Holte End to be renamed?

[aj2k77]

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.

[john e]

If SKY sponsored the stand it could be called
Holte end in the SKY

[aj2k77]

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?

[Yossarian]

I think it a rather naive assumption that the money from this would be used to invest in the squad.

[Neil Hawkes]

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.

[olaftab]

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.

[Clampy]

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.

[Monty]

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.

[Witton Warrior]

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

[Chris Smith]

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.

[Legion]

Can't they rename (and revamp) the North Stand instead?

[wozwebs]

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.

[supertom]

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.

[silhillvilla]

Does he just think up things that can piss off the fans ! The bloke is an absolute tool

[Monty]

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.