: In the CPD biatches
The picture on the article is naive at best, is it done on purpose to take away focus on the massive apartment blocks in the background....HDM, you can do better than that, no access to the stands and magical roofs, it’s all a load of garbage, overpowering the media centre, one of my favourite buildings in the world....boo lords boo, as for naming rights..... 
...monkeys bolloks
...monkeys bolloks-
Egan
- Platinum
- Posts: 14959
- Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 1:14 am
- Location: Perth
- Contact:
They can't be serious?-
RobertHeatleyStand
- Silver
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:19 pm
- Location: Princes Park
Lords ...the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union, understood to be seeking £1 million-a-year naming rights deals for Wembley Stadium and Twickenham.
I think there's something special for a stadium that can resist the corporate dollar and retain it's historical name.
The prospect of these three iconic 'homes of their respective sports' changing names every few years is just sad.
-
swede
- Bronze
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:12 am
- Location: scandinavia
then dont worry. Its not happening. It has already been flatly denied and the low numbers in the article you guote pretty much gives it away as nonsense. If there is in any substance to it at all, its probably considerations about how the venues might use sponsors in connection with their names without actually changing them. Then the low numbers might make sense.RobertHeatleyStand wrote:Lords ...the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union, understood to be seeking £1 million-a-year naming rights deals for Wembley Stadium and Twickenham.
I think there's something special for a stadium that can resist the corporate dollar and retain it's historical name.
The prospect of these three iconic 'homes of their respective sports' changing names every few years is just sad.
There arent many major stadiums with a sponsored name in Britain. I may overlook something but amongst the top 20-30 venues I can only think of arsenal´s Emirates stadium. and that was a new build.
For new stadiums its not a bad thing in my opinion. As long as the name is not pathetic and deals are long-term, why not take the easy money. What makes a sponsor, anyway. Emirates contributed to Arsenal´s stadium just like mr. Lord contributed to that cricket ground centuries ago.
-
swede
- Bronze
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:12 am
- Location: scandinavia
I cant see why those apartment blocks should be that controversial. They dont appear much higher than what already surrounds the ground on the other sides, and they are likely a bit further away as they are beyond the nursery ground as well.the crow wrote:The picture on the article is naive at best, is it done on purpose to take away focus on the massive apartment blocks in the background....HDM, you can do better than that, no access to the stands and magical roofs, it’s all a load of garbage, overpowering the media centre, one of my favourite buildings in the world....boo lords boo, as for naming rights.....
The development of that end seem excellent to me. The view from all those seats should be little less than perfect and thats what test cricket needs. quality, not quantity. Expanding the nursery ground to be able to stage fc cricket there is a great move that will keep Lord´s a very busy place just like the underground academy and expansions to the library and museum.
The most controversial stuff will likely be at the pavillion end, where they dont seem to have released images even though they probably have some since they are now giving an exact future capacity.