Takeover rumours

[saunders_heroes]

I don't think Lerner would ever stoop so low as to flog sponsorships for subs, injury time etc. one thing I like about Lerner is the fact that other than pitch-side there are absolutely no advertisements at Villa Park. Other grounds fit in ads in every spare bit of space, but not Villa Park.
Fair play to him for that. Villa Park always was a classy place and we need it to continue. That's not to say I'd be against renaming if we ever left VP. We could flog it to the highest bidder then as they'd be little or no emotional attachment to it.

[Chico Hamilton III]

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.

Weren't the advertisements removed after a while though?

And I thought Villa were prostituting their pedigree when they painted OXO on the barrel-roofed former Witton stand over 100 years ago so I'll be fucked if we start thinking about flogging the stadium name or getting our bench-warmers sponsored

[pauliewalnuts]

I think in general there has to be some limit to what you'll flog, even if it is for good money.

Selling substitutions for next to nothing, on a purely financial sense, makes more sense than not selling them at all, but I totally understand the argument that it's a bit undignified, and I can understand the argument that it'd still be undignified even if it brought in decent cash.

Man United, for example, have this:



Which I am sure makes financial sense for them and brings in big money, but that's a pretty undignified demonstration of flogging your brand, in my opinion.

[Chico Hamilton III]

I think in general there has to be some limit to what you'll flog, even if it is for good money.

Selling substitutions for next to nothing, on a purely financial sense, makes more sense than not selling them at all, but I totally understand the argument that it's a bit undignified, and I can understand the argument that it'd still be undignified even if it brought in decent cash.

Man United, for example, have this:



Which I am sure makes financial sense for them and brings in big money, but that's a pretty undignified demonstration of flogging your brand, in my opinion.

That's Man United's Mita photocopier moment

[Clampy]

Almost as undignified as pulling out of the F.A Cup and being allowed to.

[Brend'Watkins]

I don't think Lerner would ever stoop so low as to flog sponsorships for subs, injury time etc. one thing I like about Lerner is the fact that other than pitch-side there are absolutely no advertisements at Villa Park. Other grounds fit in ads in every spare bit of space, but not Villa Park.
Fair play to him for that. Villa Park always was a classy place and we need it to continue. That's not to say I'd be against renaming if we ever left VP. We could flog it to the highest bidder then as they'd be little or no emotional attachment to it.

Indeed.  One of the things Lerner is good at is promoting the club's history.  Doing up the Holte Pub, the mosaic on the Holte and using the original stained glass on the old Trinity in the new suggests to me that our club's history, colours and ground name won't be sacrificed under his watch.

[pauliewalnuts]

I think in general there has to be some limit to what you'll flog, even if it is for good money.

Selling substitutions for next to nothing, on a purely financial sense, makes more sense than not selling them at all, but I totally understand the argument that it's a bit undignified, and I can understand the argument that it'd still be undignified even if it brought in decent cash.

Man United, for example, have this:



Which I am sure makes financial sense for them and brings in big money, but that's a pretty undignified demonstration of flogging your brand, in my opinion.

That's Man United's Mita photocopier moment

At least Mita were our shirt sponsors.

I might put in an offer to become Man United's "Official Being Increasingly Flabby and Lazy Partner".

[dave.woodhall]

Almost as undignified as pulling out of the F.A Cup and being allowed to.

Much as it grieves me to defend them on that one, they didn't want to - the FA 'asked' them.

[Clampy]

Almost as undignified as pulling out of the F.A Cup and being allowed to.

Much as it grieves me to defend them on that one, they didn't want to - the FA 'asked' them.

Really? I thought it was the other way round. That's just as bad.

[dave.woodhall]

Almost as undignified as pulling out of the F.A Cup and being allowed to.

Much as it grieves me to defend them on that one, they didn't want to - the FA 'asked' them.

Really? I thought it was the other way round. That's just as bad.

It was tied up with the World Cup bid. The FA wanted to help FIFA, much good it did them.

[rob_bridge]

Almost as undignified as pulling out of the F.A Cup and being allowed to.

Much as it grieves me to defend them on that one, they didn't want to - the FA 'asked' them.

Correct. David Davies. In an attempt to (foolishly) garner support for England's World Cup staging bid for the 2006 tournament. 

[Brend'Watkins]

I think in general there has to be some limit to what you'll flog, even if it is for good money.

Selling substitutions for next to nothing, on a purely financial sense, makes more sense than not selling them at all, but I totally understand the argument that it's a bit undignified, and I can understand the argument that it'd still be undignified even if it brought in decent cash.

Man United, for example, have this:



Which I am sure makes financial sense for them and brings in big money, but that's a pretty undignified demonstration of flogging your brand, in my opinion.

That's Man United's Mita photocopier moment

At least Mita were our shirt sponsors.

I might put in an offer to become Man United's "Official Being Increasingly Flabby and Lazy Partner".

An official Diesel engine partner?  WTF.

How many diesel engines do Man U have that warrants them needing a partner? 

[Clampy]

Almost as undignified as pulling out of the F.A Cup and being allowed to.

Much as it grieves me to defend them on that one, they didn't want to - the FA 'asked' them.

Really? I thought it was the other way round. That's just as bad.

It was tied up with the World Cup bid. The FA wanted to help FIFA, much good it did them.

The sad thing is, the F.A would probably do it again if the need arose.

[rob_bridge]

Almost as undignified as pulling out of the F.A Cup and being allowed to.

Much as it grieves me to defend them on that one, they didn't want to - the FA 'asked' them.

Really? I thought it was the other way round. That's just as bad.

It was tied up with the World Cup bid. The FA wanted to help FIFA, much good it did them.

The sad thing is, the F.A would probably do it again if the need arose.

Or just recruit a couple of exceedingly posh blokes who happen to be Villa fans, Prime Minister and Heir to the Throne respectively,  to top up the World's most famous player presence and still lose miserabley to Putin's lot. Ho Hum.

[Dante Lavelli]

When Randy came in, he/we had links with that big sports agency (IMG?).  One of the only notable things they said about the club was that there was too much random sponsorship.  They wanted less names but better branding.  You also see this in the champion's league where large chunks of the stadium (where sponsorship could be) is covered with their "stars" logo.  Ditto - WC's limit the number of "partners" that they'll allow.

So in many ways the arguments that "we need to sell our soul to keep up" might be irrelevant as a more wholistic strategy with fewer sponsors might generate greater revenues anyway.