Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:16 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

not toyota, but im not pedandic, its called accurate

No it isn't. Just because a company pays taxes in Britain does not make it a British company. By your definition there would be no foreign companies operating in Britain. They would all be British because they would all be paying taxes to the British government; something companies have to do if they operate in Britain. Pilkington can no longer sell itself as it does not own itself. It lost its identity as a British company the minute it was bought by a Japanese company. It probably lost its identity as a St Helens company years ago.

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:40 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

No it isn't. Just because a company pays taxes in Britain does not make it a British company. By your definition there would be no foreign companies operating in Britain. They would all be British because they would all be paying taxes to the British government; something companies have to do if they operate in Britain. Pilkington can no longer sell itself as it does not own itself. It lost its identity as a British company the minute it was bought by a Japanese company. It probably lost its identity as a St Helens company years ago.

just because you want something to be true doesnt make it so, and saying a false statement many times doesnt make it any less false. i'd have thought you'd have learnt that life lesson by now. I suggest you research the facts before stating your opinion as fact

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:59 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

just because you want something to be true doesnt make it so, and saying a false statement many times doesnt make it any less false. i'd have thought you'd have learnt that life lesson by now. I suggest you research the facts before stating your opinion as fact

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:34 am  

stantheman wrote:

What about ---------- (sponsor name) St. Helens RED CHEVRON Stadium. Chevron being a stripe or a "V".

Chevron is one of the biggest oil and power companies, I see what you say about the V but you have to be careful with names and also it may upset the main sponsor.

You struggle these days to find a really true UK company which is sad and all governments have been happy to see off our great history, Typhoo in 2005 was sold to Apeejay Surrendra Group one of India's largest tea companies and we send international aid monies to India??

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:56 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

just because you want something to be true doesnt make it so, and saying a false statement many times doesnt make it any less false. i'd have thought you'd have learnt that life lesson by now. I suggest you research the facts before stating your opinion as fact

I have indeed learned a life lesson on here. It is that some people, when confronted with the fact that they have made a silly statement in one of their replies to me will resort to personal digs rather than simply admit they have made a silly statement.

In response to Pete's claim that Pilks is a St Helens company I said it was a Japanese company. You brought in the matter of company law by stating that I was totally ignorant of it, which indeed I am. However, you cited that because Pilks pay taxes to the British government, that makes them a British company. I then suggested on that basis that Heinz and Toyota would be British companies. We both know they are not and you acknowledged Toyota was not. Do Toyota not pay taxes to the British government then? Of course they do. But that doesn't make them a British company. Just a company operating in Britain.

Marks & Spencer is a British company. It began life as such and it has sold itself to no-one. Beechams used to be a British company, indeed a St Helens company, but it sold itself to SmithKlein and was eventually swallowed up by them. But we still have Beechams Powders and I'm sure any manufacturing that goes on by SmithKelin over here will result in taxes being paid to the British government. Boots were once an independent British company. However, they are now owned by another organisation (I dont know whether it is a company or a partnership). I believe that organisation is actually British. If I'm right then Boots remains a British company but it is not an independent one. Its future is decided by the organisation which owns it. The same applies to Pilks, even though Pilks directors still make decisions about the business in this country and the Japanese company who bought Pilks still honours the work of the Trust to the former staff (such as my auntie) who were being cared for at the time of the takeover.

According to something I read recently, I can't remember where, Saints is actually the largest 'St Helens company' now.

But anyway. Enough of that. I still don't think 'halo' should be included in any name given to the Saints stadium!

jaybs - I didn't know that about Typhoo. What a shame.

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:59 am  

jaybs wrote:

we send international aid monies to India??

I think the present government took India and China off the international aid list when they first came to power.

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:05 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

I think the present government took India and China off the international aid list when they first came to power.

I'm not sure about china but I'm sure I watched or read something the other week that we send millions a year to India as international aid, yet India economy is growing at a faster rate than ours and in less debt.

Think it was on something like newsnight?

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:09 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

I have indeed learned a life lesson on here. It is that some people, when confronted with the fact that they have made a silly statement in one of their replies to me will resort to personal digs rather than simply admit they have made a silly statement.

In response to Pete's claim that Pilks is a St Helens company I said it was a Japanese company. You brought in the matter of company law by stating that I was totally ignorant of it, which indeed I am. However, you cited that because Pilks pay taxes to the British government, that makes them a British company. I then suggested on that basis that Heinz and Toyota would be British companies. We both know they are not and you acknowledged Toyota was not. Do Toyota not pay taxes to the British government then? Of course they do. But that doesn't make them a British company. Just a company operating in Britain.

Marks & Spencer is a British company. It began life as such and it has sold itself to no-one. Beechams used to be a British company, indeed a St Helens company, but it sold itself to SmithKlein and was eventually swallowed up by them. But we still have Beechams Powders and I'm sure any manufacturing that goes on by SmithKelin over here will result in taxes being paid to the British government. Boots were once an independent British company. However, they are now owned by another organisation (I dont know whether it is a company or a partnership). I believe that organisation is actually British. If I'm right then Boots remains a British company but it is not an independent one. Its future is decided by the organisation which owns it. The same applies to Pilks, even though Pilks directors still make decisions about the business in this country and the Japanese company who bought Pilks still honours the work of the Trust to the former staff (such as my auntie) who were being cared for at the time of the takeover.

According to something I read recently, I can't remember where, Saints is actually the largest 'St Helens company' now.

But anyway. Enough of that. I still don't think 'halo' should be included in any name given to the Saints stadium!

jaybs - I didn't know that about Typhoo. What a shame.

are you insinuating i've made a personal "dig" at you? if so where?
i could point out your errors in the the beechams affair, but it has little revelance.
as ever, you cannot bring any sort of evidence for your argument so fall to your fall back position of "they must be having a go at me because they disagree with me" instead of even considering the fact that you may not be correct.

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:17 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

are you insinuating i've made a personal "dig" at you? if so where?

Here:
just because you want something to be true doesnt make it so, and saying a false statement many times doesnt make it any less false. i'd have thought you'd have learnt that life lesson by now. I suggest you research the facts before stating your opinion as fact
You could have responded with a number of alternative approaches but instead you decided to go for 'false statement' and 'I thought you would have learned that life lesson now'. Patronising, accusative statements. Personal digs. Quite obvious really.

i could point out your errors in the the beechams affair, but it has little revelance.

Really? Oh. Or is it that you could not? Beechams is still a British company is it?

as ever, you cannot bring any sort of evidence for your argument so fall to your fall back position of "they must be having a go at me because they disagree with me" instead of even considering the fact that you may not be correct.

What evidence do you suggest I bring? That a Japanese company did not actually buy Pilks? Because they did. That is a fact. Whether that constitutes a takeover of a British company by a foreign one to you or not it is still a fact. It constitutes a takeover by a foreign company to me, making the company itself a foreign company, simply because Pilks is no longer in charge of its own destiny. The Japanese company is.

This is pointless and ridiculous. You have the last word if you want. But I'm not engaging in this anymore.

Re: Stadium Naming Rights : Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:27 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Here:
just because you want something to be true doesnt make it so, and saying a false statement many times doesnt make it any less false. i'd have thought you'd have learnt that life lesson by now. I suggest you research the facts before stating your opinion as fact
You could have responded with a number of alternative approaches but instead you decided to go for 'false statement' and 'I thought you would have learned that life lesson now'. Patronising, accusative statements. Personal digs. Quite obvious really.

I have merely suggested you provide some evidence for your argument, how you interpet that as a personal dig i cannot phathom