Takeover rumours

[eastie]

I don't want to see Villa having sponsorship for anything that moves at Villa Park. Leave that to the likes of Small Heath. We're better than that.

Need to move with the times tho Saunders or  other will do and pass us by - the football world we loved and enjoyed back in the 70s and 80s has long gone sadly - now money dictates things  far more.

[paul_e]

I wonder if we'll ever see the day when someone sponsors injury-time as they do at Hell City.

I can't remember where it was but we were at a game this season where the subs were sponsored. It might have been Hull actually.

That's something done at loads of clubs, a couple of seasons ago Tamworth had the time added on sponsored by Bank of Scotland business loans.
A few extra quid for the tannoy announcer to mention a company now and again, a bit like product placement.

I can fully understand clubs like Tamworth doing it, they'd be stupid not to if it helps them financially. A Premiership club doing it seems wrong somehow.

I don't see what the problem is.
The club get some money, the company get a mention and all it is is: "Time added on, sponsored by Rolex, will be a minimum of 5 minutes".
Hardly obstrusive, if something like that annoys you then you must have very low tolerance levels.

What I find strange about things like this is that you get people watching a team with sponsors on their shirt, in a ground with sponsors on boards all around, reading a program full of info about sponsors but the idea of mentioning a sponsor for injury time or the half time entertainment gets them really mad about how commercialised it all is.

Advertising is what it is, if everyone else is taking the money that comes from it then you have to go along with it (in the environment of premier league football club) no one will notice if we make a stand against it, we'll just end up with less money than the clubs around us.  I wouldn't accept changing the name of the club or the club colours because they are the key points to our identity and significantly I don't see any good that can come from it.

I really don't like the approach Chelsea and Man City have taken, it feels like they've skipped a few steps so I wouldn't want the £100m a year on established players they've done but a couple of established players and a couple of the top rated youngsters from around the world for a couple of summers, with the wages that brings, would be good, basically an extension of what we're doing.

[saunders_heroes]

Football has already pretty much sold its soul so if we want to compete we either sponsor everything that moves or turn into another Chelski.  These are the choices.  Unless you want to stay mid table forever with the odd relegation fight to liven things up every few years.

Sponsoring subs and injury time didn't save Small Heath from the drop and it didn't get them higher than mid table either. F#ck that, it's small time and undignified. We've always been a classy club and long may it continue.

[LeeB]

Football has already pretty much sold its soul so if we want to compete we either sponsor everything that moves or turn into another Chelski.  These are the choices.  Unless you want to stay mid table forever with the odd relegation fight to liven things up every few years.

Sponsoring subs and injury time didn't save Small Heath from the drop and it didn't get them higher than mid table either. F#ck that, it's small time and undignified. We've always been a classy club and long may it continue.

I'm 100% with you mate.

[not3bad]

Football has already pretty much sold its soul so if we want to compete we either sponsor everything that moves or turn into another Chelski.  These are the choices.  Unless you want to stay mid table forever with the odd relegation fight to liven things up every few years.

Sponsoring subs and injury time didn't save Small Heath from the drop and it didn't get them higher than mid table either. F#ck that, it's small time and undignified. We've always been a classy club and long may it continue.

I'm 100% with you mate.

"Time added on, sponsored by Rolex, will be a minimum of 5 minutes".

Hearing that will destroy your experience at Villa Park, will it?

The shirt sponsors, the advertising hoardings, the sponsored man of the match, they're all bearable, but this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back?

This will be where 140 years of history goes down the drain?

[paul_e]

Football has already pretty much sold its soul so if we want to compete we either sponsor everything that moves or turn into another Chelski.  These are the choices.  Unless you want to stay mid table forever with the odd relegation fight to liven things up every few years.

Sponsoring subs and injury time didn't save Small Heath from the drop and it didn't get them higher than mid table either. F#ck that, it's small time and undignified. We've always been a classy club and long may it continue.

Why is it small time and undignified to sponsor those things but having a bookie on the shirt is ok?  Are Arsenal small time and undignified seeing as they're play in a stadium named after a sponsor?  The BT deal for the champions league is a clear sign that the bubble is in no imminent danger, given that we need to play by the rules the league and other clubs are setting, if that means 'selling our soul' (which is complete nonsense btw) then we do what we have to do.  I'd love Villa to turn around and go the other way, getting rid of all sponsorship around the ground, refuse to have the stupid advertising boards in the interview area, etc but it's not going to happen.  If we try to deny commercialism in the game we'll sink like a stone, everyone knows that so all the 'classy' perception means is that we've drawn our line in the sand slightly further back than some others.  That's not something to be singing from the rooftops about, if we stay as we are and win things we can be smug about it, but do you really think that will happen?

[eastie]

Pretty much spot on that paul e - we cannot afford not to exploit all avenues of revenue available to us .

[fredm]

I wonder if we'll ever see the day when someone sponsors injury-time as they do at Hell City.

I can't remember where it was but we were at a game this season where the subs were sponsored. It might have been Hull actually.

That's something done at loads of clubs, a couple of seasons ago Tamworth had the time added on sponsored by Bank of Scotland business loans.
A few extra quid for the tannoy announcer to mention a company now and again, a bit like product placement.

I can fully understand clubs like Tamworth doing it, they'd be stupid not to if it helps them financially. A Premiership club doing it seems wrong somehow.

I don't see what the problem is.
The club get some money, the company get a mention and all it is is: "Time added on, sponsored by Rolex, will be a minimum of 5 minutes".
Hardly obstrusive, if something like that annoys you then you must have very low tolerance levels.

It dose'nt annoy me at all. I'm just surprised that a Premier league club with all the money they get feel the need to do it that's all.

It is a business. A business has to make a profit and when they make one the owner(s) want to make a bigger one so they will do whatever is necessary to maximise income to make as large a profit as possible. All we do as spectators is go along and view the product. If we don't like what we see we don't return and the owners profit is reduced.

[pauliewalnuts]

Football has already pretty much sold its soul so if we want to compete we either sponsor everything that moves or turn into another Chelski.  These are the choices.  Unless you want to stay mid table forever with the odd relegation fight to liven things up every few years.

Sponsoring subs and injury time didn't save Small Heath from the drop and it didn't get them higher than mid table either. F#ck that, it's small time and undignified. We've always been a classy club and long may it continue.

Why is it small time and undignified to sponsor those things but having a bookie on the shirt is ok?  Are Arsenal small time and undignified seeing as they're play in a stadium named after a sponsor?  The BT deal for the champions league is a clear sign that the bubble is in no imminent danger, given that we need to play by the rules the league and other clubs are setting, if that means 'selling our soul' (which is complete nonsense btw) then we do what we have to do.  I'd love Villa to turn around and go the other way, getting rid of all sponsorship around the ground, refuse to have the stupid advertising boards in the interview area, etc but it's not going to happen.  If we try to deny commercialism in the game we'll sink like a stone, everyone knows that so all the 'classy' perception means is that we've drawn our line in the sand slightly further back than some others.  That's not something to be singing from the rooftops about, if we stay as we are and win things we can be smug about it, but do you really think that will happen?

I think there's a big difference between selling stadium naming rights for huge amounts of money, which is totally understandable, and selling your substitutions (ie "your Aston Villa substitute is sponsored by Tiles R Us" over the tannoy as they are subbed).

Flogging sponsorship for large amounts of money is far more understandable - and acceptable - than the sort of piddling amounts of money low rent sponsorships like substitutes would bring in.

[olaftab]

Talking of squeezing everything you can from sponsors I wonder how much Vettel got for doing donuts by the  "Fly Emirates" sign yesterday?

[paul_e]

Football has already pretty much sold its soul so if we want to compete we either sponsor everything that moves or turn into another Chelski.  These are the choices.  Unless you want to stay mid table forever with the odd relegation fight to liven things up every few years.

Sponsoring subs and injury time didn't save Small Heath from the drop and it didn't get them higher than mid table either. F#ck that, it's small time and undignified. We've always been a classy club and long may it continue.

Why is it small time and undignified to sponsor those things but having a bookie on the shirt is ok?  Are Arsenal small time and undignified seeing as they're play in a stadium named after a sponsor?  The BT deal for the champions league is a clear sign that the bubble is in no imminent danger, given that we need to play by the rules the league and other clubs are setting, if that means 'selling our soul' (which is complete nonsense btw) then we do what we have to do.  I'd love Villa to turn around and go the other way, getting rid of all sponsorship around the ground, refuse to have the stupid advertising boards in the interview area, etc but it's not going to happen.  If we try to deny commercialism in the game we'll sink like a stone, everyone knows that so all the 'classy' perception means is that we've drawn our line in the sand slightly further back than some others.  That's not something to be singing from the rooftops about, if we stay as we are and win things we can be smug about it, but do you really think that will happen?

I think there's a big difference between selling stadium naming rights for huge amounts of money, which is totally understandable, and selling your substitutions (ie "your Aston Villa substitute is sponsored by Tiles R Us" over the tannoy as they are subbed).

Flogging sponsorship for large amounts of money is far more understandable - and acceptable - than the sort of piddling amounts of money low rent sponsorships like substitutes would bring in.

Ah, but it all depends, that's the point.  Your 'line in the sand' is based on the value of the offering, not what it actually is.  If red bull agreed to give us £10m a season to sponsor the subs, but only if they 'flew' onto the pitch in a harness I'd take it (so long as there was a reasonable health and safety review of the equipment of course) but £5000 a game from poundland wouldn't be worth it.   This is the key thing and why we should explore it.  If someone is willing to pay us a fortune to call the stadium something else then I don't see the issue (if someone offered us a packet of crisps to rename the witton lane stand I'd take it).

We have to dip the toes and see what we can get, if we can get 10-15m a year by sponsoring the stadium and the subs, and etc then we can offer slightly more in wages, we can go for slightly more expensive targets, etc and all without having to be subsidised by Randy.  It doesn't have to be ground breaking figures, £15m this summer, for example, might have bought and paid the wages for kiyotake, would that not be a suitable trade off?

[pauliewalnuts]

I know it is based on the value of the offering, that's what I was getting at - let's be honest, sponsoring our substitutions is not going to bring us in millions of pounds a year, which is why saunders_heroes argument is understandable.

I wouldn't be against selling stadium naming rights on principle, but it has to bring in a decent sum if we are giving away a chunk of our identity.

Slight tangent, but I was just thining about the old Trinity Road stand.

If you ask most people on here about it, they'll get teary eyed (understandably) about it and lament its passing, yet for the last few years of its existence,  it was plastered with advertising, including the gable. 

That was about maximising revenue, too, in the Doug era. Were we right to criticise him for that?

It isn't just about the value of the offer, though, it is also about what it is, you can't divorce the two. It's not just about "we'll give you £10m", it is also about what you're giving them for that money.

I'd take £10m, for example, for stadium renaming, but I wouldn't take it for changing the name of the club to Red Bull Birmingham. Not in a million years.

[pauliewalnuts]

... and on that Birmingham Red Bulls thing, to Randy's credit, I don't think he'd take it in a million years, either.

The one thing I think he's been pretty much perfect on is understanding and respecting our tradition.

[Clampy]

I know it is based on the value of the offering, that's what I was getting at - let's be honest, sponsoring our substitutions is not going to bring us in millions of pounds a year, which is why saunders_heroes argument is understandable.

That's the point I was trying to make about Hull (is it Hull Tigers yet?) doing it.

[paul_e]

Absolutely, but, in a theoretical scenario, if the value is worth it there is nothing 'small time' about taking the money on offer, that's the bit I have objections to.

The commercial aspects of the club are very well managed as far as I'm concerned so, if we saw a sponsor for subs, I'd trust that it was good deal and I certainly wouldn't think we'd sold out and lost our dignity.