Would you accept Villa Park being sponsored ?

[eastie]

Depends whether the money is spent on the team or not.

[The Laughing Policeman]

No!!! F*ck Modern Football and the evils like that.

^^. This.

[Legion]

This II.

[garyshawsknee]

This II.

This tres.

[JJ-AV]

Providing the money goes towards making us a force again, yeah.

[Ad@m]

Selling the sponsorship to a ground everyone will still call Villa Park won't raise more than about 50p.

There really isn't any point cheapening the place for it.

[The Laughing Policeman]

Providing the money goes towards making us a force again, yeah.

Nice to see that there's still one person alive who can remember the day's in the nineteenth century.

[rutski]

the money brought in would not make a slightest bit of difference in our standing in the premier league so a big NO!

[TimTheVillain]

the money brought in would not make a slightest bit of difference in our standing in the premier league so a big NO!

Explain.

[Ad@m]

Man City have spent more than half a BILLION pound since 2007 and what have they got to show for it? 

Ground sponsorship rights really are tinkering around the edges.  The way the Premier League is now, unless you are a multi-billionaire you simply cannot get a club in to a position to regularly challenge.  I don't particularly like it but we cannot compete with the top clubs anymore so why ruin the reputation of Aston Villa trying?

[Dave]

the money brought in would not make a slightest bit of difference in our standing in the premier league so a big NO!

Explain.

The money it would bring in would probably be the difference between us being able to offer a 12 month contract to James McFadden or deciding to make do without him.

Worth bothering with or not?

[Mortimer4England]

It should never be sponsored, I am proud that our ground remains true to the club...Villa Park it must stay

[TimTheVillain]

Man City have spent more than half a BILLION pound since 2007 and what have they got to show for it? 

Ground sponsorship rights really are tinkering around the edges.  The way the Premier League is now, unless you are a multi-billionaire you simply cannot get a club in to a position to regularly challenge.  I don't particularly like it but we cannot compete with the top clubs anymore so why ruin the reputation of Aston Villa trying?

Because without trying, we are nothing.

It would not ruin our reputation, we have a reputation of 'living on 1982' already.

As for 'offer a 12 month contract to McFadden', replace with 'keep the likes of Darren Bent, as we could begin to sign a couple of £10 mill players per season, rather than one, and not having to offload loads of players as the wages are out of kilter with turnover'.

Worth bothering with that.

[ozzjim]

I wouldn't have the slightest problem with. Someone gives us a few quid, we still call it Villa Park.

Same here, I just can't see the issue. It would still be Villa park to all and sundry, but we would have 50 million plus in the bank. I would assign it to 5million per season for the next 5 on just wages, and 25 for players.

[Dave]

As for 'offer a 12 month contract to McFadden', replace with 'keep the likes of Darren Bent, as we could begin to sign a couple of £10 mill players per season, rather than one, and not having to offload loads of players as the wages are out of kilter with turnover'.

Worth bothering with that.

It would be worth bothering with that, but you seem to have hilariously over-valued what somebody is likely to pay for the names rights of a stadium that anybody who is not contractually-obliged to will still call Villa Park. People aren't stupid.

A question for you Tim, which was the last stadium that was renamed and how much did the sponsor pay for the rights per season?

Edit: to answer my own question, when was the last time you heard anybody refer to the SportsDirect.com @ St. James' Park Stadium?