Holte End to be renamed?

[PeterWithesShin]

I haven't had Sky for years either. Freeview army!

[villaxl]

The stand opposite the trinity is still The Witton Lane stand to me, so the Holte End will still be the Holte end no matter what crap names they put on it.

[mrastonvilla]

I haven't had Sky for years either. Freeview army!

I'm in this gang too, I'd rather give my cash directly to the club than pay it to Murdoch

[Legion]

Same here. Illegal streams for me.

[pauliewalnuts]

Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.

If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are

But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.

Who?

(in England)
Man City are basically an advert for Abu Dhabi
Chelsea are the toy of a russian profiteer
Man U have sold out pretty much everything - http://www.manutd.com/en/Club/Sponsors.aspx (I apologise but it's relevant)
Liverpool you may have a point but given they've just started work on a new stand that is being almost fully funded by FSG I'd be amazed if there isn't something in the contract for it regarding naming
Arsenal play at the emirates stadium
Beyond those you get to tottenham and Everton who, whilst ahead currently, are in a similar position to us and with similar requirements to increase commercial revenue to compete.

Abroad
Barce and Real don't really count, both are largely funded by the local government as an obscene example of civic pride, that said Barce are slowly selling themselves to Qatar anyway.
Bayern are practically a franchise.
Dortmund are held up as a perfect example but they sold the ground naming rights 9 years ago in a 16 year deal so don't apply to your argument.
PSG are owned by Qatar
The Italian league isn't massively flushed with corporate/oil money but only 2 teams in the league (Juventus and Sassuolo) actually own their ground and Juventus has a shopping centre attached to it anyway.

As for the value which has been mentioned how much does it need to be for us to consider it significant?  The last round of accounts had our turnover at around £84m so £1m per stand on average is a 5% increase in turnover, that's worth investigating at the very least.

I don't disagree with you on the wider point - ie the need for revenue raising options - but he said there were teams who had success without selling naming rights, and surely that list you've countered with only includes two or three who have actually sold naming rights (one of which has coincidentally become considerably less successful since they did so!) ?

Of course, the wider argument is about where clubs get their money, but it is hard to envisage a situation where, for us, naming rights will be the thing which makes the difference between competing and not competing.

[Chico Hamilton III]

Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.

If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are

But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.

Who?

Chelsea. They've actually created a kind of re-written glorious history around the Shed End.
Liverpool. It would take a brave owner to rename the Kop
 

[Holte L2]

Should we throw open the door to stand sponsorship? I would say that as long as we are aware of the potential final destination (the Bet365 Stadium) and we are happy to accept this in exchange for a better performing club / team then we should do it.

If however we want to keep tradition and are happy to be mid table with a cup run every so often (which is arguably where we are now) then we should kindly decline and be content to be where we are

But there are teams who are successful who haven't sold their ground's name to sponsors. You make it sound as if the only way we can sniff success is if we sell the naming rights.

Who?

Chelsea. They've actually created a kind of re-written glorious history around the Shed End.
Liverpool. It would take a brave owner to rename the Kop
 

Man Utd - still have the Stretford End.  (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)

Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income.  You'll be talking a couple of million.

For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.

There are other ways we can maximise revenue.  Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase).  There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us.  Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia. 

[dave.woodhall]

Man Utd - still have the Stretford End.  (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)

Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income.  You'll be talking a couple of million.

For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.

There are other ways we can maximise revenue.  Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase).  There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us.  Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia. 

One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream. 

I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.

[Chico Hamilton III]

I could be wrong here, but didn't Man United change the names of their stands to the rather imaginatively titled North, East, South and West Stands, changing the North stand to the Taggart Stand a couple of years ago? 

[Holte L2]

I could be wrong here, but didn't Man United change the names of their stands to the rather imaginatively titled North, East, South and West Stands, changing the North stand to the Taggart Stand a couple of years ago? 

The Taggart stand has been changed. But none of the others.

[Holte L2]

Man Utd - still have the Stretford End.  (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)

Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income.  You'll be talking a couple of million.

For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.

There are other ways we can maximise revenue.  Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase).  There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us.  Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia. 

One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream. 

I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.

You would think so.

[Ger Regan]

Man Utd - still have the Stretford End.  (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)

Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income.  You'll be talking a couple of million.

For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.

There are other ways we can maximise revenue.  Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase).  There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us.  Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia. 

One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream. 

I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.

Exactly, the way some are trying to portray it, it's almost as if people think Fox, after put this idea forward, just sat back and thought his work was done.

[paul_e]

I don't disagree with you on the wider point - ie the need for revenue raising options - but he said there were teams who had success without selling naming rights, and surely that list you've countered with only includes two or three who have actually sold naming rights (one of which has coincidentally become considerably less successful since they did so!) ?

Of course, the wider argument is about where clubs get their money, but it is hard to envisage a situation where, for us, naming rights will be the thing which makes the difference between competing and not competing.

The point is though, all of the clubs who are successful have had to do some rather unpalatable things to increase their revenue streams to remain relevant, be that selling out to a crook or for oil money, or allowing sponsorship for an 'international noodle partner' or renaming your stands/ground.  If we want to be relevant we need to do something but any attempt to increase revenue is going to piss some people off.  If we can get people to sponsor the stands/ground and/or the academy and/or the training ground then I'd rather we go down that route than just stand still.  Being unhappy that this is a requirement and being willing to accept it as inevitable aren't exclusive of one another, holding both of those opinions doesn't make anyone a hypocrite, sometimes tradition has to make way to allow progress.

[Holte L2]

Man Utd - still have the Stretford End.  (I'm looking at the bloody thing out of my office window)

Selling the naming rights isn't going to bring in a huge amount of income.  You'll be talking a couple of million.

For the sake of signing a Joe Bennett (as somebody else earlier put it) I'd rather preserve our heritage.

There are other ways we can maximise revenue.  Focusing on developing "Our Brand" abroad (I hate that phrase).  There's a huge market in Asia to be had. They love the Premier League. Touring these countries instead of visiting the States should be much more profitable for us.  Open up a Villa Shop in a few Cities in Asia. 

One single sponsorship of anything is never going to make much difference but added together they become a substantial income stream. 

I'm sure that the Villa, like all Premier League clubs, have looked at every possible way in every possible part of the world to maximise revenues.

Exactly, the way some are trying to portray it, it's almost as if people think Fox, after put this idea forward, just sat back and thought his work was done.

Not at all.  I just don't want our stands sponsored.  I work in Plant Hire, so I'm very familiar with the need to maximise revenue.

[Chico Hamilton III]

I could be wrong here, but didn't Man United change the names of their stands to the rather imaginatively titled North, East, South and West Stands, changing the North stand to the Taggart Stand a couple of years ago? 

The Taggart stand has been changed. But none of the others.

Sorry, this is going off topic, but what are the names of the other 3 stand at Old Trafford now?