brommy

I thought Clegg was in the government? Now I am confused! :?

Let's face it, the kits would better with NO words on them. As this would mean the club would miss out on around £20m in the next 3 years, the kits will have words on. However, as long as the words are not offensive, I don't think the club could dictate, to a company paying millions, what it should do with allocated space on the kits, just because fewer words look slightly better!

:shock:. Its clearly red. And it looks shit. Saying it looks 'shit' doesn't leave much room for a stronger dislike, does it? It's a bit of red lettering on a black kit that most fans seem to really like. The red lettering might not be to my taste and it could be said that it doesn't look quite right. But 'shit'? Surely this term should be reserved to describe the likes of Everton's away kit?

The likes of MM have confirmed the deal is a big step up from previous years of scratching around for deals in the £1m per year range. IMO Randy's resistance in selling our name 'cheaply' has put a premium on the value of the main club sponsorship, i.e. the Acorns deal really was a win-win. I've read that FxPro have also agreed to help Acorns as part of this deal. I don't know if this is with cash or sharing advertisment space alongside Acorns such as yesterday's kit launch, but again it's a win for the club and a win for Acorns. Well done to Randy and his team.

Don't think its been released but would guess at around £5m a year for 4 years. £6m per year for 3 years is what I had heard.

After some research chequered and checkered are both common spellings. The game of draughts is also known as checkers. Presumably after the pattern on the board. It would appear that the spelling of checkered is one less thing to be stressed about. :winkold:

:oops: I've just posted 'checks'. Should that be 'cheques'? I'm ready to edit!

The thing is for every opinion like the one above there is another that thinks the new kit is great. Nobody can say for fact the kits are crap or great. It's all subjective opinion. I liked the last two seasons because I thought they were plain and classy. Many fans thought them plain and boring. I like the new home kit because in my opinion, they maintain the traditional claret body and blue sleeves and introduce a fresh, younger look with the side panel checks. Some fans think differently. I've read some fans disappointment that the new kits have no collar. I hate collars on football shirts; they never seem to 'sit' right after the first wash. In any case, as long as the basics are right (claret body and blue sleeves for home, non-offensive colour for away), its no big deal in my opinion. Any fan who thinks one or both of Villa's new kits are really bad should check out westhams home or evertons away kits to regain their perspective. At best this thread can be summarised in just four words - each to their own.

I'm not saying that Joe Cole isn't a decent player but I really could not understand the clamour for Cole to play, like he would make a massive difference. Because Cole wasn't being started he became the opposite of a scapegoat (whatever one of those is called :? ). Crap London media/journalism IMO.

There is a maximum size for shirt adverts so surely FxPro will have the same dilema - maximum size of 'FxPro' text or smaller text plus a 'what we do' tagline. Whilst I won't be losing any sleep, writing to the General or moaning about the club/Randy, in my opinion, the shirts will look better without a tagline.

I don't follow your logic. Please explain. Okay, not being a dick or nowt but not that difficult a post to follow, at least I don't think anyway. I think it takes the shine off it a little that another club, a club far smaller than us have the same. Probably therefore means that the deal we received isn't as large as the club and we might have hoped for being that they also then decided to sponsor another club. You also have to imagine that Fulham wouldn't have been expecting a major shirt sponsorship deal and probably weren't searching for one so if the two deals are the same then it's likely that it's not for masses of money as we'd all hoped. The above then leads to my imagining that it's the reason that no official figures have been released, Spurs, Liverpool, United etc are all happy to boast about their shirt deals whilst we've been left in the dark, probably because they don't want to seem inferior to the above mentioned.... Does that make it clearer? I asked you to explain because I was genuinely open to your further detail persuading me of your supposition. However, there are far too many 'think', 'probably' and 'imagine' type terms in your detail for me to believe your respected opinion is anywhere near fact. Non-disclosure of financial contracts does not necessarily hide ‘disappointing’ figures. Such privacy is more and more common within companies during this restrictive economic time and is certainly in keeping with Randy’s self-effacing style. Whilst it would be foolish to believe we have leapt to a £10m annual sponsorship; following Randy's refusal to sell the clubs name cheaply, it's reasonable to believe Randy would not have capitulated to previous figures of less than £2m per year. I don't see why Fulham's separate deal with FxPro would have any impact on our sponsorship contract. I’ve read uncorroborated script that the FxPro deal is for circa £6m/year. My own guess would be nearer to £4m to £5m. I agree it is hardly $ky4 territory, but it is a massive improvement on previous deals.

I don't follow your logic. Please explain.

Impressive if true. Has Randy's decision not to deal at previous figures, suggested at £2m per year, driven up the price? In doing so we have helped Acorns and the club. A nice win-win by Randy.

It might cost us £15m though. It wouldn't do him any harm but it might harm the club. If he doesn't sign a new deal this summer he has to go. It's a shame, but I think that's the truth. I think you're right and would hope that this is being considered by MON and Randy. I guess it'll all come down to what Milner wants to do. Keeping Barry for another year cost Villa around £6m as he went from two to one contract year remaining; a price Randy and MON decided was worth paying. Keeping Milner for another year on the same contract could cost Villa around £15m. In the event of Milner not signing an extended contract this summer, I suspect Randy and MON would rather cash in than see Milner's value half next year. Even worse, imagine Milner leaving on a free in 2012! :shock:

Was this a direct quote though?

Is the best way to look at the whole situation. With the backing of Randy (not selling to the first bid or, I'm guessing, for much less than £30m), MON is probably thinking a long the same lines. I assume MON has some targets in case Milner forces Villa's hand.

Something that will give us all a hangover for the next 5 years? How appropriate!

Often acknowledged as the 'nasty' party; not usually evil though. True. With the first past the post system I think the Lib Dems would need 40%+ to win a majority of seats; highly unlikely. Despite the polls suggesting the Tories falling short of an overall majority, I still think they may just get one. They always do a couple of percentage points better than the polls; something to do with some voters not admitting to vote Tory as it's seen to be selfish. Ant colonies are successful across the world because they work better together, not just looking after themselves as individuals. I think I've made my mind up for this Thursday.

Yes. Only got as far as "Macheda slots in..." on the live text. :oops: Also, on the live text I typed: Hello to all my fellow VTers! Rob, got any good pics to share? It got edited to: Hello to all my fellow VTers!

1-1 Macheda just before HT. :x

The Fonz scores at Old Trafford after 22 minutes!

General, Can you ensure that fans of other teams wishing to take MON away from Villa are given short shrift? In your usual eloquent manner of course! :winkold:

Ought to be but isn't. Against a 13 year old government, only just recovering from a recession and a PM that lacks charisma. Even voters who don't fall for the media driven 'good looking smooth talkers are best' or don't blame Labour for the UK's recent recession are getting 'bored' with such a long term government. I predict a Conservative majority of 15 to 25 seats; a majority that would also be difficult to manage with during the next 4/5 years. Hardly a resounding victory against such weak opposition. What does that say about David Cameron and the Conservative party? :?

Why do most of them still think it wasn't a penalty?

Bitter and twisted. My caption for the above.