What's In A Name?

Though we have more pressing problems with managerial competence and team performance, isn't it time, and wouldn't it be nice if we could start the 2007-2008 season with an appropriate and generally acceptable name for our marvellous new home ground.

Let's face it, the chosen name, The City of Manchester Stadium, isn't popular because it's too ponderous for ordinary conversation and use. Other barbaric names have come into fashion, the most popular, at least with local radio, being Eastlands, the name of the original brownfield site; but really, what a dreary name to give our award winning architectural marvel. It brings to mind scenes of winter landscapes in Siberia.

Ideally, the new name needs to pay tribute to the people of Manchester for their vision in building such a magnificent stadium and also reflect the direct association with Manchester City FC, who are certain to be playing their Premiership matches in the Stadium for at least the next 200 years.

But the choice of a name has been dogged from the start by the similarity of 'The City of Manchester Stadium' and 'The Manchester City Stadium'. Meaning entirely different things, it is understandable that the Manchester City Council should prefer the former and Manchester City FC the latter. The problem would be solved at once, of course, if the Council agreed to the latter. The name would then certainly, in common usage, be contracted to 'City Stadium', and who then could be sure if what was meant was the 'Stadium of the City of Manchester', or the 'Stadium of Manchester City FC'.

There is no doubt that in time the whole of Sportcity will be dominated by the Super Casino and casino interests, including Manchester City FC, and the only way to preserve the Stadium's heritage from future brand/commercial interest would be to rename it, 'The Manchester City Stadium'.

Bob Walsh

Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.