Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Toronto Villa on December 07, 2014, 12:09:09 AM
-
Are Aston Villa going to rename the Holte End?
Dec 06, 2014 23:13 By Steve Wollaston
Sunday People reporter writes that the club are looking to rename the Holte End
Aston Villa are putting the naming rights for the Holte End up for grabs, Neil Moxley can exclusively reveal in our sister paper the Sunday People.
Moxley reports that the club is undertaking a major new sponsorship drive and one of the most iconic stands in English football could be given a new moniker.
Villa have recently installed a new chief executive, Tom Fox, and are recruiting a commercial director. And part of the brief was to raise funds through selling the naming rights of the stands at Villa Park.
The Holte End, which was once the largest terrace in English football holding 22,500 fans, would be the obvious starting point as it remains the favoured stand for the club’s hardcore support.
Owner Randy Lerner has a background in American sport where such deals are commonplace – although the Birmingham club has always maintained that the stadium itself will not undergo a name change.
Dave Woodhall, of the Heroes and Villains website, said: “Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
“It wouldn’t bother me if we saw a new £20million striker banging in a goal at the LG Arena End, for example.
“However, there is a section of our supporters who would be against it.”
Putting aside the obvious emotional attachment we all have to the stand and Villa Park in general, I don't see this as a major issue. As with any incoming revenue, be it a top player being sold or something like this it's more about what is done with it. If we are able to compete at the right end of the table because of commercial ventures then it's all good. If we squander the money as we have time and time again throughout our history, and in recent years especially then the renaming becomes another stick to beat the club with. Tom Fox needs to be given some rope to come up with much needed finances for the club so I'd like to see what he's got. This is his first shot across the bow and it will certainly be received with mixed opinions. It will always be The Holte End to most of us irrespective of what it might be called officially in the coming months.
-
Middlesbrough's grounds called the Cellnet Stadium, but you never hear anyone call it that. It would always be the Holte End to me, but changing the name would bother me if it benifited our financial position.
-
Villa have recently installed a new chief executive, Tom Fox, and are recruiting a commercial director.
This is the most important part to me. Tom Fox has seen that commercial income isn't good enough and wants to do something about it.
-
Any new sponsor is going to be seriously naffed off when people continue to call it the Holte End, rather than some new name.
It won't matter to the majority how much money has changed hands.
-
I can think of a different stand that few would object to renaming.
-
No thanks.
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
-
"Sponsor our stand and you'll enjoy the ROI of having your name mentioned in the dying minutes of MOTD every week."
-
Everyone will still call it the Holte End, so might as well get some cash for it.
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
Should we also not bother with shirt sponsorship, pitchside advertising or any other commercial deal?
-
The fact thats its the Holte End will always cause friction. Any if the other 3 would cause such a stir.
-
How many under 30 still call it the Witton Lane Stand? How many still call it the Witton End instead of North Stand? I always say North Stand as that's what it has been called all my Villa time as an example.
-
The fact thats its the Holte End will always cause friction. Any if the other 3 would cause such a stir.
The story says 'stands' plural.
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
Should we also not bother with shirt sponsorship, pitchside advertising or any other commercial deal?
What difference will £10m quid or so make? Until we get rid of the Lambert Lerner partnership we wont see any success anyway because neither have the nous for it, so I'd rather not sell what remains of our soul to give him a bit extra in his budget to continue to fuck up.
With a new manager and a chairman, possibly, with these two, no thanks.
-
I wonder how much such a deal would raise.
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
Should we also not bother with shirt sponsorship, pitchside advertising or any other commercial deal?
What difference will £10m quid or so make? Until we get rid of the Lambert Lerner partnership we wont see any success anyway because neither have the nous for it, so I'd rather not sell what remains of our soul to give him a bit extra in his budget to continue to fuck up.
With a new manager and a chairman, possibly, with these two, no thanks.
So you'd rather we had no money coming in, just because.
-
I'd be amazed if a deal involving all four stands raised £10m a season at a club that is no longer high profile (sadly).
Such an amount is about a sixth the figure guaranteed by the current domestic TV deal per season. Sounds like we'd be selling alot for not much in return.
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
Should we also not bother with shirt sponsorship, pitchside advertising or any other commercial deal?
What difference will £10m quid or so make? Until we get rid of the Lambert Lerner partnership we wont see any success anyway because neither have the nous for it, so I'd rather not sell what remains of our soul to give him a bit extra in his budget to continue to fuck up.
With a new manager and a chairman, possibly, with these two, no thanks.
So you'd rather we had no money coming in, just because.
Where did I say no money?
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
Should we also not bother with shirt sponsorship, pitchside advertising or any other commercial deal?
What difference will £10m quid or so make? Until we get rid of the Lambert Lerner partnership we wont see any success anyway because neither have the nous for it, so I'd rather not sell what remains of our soul to give him a bit extra in his budget to continue to fuck up.
With a new manager and a chairman, possibly, with these two, no thanks.
So you'd rather we had no money coming in, just because.
Where did I say no money?
Where do you draw the line then? You're happy with our current deals but you don't want them bettered because it would mean the manager had more to spend.
-
Who said this deal would mean more money for the manager to spend?
-
Who said this deal would mean more money for the manager to spend?
Why else would we rename the stands?
-
Who said this deal would mean more money for the manager to spend?
Why else would we rename the stands?
Well it seems to be the automatic assumption that such a deal will generate funds for the manager. But who says this is true? Who says the current manager will get extra funds from such a con trick?
-
I hate the thought of The Holte being renamed but it's hardly a con trick.
-
They can call it whatever they like for a few quid.
The important thing is, those that used to stand on it and those now that sit (mostly) in it, those away fans that used to face the old terrace in awe and now face the new stand in slightly less awe will still know it as the Holte End. Nothing else matters.
-
I hate the thought of The Holte being renamed but it's hardly a con trick.
It'll be a huge con trick for whoever is dumb enough to buy naming rights only to hear it refered to as "the Holte End."
-
I hate the thought of The Holte being renamed but it's hardly a con trick.
I agree it's not a con trick just very distasteful.
-
I don't understand at all the con trick point. How is it a con when we are all being made aware of it? And even clubs with significantly higher starting point in revenue have done it. In an ideal world we wouldn't be doing this and we'd have sufficient funds available through our existing ventures to compete adequately.
The ideal world is a story from the past told to kids before bed. It's over. This is the new world, and we are either a part of it or we are a dinosaur and others will just zip by and leave us for dead. What do you want it to be?
-
I hate the thought of The Holte being renamed but it's hardly a con trick.
It'll be a huge con trick for whoever is dumb enough to buy naming rights only to hear it refered to as "the Holte End."
It's still not a con trick as they'll have their name on the stand, on tickets for the stand, in the programme, the club will call it the new name etc. A con by very definition would be taking their money and giving nothing in return.
Just because we'll still call it the Holte End doesn't make it a con, and as years pass so will fans calling it the Holte, as witnessed by more more calling it the Doug Ellis stand, only us old bastards still call it Witton Lane, a whole generation don't remember it being called that.
-
I hate the thought of The Holte being renamed but it's hardly a con trick.
It'll be a huge con trick for whoever is dumb enough to buy naming rights only to hear it refered to as "the Holte End."
do you really think it will matter to the sponsor if Villa fans call it by the new name? Or will it matter more to them if it gets called by its new commercial name in every media release and on TV, radio and online across the world whenever we play a game or the stand is mentioned?
-
For the hard of thinking:
Person A hands over £X million in an agreement that states that the Holte End will in future be known as the Person A Stand.
People who regularly refer to the Holte End as the Holte End continue to refer to the Holte End as the Holte End.
Person A is unhappy about this, but Aston Villa point out that they are not actually able to control what others call the Holte End, sorry I mean the Person A stand.
-
How much money would naming the stand generate?
-
Do Bolton Wanderers still play at the Reebok? (Don't google it)
-
For the hard of thinking:
Person A hands over £X million in an agreement that states that the Holte End will in future be known as the Person A Stand.
People who regularly refer to the Holte End as the Holte End continue to refer to the Holte End as the Holte End.
Person A is unhappy about this, but Aston Villa point out that they are not actually able to control what others call the Holte End, sorry I mean the Person A stand.
Where's the con? Aston Villa have done everything they had to and Person A (or rather A plc) not being daft if he/they are in the market for such high-level sponsorship deals, is not going to enter into this agreement without being fully aware of the reality of the situation.
-
Where's the con? Aston Villa have done everything they had to and Person A (or rather A plc) not being daft if he/they are in the market for such high-level sponsorship deals, is not going to enter into this agreement without being fully aware of the reality of the situation.
Well then the deal won't raise a lot. And in such an event one has to wonder if it is worth it.
-
Where's the con? Aston Villa have done everything they had to and Person A (or rather A plc) not being daft if he/they are in the market for such high-level sponsorship deals, is not going to enter into this agreement without being fully aware of the reality of the situation.
Well then the deal won't raise a lot. And in such an event one has to wonder if it is worth it.
That's down to our new commercial director, as/when appointed.
-
Where's the con? Aston Villa have done everything they had to and Person A (or rather A plc) not being daft if he/they are in the market for such high-level sponsorship deals, is not going to enter into this agreement without being fully aware of the reality of the situation.
Well then the deal won't raise a lot. And in such an event one has to wonder if it is worth it.
That's down to our new commercial director, as/when appointed.
Clearly.
Let's sell a piece of the soul of the club for a piddling amount.
Wouldn't it be better to spend a bit more of the £60M minimum in domestic TV revenue instead?
-
For the hard of thinking:
Person A hands over £X million in an agreement that states that the Holte End will in future be known as the Person A Stand.
People who regularly refer to the Holte End as the Holte End continue to refer to the Holte End as the Holte End.
Person A is unhappy about this, but Aston Villa point out that they are not actually able to control what others call the Holte End, sorry I mean the Person A stand.
Person A will be delighted if they make money off this deal because people other than the few Villa fans upset by this are mentioning Person A's company time after time during a game. They're not going to give a shit about anything else and will have taken into consideration any kind of possible dissent in agreeing to the deal.
-
Wouldn't it be better to debate without resorting to "for the hard of thinking"? Especially when they've thought it through more than you have.
-
Where's the con? Aston Villa have done everything they had to and Person A (or rather A plc) not being daft if he/they are in the market for such high-level sponsorship deals, is not going to enter into this agreement without being fully aware of the reality of the situation.
Well then the deal won't raise a lot. And in such an event one has to wonder if it is worth it.
That's down to our new commercial director, as/when appointed.
Clearly.
Let's sell a piece of the soul of the club for a piddling amount.
Wouldn't it be better to spend a bit more of the £60M minimum in domestic TV revenue instead?
We could always do both.
-
Wouldn't it be better to debate without resorting to "for the hard of thinking"? Especially when they've thought it through more than you have.
I'm not convinced that people have though. They can rearrange the lettering in the seats of the Holte, they can put it on the ticket stubs, but everyone will still call it the Holte End. And, yes, this is highly emotive for me.
-
Wouldn't it be better to debate without resorting to "for the hard of thinking"? Especially when they've thought it through more than you have.
I found that a bit condescending too. You can disagree with a position in a discussion without resorting to that.
-
Wouldn't it be better to debate without resorting to "for the hard of thinking"? Especially when they've thought it through more than you have.
I'm not convinced that people have though. They can rearrange the lettering in the seats of the Holte, they can put it on the ticket stubs, but everyone will still call it the Holte End. And, yes, this is highly emotive for me.
Well excuse those of us who don't agree for not thinking about it as much as you have.
-
Wouldn't it be better to debate without resorting to "for the hard of thinking"? Especially when they've thought it through more than you have.
I'm not convinced that people have though. They can rearrange the lettering in the seats of the Holte, they can put it on the ticket stubs, but everyone will still call it the Holte End. And, yes, this is highly emotive for me.
Does everyone still call it the Witton End? Does everyone still call it the Witton Lane Stand?
I hate the thought as well but whoever sponsors it isn't going to be conned as their name will be all over it in the ways I mentioned and more. Which seems to be where we are disagreeing.
-
Well excuse those of us who don't agree for not thinking about it as much as you have.
Consider yourself excused.
-
Wouldn't it be better to debate without resorting to "for the hard of thinking"? Especially when they've thought it through more than you have.
I'm not convinced that people have though. They can rearrange the lettering in the seats of the Holte, they can put it on the ticket stubs, but everyone will still call it the Holte End. And, yes, this is highly emotive for me.
Does everyone still call it the Witton End? Does everyone still call it the Witton Lane Stand?
I hate the thought as well but whoever sponsors it isn't going to be conned as their name will be all over it in the ways I mentioned and more. Which seems to be where we are disagreeing.
The North Stand and the Doug Ellis Stand are not commercial entities. The most recently named example of those (Doug Ellis Stand) was named 15-20 years ago. If a commercial entity wants their name to stick then they are going to have to stick around for quite a while.
I maybe wrong but our longest lasting sponsorship deal was with Mita Copiers - about half the time the Doug Ellis Stand has had to "stick."
-
So it changes name every x years, the point is the same, over time people will stop calling it what it used to be. It doesn't matter if the name on it is commercial or not. A generation never knew it as the Witton Lane Stand so they don't call it that. If this sponsorship stuff happens then a generation will grow up never knowing it as The Holte End. Which is why i'm against it, but i'm not going to pretend that over time the new name won't be used more and more.
-
Ironically, the Holte has had more names than any other part of the ground.
-
Ironically, the Holte has had more names than any other part of the ground.
a bit like getting upset over a badge that has changed numerous times across our history.
-
So it changes name every x years, the point is the same, over time people will stop calling it what it used to be. It doesn't matter if the name on it is commercial or not. A generation never knew it as the Witton Lane Stand so they don't call it that. If this sponsorship stuff happens then a generation will grow up never knowing it as The Holte End. Which is why i'm against it, but i'm not going to pretend that over time the new name won't be used more and more.
And how much value does this naming right have for whoever decides that their name rather than the Holte End will be the first new name? Not enough to make a difference in the grand scheme, is my bet.
Which begs the question (again), what's the point of doing it in the first place? Especially against the backdrop of the considerable amount of TV money coming in to the club.
-
Ironically, the Holte has had more names than any other part of the ground.
Feel free to enlighten me and many others.
-
Ironically, the Holte has had more names than any other part of the ground.
Feel free to enlighten me and many others.
It's mentioned on here regularly. There was the Church end, the Aston end, the City end, the Holte Hotel end, the Holte end and finally it was called the Holte stand when re-opened in 1994 although that name was soon dropped in favour of the Holte end again.
-
Ironically, the Holte has had more names than any other part of the ground.
Feel free to enlighten me and many others.
It's mentioned on here regularly. There was the Church end, the Aston end, the City end, the Holte Hotel end, the Holte end and finally it was called the Holte stand when re-opened in 1994 although that name was soon dropped in favour of the Holte end again.
At what point in time did it become the Holte Hotel End?
-
Ironically, the Holte has had more names than any other part of the ground.
Feel free to enlighten me and many others.
It's mentioned on here regularly. There was the Church end, the Aston end, the City end, the Holte Hotel end, the Holte end and finally it was called the Holte stand when re-opened in 1994 although that name was soon dropped in favour of the Holte end again.
At what point in time did it become the Holte Hotel End?
After World War II I believe. More learned counsel than I has said that the first reference to the Holte end was made by Joe Mercer circa 1962.
-
Ironically, the Holte has had more names than any other part of the ground.
Feel free to enlighten me and many others.
It's mentioned on here regularly. There was the Church end, the Aston end, the City end, the Holte Hotel end, the Holte end and finally it was called the Holte stand when re-opened in 1994 although that name was soon dropped in favour of the Holte end again.
Sure we will still be singing 'Holte enders in the sky' whatever it's renamed as. From when was it known as the Holte end? I can't recall it ever being called anything else.
-
Oh question just answered. Thanks
-
I also believe that in ten years time the biggest complaint on this subject will be that the next/latest naming deal won't be for enough money.
-
So it changes name every x years, the point is the same, over time people will stop calling it what it used to be. It doesn't matter if the name on it is commercial or not. A generation never knew it as the Witton Lane Stand so they don't call it that. If this sponsorship stuff happens then a generation will grow up never knowing it as The Holte End. Which is why i'm against it, but i'm not going to pretend that over time the new name won't be used more and more.
And how much value does this naming right have for whoever decides that their name rather than the Holte End will be the first new name? Not enough to make a difference in the grand scheme, is my bet.
Which begs the question (again), what's the point of doing it in the first place? Especially against the backdrop of the considerable amount of TV money coming in to the club.
Possibly a fair bit if they tie into a 10 year deal for example.
Because it's virtually free money. And possibly quite a bit for an extended period of time. I'm not sure too many businesses would turn that down.
I'm all for tradition, but the game has changed whether we as fans like it or not. It's why we're all going to VP tomorrow instead of at 3pm today. We play in a stadium that has no stand 40 years old, for anyone older than me there is no stand left from when they first started going. And in that time two of the stands have already changed their name. To take it to an extreme that things change, it's why we are going to VP and not Perry Barr tomorrow. We as fans may fucking hate some of the changes, but they still happen.
-
Possibly a fair bit if they tie into a 10 year deal for example.
I see that as a huge "if."
It is a huge leap of faith by a commercial entity, especially if they take note of the club's spending habits over recent seasons and realise we seem happy to just stay in the division.
-
The fact is that changing the name of the stand will cause bitter disagreement between lots of fans, is it really worth upsetting so many loyal fans just to raise a few quid?
-
Like I said earlier in the thread, those that go in it and those away fans that look at it will still call it the Holte end. Nothing else is important.
-
The fact is that changing the name of the stand will cause bitter disagreement between lots of fans, is it really worth upsetting so many loyal fans just to raise a few quid?
If you thought that you'd never do anything; in a few years deals like this will be the rule rather than the exception.
-
If you take it to its limit, that is 4 stands and a ground name being sponsored. That could be a fair old chunk each season. Year after year it could well be the difference between being where we currently are and being top 8 or higher each year.
I still don't want The Holte changing though, not fussed about the other 3, especially Witton Lane. Potentially hypocritical/illogical but ho hum.
-
I hope they get a lot of money for it and they invest it in the squad.
-
Who would be a suitable sponsor? When I think of some of the shite that's been emblazoned across the shirts in recent years, DWS, Genting, etc. The last shirt I liked was the Nike Acorns. I haven't bought one since. Anyway, I digress. How about the Moro stand, etc. etc.
-
The Holte and Witton Lane will get the most money because they can be seen from the A38.Proberly lucky if you got 500k a year each for renaming.
Not really worth all the hassle.
-
Do you really think they would go through the hassle for as little as that per year?
-
As has been stated earlier, there is not one part of the ground that is the same Villa Park I first walked into, change happens and if the club can make commercial gain from those changes carry on. It is Villa Park to me and the Holte is the Holte end of.
-
The fact is that changing the name of the stand will cause bitter disagreement between lots of fans, is it really worth upsetting so many loyal fans just to raise a few quid?
If you thought that you'd never do anything; in a few years deals like this will be the rule rather than the exception.
So the views of the fans mean nothing?
-
So the views of the fans mean nothing?
Is the correct answer.
Welcome to the world of Mancunter Cunty........bums on seats are irrelevant.....shirts sold in Asia and sponsorships are what counts
-
Let me get this straight.
The new CEO has identified we are not generating sufficient income for a club of our means that wishes to progress and compete with other clubs of similar stature. To this end he has identified that in order to achieve said greater revenue streams he needs to appoint a dedicated commercial director to ensure we get the best possible deal.
Therefore he's identified a problem and come up with a viable solution to fix it and some people are still complaining?
Sounds like he's doing the job he was appointed to do; if this is the first step in treating our current malaise there will no doubt be further steps once increased investment funds are coming our way.
-
It's a stand that has seats that generates income , if by renaming it generates more incipient then fine by me .
-
Let me get this straight.
The new CEO has identified we are not generating sufficient income for a club of our means that wishes to progress and compete with other clubs of similar stature. To this end he has identified that in order to achieve said greater revenue streams he needs to appoint a dedicated commercial director to ensure we get the best possible deal.
Therefore he's identified a problem and come up with a viable solution to fix it and some people are still complaining?
Sounds like he's doing the job he was appointed to do; if this is the first step in treating our current malaise there will no doubt be further steps once increased investment funds are coming our way.
Yes because believe it or not some people do not agree that this is the right thing to do. Theres an implication in your post that whatever decisions the club makes are the correct ones, and that we should just be quiet and let them get on with it (which is worrying).
They can sell the naming rights of the other three stands to North Korea, Blackwater and Tampax for all I care, I just wish they'd leave the Holte as it is.
-
I think it is worth considering that in many ways what the fans in attendance continue to call whatever stand is not that important to whoever ends up sponsoring or renaming it. I think they're more bothered about what the place is called on TV to an audience of millions.
-
The thing is I don't mind, because the fans will always call it the same name. However how much money could it seriously raise?
-
The club has more pressing problems than raising income. Before any sum of money, great or small being generated those who run the club, and I for one consider the club not to have been run for the last four years, an ethos, an identity, a plan, a structure and a self belief has to be created at Villa Park. We have become like a surgeon attempting brain surgery through the soles of the patient's feet. Until we have an owner who wants the club not its asset value and that owner puts in place the creation of the qualities I have listed no amount of peripheral money will make any difference.
Unless there is change in the way we approach being Aston Villa the money will probably be frittered away and the despair of the fans deepened. It would be like putting better quality petrol in the tank of a 1980s Austin Allegro.
-
The article mentions all the stands being renamed but leads on "would you be against renaming the Holte?".
Personally, I'd expect them to rename some of the other stands first to test the water. The Trinity would probably be worth the most money as it's on the telly all the time when we play.
-
The way we're playing we'll be lucky to get 5 grand from a local business to sponsor us.
We could call it the "Villa don't score this end" stand.
To be honest, as long it's not something daft I don't mind. As people say, it'll always be the Holte. It won't make a blind bit of difference to our on pitch fortunes. Nor would I expect Randy to do anything other than try and balance the books with it. I wouldn't envision this effecting our transfer budget.
-
I've heard whispers that it might be called the Viagra Stand, but I'm not sure those rumours stand up.
Eh thank you
-
I heard it would be sold to a whisky distiller and called the Grants Stand. It is home to plenty of Grousers after all.
-
There is no right or wrong on this one
There are those who see the naming rights as a good way of raising funds and will just carry on calling it the Holte end anyway so no have problems
There are those like me who don't think it's worth it, don't want change, hanker after a bit of tradition and for whatever else reasons would just feel sad if it was renamed
You can't change the way you feel, I can understand the argument for renaming and accept it as a valid reason, but I still don't want it to happen
And it's not because I'm using it as a stick to beat the club with, that's a rediculous argument,
I don't like the badge, that's been changed loads of times, but I still don't like the current one mainly because it doesn't say who we are, if we won the league and European cup again that would be great but I would still wouldn't like the badge,
Same for the renaming of the Holte end, yes I would keep calling it the Holte but the next generation won't, as PWS said over time it will become less and less
Now that might not bother some people, and that's fair enough, but it bothers me, maybe I'm a bit sad but that's just the way I would feel
I hear we need to move with the times, and it's going to happen anyway whether we like it or not, but it still doesn't change the fact that I don't want us to do it,
I voted Labour in the 80's when I lived in the south, I knew it was a wasted viewpoint and vote, but I did it anyway, you sometimes have to go with your gut feeling
Remember Fox is just doing his job, yes that's correct his JOB,
I can guarantee he don't care about the Holte End, he never stood there as a kid he will sell to the highest bidder and then move on somewhere else without a care in the world, so you can't blame him
he hasn't got any connection to it emotional or otherwise, and he certainly won't be listening to the fans and even if he did there's enough that arnt that bothered about it remaining the Holte End he could make a good case that he's doing what the fans want anyway
If people don't mind it being called whatever and just see it being a good business deal that's fair enough for me, I accept that,
but don't tell me I should feel the same way and if I don't I'm just using it to have a go at the club because I'm not
Something's should remain and the Holte End is one of them......................IMO
-
I suppose it is inevitable that this will happen at some point. My biggest concern is how it might ruin the aesthetics of a beautiful stadium. I remember seeing Elland Road during their push for European domination. The whole of the stadium was littered with tacky commercial signage both inside and out. Other clubs are the same but Leeds stands out for me as the worst/best example. If that is the future for Villa Park then I'd have serious reservations.
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
Should we also not bother with shirt sponsorship, pitchside advertising or any other commercial deal?
And whilst we're at it let's not criticise the game as it is having sold it's soul to Sky if we are happy to sell off parts of the ground so we can sign a player or two.
-
I have no objection to it being renamed the Sir Thomas Holte Stand.
-
If we want to compete in today's Premiership, then we have to get all elements of the club's activities competitive. Fox has been brought in to do that.
Ironically, getting a much sharper commercial performance will force mediocre football managers out: no point driving brilliant sponsorship and financial performance and not having the team to back it up.
It's up to the club and all supporters to maintain the traditions, history and heritage so whether its provenance is remembered is really up to us. Having said that, I'll be dead before people forget it was called the Holte.
-
Potential sponsors? Ryanair, because they often let you down in the last minutes and then leave you a long way from where you want to be.
-
The real damage to the history of the club was the wanton vandalism of the old Trinity. The Holte End is just words. Ellis was the one who sold our birthright for a mess of pottage.
-
With ever increasing exposure in foreign markets these sorts of deals must make a lot of sense commercially for potential sponsors, given the frequency the ends of the ground will be mentioned on TV in Asia etc.
We are trying to make more money to spend more money. Football changed 22 years ago and it took us too long then to move with it then.
-
I don't like the idea of it but I understand it from a financial point of view.
-
I don't accept that every club does it as an argument either. They don't. Do as you wish with the others but leave the Hole alone.
-
Surely all this comes down to is how much we would get?
If we were being given £100m per season then I bet not many would be against it. If we were getting £10,000 per season I don't think too many would be in favour.
For me, I think we'd be talking about the latter rather than the former.
-
How many under 30 still call it the Witton Lane Stand? How many still call it the Witton End instead of North Stand? I always say North Stand as that's what it has been called all my Villa time as an example.
Thats right. Depends on your age and you grew up knowing what each stand at Villa Park was called. They can call it what they like. It will still be The Holte End when I depart this world. But from the date they had to put seats in it it ceased to be the Holte End I knew. The magic has gone I'm afraid.
-
Personally, not really bothered.
Any potential sponsor however, might be concerned at the lack of bodies occupying the seats.
-
I don't accept that every club does it as an argument either. They don't. Do as you wish with the others but leave the Hole alone.
I doubt that there are many suitors to name St Andrew's, anyway.
-
Do you really think they would go through the hassle for as little as that per year?
Yes the Ricoh Arena is 7 Million over 10 years.Right next to the M6.
How much do you think anybody is going to pay to name a stand,that you might be able to see from the A38?
Say the club get the Witton renamed The Farmfoods Stand can you see the council being on with having that illuminated for all to see.The club had enough trouble getting the name of the club up in lights a few years back.
Somebody needs to tell Mr Fox this isn't London,we are not under any flight path like Fulham and we are just about too far away from the motorway to make make enough money.
Another ill thought idea from the club,and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest they have to make up the revenue of 10,000 fans somewhere,I just don't think they will make as much has they think.
-
The North Stand - after redevelopment - is the natural place to kick-start the sponsorship of Villa Park's stands. You don't start with the most prized stand, surely?
-
Ive no problem with it, I just hope they move on to the Doug Ellis stand next,
-
The Holte Chocolate stand, sponsored by Cadbury
-
In an ideal world we would not do this but then again in an ideal world Brian Little and John Gidman would be forever young and I would have been to see The Clash at Barbarellas last night.
If it puts money into the coffer (and I am sure they wouldn't go to all the hassle of changing signage, literature, software etc if it isn't a significant amount) then I can live with it while having a few tuts and grumbles to myself about the times we live in.
-
The real damage to the history of the club was the wanton vandalism of the old Trinity. The Holte End is just words. Ellis was the one who sold our birthright for a mess of pottage.
and Fred Rinder who was the driving force in developing the stand, and very much hands on in maintaining it in all respects, would no doubt have knocked it down as well. Fred and Doug were the most progressive Chairmen we have ever had and upset a lot of people a lot of the time. Fred wanted a stadium that could hold 120,000. It may not have happened but Fred wanted the absolute best for Aston Villa.
Fred seems have been forgotten by the club and for a man tinged with Villa greatness that is very wrong!
-
It's not about how you can see it from the A38, but about how it's mentioned on MotD, Sky and foreign channels every week.
-
It's not about how you can see it from the A38, but about how it's mentioned on MotD, Sky and foreign channels every week.
No it isn't,that's the stadium naming.
Can you name me one stand anywhere that is sponsored that you hear regularly by commentators?
-
Count how many times the Holte End is mentioned when we play today.
-
Count how many times the Holte End is mentioned when we play today.
But surely that's because it IS the Holte End, a famous part of the ground.
-
Count how many times the Holte End is mentioned when we play today.
I didn't ask that.
-
This is similar to the Greater Brum & Black Country discussion for the wider new West Midlands combined authority.
Do you want to stick to your roots and identity or for increased investment, change your name?
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
Should we also not bother with shirt sponsorship, pitchside advertising or any other commercial deal?
What difference will £10m quid or so make? Until we get rid of the Lambert Lerner partnership we wont see any success anyway because neither have the nous for it, so I'd rather not sell what remains of our soul to give him a bit extra in his budget to continue to fuck up.
With a new manager and a chairman, possibly, with these two, no thanks.
So you'd rather we had no money coming in, just because.
Where did I say no money?
Where do you draw the line then? You're happy with our current deals but you don't want them bettered because it would mean the manager had more to spend.
I am happy with the current deals yes. I wouldn't be happy with selling the name of our main stand for something that won't make a difference. It's not a club changing amount of money that would be on the table and we would still have a tactically clueless buffoon spending the cash and a wantaway chairman getting ready to make his next balls up.
I'd rather keep what tradition, heart and soul we have left and move on from it when we have some professionals in charge that aren't likely to blow the only upside of the deal, the money.
-
If SKY sponsored the stand it could be called
Holte end in the SKY
-
http://www.american-appraisal.co.uk/UK/Home-Page-Features/Feature-1.htm (http://www.american-appraisal.co.uk/UK/Home-Page-Features/Feature-1.htm)
Some stats there.
Everton pull in an extra £1.4 million a year from it. How? We make the 9th biggest pile of cash from stadium sponsorship and outside the sky scum 6 the rest earn next to nothing. So again, would it be worth losing another part of our heritage for possibly the cost of less than Darren Bents annual wage?
-
I think it a rather naive assumption that the money from this would be used to invest in the squad.
-
As most have said, it doesn't matter what it's renamed to, for the majority of us it will always be the Holte End, (same as the stand that shall not be named is not referred to by most of us by it's present moniker0.
The fact the CEO is doing his job (and if his new appointee gets a bloody good deal from it), is what I see as a glimmer in the dark; if he continues on this path we may attain decent illumination.
-
Villa have recently installed a new chief executive, Tom Fox, and are recruiting a commercial director.
This is the most important part to me. Tom Fox has seen that commercial income isn't good enough and wants to do something about it.
Fine but disappointing that that's it so far and just an intention nothing done and dusted.
-
Villa have recently installed a new chief executive, Tom Fox, and are recruiting a commercial director.
This is the most important part to me. Tom Fox has seen that commercial income isn't good enough and wants to do something about it.
Fine but disappointing that that's it so far and just an intention nothing done and dusted.
Maybe they taking their time to make sure they recruit the right person. Everything dose'nt always need to be done yesterday.
-
Well I don't particularly like it, but my problem is just with the way the whole sport is going, rather than specifically with Villa trying to raise a little additional income.
-
Just read this and sighed...
Another part of our history possibly chipped away for pragmatic and common sense reasons because "that's the way things are these days"
Trouble is I see Aston Villa as an idea (or ideal) not a business - do what you want my opinion doesn't matter
-
I think it a rather naive assumption that the money from this would be used to invest in the squad.
You're right, it might be used to help keep our match day prices below the average for the league instead.
-
Can't they rename (and revamp) the North Stand instead?
-
Wouldn't bother me to be fair, will always be the Holte End to us. Look at Barcelona, they always refused to have shirt sponsorship and when they finally did it was for Unicef. All well and good but now they have Emirates on their shirts and I noticed this season they even have Beko on their sleeves too.
-
http://www.american-appraisal.co.uk/UK/Home-Page-Features/Feature-1.htm (http://www.american-appraisal.co.uk/UK/Home-Page-Features/Feature-1.htm)
Some stats there.
Everton pull in an extra £1.4 million a year from it. How? We make the 9th biggest pile of cash from stadium sponsorship and outside the sky scum 6 the rest earn next to nothing. So again, would it be worth losing another part of our heritage for possibly the cost of less than Darren Bents annual wage?
This is my thinking on it. We won't earn enough from it to be worthwhile. It won't effect our income or transfer budget in any significant sort of way so I'm not sure it's even worth riling up the fans who wouldn't welcome the change.
The list of those onside with the club as things stand is dwindling every bloody week.
-
Does he just think up things that can piss off the fans ! The bloke is an absolute tool
-
I think it a rather naive assumption that the money from this would be used to invest in the squad.
You're right, it might be used to help keep our match day prices below the average for the league instead.
Quite. The Lerner administration has practically infinite faults when it comes to football matters, but all of his actions relating to the club rather than the team have been done clearly with a genuine feeling for the fans and their opinions, as well as with a Villa-ish class. He's not a Mike Ashley type, and wouldn't sanction something like this for no reason.
-
This is similar to the Greater Brum & Black Country discussion for the wider new West Midlands combined authority.
Do you want to stick to your roots and identity or for increased investment, change your name?
It's not really the same. Dudley, Tipton and Wednesbury would still be called Dudley, Tipton and Wednesbury.
-
Plus you do something like this 'on the up' to maximise revenue,you don't do it when your stock is the lowest it had been for years.
-
If they can get a worthwhile amount, do it. I can't imagine it would be a mind blowing amount for one stand.
May as well go for the whole stadium. I wonder which brands would wish to be associated with us at the moment.
-
I wouldn't mind too much, but I'd be surprised if the deals turn out to be that significant, and even if they are, I can't see the majority of the money going into the playing side, and then, even if it does, it'll probably be Paul Lambert spending it.
-
I wonder which brands would wish to be associated with us at the moment.
Kleenex
Hamlet (the mild cigar)
-
Ive no problem with it, I just hope they move on to the Doug Ellis stand next,
Witton Lane to me and always will be. It they rename the Holte and brings money into the club is ok but it will always be the Holte to me.
-
At least we are looking for a proper commercial manager. That's another positive from this. Can we employ some coaches next please.
-
Ive no problem with it, I just hope they move on to the Doug Ellis stand next,
Witton Lane to me and always will be. It they rename the Holte and brings money into the club is ok but it will always be the Holte to me.
How many people still call it Witton Lane though? I guarantee very few under 30 will call it that and that's the way the Holte would go. We would all still have our memories of nights there and the name but the next generation would have bugger all and would know it as the ''Macron End'' etc
-
Why not rebrand the North Stand !! That name means nothing to anyone
-
I look forward to the future commentaries on World Sky Sports - " Hey Hank just listen to those Birmingham Villans holler from the Twinkies stand"
-
Maybe Sky could sponsor it to make life easier.
"Yippee-ay-eh, yippee-ay-oh, Sky Enders in the Holte."
-
I'm not convinced any income would be used to buy new players
-
Maybe they taking their time to make sure they recruit the right person. Everything dose'nt always need to be done yesterday.
Somethings do need to be done with speed. He is 4 months into his job. His back ground is commercial management so really it should not take him that long to fill a post he recognised as key to his own success.
-
Why not rebrand the North Stand !! That name means nothing to anyone
And it means nothing to sponsors so no ones going to pay much!
-
I don't have a problem with this in principle, I just hope it's a company that we have no good reason to dislike or be ashamed of.
-
How many under 30 still call it the Witton Lane Stand? How many still call it the Witton End instead of North Stand? I always say North Stand as that's what it has been called all my Villa time as an example.
Geographically the North Stand is more West than North so if any stand needs a new name it's that one.
Also the Witton Lane stand faces the M6 (and the railway line) so a sponsors name on that in bright lights would be more prominent.
-
It will be the end of the "The Holte End - the 12th Man" banner. Can't see a sponsor standing for that unless you change it to "The $SPONSOR stand - the 12th man" and that doesn't have quite the same ring to it somehow.
-
They will use the Witton Lane facade for when they rename the ground which is surely not far behind this "test the water" stunt
Tom Fox at work it seems .
-
So how many other "stunts" Fox has pulled off that we should know about?
-
They will use the Witton Lane facade for when they rename the ground which is surely not far behind this "test the water" stunt
Tom Fox at work it seems .
I have no problem with them renaming the stadium it's where the money is.If Mr Fox wants to rename I just wish he would come out and say it.
He doesn't know the good folk of Birmingham very well,we don't need a lot to moan about.
-
Let's face it, the largest amount of sponsorship would come from the renaming of the ground not the stands.
If they do rename the stands it will be a short step to giving Villa Park a new name.
-
But before you rename the ground you test the water by mentioning sponsoring the most high profile stand and observe public opinion.
-
Seen on another site -
""Yippee-ay-eh, yippee-ay-oh, Poundlanders in the sky ."
Made me chuckle !
-
Some people won't be bothered, others will say they'll never set foot at Villa Park again. You'll never get consensus on something like this.
Personally I couldn't care less what they call it, as long as we get some decent revenue from it & that revenue is well spent. The Holte End is the same as The Kop at Liverpool, I couldn't name the other stands, that's why we would get more revenue for the Holte compared to the other three.
Whatever, it will always be the Holte End.
-
I don't have a problem with this in principle, I just hope it's a company that we have no good reason to dislike or be ashamed of.
Let's hope it's not Aston Villa who sponsor the stands then.
-
I'd prefer that part of our history wasn't officially erased in the futile pursuit of 'success' in a fixed competition.
-
Personally it doesn't bother me that much. However, what does bother me is that it seems that Lerner will be sticking around a lot longer than we thought.
I would of presumed any potential buyers out there would have liked the fact that Villa Park is still a blank canvas in terms of any re-naming commercial rights?
-
I'd prefer that part of our history wasn't officially erased in the futile pursuit of 'success' in a fixed competition.
I'd prefer that the competition wasn't so fixed, but it is, so if we're going to be in it we might as well give ourselves a better chance.
-
So how many other "stunts" Fox has pulled off that we should know about?
The latest trick I heard was he's learning how to perform the bicycle kick. Doug's a bit old to explain so he's learning from YouTube self help videos.
-
Its a no from me. I'm not convinced how much money it would really raise and there are plenty of other ways to raise income which don't involve messing with our history. I can't see Liverpool doing the same with the Kop.
-
Not for me. I'd compromise by letting the club ballot the fans and I would accept their decision. Bet that won't happen though.
-
As others have said I don't think we are talking about huge amounts to rename stands
I can't of think anyone else in the prem has done it yet, there probably is but I can't think of any
So i'm not going to get all worked up for something that might never happen
-
A surprising number of fans on here seem ok with the idea of selling off a bit of history for the sake of making a few quick bucks - as for me I'm firmly against it.
The names Aston Villa, Villa Park, Holte End & Trinity Road are untouchable at any price, as are the club colours.
Acceptance of changing any of those will within no time lead to them all being sold off to the highest bidder - and our entire identity will have been lost to the pockets of agents and average footballers.
What on earth do you people think we'd get in return for the Holte End becoming the Bet365 Stand or whatever? Do you really think it would make even the slightest difference to us being at best a mid-table Premier League side?
Even if we sold off everything we stand for for £10billon would it be worth it? We'd be challenging top four after a few years, attracting thousands of glory hunters and tourists, pricing out and discarding the fans who have stood by us through the shit years and given birth to a generation of spoilt fans like Chelsea.
No thanks. I'd rather drop down a division or two than become that kind of club.
Hopefully it's all just Neil Moxley, a Bluenose, trying to fill space and stir up a bit of controversy.
-
A surprising number of fans on here seem ok with the idea of selling off a bit of history for the sake of making a few quick bucks - as for me I'm firmly against it.
The names Aston Villa, Villa Park, Holte End & Trinity Road are untouchable at any price, as are the club colours.
Acceptance of changing any of those will within no time lead to them all being sold off to the highest bidder - and our entire identity will have been lost to the pockets of agents and average footballers.
What on earth do you people think we'd get in return for the Holte End becoming the Bet365 Stand or whatever? Do you really think it would make even the slightest difference to us being at best a mid-table Premier League side?
Even if we sold off everything we stand for for £10billon would it be worth it? We'd be challenging top four after a few years, attracting thousands of glory hunters and tourists, pricing out and discarding the fans who have stood by us through the shit years and given birth to a generation of spoilt fans like Chelsea.
No thanks. I'd rather drop down a division or two than become that kind of club.
Hopefully it's all just Neil Moxley, a Bluenose, trying to fill space and stir up a bit of controversy.
What do you want then?
-
I think it a rather naive assumption that the money from this would be used to invest in the squad.
You're right, it might be used to help keep our match day prices below the average for the league instead.
Quite. The Lerner administration has practically infinite faults when it comes to football matters, but all of his actions relating to the club rather than the team have been done clearly with a genuine feeling for the fans and their opinions, as well as with a Villa-ish class. He's not a Mike Ashley type, and wouldn't sanction something like this for no reason.
When he was interested in us and wanted to play with us he was amazing; from giving Acorns the sponsorship to doing up The Holte Pub. Now his attention and his whims are elsewhere. So who is to say where the sponsorship money will go. Just as long as we pay enough to survive in the Premiership with the most dull and insipid football then everything will be okay.
-
I think it a rather naive assumption that the money from this would be used to invest in the squad.
You're right, it might be used to help keep our match day prices below the average for the league instead.
Because we are selling out so many of the matches.
-
I don't see how it will generate significant funds.Newcastle tried this we renaming St James's at it wasn't seen as viable enough to continue with as people still called it St James so they dropped Sports direct stadium and went back to St James's.
Only way I could see this working as a way to fund development of a renamed rebuilt north stand , however as attendances are down it would be hard to put forward a case for ground upgrading at present.
The only grounds with sponsorship names are the new grounds.If sponsoring a stand on a old ground was seen as viable then I would expect United and Liverpool to be heading that route.Liverpool are however looking at naming rights to their new stand which fits in with a rebuilt North stand being sponsored.
-
I don't see how it will generate significant funds.Newcastle tried this we renaming St James's at it wasn't seen as viable enough to continue with as people still called it St James so they dropped Sports direct stadium and went back to St James's.
The SDA was dropped when they changed sponsors. It was Wonga who decided to change it back to St James' Park, not Newcastle.
-
I don't see how it will generate significant funds.Newcastle tried this we renaming St James's at it wasn't seen as viable enough to continue with as people still called it St James so they dropped Sports direct stadium and went back to St James's.
The SDA was dropped when they changed sponsors. It was Wonga who decided to change it back to St James' Park, not Newcastle.
But that was only after the backlash from the fans.They did try to change it to Wonga but knew the fans wouldn't wear it.If it was any other company the name change would of gone ahead.
-
Not for me. I'd compromise by letting the club ballot the fans and I would accept their decision. Bet that won't happen though.
And what if the vote came out against what you wanted? You'd be in the same spot because your opinion on the initiative wouldn't have changed. And where do you draw the line? Should the club poll fans opinion on all commercial ventures. At the end of the day certain things the club plan, if we are to try and keep up with the clubs above us is going to go against the grain of a percentage of public opinion. The goal posts have moved and the management of the present affects the future. I would hope our club is trying new things that maintain our PL position because there are lots of clubs who got stuck in the past in terms of the way they ran the business and are now just memories of better times gone by.
This doesn't have to be a world record deal. This just needs to add a revenue stream that doesn't currently exist. Like I said initially, this isn't ideal, but what is ideal isn't available. The goal posts of the game have moved a lot and we need to find a way to play the game which is a lot different to how many want it to be.
-
A surprising number of fans on here seem ok with the idea of selling off a bit of history for the sake of making a few quick bucks - as for me I'm firmly against it.
The names Aston Villa, Villa Park, Holte End & Trinity Road are untouchable at any price, as are the club colours.
Acceptance of changing any of those will within no time lead to them all being sold off to the highest bidder - and our entire identity will have been lost to the pockets of agents and average footballers.
What on earth do you people think we'd get in return for the Holte End becoming the Bet365 Stand or whatever? Do you really think it would make even the slightest difference to us being at best a mid-table Premier League side?
Even if we sold off everything we stand for for £10billon would it be worth it? We'd be challenging top four after a few years, attracting thousands of glory hunters and tourists, pricing out and discarding the fans who have stood by us through the shit years and given birth to a generation of spoilt fans like Chelsea.
No thanks. I'd rather drop down a division or two than become that kind of club.
Hopefully it's all just Neil Moxley, a Bluenose, trying to fill space and stir up a bit of controversy.
What do you want then?
To continue to support my local club with pride in whatever division they deserve to be in. I'd like more entertainment than we've been served up at home over the last 5 or 6 years, but we don't need to sell our soul to achieve that.
-
Selling the soul of the club? All a bit dramatic isn't it? I didn't read we were changing the name Aston Villa, just a stand at the ground. You can still support your local club even if the stand is called something different on a piece of paper. You'll still call it what you want to call it.
-
Wouldn't be too keen on the Holte End and Trinity Road stands being renamed. Wouldn't have a problem with it happening to the other two stands if there was going to be a clear benefit to the club.
Anyone with any ideas on the revenue a move like that would bring? A different sport entirely, but BT Sport recently secured naming rights for Murrayfield in a deal worth about £20m over four years.
-
How about investing in the team and finishing a bit higher up the table. Isn't it circa £2.5m a place ?
-
Just cause we'd all still call it the Holte End, some grubby firms name would be all over it. It's just wrong. There has to be somethings that aren't for sale.
It would also not be a game changer for us.
No.
-
A surprising number of fans on here seem ok with the idea of selling off a bit of history for the sake of making a few quick bucks - as for me I'm firmly against it.
The names Aston Villa, Villa Park, Holte End & Trinity Road are untouchable at any price, as are the club colours.
Acceptance of changing any of those will within no time lead to them all being sold off to the highest bidder - and our entire identity will have been lost to the pockets of agents and average footballers.
What on earth do you people think we'd get in return for the Holte End becoming the Bet365 Stand or whatever? Do you really think it would make even the slightest difference to us being at best a mid-table Premier League side?
Even if we sold off everything we stand for for £10billon would it be worth it? We'd be challenging top four after a few years, attracting thousands of glory hunters and tourists, pricing out and discarding the fans who have stood by us through the shit years and given birth to a generation of spoilt fans like Chelsea.
No thanks. I'd rather drop down a division or two than become that kind of club.
Hopefully it's all just Neil Moxley, a Bluenose, trying to fill space and stir up a bit of controversy.
What do you want then?
To continue to support my local club with pride in whatever division they deserve to be in. I'd like more entertainment than we've been served up at home over the last 5 or 6 years, but we don't need to sell our soul to achieve that.
Excellent post DeKuip, I agree with you totally. This will be the beginning of the end of any sort of tradition. It always starts this way with a bit of 'mission creep' and it will end most unsatisfactorily
-
If it's all about maximising revenue streams, how do people feel about the 39th game
I'm not in favour as I'm not in favour of renaming the Holte,
but if people think we have to do unsavoury things to bring in cash then I imagine that would be as good as any
Where does it all stop, there had to be a line somewhere
-
Not for me. I'd compromise by letting the club ballot the fans and I would accept their decision. Bet that won't happen though.
Not for me. I'd compromise by letting the club ballot the fans and I would accept their decision. Bet that won't happen though.
And what if the vote came out against what you wanted? You'd be in the same spot because your opinion on the initiative wouldn't have changed. And where do you draw the line? Should the club poll fans opinion on all commercial ventures. At the end of the day certain things the club plan, if we are to try and keep up with the clubs above us is going to go against the grain of a percentage of public opinion. The goal posts have moved and the management of the present affects the future. I would hope our club is trying new things that maintain our PL position because there are lots of clubs who got stuck in the past in terms of the way they ran the business and are now just memories of better times gone by.
This doesn't have to be a world record deal. This just needs to add a revenue stream that doesn't currently exist. Like I said initially, this isn't ideal, but what is ideal isn't available. The goal posts of the game have moved a lot and we need to find a way to play the game which is a lot different to how many want it to be.
And what if the vote came out against what you wanted? You'd be in the same spot because your opinion on the initiative wouldn't have changed. And where do you draw the line? Should the club poll fans opinion on all commercial ventures. At the end of the day certain things the club plan, if we are to try and keep up with the clubs above us is going to go against the grain of a percentage of public opinion. The goal posts have moved and the management of the present affects the future. I would hope our club is trying new things that maintain our PL position because there are lots of clubs who got stuck in the past in terms of the way they ran the business and are now just memories of better times gone by.
This doesn't have to be a world record deal. This just needs to add a revenue stream that doesn't currently exist. Like I said initially, this isn't ideal, but what is ideal isn't available. The goal posts of the game have moved a lot and we need to find a way to play the game which is a lot different to how many want it to be.
I'd accept that I was in a minority of fans and that the majority are in favour of changing the name. There's no right or wrong here, it's all down to personal opinion. Mine is that we already hawk our name and tradition around to too many sponsors and this is where I would like the club to draw the line. And I really don't give a shit whether other clubs are considering it or not.
-
If it's all about maximising revenue streams, how do people feel about the 39th game
I'm not in favour as I'm not in favour of renaming the Holte,
but if people think we have to do unsavoury things to bring in cash then I imagine that would be as good as any
Where does it all stop, there had to be a line somewhere
That is a very good point.
-
I think the timing's a bit wrong to be doing this now. Our stock is very low at the moment, and so if we do sell the naming rights on say, a 5 or 10 year deal, then that's a barrier to a new owner doing their own deal if and when they come in. I can't see anybody wanting to pay us enough to make it worthwhile either, and the chances of it leading to a £20m striker banging in the goals as Dave alludes to in the article in my opinion would be remote
-
Renaming a stand and adding the 39th game are nothing like each other. A club can do what it likes to try and raise revenue is its own affair alone, whereas the 39th game buggers up the balance and integrity of the entire competition for a bit of cash. It's not tradition which would be ruined by the extra game - it's the way the actual league is decided which would be ruined. A stand is neither here nor there compared to that.
-
Renaming a stand and adding the 39th game are nothing like each other. A club can do what it likes to try and raise revenue is its own affair alone, whereas the 39th game buggers up the balance and integrity of the entire competition for a bit of cash. It's not tradition which would be ruined by the extra game - it's the way the actual league is decided which would be ruined. A stand is neither here nor there compared to that.
The bottom line is it's all about the money though
I think I would rather the 39th game than rename the Holte End to be honest
You say it's just a stand who cares what it's called you could argue it's just a game who cares where it's played,
It's a No from me on both counts
-
But it's not just about money against tradition. There are things more important to the integrity of a sporting competition than the name on the wall of a stand.
Here's an extreme example of what I mean: let's suppose there are two teams who forcibly have all of their players renamed 'Ronseal' as part of a sponsorship deal. It would be unusual, and confusing for commentators, but ultimately it's just a name. However, if these two teams played each other in the final of the Ronseal Champions League, and the company Ronseal rigged the game based on which one of the two teams brings them more money or better press or what have you, that would compromise the integrity of the whole sport. One is clearly worse than the other.
-
Renaming a stand and adding the 39th game are nothing like each other. A club can do what it likes to try and raise revenue is its own affair alone, whereas the 39th game buggers up the balance and integrity of the entire competition for a bit of cash. It's not tradition which would be ruined by the extra game - it's the way the actual league is decided which would be ruined. A stand is neither here nor there compared to that.
The 39th game will happen it's a case of when not if.Just wait for Barcelona to play in Qatar who sponsor them,it's a game of blink at the moment.
-
No from me too. Everything is about money now. Cardiff changing their colours after how many years, Hull trying to change the name. Would anyone be upset if they tried to change our name? its not so far fetched really .
-
The Kop is the most well known, over-hyped stand in the Premier League, yet I would suggest that even the American owners of Liverpool wouldn't dare attempt to cash in on this, even thought The X Kop would be worth many many millions. Meanwhile at Villa Park, we'll seemingly do anything for a few measily millions - if that.
-
The Kop is the most well known, over-hyped stand in the Premier League, yet I would suggest that even the American owners of Liverpool wouldn't dare attempt to cash in on this, even thought The X Kop would be worth many many millions. Meanwhile at Villa Park, we'll seemingly do anything for a few measily millions - if that.
We haven't, and neither have we said we will.
-
The Kop is the most well known, over-hyped stand in the Premier League, yet I would suggest that even the American owners of Liverpool wouldn't dare attempt to cash in on this, even thought The X Kop would be worth many many millions. Meanwhile at Villa Park, we'll seemingly do anything for a few measily millions - if that.
and if they build a new ground and spend many, many millions doing so, do you think that the name Anfield has a long term future? Or will it will like the Etihad or Emirates instead, with Maine Road and Highbury but a distant generational memory?
-
No from me too. Everything is about money now. Cardiff changing their colours after how many years, Hull trying to change the name. Would anyone be upset if they tried to change our name? its not so far fetched really .
I've said that before. It's only a matter of time before someone - probably a megalomaniac foreign owner of a newly promoted club - will try to add a sponsor into the club name.
-
The Kop is the most well known, over-hyped stand in the Premier League, yet I would suggest that even the American owners of Liverpool wouldn't dare attempt to cash in on this, even thought The X Kop would be worth many many millions. Meanwhile at Villa Park, we'll seemingly do anything for a few measily millions - if that.
and if they build a new ground and spend many, many millions doing so, do you think that the name Anfield has a long term future? Or will it will like the Etihad or Emirates instead, with Maine Road and Highbury but a distant generational memory?
Of course they will - but a new ground will always be easier to brand.
-
The Kop is the most well known, over-hyped stand in the Premier League, yet I would suggest that even the American owners of Liverpool wouldn't dare attempt to cash in on this, even thought The X Kop would be worth many many millions. Meanwhile at Villa Park, we'll seemingly do anything for a few measily millions - if that.
and if they build a new ground and spend many, many millions doing so, do you think that the name Anfield has a long term future? Or will it will like the Etihad or Emirates instead, with Maine Road and Highbury but a distant generational memory?
Of course they will - but a new ground will always be easier to brand.
it's ultimately the same thing. If your beef is the possible money brought in by the renaming of one stand that's one position. But if your issue is of a moral stand then whether it is a stand or entire ground then the opposition to it should be the same.
-
Is there not a chance it could be renamed (for example) "The Viacom Holte End"? It would make sense to me to keep the word Holte in the name, it would make sense to gain publicity through association with a famous name.
-
The Kop is the most well known, over-hyped stand in the Premier League, yet I would suggest that even the American owners of Liverpool wouldn't dare attempt to cash in on this, even thought The X Kop would be worth many many millions. Meanwhile at Villa Park, we'll seemingly do anything for a few measily millions - if that.
We haven't, and neither have we said we will.
Whilst we haven't I would not trust the management to do what is best for the club.
-
The Kop is the most well known, over-hyped stand in the Premier League, yet I would suggest that even the American owners of Liverpool wouldn't dare attempt to cash in on this, even thought The X Kop would be worth many many millions. Meanwhile at Villa Park, we'll seemingly do anything for a few measily millions - if that.
and if they build a new ground and spend many, many millions doing so, do you think that the name Anfield has a long term future? Or will it will like the Etihad or Emirates instead, with Maine Road and Highbury but a distant generational memory?
Of course they will - but a new ground will always be easier to brand.
it's ultimately the same thing. If your beef is the possible money brought in by the renaming of one stand that's one position. But if your issue is of a moral stand then whether it is a stand or entire ground then the opposition to it should be the same.
I can't stand the whole idea of any ground being named after some deep-pocketed commercial entity, but I was making the point that when it is a new stadium, it is far easier to get e.g. "Emirates" to stick. As far as the Villa go, I just hope that there is insufficient commercial benefit from having a brand associated with the Holte End that the idea is still born.
-
Can we not call it the Alan Hutton End in commemoration of today?
-
The Kop is the most well known, over-hyped stand in the Premier League, yet I would suggest that even the American owners of Liverpool wouldn't dare attempt to cash in on this, even thought The X Kop would be worth many many millions. Meanwhile at Villa Park, we'll seemingly do anything for a few measily millions - if that.
Considering what they are planning on spending on Anfield I wouldn't be too sure of that.
-
well lets just up sticks to the NEC sell the ground , call us something different and play in orange and yellow ....
The thought that any revenue will go to players is laughable , how about play some decent football and get the HOLTE packed .
People saying oh but we will still call it the Holte End , what happens when we have all popped our clogs , the next generation will know it as the who gives a shit stand , and our Generation will have overseen and allowed two precious parts of our History to disappear ........
-
Whogivesashitstander till I die
-
One positive is at least no stand will be self named unlike our last chairman.
-
Chelsea don't play at the Gazprom stadium do they ? I won't credit abramovich for much but he hasn't stopped to those depths yet to be fair
-
Chelsea don't play at the Gazprom stadium do they ? I won't credit abramovich for much but he hasn't stopped to those depths yet to be fair
I'd rather someone stuck their name on the stand than pay what Chelsea fans have to to watch their team, ta.
-
One positive is at least no stand will be self named unlike our last chairman.
Better not have the "Randy Stand"
-
One positive is at least no stand will be self named unlike our last chairman.
Better not have the "Randy Stand"
Randy End. Sounds filthy
-
One positive is at least no stand will be self named unlike our last chairman.
Better not have the "Randy Stand"
Randy End. Sounds filthy
Erecting the Randy stand would be X rated
-
I am not a traditionalist as times move on.
At the end of the day what makes the "Villa fans" end of the ground so special is not the name but the amazing atmosphere the fans create.
On its day there is no place on earth that matches the "Villa fans" end of the ground.
The Kop - The maracana - The Southwall in Dortmund - the Bombonera etc - all are a pale imitation of "our unique stand" which makes it the most special place to be - all ours for the mere price of a match ticket.
However today walking to the ground - walking under the motorway bridge - walking past the hot dog stands - walking past the Holte suite .and then seeing the hole come truly into view
I Walked past the magnificent stand which is a site to behold - I saw its elegance and the "Aston Villa" name standing proud across the top -
I couldn't help thinking what a shame it would be to see the glorious name of our club replaced by a corporate logo.
-
I don't see Liverpool renaming the Kop which is more famous than the Holte End.
And it wouldn't make a significant difference anyway.
Our revenue would still be at the level of Everton and not Liverpool.
100% against.
-
So you could focus on the business of playing attractive and successful football to encourage more people to turn up and spend money or just sell the soul of the club for some fast bucks.
We are looking more and more like a sick dog that should be taken behind the barn and shot.
-
On a sponsorship basis, whilst distasteful, it would make some kind of financial sense. As a one off, it would just be selling our soul for a quick few quid that we'd soon forget we ever had.
-
So you could focus on the business of playing attractive and successful football to encourage more people to turn up and spend money or just sell the soul of the club for some fast bucks.
We are looking more and more like a sick dog that should be taken behind the barn and shot.
Because we're possibly looking at ways of increasing income, the same as all clubs do. No over-reaction there at all.
-
So it changes name every x years, the point is the same, over time people will stop calling it what it used to be. It doesn't matter if the name on it is commercial or not. A generation never knew it as the Witton Lane Stand so they don't call it that. If this sponsorship stuff happens then a generation will grow up never knowing it as The Holte End. Which is why i'm against it, but i'm not going to pretend that over time the new name won't be used more and more.
And how much value does this naming right have for whoever decides that their name rather than the Holte End will be the first new name? Not enough to make a difference in the grand scheme, is my bet.
Which begs the question (again), what's the point of doing it in the first place? Especially against the backdrop of the considerable amount of TV money coming in to the club.
It's free money, why would anyone turn it down?
-
Firstly, whenever a headline reads as a question, the answer is "no". The article mixes fact with speculation.
Secondly, despite that, I can see us kicking off the second halves of matches in the future attacking the Patel's Newsagents stand....
-
How about investing in the team and finishing a bit higher up the table. Isn't it circa £2.5m a place ?
Isn't this a way of raising money so they can invest in the team?
-
How about investing in the team and finishing a bit higher up the table. Isn't it circa £2.5m a place ?
Isn't this a way of raising money so they can invest in the team?
Randy wants his money back - maybe lowers our sale price?
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
This.
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
This.
Better to finish 12/13th than 19th/20th.
-
I see that LA Galaxy play their home matches at the Stub Hub Center.
Maybe we could have the Holte End sponsored and renamed the Taco Bell End.
-
So it changes name every x years, the point is the same, over time people will stop calling it what it used to be. It doesn't matter if the name on it is commercial or not. A generation never knew it as the Witton Lane Stand so they don't call it that. If this sponsorship stuff happens then a generation will grow up never knowing it as The Holte End. Which is why i'm against it, but i'm not going to pretend that over time the new name won't be used more and more.
And how much value does this naming right have for whoever decides that their name rather than the Holte End will be the first new name? Not enough to make a difference in the grand scheme, is my bet.
Which begs the question (again), what's the point of doing it in the first place? Especially against the backdrop of the considerable amount of TV money coming in to the club.
It's free money, why would anyone turn it down?
Don't kid yourself that it is free money. I wouldn't see it as free money, selling the name of the Holte.
Really, if the club were going to do something like this then they might as well go the whole hog and just sell naming rights to Villa Park. But then, as a less and less high profile club in the Premier League I doubt we'd get enough money to make a significant difference.
Has the club spent all of the TV money, BTW? Because I don't see it being spent on players.
-
Not for me. The £ will only be used to buy a couple of crap middling players who help us finish 12/13th, so what's the point?
This.
Better to finish 12/13th than 19th/20th.
Or we could employ a better manager who can work with what we have and finisher higher anyway without losing another piece of our club.
-
So it changes name every x years, the point is the same, over time people will stop calling it what it used to be. It doesn't matter if the name on it is commercial or not. A generation never knew it as the Witton Lane Stand so they don't call it that. If this sponsorship stuff happens then a generation will grow up never knowing it as The Holte End. Which is why i'm against it, but i'm not going to pretend that over time the new name won't be used more and more.
And how much value does this naming right have for whoever decides that their name rather than the Holte End will be the first new name? Not enough to make a difference in the grand scheme, is my bet.
Which begs the question (again), what's the point of doing it in the first place? Especially against the backdrop of the considerable amount of TV money coming in to the club.
It's free money, why would anyone turn it down?
Don't kid yourself that it is free money. I wouldn't see it as free money, selling the name of the Holte.
Really, if the club were going to do something like this then they might as well go the whole hog and just sell naming rights to Villa Park. But then, as a less and less high profile club in the Premier League I doubt we'd get enough money to make a significant difference.
Has the club spent all of the TV money, BTW? Because I don't see it being spent on players.
From everything I've read the club will make a small profit last season so this season we'd also make a profit.
-
It depends on what brand or name takes the Holte End...
-
The problem is that we are all in the dark on the objectives that the owner has in the short term (long term he wants out)
Would the money be spend on improving the team or simply put straight into the pockets of the players we have now?
Does RL want to bring down his debt so would use any money raised to pay himself back prior to his exit?
Is this just a first step to the renaming of Villa Park? (which would be the biggest money earning option)
Do we as a club want to be part of this kind of money raising business model? We are already most of the way down this road with pretty much everything up for sponsorship of some kind.
For me, Villa Park is not the ground that I first came to back in the late 70's most of it is gone and replaced, and to be fair the facilities that we have now are far better than in the past so I have no issues with the functionality of the stands even if much of the heart and soul was ripped out.
Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.
If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are
-
"Microsoft* Stadium at Villa Park" would work for me
(*- other operating systems are available)
-
Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.
If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are
But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.
-
"Microsoft* Stadium at Villa Park" would work for me
(*- other operating systems are available)
iVilla Park.
-
Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.
If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are
But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.
How much money do we think we'd actually make from naming rights to stands or the ground?
A few million?
I can't see it being anywhere near enough to make the difference between competing and not competing.
It is interesting that pretty much everyone on this thread has said "it'll still be Villa Park to me", and I am sure it will, for all of us.
Which is exactly why naming rights for one of the most established, well known and used grounds in the country are not going to be worth much money.
The thing that worries me about this whole subject isn't so much the idea that it might happen, it is the idea that Randy really thinks it'll earn decent money. If that's the case, then he's going to be disappointed, I reckon.
-
can't believe that people can slag off sky for the greed and the blinkered bias towards the so called big clubs, the moving to whatever time and day the games they want because they are sky and we can do what ever we fooking well want then come on here and say but it would be ok to rename the Holte end its going to happen and we will forget about it in a few years time.
The two go hand in hand money money and more money to waste
imagine telling a cardill fan that in 5 years time you will be playing in red
Same with a hull fan city or tigers?
We are the villa and we play in claret and blue and villa park is in aston but in 10 years time ?
But it's ok because one day it's going to happen Don't matter about bit of a glorious club being changed does it
-
So it changes name every x years, the point is the same, over time people will stop calling it what it used to be. It doesn't matter if the name on it is commercial or not. A generation never knew it as the Witton Lane Stand so they don't call it that. If this sponsorship stuff happens then a generation will grow up never knowing it as The Holte End. Which is why i'm against it, but i'm not going to pretend that over time the new name won't be used more and more.
And how much value does this naming right have for whoever decides that their name rather than the Holte End will be the first new name? Not enough to make a difference in the grand scheme, is my bet.
Which begs the question (again), what's the point of doing it in the first place? Especially against the backdrop of the considerable amount of TV money coming in to the club.
It's free money, why would anyone turn it down?
How could it possibly, under any criteria, be called free money?
-
No thank you.
-
can't believe that people can slag off sky for the greed and the blinkered bias towards the so called big clubs, the moving to whatever time and day the games they want because they are sky and we can do what ever we fooking well want then come on here and say but it would be ok to rename the Holte end its going to happen and we will forget about it in a few years time.
But all of these things have happened anyway with barely a whimper from the fans. We complain about fixtures being moved but we buy the tickets anyway and take the hit on wasted train fares etc. Cardiff fans did much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the colour change but they now play in red in front of full houses anyway.
In the grand scheme of our beloved game being sold out to the highest bidders, the sponsoring of a stand that we will all still call The Holte End anyway is a mere blip and not one I'm going to get too worked up about.
-
No not for me. We're Aston Villa. Not some tin pot club with a flat-pack ground. I'd be bitterly disappointed to see any form of naming rights appear on any of our stands.
-
No not for me. We're Aston Villa. Not some tin pot club with a flat-pack ground. I'd be bitterly disappointed to see any form of naming rights appear on any of our stands.
This. For a couple of million quid (or one Joe Bennett in real terms) i wouldn't want any of the stands renamed. It's not going to make a difference to the quality of the side it's just money to pay inflated wages of existing players and senior management who don't give a toss what the stands are called. The idea of memories being formed of goals being scored at the Bet 365 end or a full house under floodlights at the BAE Stadium is bullshit. It's just cheap advertising for a company and all the stands at Villa are more than just billboards for companies.
If they did have the temerity to rename the Holte End i wouldn't buy another ticket.
-
If they did have the temerity to rename the Holte End i wouldn't buy another ticket.
You've taken all the bullshit, sky high prices and commercialism thrown at us over the years but the final straw is the renaming of a stand that you will no doubt still call The Holte anyway?
-
Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.
If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are
But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.
Who?
(in England)
Man City are basically an advert for Abu Dhabi
Chelsea are the toy of a russian profiteer
Man U have sold out pretty much everything - http://www.manutd.com/en/Club/Sponsors.aspx (I apologise but it's relevant)
Liverpool you may have a point but given they've just started work on a new stand that is being almost fully funded by FSG I'd be amazed if there isn't something in the contract for it regarding naming
Arsenal play at the emirates stadium
Beyond those you get to tottenham and Everton who, whilst ahead currently, are in a similar position to us and with similar requirements to increase commercial revenue to compete.
Abroad
Barce and Real don't really count, both are largely funded by the local government as an obscene example of civic pride, that said Barce are slowly selling themselves to Qatar anyway.
Bayern are practically a franchise.
Dortmund are held up as a perfect example but they sold the ground naming rights 9 years ago in a 16 year deal so don't apply to your argument.
PSG are owned by Qatar
The Italian league isn't massively flushed with corporate/oil money but only 2 teams in the league (Juventus and Sassuolo) actually own their ground and Juventus has a shopping centre attached to it anyway.
As for the value which has been mentioned how much does it need to be for us to consider it significant? The last round of accounts had our turnover at around £84m so £1m per stand on average is a 5% increase in turnover, that's worth investigating at the very least.
-
If they did have the temerity to rename the Holte End i wouldn't buy another ticket.
You've taken all the bullshit, sky high prices and commercialism thrown at us over the years but the final straw is the renaming of a stand that you will no doubt still call The Holte anyway?
This isn't aimed at bruisedshins, but in reality, the majority of football fans are hypocrites. How many slate Sky for ruining the game etc, but still pay their monthly subscription to Sky as an example?
-
If they did have the temerity to rename the Holte End i wouldn't buy another ticket.
You've taken all the bullshit, sky high prices and commercialism thrown at us over the years but the final straw is the renaming of a stand that you will no doubt still call The Holte anyway?
This isn't aimed at bruisedshins, but in reality, the majority of football fans are hypocrites. How many slate Sky for ruining the game etc, but still pay their monthly subscription to Sky as an example?
I won't Give Murdoch a penny. I'd rather my £40 subscription or whatever it is go towards my away day funds. I'll stream any football via the Internet for free,albeit illegally instead.
-
I haven't had Sky for years either. Freeview army!
-
The stand opposite the trinity is still The Witton Lane stand to me, so the Holte End will still be the Holte end no matter what crap names they put on it.
-
I haven't had Sky for years either. Freeview army!
I'm in this gang too, I'd rather give my cash directly to the club than pay it to Murdoch
-
Same here. Illegal streams for me.
-
Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.
If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are
But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.
Who?
(in England)
Man City are basically an advert for Abu Dhabi
Chelsea are the toy of a russian profiteer
Man U have sold out pretty much everything - http://www.manutd.com/en/Club/Sponsors.aspx (I apologise but it's relevant)
Liverpool you may have a point but given they've just started work on a new stand that is being almost fully funded by FSG I'd be amazed if there isn't something in the contract for it regarding naming
Arsenal play at the emirates stadium
Beyond those you get to tottenham and Everton who, whilst ahead currently, are in a similar position to us and with similar requirements to increase commercial revenue to compete.
Abroad
Barce and Real don't really count, both are largely funded by the local government as an obscene example of civic pride, that said Barce are slowly selling themselves to Qatar anyway.
Bayern are practically a franchise.
Dortmund are held up as a perfect example but they sold the ground naming rights 9 years ago in a 16 year deal so don't apply to your argument.
PSG are owned by Qatar
The Italian league isn't massively flushed with corporate/oil money but only 2 teams in the league (Juventus and Sassuolo) actually own their ground and Juventus has a shopping centre attached to it anyway.
As for the value which has been mentioned how much does it need to be for us to consider it significant? The last round of accounts had our turnover at around £84m so £1m per stand on average is a 5% increase in turnover, that's worth investigating at the very least.
I don't disagree with you on the wider point - ie the need for revenue raising options - but he said there were teams who had success without selling naming rights, and surely that list you've countered with only includes two or three who have actually sold naming rights (one of which has coincidentally become considerably less successful since they did so!) ?
Of course, the wider argument is about where clubs get their money, but it is hard to envisage a situation where, for us, naming rights will be the thing which makes the difference between competing and not competing.
-
Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.
If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are
But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.
Who?
Chelsea. They've actually created a kind of re-written glorious history around the Shed End.
Liverpool. It would take a brave owner to rename the Kop
-
Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.
If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are
But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.
Who?
Chelsea. They've actually created a kind of re-written glorious history around the Shed End.
Liverpool. It would take a brave owner to rename the Kop
Man Utd - still have the Stretford End. (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)
Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income. You'll be talking a couple of million.
For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.
There are other ways we can maximise revenue. Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase). There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us. Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia.
-
Man Utd - still have the Stretford End. (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)
Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income. You'll be talking a couple of million.
For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.
There are other ways we can maximise revenue. Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase). There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us. Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia.
One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream.
I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.
-
I could be wrong here, but didn't Man United change the names of their stands to the rather imaginatively titled North, East, South and West Stands, changing the North stand to the Taggart Stand a couple of years ago?
-
I could be wrong here, but didn't Man United change the names of their stands to the rather imaginatively titled North, East, South and West Stands, changing the North stand to the Taggart Stand a couple of years ago?
The Taggart stand has been changed. But none of the others.
-
Man Utd - still have the Stretford End. (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)
Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income. You'll be talking a couple of million.
For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.
There are other ways we can maximise revenue. Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase). There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us. Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia.
One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream.
I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.
You would think so.
-
Man Utd - still have the Stretford End. (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)
Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income. You'll be talking a couple of million.
For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.
There are other ways we can maximise revenue. Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase). There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us. Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia.
One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream.
I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.
Exactly, the way some are trying to portray it, it's almost as if people think Fox, after put this idea forward, just sat back and thought his work was done.
-
I don't disagree with you on the wider point - ie the need for revenue raising options - but he said there were teams who had success without selling naming rights, and surely that list you've countered with only includes two or three who have actually sold naming rights (one of which has coincidentally become considerably less successful since they did so!) ?
Of course, the wider argument is about where clubs get their money, but it is hard to envisage a situation where, for us, naming rights will be the thing which makes the difference between competing and not competing.
The point is though, all of the clubs who are successful have had to do some rather unpalatable things to increase their revenue streams to remain relevant, be that selling out to a crook or for oil money, or allowing sponsorship for an 'international noodle partner' or renaming your stands/ground. If we want to be relevant we need to do something but any attempt to increase revenue is going to piss some people off. If we can get people to sponsor the stands/ground and/or the academy and/or the training ground then I'd rather we go down that route than just stand still. Being unhappy that this is a requirement and being willing to accept it as inevitable aren't exclusive of one another, holding both of those opinions doesn't make anyone a hypocrite, sometimes tradition has to make way to allow progress.
-
Man Utd - still have the Stretford End. (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)
Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income. You'll be talking a couple of million.
For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.
There are other ways we can maximise revenue. Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase). There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us. Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia.
One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream.
I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.
Exactly, the way some are trying to portray it, it's almost as if people think Fox, after put this idea forward, just sat back and thought his work was done.
Not at all. I just don't want our stands sponsored. I work in Plant Hire, so I'm very familiar with the need to maximise revenue.
-
I could be wrong here, but didn't Man United change the names of their stands to the rather imaginatively titled North, East, South and West Stands, changing the North stand to the Taggart Stand a couple of years ago?
The Taggart stand has been changed. But none of the others.
Sorry, this is going off topic, but what are the names of the other 3 stand at Old Trafford now?
-
Man Utd - still have the Stretford End. (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)
Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income. You'll be talking a couple of million.
For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.
There are other ways we can maximise revenue. Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase). There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us. Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia.
One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream.
I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.
Exactly, the way some are trying to portray it, it's almost as if people think Fox, after put this idea forward, just sat back and thought his work was done.
Not at all. I just don't want our stands sponsored. I work in Plant Hire, so I'm very familiar with the need to maximise revenue.
I could be wrong here, but didn't Man United change the names of their stands to the rather imaginatively titled North, East, South and West Stands, changing the North stand to the Taggart Stand a couple of years ago?
The Taggart stand has been changed. But none of the others.
Sorry, this is going off topic, but what are the names of the other 3 stand at Old Trafford now?
East Stand
South Stand
Stretford End
Sir Taggart Stand
I'm in an office block located literally behind their South Stand, overlooking the bloody pitch.
-
And I used to sign on at the job centre in Regeant Road, next door, and I'm sure the Stretford isn't officially the Stretford End. That's all I'm saying
-
And I used to sign on at the job centre in Regeant Road, next door, and I'm sure the Stretford isn't officially the Stretford End. That's all I'm saying
The Stretford is officially the West Stand. Definitely not sponsored.
-
And I used to sign on at the job centre in Regeant Road, next door, and I'm sure the Stretford isn't officially the Stretford End. That's all I'm saying
The Stretford is officially the West Stand. Definitely not sponsored.
It's been called The Little End since 1977, as has the Scoreboard End. The Main (South) Stand became the Nicholl Stand in honour of a rocket that was launched from that side of the ground.
-
It was known as the Stretford End when I accidentally got a ticket in it to watch the Villa in the 1974/5 season with my mate Bernie. We got confused at the ticket office.
-
I also call the Stretford, The Gabby End!!
-
Just to bring this specific story to a close, Tom Fox on the Holte End renaming rumours
Tom Fox: Aston Villa will NOT rename the Holte End to generate sponsorship money
Dec 12, 2014 20:45 By Gregg Evans
But there could be naming rights for a re-built North Stand in the future
Aston Villa will not be re-naming the Holte End, chief executive Tom Fox has confirmed.
Rumours surfaced last week that the naming rights for the iconic stand could be up for grabs, but Fox insists there’s no truth in those claims.
But he is open to the idea of knocking down the North Stand, with a commercial partner helping ‘build and own’ a redeveloped stand.
Fox said: “I’ve never said to anybody that we would do that.
“I can’t imagine a brand saying ‘I want to sponsor that’, anyway.
“It just wouldn’t make any sense.
“Think of it from a sponsorships point of view - think about the emotional connection that our fans have to the Holte End.
“If you’re a sponsor, do you want to put yourself between the fans and the name of that stand?
“I’m not sure that’s great brand play.
“I just can’t see anyone wanting to get between the club and it’s tradition and the incredibly loyal support of the Holte End. I just don't think that is a great place for a brand to want to be.
“I’ve spent most of my career on the opposite side, on the brand side figuring what to invest in and it’s something I’ve never contemplated.”
One option that Fox would consider in the future is the redevelopment of the North Stand with the possibility of attracting new sponsors.
Plans have been drawn up in the past but the scheme has been put on the back burner by owner Randy Lerner.
“I would love at some point to build a new North Stand which the fans are proud of,” said Fox.
“It’s probably the last piece of our puzzle.
“We’ve got some things to do in the much shorter term but I think that would be a really exciting time.
“I read the stories about the Holte End but we’ve never had those conversations.
“I think a much better option is for someone to come in and help us build and own The North Stand.
“I could see that having a strong title.”
-
Good.
-
Ah well thread over then
-
Or just re-title the thread to North Stand to be renamed . I'm happy to auction that stand off