OPINION: A ground by any other name...

This week, Mike Ashley, the owner of Newcastle United, caused uproar on Tyneside, with ripples across the whole football world, when he announced that St. James's Park, the iconic ground that the team has played in since 1892, would be "rebranded" the Sports Direct Arena.

My gut reaction, along with most football fans, was how dreadful this decision was; a commercial brand trampling over decades of football history purely for financial reasons. Ashley's millions come from Soprts Direct, a firm that produces cheap sports gear, and he defends the decision as a temporary example of what a big external sponsor could do - he reckons a deal with ground naming, shirt sponsorship, etc. could bring in an extra £10 million, enough for a new player.

So, the grounds name is changing now and will probably change again in a couple of years. Tramp down the years of history why don't you?

But actually, is it a problem? Has Mike Ashley got a point?

Newcastle are riding high in the Premier League (currently 3rd, the highest they've been in over a decade) but, in the international market for fans, memorabilia and replica shirts, they're nowhere compared to the Manchester Uniteds and liverpools of this world. Newcastle United need to get more cash from somewhere if they hope to compete on anything approaching equal terms.

Some clubs, like Chelsea and Manchester City, have incredibly wealthy owners who plough tens of millions of pounds into those clubs. The owners of those teams make Mike Ashley look poverety-stricken. many argue that their success has been bought. the fans of those clubs don't seem to care while the silverware keeps being collected.

So, maybe the fans need to just bite the bullet and accept the change; the history is still there, that can't be taken away, the team are the same, does the name of the ground matter?

What if the team changed names?

A few years ago Wimbledon was taken over, moved to Milton Keynes and renamed MK Dons. It was a very controversial move, lead to protests and and questions in parliament, but it saved a team on the brink of a financial precipis.

If Mike Ashley wants big money why doesn't he rebrand the team? Anyone for McDonald's United? Microsoft Athletic perhaps? Daily Star Toon?

I don't see that happening just yet but why not? In the world of brass bands many bands have sponsored names attached to an existing historic name or simply replacing it. The band gets the money it needs to operate, the sponsor gets the publicity it wants and everyone is happy.

Would it matter if the team name changed? Really?

I think it'll have to happen within my lifetime if football is to survive as a major business. Without new and imaginative ways of financing the sport many teams will go to the wall over he next few decades.