Hi, folks. A long-time lurker but first-time contributor here. I'm finding this discussion quite interesting so wanted to chuck my thoughts into the mix.
There's varied opinions on how Celtic have been allowed to re-brand (yes, a couple of signs and some seat covers does count as re-branding IMHO) our club's stadium. I can totally understand that the club's board are looking to maximise income and I have no issues with the stadium being rented out for any other team's use. Ground sharing is hardly a new idea.
When my Father passed from a terminal illness, my family and I struggled with finding a suitable memorial. Getting something like a plaque at the memorial garden or naming a bench in a park didn't seem appropriate as these weren't relevant to his life. Something that was very relevant to his life was following St. Mirren and when the club advertised the possibility to "buy a brick" on the stadium wall I was delighted with the idea. Spending £100 to have a name on a slate and stuck to a wall maybe isn't the grandest memorial for a person's life but it meant a lot to us in far more important terms than that.
Many on here have argued that the Celtic signage on our club's stadium wall is an irrelevance and that the deal made good fiscal sense. That is all well and good but I can't help but feel let down by the custodians of our club. I strongly believe that Celtic, along with the other half of the Old Firm, are a horrible institution that have exploited one of the worst aspects of Scottish "culture" for their own gain. To know that my Father's memorial has shared a wall with anything to do with publicising and promoting a club like Celtic has left a bad taste in my mouth.
I commend the current board for trying to raise funds for the club (the recent idea of using the grounds for airport parking is a great one!) but I hope that they realise that St. Mirren Park means a bit more to some people in an emotional sense.