Matty
Well-Known Member
Oliver Holt is seemingly trying to pick an argument with City fans, or curry favour with opposition fans with his recent comments regarding Manchester City and the renaming of the Stadium. Either that or he's positively clueless.
His first argument is that, in changing the stadium name, City have decided to “…sell a piece of their soul…”. Really? I’m not so sure Ollie, what you need to do is look at the actual individual situation. Changing the name of a stadium that has only been our home for 8 seasons, as opposed to the 80 we spent at Maine Road, is completely different. People rarely call the ground The City of Manchester Stadium, which is (was) its official name. More often than not it is referred to as Eastlands, so if people already have different names for it, and no-one really cares about any of them; why not take the revenue from selling the naming rights to a commercial partner?
Had this been Maine Road then the reaction of City fans would have been vastly different. I, for one, would have been outraged. The ground I grew up watching (truly awful) City teams play at. The ground graced by such footballing talents as Summerbee, Lee, Bell, Trautmann and Pollock. The ground where the last title winning side played their games. That grounds name was sacred, the name Maine Road was synonymous with Manchester City, the chants which are still sung today proclaim our heritage, with pride. Change Maine Road to Etihad Stadium? Out of the question. Change The City of Manchester Stadium to Etihad Stadium? Yeah, why not, who really cares? I could never see “We are City, Super City, from The City of Manchester Stadium” catching on anyway if I’m being honest.
Holt then comes back to the actual name, Etihad Stadium. His claims? Etihad means United, so City now play at United Stadium. It’s been said before, when Etihad became the official shirt sponsor, by ill-informed and barely literate United “fans”. The thing is, Mr Holt, you’re supposed to be an educated man, and more so, you’re supposed to be a professional journalist. I’d assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this would mean you’d be better informed than the average knuckle dragging United customer. Why do I say this? Well, without beating around the bush too much Mr Holt, you’re wrong. Etihad does not mean United. The CEO of Etihad Airways, James Hogan, gives the translation of Etihad as “Union” whereas if you were to ask Manchester City Council’s translation service for their official translation you’d discover they have it down as “Unity”. Now, you may argue that Union, Unity and United are pretty much the same thing and yes, in pure language terms, you may have a point, there are certainly similarities. However this isn’t an English Language GCSE course, this is the real World, if you believe Union, Unity and United are the same thing then lets make a deal, for the entire 2011-2012 season, how about you refer to Manchester United as Manchester Union in all your columns? No? Exactly. It’s the context that matters, and in this context United and Union (Etihad) are as different as Villa and Apartment.
Now, for Oliver Holt’s final, and probably most ridiculous statement. He asks “Is it acceptable then to change name of team, too? Presuming all in favour of Etihad Stadium would be fine with Etihad City as name of team”. Now, I’m really trying hard here to fight my initial, base, reaction, which is to launch into a torrent of Twitter based abuse at Mr Holt. The premise is so monumentally stupid, the comparison so inaccurate and inane, that it barely deserves anything more than my derision. But I’ll try. Manchester City began life in 1880 as St Marks; they briefly merged with Gorton Athletic in 1884 before demerging and taking the name Gorton AFC. In 1887 they turned professional and took the name Ardwick FC. 7 years later Manchester City Football Club came into being, and has been the name ever since. So, that’s 117 years of the club being called Manchester City Football Club, since 1894. That’s a whole 29 years prior to City moving to their old ground of Maine Road. Are you honestly trying to compare City selling the naming rights to a ground we’ve not spent a decade playing in to City changing a name they’ve held for well over a century? It’s a nonsensical argument. Under even the most rudimentary examination it falls completely flat. There would be many, myself included, that would view the mere suggestion that the two are the same and that, by the ready acceptance of one, we are demonstrating our willingness to throw away our club name, and with it our heritage and soul, with anger.
I find it hard to believe that a man who I’m sure loves his football as much as Oliver Holt must do can be so stupendously ill-informed and idiotic as his statements seem to indicate. That can only lead me to one conclusion, Oliver Holt is intentionally making these statements to drum up interest in himself, he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he can’t back up his statements, it’s all a ploy. If this is the case, well, I’m not sure whether I find that more or less irritating.
What I will say is this, whatever the motivation or motives behind the statements, they reflect extremely poorly on you Mr Holt. You are either a conniving, underhanded, sneaky individual whose sole aim is to bait the crowd and bask in the infamy, or else you are a Luddite, a buffoon, a man woefully ill-equipped to perform the job you are paid (very) well to do.
His first argument is that, in changing the stadium name, City have decided to “…sell a piece of their soul…”. Really? I’m not so sure Ollie, what you need to do is look at the actual individual situation. Changing the name of a stadium that has only been our home for 8 seasons, as opposed to the 80 we spent at Maine Road, is completely different. People rarely call the ground The City of Manchester Stadium, which is (was) its official name. More often than not it is referred to as Eastlands, so if people already have different names for it, and no-one really cares about any of them; why not take the revenue from selling the naming rights to a commercial partner?
Had this been Maine Road then the reaction of City fans would have been vastly different. I, for one, would have been outraged. The ground I grew up watching (truly awful) City teams play at. The ground graced by such footballing talents as Summerbee, Lee, Bell, Trautmann and Pollock. The ground where the last title winning side played their games. That grounds name was sacred, the name Maine Road was synonymous with Manchester City, the chants which are still sung today proclaim our heritage, with pride. Change Maine Road to Etihad Stadium? Out of the question. Change The City of Manchester Stadium to Etihad Stadium? Yeah, why not, who really cares? I could never see “We are City, Super City, from The City of Manchester Stadium” catching on anyway if I’m being honest.
Holt then comes back to the actual name, Etihad Stadium. His claims? Etihad means United, so City now play at United Stadium. It’s been said before, when Etihad became the official shirt sponsor, by ill-informed and barely literate United “fans”. The thing is, Mr Holt, you’re supposed to be an educated man, and more so, you’re supposed to be a professional journalist. I’d assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this would mean you’d be better informed than the average knuckle dragging United customer. Why do I say this? Well, without beating around the bush too much Mr Holt, you’re wrong. Etihad does not mean United. The CEO of Etihad Airways, James Hogan, gives the translation of Etihad as “Union” whereas if you were to ask Manchester City Council’s translation service for their official translation you’d discover they have it down as “Unity”. Now, you may argue that Union, Unity and United are pretty much the same thing and yes, in pure language terms, you may have a point, there are certainly similarities. However this isn’t an English Language GCSE course, this is the real World, if you believe Union, Unity and United are the same thing then lets make a deal, for the entire 2011-2012 season, how about you refer to Manchester United as Manchester Union in all your columns? No? Exactly. It’s the context that matters, and in this context United and Union (Etihad) are as different as Villa and Apartment.
Now, for Oliver Holt’s final, and probably most ridiculous statement. He asks “Is it acceptable then to change name of team, too? Presuming all in favour of Etihad Stadium would be fine with Etihad City as name of team”. Now, I’m really trying hard here to fight my initial, base, reaction, which is to launch into a torrent of Twitter based abuse at Mr Holt. The premise is so monumentally stupid, the comparison so inaccurate and inane, that it barely deserves anything more than my derision. But I’ll try. Manchester City began life in 1880 as St Marks; they briefly merged with Gorton Athletic in 1884 before demerging and taking the name Gorton AFC. In 1887 they turned professional and took the name Ardwick FC. 7 years later Manchester City Football Club came into being, and has been the name ever since. So, that’s 117 years of the club being called Manchester City Football Club, since 1894. That’s a whole 29 years prior to City moving to their old ground of Maine Road. Are you honestly trying to compare City selling the naming rights to a ground we’ve not spent a decade playing in to City changing a name they’ve held for well over a century? It’s a nonsensical argument. Under even the most rudimentary examination it falls completely flat. There would be many, myself included, that would view the mere suggestion that the two are the same and that, by the ready acceptance of one, we are demonstrating our willingness to throw away our club name, and with it our heritage and soul, with anger.
I find it hard to believe that a man who I’m sure loves his football as much as Oliver Holt must do can be so stupendously ill-informed and idiotic as his statements seem to indicate. That can only lead me to one conclusion, Oliver Holt is intentionally making these statements to drum up interest in himself, he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he can’t back up his statements, it’s all a ploy. If this is the case, well, I’m not sure whether I find that more or less irritating.
What I will say is this, whatever the motivation or motives behind the statements, they reflect extremely poorly on you Mr Holt. You are either a conniving, underhanded, sneaky individual whose sole aim is to bait the crowd and bask in the infamy, or else you are a Luddite, a buffoon, a man woefully ill-equipped to perform the job you are paid (very) well to do.