Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: TimTheVillain on September 21, 2011, 02:48:22 PM
-
Me, I'd take the money any day.
Frankly, it's all about the money now and we have to raise more any way we can.
-
Depends.
If the money would go on management fees, and paying down the debt to Lerner, then no. If the money was to all go to a decent manager to spend on the squad, then yes.
The latter isn't likely, so its a big fat no from me.
-
Villa Park will always be Villa Park, but i'm still against it in principle.
The money wouldn't make a lot of difference anyway. We'd be nowhere near the £100m Arsenal got from Emirates, never mind the £400m that Citeh are getting. We'd be lucky to get £50m, which we'd then piss up the wall on middling, average players.
-
if you were asked the question a few months ago 'would you accept Mcliesh as manager' the answer would have been NO, but we still got him, we have no chioce now, we have to go with it,
same as naming rights, its nothing to do with whether we would accept it or not, we have little say in the matter
-
No ...once you have sold your soul to the devil he does not give it back
-
No!!! F*ck Modern Football and the evils like that.
-
Well...if it was enough to buy out Beye's & Ireland's contracts, it would be very tempting.
-
No.
I've had enough of greed and avarice chipping away at the game. It's the "everything has it's price" attitude that has made top class football the way it is and I'd rather we didn't contribute thanks.
-
Yes. Is there a company called "Villa Park" that would cough up £100m?
-
No.
The money would only disappear down the trouser pockets of players and agents.
-
Yes
-
No.
The money would only disappear down the trouser pockets of players and agents.
Bit like ManUres, Barcelonas, Citehs then ?
-
Accept it? We'd have fuck all choice in the matter. Like it? Not likely.
-
no
-
I wouldn't have the slightest problem with. Someone gives us a few quid, we still call it Villa Park.
-
Depends whether the money is spent on the team or not.
-
No!!! F*ck Modern Football and the evils like that.
^^. This.
-
This II.
-
This II.
This tres.
-
Providing the money goes towards making us a force again, yeah.
-
Selling the sponsorship to a ground everyone will still call Villa Park won't raise more than about 50p.
There really isn't any point cheapening the place for it.
-
Providing the money goes towards making us a force again, yeah.
Nice to see that there's still one person alive who can remember the day's in the nineteenth century.
-
the money brought in would not make a slightest bit of difference in our standing in the premier league so a big NO!
-
the money brought in would not make a slightest bit of difference in our standing in the premier league so a big NO!
Explain.
-
Man City have spent more than half a BILLION pound since 2007 and what have they got to show for it?
Ground sponsorship rights really are tinkering around the edges. The way the Premier League is now, unless you are a multi-billionaire you simply cannot get a club in to a position to regularly challenge. I don't particularly like it but we cannot compete with the top clubs anymore so why ruin the reputation of Aston Villa trying?
-
the money brought in would not make a slightest bit of difference in our standing in the premier league so a big NO!
Explain.
The money it would bring in would probably be the difference between us being able to offer a 12 month contract to James McFadden or deciding to make do without him.
Worth bothering with or not?
-
It should never be sponsored, I am proud that our ground remains true to the club...Villa Park it must stay
-
Man City have spent more than half a BILLION pound since 2007 and what have they got to show for it?
Ground sponsorship rights really are tinkering around the edges. The way the Premier League is now, unless you are a multi-billionaire you simply cannot get a club in to a position to regularly challenge. I don't particularly like it but we cannot compete with the top clubs anymore so why ruin the reputation of Aston Villa trying?
Because without trying, we are nothing.
It would not ruin our reputation, we have a reputation of 'living on 1982' already.
As for 'offer a 12 month contract to McFadden', replace with 'keep the likes of Darren Bent, as we could begin to sign a couple of £10 mill players per season, rather than one, and not having to offload loads of players as the wages are out of kilter with turnover'.
Worth bothering with that.
-
I wouldn't have the slightest problem with. Someone gives us a few quid, we still call it Villa Park.
Same here, I just can't see the issue. It would still be Villa park to all and sundry, but we would have 50 million plus in the bank. I would assign it to 5million per season for the next 5 on just wages, and 25 for players.
-
As for 'offer a 12 month contract to McFadden', replace with 'keep the likes of Darren Bent, as we could begin to sign a couple of £10 mill players per season, rather than one, and not having to offload loads of players as the wages are out of kilter with turnover'.
Worth bothering with that.
It would be worth bothering with that, but you seem to have hilariously over-valued what somebody is likely to pay for the names rights of a stadium that anybody who is not contractually-obliged to will still call Villa Park. People aren't stupid.
A question for you Tim, which was the last stadium that was renamed and how much did the sponsor pay for the rights per season?
Edit: to answer my own question, when was the last time you heard anybody refer to the SportsDirect.com @ St. James' Park Stadium?
-
I wouldn't have the slightest problem with. Someone gives us a few quid, we still call it Villa Park.
Same here, I just can't see the issue. It would still be Villa park to all and sundry, but we would have 50 million plus in the bank. I would assign it to 5million per season for the next 5 on just wages, and 25 for players.
Just as Dave has responded to TTV, where on earth have you got 50 million from?!
The rumour was that the Genting deal was worth £8m a year. That's £8m for them to have their name plastered all over everything to do with the club.
Do you really expect someone to pay more for some token renaming of the stadium that will virtually never get used?
How often is Newcastle's ground called the 'sportdirect @ St James' Park Stadium' exactly?!
-
It'll always be Villa Park to me so why not!
-
5 million a season over 10 years or so i would imagine. Stadium deals are usually longer term deals than shirt sponsors, and attract similar amounts per season due to the duration from what happens in the USA, where it is quite common.
-
5 million a season over 10 years or so i would imagine. Stadium deals are usually longer term deals than shirt sponsors, and attract similar amounts per season due to the duration from what happens in the USA, where it is quite common.
OK, so it's quite common in the States which to my mind means you'll get more money over there - ie it's a cultural thing to not do it over here so people are less likely to spend as much money on it.
Also, you're advocating selling the naming rights to the ground for 10 years then spending the money in no more than 5. What do we do for money in the second half of that 10 year period?
It's just not worth it to me. The Villa's turnover is almost £100m a year. Over 10 years that a billion pounds. The amount we'd get for this would be a drop in the ocean.
-
Unless it is a new, currently nameless ground, naming rights are pointless. Even Citeh fans, who having been burdened with the unwieldy City of Manchester Stadium before settling on Eastlands, are not referring to their ground as The Etihad, and they've only been there 5 minutes.
(Not that Etihad are bothered: that whole £500m deal is simply a way of keeping the Arab money flowing when regulations are supposedly tightened.)
-
As long as the money was invested in improving Aston Villa
And not in to a rich mans bank account.
-
5 million a season over 10 years or so i would imagine. Stadium deals are usually longer term deals than shirt sponsors, and attract similar amounts per season due to the duration from what happens in the USA, where it is quite common.
OK, so it's quite common in the States which to my mind means you'll get more money over there - ie it's a cultural thing to not do it over here so people are less likely to spend as much money on it.
Also, you're advocating selling the naming rights to the ground for 10 years then spending the money in no more than 5. What do we do for money in the second half of that 10 year period?
It's just not worth it to me. The Villa's turnover is almost £100m a year. Over 10 years that a billion pounds. The amount we'd get for this would be a drop in the ocean.
5million plus a season is 2 players wages. Turnover is likely to drop below 100 million significantly I would think over the next 2-3 years in the current situation, so 5 million a season may be well over 5% of turnover, which would certainly not be a drop in the ocean for any business. A billion over 10 years is not a big business, considering the money the players are paid, the sizes of the companies are relatively small. To suggest 50 million quid would be a drop in the ocean, even 30-40 million, when it could mean having 2 extra players of good quality in the squad is short sighted IMO.
Re the orignal post about how I would spend it it was before I thought about it and using the 50 million from the previous page as an example, but it would be paid on an annual basis most likely so would not be possible to spend it in advance in that manner anyway.
-
The whole argument still revolves around this figure of £5m per season which as far as I can tell has been plucked out of thin air.
As Adam has said, we recently signed our biggest ever sponsorship deal worth around £8m per year (if reports are accurate). for Genting to have their name plastered across everything to do with the club.
Why would anybody give £5m per season for the privilege of everybody still just referring to it as Villa Park? Who is this mythical company who is going to want to give us this money?
-
As long as the money was invested in improving Aston Villa
And not in to a rich mans bank account.
No chance of that.
-
No ...once you have sold your soul to the devil he does not give it back
Unfortunately football in general did that a long, long time ago
-
I wouldn't want us to do it, I couldn't see it making a difference anyway, who is going to want to pay a a whole load of money to sponsor a stadium when everyone will still call it Villa Park? On top of that I doubt we'd get a decent amount to make a difference.
-
I think it might depend on who it was, as to how accepting I was.
'The Jaguar, Villa Park.' Not bad.
'Lidl Villa.'
I don't think so.
-
The whole argument still revolves around this figure of £5m per season which as far as I can tell has been plucked out of thin air.
As Adam has said, we recently signed our biggest ever sponsorship deal worth around £8m per year (if reports are accurate). for Genting to have their name plastered across everything to do with the club.
Why would anybody give £5m per season for the privilege of everybody still just referring to it as Villa Park? Who is this mythical company who is going to want to give us this money?
It is plucked out of the air as a figure that is possibly realistic, stadium deals tend to be decent sized or they don't happen, and they tend to be longer term. Arsenals was for 15 seasons I think. I reckon we would get pretty close to 5 million a season if we were to auction it off. Hell the side of VP with the motorway traffic alone must be worth a few bob in advertising space all lit up.
-
Hell the side of VP with the motorway traffic alone must be worth a few bob in advertising space all lit up.
What, like Walsall have done?!
The sheer thought of it makes me cringe.
-
Hell the side of VP with the motorway traffic alone must be worth a few bob in advertising space all lit up.
What, like Walsall have done?!
The sheer thought of it makes me cringe.
What's the difference between that and hoardings around the pitch?
-
Rename it if the money is reinvested into the club I say. It will always be Villa Park to me. What was that phone company that had adverts all over the inside of the ground? I really cannot remember or, despite not missing a home game for years, know if they are still there. Let whoever stick up some signs, a flag and put their name in the programme. It happens anyway. We need to compete and if we can raise money via another sponsor so be it.
-
The rumour was that the Genting deal was worth £8m a year. That's £8m for them to have their name plastered all over everything to do with the club.
Do you really expect someone to pay more for some token renaming of the stadium that will virtually never get used?
Yes namimg the stadium can be worth that sort. Genting is splashed all over us however how many times does it get any mention in the broadcast media? Never is the answer however if the stadium was renamed "xxx stadium" it will be broadcast about 10 times during any game being played there. That sticks in peoples mind more than a name on a shirt. However any deal worth the bang for sponsor's buck will mean ditching teh name Villa park.
-
Absolutely no, not at any price.
-
The whole argument still revolves around this figure of £5m per season which as far as I can tell has been plucked out of thin air.
As Adam has said, we recently signed our biggest ever sponsorship deal worth around £8m per year (if reports are accurate). for Genting to have their name plastered across everything to do with the club.
Why would anybody give £5m per season for the privilege of everybody still just referring to it as Villa Park? Who is this mythical company who is going to want to give us this money?
It is plucked out of the air as a figure that is possibly realistic, stadium deals tend to be decent sized or they don't happen, and they tend to be longer term. Arsenals was for 15 seasons I think. I reckon we would get pretty close to 5 million a season if we were to auction it off. Hell the side of VP with the motorway traffic alone must be worth a few bob in advertising space all lit up.
There's a massive difference between our situation and Arsenal's though (apart from the obvious).
The Emirates was a brand new stadium which needed a name. It didn't have the problem that everyone was still going to call it Highbury. A new stadium, be it sponsored by Walkers, Reebok, Emirates or (at a push) Etihad is going to be valuable to a potential sponsor because people weren't just going to ignore the new name. This thread is evidence that everyone will just call it Villa Park anyway meaning the potential value for both advertiser and club plummets.
As in our previous examples of sportsdirect.com @ St James' Park Stadium, how much financial or brand benefit do you think sportdirect.com are getting out of nobody calling it that?
I'd also say that it's one of the main reasons that pretty much every club out there (even with FFP coming into play) isn't bothering - because it's just not worth the meagre benefit they would see from it.
-
As in our previous examples of sportsdirect.com @ St James' Park Stadium, how much financial or brand benefit do you think sportdirect.com are getting out of nobody calling it that?
I'd actually completely forgotten about that, which proves your point I suppose.
-
Hell the side of VP with the motorway traffic alone must be worth a few bob in advertising space all lit up.
What, like Walsall have done?!
The sheer thought of it makes me cringe.
What's the difference between that and hoardings around the pitch?
Dave, the problem with that argument is that you could use it to justify putting advertising anywhere. What about selling the rights to put a sponsor on the shoulders of the shirt as well - I've seen it on French shirts - or in the middle of the pitch as they do in the rugby or cricket? If the rights to the name of the stadium are sold - and such a significant stadium as well - where is the line drawn? Is everything effectively up for sale?
I understand that the club has to 'maximise its revenue streams' and all that, but, for me, it would be just one more nail in the coffin of everything that makes football worthwhile. It wasn't always like this.
-
As in our previous examples of sportsdirect.com @ St James' Park Stadium, how much financial or brand benefit do you think sportdirect.com are getting out of nobody calling it that?
I'd actually completely forgotten about that, which proves your point I suppose.
But even the club ( Newcastle) still call the stadium 'St James' Park' .
http://www.nufc.co.uk/page/Club/Home
I don't think the 'renaming' of their stadium is a proper sponsorship, more their owner's attempt to get some marketing value for his sports business out of owning the club.
I'm not sure about numbers, but even £5 mill per season over a long period ( as suggested, may be feasible) can't be sneezed at, surely ?
Villa needs to look at any revenue generating concepts unless Randy sells to a trilliionaire.
-
Hell the side of VP with the motorway traffic alone must be worth a few bob in advertising space all lit up.
What, like Walsall have done?!
The sheer thought of it makes me cringe.
What's the difference between that and hoardings around the pitch?
Dave, the problem with that argument is that you could use it to justify putting advertising anywhere. What about selling the rights to put a sponsor on the shoulders of the shirt as well - I've seen it on French shirts - or in the middle of the pitch as they do in the rugby or cricket? If the rights to the name of the stadium are sold - and such a significant stadium as well - where is the line drawn? Is everything effectively up for sale?
I understand that the club has to 'maximise its revenue streams' and all that, but, for me, it would be just one more nail in the coffin of everything that makes football worthwhile. It wasn't always like this.
Exactly - where is the line drawn? We have shirt sponsors, club sponsors (which is the same thing), advertising hoardings, all manner of club 'partners.' Why are they acceptable but a couple of extra words isn't? Nobody is more upholding of the club's traditions than I, but if someone wants to pay to have their name tacked onto Villa Park I've never had a problem with the idea.
-
I'd happily do it for £5m a season.
But I think even that is far more than we would ever realistically see.
-
Dave, the problem with that argument is that you could use it to justify putting advertising anywhere. What about selling the rights to put a sponsor on the shoulders of the shirt as well - I've seen it on French shirts - or in the middle of the pitch as they do in the rugby or cricket? If the rights to the name of the stadium are sold - and such a significant stadium as well - where is the line drawn? Is everything effectively up for sale?
I understand that the club has to 'maximise its revenue streams' and all that, but, for me, it would be just one more nail in the coffin of everything that makes football worthwhile. It wasn't always like this.
Exactly - where is the line drawn? We have shirt sponsors, club sponsors (which is the same thing), advertising hoardings, all manner of club 'partners.' Why are they acceptable but a couple of extra words isn't? Nobody is more upholding of the club's traditions than I, but if someone wants to pay to have their name tacked onto Villa Park I've never had a problem with the idea.
It's a perfectly valid point you make, Dave. In that perspective it seems perfectly acceptable. I just wish it wasn't.
-
Dave, the problem with that argument is that you could use it to justify putting advertising anywhere. What about selling the rights to put a sponsor on the shoulders of the shirt as well - I've seen it on French shirts - or in the middle of the pitch as they do in the rugby or cricket? If the rights to the name of the stadium are sold - and such a significant stadium as well - where is the line drawn? Is everything effectively up for sale?
I understand that the club has to 'maximise its revenue streams' and all that, but, for me, it would be just one more nail in the coffin of everything that makes football worthwhile. It wasn't always like this.
Exactly - where is the line drawn? We have shirt sponsors, club sponsors (which is the same thing), advertising hoardings, all manner of club 'partners.' Why are they acceptable but a couple of extra words isn't? Nobody is more upholding of the club's traditions than I, but if someone wants to pay to have their name tacked onto Villa Park I've never had a problem with the idea.
It's a perfectly valid point you make, Dave. In that perspective it seems perfectly acceptable. I just wish it wasn't.
I wish it wasn't. I wish we didn't have a sponsor, there were no adverts anywhere and I wouldn't mind not being able to buy replica kits so that the only Villa shirts in existence were the ones worn by players, but you have to be realistic. You're either Queens Park, or you maximise your revenues.
-
I wish it wasn't. I wish we didn't have a sponsor, there were no adverts anywhere and I wouldn't mind not being able to buy replica kits so that the only Villa shirts in existence were the ones worn by players, but you have to be realistic. You're either Queens Park, or you maximise your revenues.
Very true. However, is there not a point that over-steps the boundary eventually or should these things simply be accepted as the only way in which we will be able to compete in the future?
-
I wish it wasn't. I wish we didn't have a sponsor, there were no adverts anywhere and I wouldn't mind not being able to buy replica kits so that the only Villa shirts in existence were the ones worn by players, but you have to be realistic. You're either Queens Park, or you maximise your revenues.
Very true. However, is there not a point that over-steps the boundary eventually or should these things simply be accepted as the only way in which we will be able to compete in the future?
At one time clubs wouldn't sell anything featuring their badge because they didn't want it soiled by commercialism. Times change.
Anyway, look at what Sky do.
-
I think it begs the question, should we have moved instead of redeveloping the ground?
The only stand left from my first visit to VP is the North stand [which is looking awful], so would a new purpose built
"sponsor name, Villa Park" with a 50K attendance out by the NEC be better than what we have now?
-
So we sell our soul and take at best say £10m to have our home renamed.
In exchange we end up with an average player who gets even richer, as does his agent - and if he's any good (which he probably won't be) he pisses off after a couple of years and we're left the bleeding Asda Arena!
NO DEAL, NO WAY.
Imagine how you'd have felt last Saturday if £30m stadium naming cash had been spent on Charles N'Zogbia and Darren Bent. An insult to the great name of and tradition of Villa Park!
-
I'd happily do it for £5m a season.
But I think even that is far more than we would ever realistically see.
I see your point, it's a bit 'catch 22' in that, the more successful the club is, the higher the price.
-
I'd happily do it for £5m a season.
But I think even that is far more than we would ever realistically see.
I see your point, it's a bit 'catch 22' in that, the more successful the club is, the higher the price.
£5m - about Beye's and SI wages. Not worth it in a million years.
-
So we sell our soul and take at best say £10m to have our home renamed.
In exchange we end up with an average player who gets even richer, as does his agent - and if he's any good (which he probably won't be) he pisses off after a couple of years and we're left the bleeding Asda Arena!
NO DEAL, NO WAY.
Imagine how you'd have felt last Saturday if £30m stadium naming cash had been spent on Charles N'Zogbia and Darren Bent. An insult to the great name of and tradition of Villa Park!
You can say that about every penny the club earns. I fail to see how ground sponsorship is selling your soul any more than kit sponsorship or Sky deals.
-
So we sell our soul and take at best say £10m to have our home renamed.
In exchange we end up with an average player who gets even richer, as does his agent - and if he's any good (which he probably won't be) he pisses off after a couple of years and we're left the bleeding Asda Arena!
NO DEAL, NO WAY.
Imagine how you'd have felt last Saturday if £30m stadium naming cash had been spent on Charles N'Zogbia and Darren Bent. An insult to the great name of and tradition of Villa Park!
You can say that about every penny the club earns. I fail to see how ground sponsorship is selling your soul any more than kit sponsorship or Sky deals.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise why not go the whole way and sell the name of the club as well.
I'd rather watch Aston Villa play at Villa Park in the lower leagues than Red Bull Villa at Asda Arena in the Premier League. And in my grandmother was still alive I wouldn't sell her either, even if it meant having a Ferrari on the drive.
-
So we sell our soul and take at best say £10m to have our home renamed.
In exchange we end up with an average player who gets even richer, as does his agent - and if he's any good (which he probably won't be) he pisses off after a couple of years and we're left the bleeding Asda Arena!
NO DEAL, NO WAY.
Imagine how you'd have felt last Saturday if £30m stadium naming cash had been spent on Charles N'Zogbia and Darren Bent. An insult to the great name of and tradition of Villa Park!
You can say that about every penny the club earns. I fail to see how ground sponsorship is selling your soul any more than kit sponsorship or Sky deals.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise why not go the whole way and sell the name of the club as well.
I'd rather watch Aston Villa play at Villa Park in the lower leagues than Red Bull Villa at Asda Arena in the Premier League. And in my grandmother was still alive I wouldn't sell her either, even if it meant having a Ferrari on the drive.
Absolutely.
-
I'm having trouble believing that the editor of the latest H&V thinks that adopting commercial shirt sponsors is the same kind of deal as renaming the ground.
-
I'm having trouble believing that the editor of the latest H&V thinks that adopting commercial shirt sponsors is the same kind of deal as renaming the ground.
It's the same concept. You either reject something entirely or you make sure you're as good at it as you possible can be.
-
Does anyone know how much Newcastle got for selling their stadium naming rights? I've never heard a person since not just call it "St James' Park".
-
I'm having trouble believing that the editor of the latest H&V thinks that adopting commercial shirt sponsors is the same kind of deal as renaming the ground.
It's the same concept. You either reject something entirely or you make sure you're as good at it as you possible can be.
I think I said what I was worried about in an earlier post. i.e., Jaguar or Lidl, just for instance.
I think I'm concerned about what the concept of success might be. Like, I love Acorns, I hated the 33 betting thing. 'You make sure you're as good at it as you possibly can be.' I really really don't want Villa park to be renamed as a cheap betting website, like our shirts were. I'm sorry Dave but this particular management team has not given me cause to hope for the best - just the most expedient. I'd like them to prove me wrong.
-
Again, I fail to see how the sponsor's industry is of any importance. We're happy to have shirts that may or may not be made by third world sweatshops; in fact the original Nike deal was a cause for rejoicing. What's the difference?
-
Actually put like that no difference. I'd just like to think we're better, that's all.
-
Probably would. its like the Doug ellis stand- no-one calls it that and lets face it thats about as blatent an attempt as self advertisement as you can get, so if you can live with that insult anything is possible. And we didn't get paid for it. Frankly the way Lerner's been flogging off the players for money, i'm surprised Cash Converters haven't been in contact already.
-
The minimum benefits of what we'd get and what we'd spend it on simply wouldnt be worth it. I'd be against a renaming but a sponsorship deal such as "Villa Park sponsored by Jaguar" would be acceptable as long as there was decent money on the table.
-
So if Randy wanted to call it the Acorns Villa stadium.... I'd be chuffed.
-
No, never ever. Nope, not a chance.
-
Villa Park will always be Villa Park, but i'm still against it in principle.
The money wouldn't make a lot of difference anyway. We'd be nowhere near the £100m Arsenal got from Emirates, never mind the £400m that Citeh are getting. We'd be lucky to get £50m, which we'd then piss up the wall on middling, average players.
correct. I would only run with this if it was club changing (100m+) otherwise its a high price...
-
Who would sponsor us at the moment?
Lidl?
-
Who would sponsor us at the moment?
Lidl?
Their revenue was 42 billion euros in 2010
-
I wouldn't have the slightest problem with. Someone gives us a few quid, we still call it Villa Park.
"Warren Buffett Field at Villa Park" has a nice ring to it
-
according to things general krulak posted on twitter its called the gentings casino something or other now
-
according to things general krulak posted on twitter its called the gentings casino something or other now
He has also said amongst other things "Some guy called Paul McGrath has sent 100 copies of his new CD to the offices at the Villain's Soccer Bowl. Will make good ashtrays" and "Heading off to Wembley Soccer Bowl to watch the Aston Villain's players represent the England team against Waleshire".
How likely do you think it is that it's a genuine account?
-
according to things general krulak posted on twitter its called the gentings casino something or other now
He has also said amongst other things "Some guy called Paul McGrath has sent 100 copies of his new CD to the offices at the Villain's Soccer Bowl. Will make good ashtrays" and "Heading off to Wembley Soccer Bowl to watch the Aston Villain's players represent the England team against Waleshire".
How likely do you think it is that it's a genuine account?
Oh i don't know, sounds pretty much spot on to me.
-
Who would sponsor us at the moment?
Lidl?
Their revenue was 42 billion euros in 2010
I think you've just performed the equivalent of an internet dead arm and can rightly proclaim "owned".
-
Its always good to keep the traditional name of the stadium, however if this means we get some quality players in, so be it, and if we do have to then the Jaguar Stadium sounds good, I assume after the great British Jaguar car, if your going to do it, do it right.
-
I assume after the great British Jaguar car, if your going to do it, do it right
Named after the great Indian Jaguar Car
-
Or the "Aston Villa Cougar Stadium" (we're very old and regularly fucked)
-
Who would sponsor us at the moment?
Lidl?
Their revenue was 42 billion euros in 2010
I think you've just performed the equivalent of an internet dead arm and can rightly proclaim "owned".
Their tinned tomatoes are still shit.
-
If Jaguar develop their next model and call it The Villa Park series instead of XJ, XF or whatever then they can throw all the ground sponsorship money they like at us.
-
Yes by Warren Buffett by a gift equal to of half his fortune when he takes his last breath! We will call it Villa Buffet.
-
Difficult to answer the question. Not accepting implies that altenative action would be taken.
Thinking about it I don't know many outside the media that call it Villa Park anyway. Me, I go down the Villa
PS Nothing wrong with Lidl tinned tomatoes