KjParton Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) Factory of Sadness anyone? Edited February 15, 2014 by KjParton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One For The Road Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 If I thought it would make even the slightest difference to our performance on the pitch then I would reluctantly say yes. However, I really don't see how renaming the ground will bring in the kind of money we need to move forward and even if it did, I doubt Randy would invest it in the playing staff. So a definite no from me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernova26 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) Well according to this our stadium rights deal would only be worth £1.52 million a season. Do a 10 season deal would bring us in less than £20 million http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1872881-ranking-every-premier-league-club-by-stadium-naming-rights-potential/page/14 Derby County got £7 million for 10 seaons with I-Pro. I think they undervalue our naming rights though but even taking that into account it really isn't worth it. There's no chance it would make us one of the top four big guns. Arsenal Emirates deal is worth £150 million over 6/7 years. But this includes shirt naming rights. So lets half that figure to just take into account just the stadium naming rights. Say £75 million over 6/7 years. So the very approximate figures quoted here can't be that far off. Man City's deal is upto £400 million for 10 years shirt and stadium. This is unprecedented though and obviously an over-valuation. They have a dodgy deal with the council which involves regenerating the local area etc Edited February 16, 2014 by supernova26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 ......so a 10 year deal would get us Darren Bent. ****ing WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Not worth the paltry (relatively) amount we'd get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnbull Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Not worth the poultry (relatively) amount we'd get. Bernard Matthews Stadium? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 All depends on what we could get and what that money would be spent on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Whatever we get probably won't improve the squad, the manager could easily spunk it up the wall. I don't trust anyone there to use it wisely. The only way I know it would go to good use is to make tickets/season tickets cheaper and pack the ground. If your looking long term it could work out better in terms of future fans/shirt sales etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw_nuff Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 No... not even for a Billion. Villa Park IS the club. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 16, 2014 Administrator Share Posted February 16, 2014 No... not even for a Billion. Villa Park IS the club. So you would have objected to the proposals to change it from "Aston Lower Grounds" to "Villa Park" on the same basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandaq Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Not gonna be even close to worth it. Slump change compared to sky money at this point, what is there to gain? Villa should respect it`s history, its one of the last redeeming features about the club, let`s not throw that out the window as well. And when that train starts, other things might go as well and so on. After a while, the stadium will have had 10 different names and so on. Again another pointless thing that will not really help us in the long run. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 So what is being said is it may be worth 10m a season but you wouldn't do it because a manager could just spunk it up the wall....... How is that different to any transfer budget? If everyone is doing it we will have to anyway just to keep up. Get with the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 No... not even for a Billion. Villa Park IS the club. So you would have objected to the proposals to change it from "Aston Lower Grounds" to "Villa Park" on the same basis? That was from word of mouth. Not some shitty betting webfirm who would give us a few million to waste on average players and piss away our heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I think we all have a 'poor person complex'. We snub off 20-30 million because it's not worth it. I don't know if some of you realise, but even for people like Lerner this is a big sum of money. Just because owners are willing to pay that kind of money for a single player doesnt mean it's 'little money'. It is s*it loads of money. This money is used to pay wages, run clubs, improve academies, and lots of other things I, as well as you, have no idea about as the truth is we know next to nothing about how a football club is run. Lerner would not just walk away from this kind of money. And that's not because he is tight on money (which I admit and it may hit him in the long run) but because he is a businessman. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I think we all have a 'poor person complex'. We snub off 20-30 million because it's not worth it. I don't know if some of you realise, but even for people like Lerner this is a big sum of money. Just because owners are willing to pay that kind of money for a single player doesnt mean it's 'little money'. It is s*it loads of money. This money is used to pay wages, run clubs, improve academies, and lots of other things I, as well as you, have no idea about as the truth is we know next to nothing about how a football club is run. Lerner would not just walk away from this kind of money. And that's not because he is tight on money (which I admit and it may hit him in the long run) but because he is a businessman. 20 million over 10 years, 2 million per year, is a drop in the ocean for a Premiership club. And 2 million gets you a Bennet each year. We will not rip up the league with that. And do not forget, players come and go, once our stadium name has gone, it will not be coming back. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 No... not even for a Billion. Villa Park IS the club. So you would have objected to the proposals to change it from "Aston Lower Grounds" to "Villa Park" on the same basis? That is a poor argument. The first 20 years were totally different times, and a game in its' infancy. Absolutely no comparison. It has been Villa Park since 1897. That is the difference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Missed the point completely and people have been talking of 60/70 over 7 years aka 10m a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 16, 2014 Administrator Share Posted February 16, 2014 No... not even for a Billion. Villa Park IS the club. So you would have objected to the proposals to change it from "Aston Lower Grounds" to "Villa Park" on the same basis? That is a poor argument. The first 20 years were totally different times, and a game in its' infancy. Absolutely no comparison. It has been Villa Park since 1897. That is the difference. It's not an argument. It's a question. However, the club was already over twenty years old by that time and I bet they had the same discussions. I don't really care either way. It'll always be Villa Park to me, just like the Witton Lane stand will always be the Witton Lane stand. It doesn't matter what the "official" name is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 To me the only thing that they cant have is the colours and the name Aston Villa they can have anything else they want for cash to make us more competitive as a club and therefore bigger. They can even call us the Lions instead of the Villans if they want not that anyone really calls us that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 So what is being said is it may be worth 10m a season but you wouldn't do it because a manager could just spunk it up the wall....... How is that different to any transfer budget? If everyone is doing it we will have to anyway just to keep up. Get with the program. Its worth about 2m a season I think. My point is that a lot of fans wouldn't be happy with selling the stadium name but I bet a lot might be a bit more at ease with it if it meant lowering tickets and giving the fans something back. Id sell the name regardless I dont really care but Id rather we give something back to the fans than to give it to a manager/owner who is likely to pocket the money or spend it on league 2 players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts