The concept is so alien to Italians that Juve had to hold a presentation in Milan this week to explain what it was all about, and to look for sponsors. I went along hoping to speak to the directors about potential transfers but most of my Italian colleagues asked question after question about this strange new marketing trend.

Having attended the first game at the Reebok Stadium in Bolton 11 years ago, I’ve become rather used to the idea and don’t think it differs much to sponsored shirts.

Certainly in the case of Bolton Wanderers, the revenue from the sponsorship deal has gone a long way to helping them stay in the Premier League. Several of Germany’s excellent stadiums built ahead of the 2006 World Cup are sponsored, like Munich’s Allianz Arena, and fans there are generally happy.

But should we be worried about where all this is heading? Does every time we mention the name sound like an advert?

The Veltins Arena in Gelsenkirchen sounds better than Arena AufSchalke, but do we really want existing stadiums changing their names? Hamburg’s stadium changed sponsors after just six years.

Many basketball and cycling teams in Europe even have sponsors in their name. I don’t think fans will want major soccer clubs to go that far, but it has already been tried with TNS in Wales and others will definitely follow.

Mark Meadows, Reuters Sports Correspondent in Milan

For a change this week, vlogmeister Owen Wyatt and Deputy Sports Editor Jon Bramley decided to discuss the bottom end of the Premier League. 

Jon thinks Fulham should have stuck with coach Lawrie Sanchez for longer but Owen disagrees. What do you think? Little has improved under Roy Hodgson and the west London club look poised to follow Derby County through the Premier League trapdoor.

Bolton Wanderers, who qualified for the UEFA Cup under former boss Sam Allardyce last season, are next in line to go down. Their troubles can surely be linked to the decison to sell Nicolas Anelka to Chelsea without buying a suitable replacement. 

Leave us your thoughts in the comments below, or better still record your own video musings, post them up to youtube or wherever tagged “vlog on the pitch” and if we like them we’ll put them up here.

Where else could you learn at a glance that your claret and blue squad could be either West Ham, Burnley or Aston Villa, or that Plymouth Argyle were the only team in the Football League to play in green shirts (as did amateur giants Hendon) and that Blackpool were unique for being the only team to play in tangerine.

I thought of that old chart for the first time in years this week as Bolton, Fulham and Derby County edged closer to relegation from the Premier League.

Forget about logos and sponsors names, as far as my generation is concerned all three teams play in identical kits — white shirts and black shorts — and they are on the brink of becoming the subject of a future pub quiz trivia question.

Q: What was unique about the relegation of Bolton, Fulham and Derby in 2008?

A: It was the first time three teams wearing identical colours were relegated together.

Derby are already doomed but if Bolton and Fulham join them — and that is far from certain as yet — it will be because they haven’t played well enough, not because of the colour of their shirts.

But is there anything in a club’s colours that determines its success rate? Bill Shankly certainly thought so, changing Liverpool’s kit from red shirts and white shorts to all-red in the early Sixties. He believed that it made Liverpool look more intimidating and perhaps he had a point, perhaps not.

Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal, the three most successful clubs in English soccer all wear red, but Real Madrid, nine times European champions, play in all-white.

You can argue it until you are blue in the face, of course. Or in the case of Bolton, Fulham and Derby, white with fear as the prospect of Championship football edges closer.

PHOTO: New Derby owners pose with manager Paul Jewell in January 2008. REUTERS/Darren Staples