AntrimBlack 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. Sorry, I was commenting on the Bleacher report figure. Supernova26, as you say, thought possibly 10 million a year is closer, based on Arsenal, a much more desirable name to be associated with, and divided by 2, so I am not sure about that figure. But to me even that would not be enough to justify the name change. A transfer fee for a decent player, so I very much doubt we would see much benefit for it on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) But if it becomes the norm we fall behind further by not having an extra £200,000 a week in the bank. If it doesn't become the norm we have an extra 10m a year to piss away Edited February 16, 2014 by suttonpaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted February 16, 2014 VT Supporter 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. It sounded like an argument written in a form of a question to me too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted February 16, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) You can't dictate beforehand what the money would be used for. Rather than to improve our team it could just go into covering running expenses. Not that it matters to me anyway. I wouldn't sell the name for any reasonable, or even some unreasonable, amount. Edited February 16, 2014 by AVTuco 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Your right, BUT IF it needed to go into that budget, you could argue we needed to take the money anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted February 16, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 16, 2014 Your right, BUT IF it needed to go into that budget, you could argue we needed to take the money anyway. Yes you could suttonpaul. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I would I am all about base building. Put firm foundations down and build from there, don't spend what you don't have and all of that. e.g. Rooney at Utd I'd sell him he is 29, moody hasn't scored THAT many goals and wants 15m basic wage a year? Jog on you can get much better value would be my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack 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. I think they should concentrate their efforts on getting money from other sources rather then selling our history. As you say the colours and the name should be sacrosanct, but I would add the stadium name to that list. Even the Bleacher report recognises that the stadium has a famous name, but obviously was unable to put a price on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It really depends how much it's for, if it's about £2m per year, then that much money probably wouldn't make a huge difference and wouldn't be worth it. However if it's at around £5-10m, I wouldn't mind as much. No matter what it's officially called, it will always be Villa Park, just like St. James' and Eastlands/City of Manchester. And it doesn't necessarily have to go to transfer fees for it to be worth it, even at £5m/year, that could be an extra £100k on to the wage budget, and that would surely help sort out any wage trimming we are currently doing, and allow us more room for maneuver in the transfer market. We could even sell off the rights to the North/Doug Ellis Stand too - though I doubt the Doug Ellis stand will change whilst he's alive - for an extra £1m/year or two. Everything has it's price*, especially in football, and if we ever want to compete at the very top again we need clever ways to not only get around FFP but to make money outside of the usual sources i.e. Ticket Sales, Merchandise, Player Sales etc., and selling the naming rights of our ground is probably the best way to do it, and will most likely soon become the norm. *Except for club name and colours imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Famous name for the ground yes but all that matters is what the fans call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Famous name for the ground yes but all that matters is what the fans call it. Not really. The name would disappear from anywhere around the stadium, and the new name would be on everything. Just like AVFC and that awful badge, it erodes what we are. Too many fans at the moment seem not to be interested in maintaining our history, and really, the state our club is in at the moment, our history is about all we have. And not getting at you, because I know you feel strongly about the colours and the name. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted February 16, 2014 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2014 100% of people on VT want the club to spend more money on better players. 54% of people on VT are in favour of the club getting free money to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw_nuff Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Over my dead body! I'm done if we change name. For me it would be like sticking my middle finger up to my dad, his dad and his dad before him. Success is nothing without heritage, else you may as well change your allegiance to Citeh. Hell, let's change the name to New-Old Trafford, shirts to red and move to Beijing. Job done. After 30+ years of neo-liberal greed is nothing sacred any longer? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Famous name for the ground yes but all that matters is what the fans call it. Not really. The name would disappear from anywhere around the stadium, and the new name would be on everything. Just like AVFC and that awful badge, it erodes what we are. Too many fans at the moment seem not to be interested in maintaining our history, and really, the state our club is in at the moment, our history is about all we have. And not getting at you, because I know you feel strongly about the colours and the name. Yes, all this talk about well I will just keep on calling it Villa Park- how many people still call the premier league division one? Over time the name Villa Park will mean nothing if we take the money and rename it. Once sky and the media call it whatever it is sponsored by, the name will gradually become forgotten. How much money does a football club need? Enough is enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Well that's unlikely to happen as the stadium sponsor will change from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Over my dead body! I'm done if we change name. For me it would be like sticking my middle finger up to my dad, his dad and his dad before him. Success is nothing without heritage, else you may as well change your allegiance to Citeh. Hell, let's change the name to New-Old Trafford, shirts to red and move to Beijing. Job done. After 30+ years of neo-liberal greed is nothing sacred any longer? Wow. That's a joke, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Over my dead body! I'm done if we change name. For me it would be like sticking my middle finger up to my dad, his dad and his dad before him. Success is nothing without heritage, else you may as well change your allegiance to Citeh. Hell, let's change the name to New-Old Trafford, shirts to red and move to Beijing. Job done. After 30+ years of neo-liberal greed is nothing sacred any longer? I would only consider this if we move to Belfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I would be open to the following name changes only: -Metroplex -Fortress Maximus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 The Thunderdome? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 And Thunderdome, I'd be fine with that. Lambert as Aunty Entity. Gabby as Blaster. Bannan could have been Master if he was still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts