brommy

None. Aint hairy enough for starters, I I was hairy I'd trim everything and anything.

So you're naturally hairless everywhere except your scalp?

Want to try reading what I wrote again? :bonk:

:?

I still read it that you haven't any body/pubic hair and therefore don't trim and that if you did have body/pubic hair you would trim. Unless you only have a tiny amount that you deem untrimmable?

None. Aint hairy enough for starters, I I was hairy I'd trim everything and anything.

So you're naturally hairless everywhere except your scalp?

I trim pits, clean shave my chest and give crotch and sack area a good old trim. I hate chest hair and stomach hair so it gets the clean chop.

Sounds like a lot of work; is this a twice weekly vigil or does it involve periods of torso stubble? Does it itch when growing back? Wet shave razor or body groomer?

Never done it before but I really need to. The stuff is getting out of control.

How do you go about trimming it? Do you take a bit off with scissors, or with an electric shaver?

Check the link from the original post for a suitable appliance which will simply trim shorter or shave smooth, as required.

Fiat should bring out a range of cars named after Villa players:

"The Fiat Agbonlahor" 0-60 in 2 seconds before stalling for the second half of the drive.

"The Fiat Heskey" Big powerful utility truck that breaks down every time it hits a bump in the road.

"The Fiat Sidwell" Greatest getaway vehicle ever, the cops will lose track of it mere seconds after the pursuit begins.

"The Fiat Freidel" Old American muscle car.

"The Fiat Guzan" New American muscle car sadly left in the garage on race day.

"The Fiat Reo-Coker" Drives it's owner up the wall.

"The Fiat Carew" Stretched party car with added disco ball and pole.

"The Fiat Ashley" Takes corners well and comes with Wi-Fi and cameras as standard.

etcetera....

If us and Fulham having the same sponsor is causing all this furore...

I wouldn't hype it up and by calling it a 'furore'. It was just a couple of posters stating things like it was 'small time' but then not explaining why having the same sponsor as another team makes any difference to having an exclusive deal! :|

I don't know the ins and outs of the Fulham deal so therefore can't comment on who has the better deal/how much more it is worth to either them or us.

We have the same sponsor as Fulham, who are in the same division as us, I wouldn't mind if it was a foreign team as it's simply more international exposure for FxPro which is understandable.

It is also a bit odd to think that AC Milan sharing the same sponsor as Real Madrid would make the other look bad, they're both teams of high standing in separate leagues.

I still don't know why you think FxPro's deal with Fulham makes our deal 'small time'. Surely the only thing that matters is the value of Villa's contract with FxPro?

Would you prefer a £5m per year exclusive deal with company A or a £6m per year deal with company B (who also happens to sponsor one or more other clubs in our league)?

Exactly!

Was that to my post? :winkold:

Sorry, I don't know whether it's already been mentioned but do Fulham actually have the same sponsor? Incredibly, incredibly small-time.

I've read a couple of similar comments on this thread.

If I'm right the following stats might explain why I don't think it's small time to have the same sponsor as another team.

Villa's last paying sponsor was 32 Red (exclusive to Villa at the time) - reported at £0.9m per year to Villa.

FxPro deal (not exclusive) - reported at £6m per year to Villa.

I'd be open to a decent explanation as to why it is 'small time' to have the same sponsor as another team. I genuinely don't know why it matters. :?

the kit is simply disgusting, rated as 2 out of ten on the sun when they were reviewing all the kits.

I actually like our new kits. 8 out of 10 for home, 7 out of 10 for away. The fact that the Sun rates it at 2/10 proves I am right. Thanks tabloid-trash!

hopefully it gives them time to remove those ghastly checks from the kit before they release it

I've spoken to quite a few Villa fans about the new kit and the majority really like the checks down the side panels; even if it's just as a one off way of making the kit look modern and new and yet keeping the traditional look of a claret body (front and back), with blue sleeves. Perhaps the club should release half a dozen new kits per season, ranging from the very traditional/conservative which looks the same all the time, to the ultra modern with changes to our basic home colours of claret and blue? Knowing there is a necessity to produce a kit that looks different enough from the previous seasons to readily notice a difference (last season's kit sales must have suffered from looking very similar to the previous season's kit), in the opinion of those I have spoken to, the new kit for 2010-11 is a decent compromise.

When you see it you will shit bricks.

General, I'd be grateful if you would answer a question which seems very pertinent at this time. Here goes:

How many times did you hear - "Are we there yet?"

We need to get rid as soon as possible and move on.

I think most would agree with the above, however doesn't getting rid depend on Villa receiving an acceptable bid? The only hard offer I know of is £18m, clearly not enough. There is talk of a £24m bid, but now that Milner's request is public, how little should Villa accept? How do Villa 'get rid' if the final offer is around £20m?

Then we have Cameron's deputy Clegg making a total and utter balls up of PMQ and the Gvmt having to make a statement that he was not representing them in his views on Iraq.

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!

It does look claret from some angles.

: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?

if it is £18m over 3 years that is great news. I would be very happy with a figure like that. That will certainly help us in becoming a sustainable club. It pays for a few players wages a year doesn't it!!!!

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.

anyone got any details on how much we are getting a year from this deal?

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.

Now that I don't know - it is chequered, as in chequered flag.

But one Cheque / cheque ?

Who knows

Well actually, thinking about it, you couldn't have one check / cheque, coz that would just be a square wouldn't it !

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:

yes it is chequered - not checkered !!!!

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

Briggaman - this thread is about the kit and we are all entitled to our opinions.

You're right that's it not particularly important but nothing will change my mind in thinking that it is by far the worst kit we have had under Nike.

The idea is good but I loathe the collar as it makes it look like a bloody vest. Also the away kit has no originality whatsoever and that's what really disappoints me. It's just the home kit in black and the sponsor is horrendous. Whoever designed it must have spent at lest 23 seconds coming up with that one.

I was expecting something brilliant from Nike this summer like their fantastic World Cup kits and I am thoroughly underwhelmed. And I hate the fact we are no longer on the moral highground. FX Pro on the front of our shirts looks awful, not exactly a sponsor the fans can associate with is it?

Now, for only the second time in a decade, I am not buying a Villa shirt this season.

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.

Never was there a more over rated player than Joe Cole

Remember how he was the answer to our world cup prayers !!

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.

That's true tubby. But F1 cars charge by the inch for sponsorship so it would either have cost them millions to put it there, or they'd have had to reduce the fontsize and the effectiveneess of the main part of the logo to fit it in. So it wouldn't have made financial sense.

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.

Bit wank that fulham have got a deal with em too, doesn't really make a

difference but it can't mean ours was 'megabucks', probably why it hasn't been disclosed....

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.