Would you accept Villa Park being sponsored ?

[atomicjam]

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.

[olaftab]

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.

[DeKuip]

Absolutely no, not at any price.

[Dave]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[fbriai]

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.

[TimTheVillain]

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.





 

[dave.woodhall]

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. 

[Dave]

I'd happily do it for £5m a season.

But I think even that is far more than we would ever realistically see.

[fbriai]

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.woodhall]

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.

[fbriai]

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?

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[MarkM]

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?

[DeKuip]

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!