Stevo985 Posted August 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 12, 2013 Not just United though. Surely if you're talking about City then you're just disproving your own point? Having Manchester in the name did very very little for city before they got bought by bazillionaires. Their success/profile has come since they've been spending fortunes on players and buying league titles. **** all to do with Manchester being in their name. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 they can call us aston villa of Birmingham (the worst option IMO) That wouldn't be bad. It'd be just like Inter Milan, Sporting Lisbon or Chelsea London (as they're known overseas.) i know a lot of non english/irish Chelsea fans and never heard them called that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 12, 2013 they can call us aston villa of Birmingham (the worst option IMO) That wouldn't be bad. It'd be just like Inter Milan, Sporting Lisbon or Chelsea London (as they're known overseas.) i know a lot of non english/irish Chelsea fans and never heard them called that I've seen them called that a few times. When I was in the states (in 2004) they were labelled as that on their league table on the TV (I can't remember what channel I was watching) Pretty sure I've seen it in Spain too. I don't agree with TRS-T's point (I rarely do) but I have certainly seen CHelsea referenced in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 OK fair enough. thought he just got it from Pro Evolution or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 12, 2013 Thinking about it... Dynamo Moscow Hertha Berlin Paris St. Germain Austria Wien Sparta Prague AS Roma Real Madrid Sporting Lisbon etc. ...but no London club has "London" in its name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted August 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted August 12, 2013 Give Mike Ashley a call, I'm sure he would love to move Newcastle down there and change them to London FC 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted August 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) Thinking about it... Dynamo Moscow Hertha Berlin Paris St. Germain Austria Wien Sparta Prague AS Roma Real Madrid Sporting Lisbon etc. ...but no London club has "London" in its name. Remember that there are far more professional clubs in England than there are in any other European country... Hell, Scotland has nearly as many professional clubs than Germany... Edited August 12, 2013 by leviramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Not just United though. Surely if you're talking about City then you're just disproving your own point? Having Manchester in the name did very very little for city before they got bought by bazillionaires. Their success/profile has come since they've been spending fortunes on players and buying league titles. **** all to do with Manchester being in their name. But having Manchester in their name is probably what attracted the investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted August 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 12, 2013 Perhaps because of the association with Man Utd.If this hypothesis is accurate, then becoming Aston Villa Birmingham or somesuch would only benefit the club if there were a bigger club in Birmingham, and could, if Villa happened to be the bigger club in Birmingham, end up aiding other clubs with the name of the city far more than it would benefit Villa.We wouldn't want that, would we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Not just United though. Surely if you're talking about City then you're just disproving your own point? Having Manchester in the name did very very little for city before they got bought by bazillionaires. Their success/profile has come since they've been spending fortunes on players and buying league titles. **** all to do with Manchester being in their name. But having Manchester in their name is probably what attracted the investment. questionable, a club that has no recent history or expectations in a shiny new stadium in a shit hole part of a large city is probably what drew the investment, look at what theya re doing now, the whole area is ripe for investment the rivalry with utd that could be played on and marketed globally is another, whether or not that rivalry can be marketed because they are both called Manchester is pretty much impossible to prove, its probably just as marketable because one wears red and the other blue though... London clubs drawing investment without having the city in their name is kind of ruining your argument IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 12, 2013 Not just United though. Surely if you're talking about City then you're just disproving your own point? Having Manchester in the name did very very little for city before they got bought by bazillionaires. Their success/profile has come since they've been spending fortunes on players and buying league titles. **** all to do with Manchester being in their name. But having Manchester in their name is probably what attracted the investment. If that's true (and I'm not sure how you can know it is) then I would imagine that would be down to the association with "Manchester United" rather than the City of Manchester. Unless I've been hiding under a rock and Birmingham City have suddenly become a superclub, I don't see how having Birmingham in our name would benefit us in the slightest. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) To be honest I think not having Birmingham in the name helps Aston Villa if anything. Birmingham is not the most fashionable of cities and Benteke may have had second thoughts if he'd known where Aston Villa were actually from Edited August 12, 2013 by LondonLax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) If this hypothesis is accurate, then becoming Aston Villa Birmingham or somesuch would only benefit the club if there were a bigger club in Birmingham, and could, if Villa happened to be the bigger club in Birmingham, end up aiding other clubs with the name of the city far more than it would benefit Villa. We wouldn't want that, would we? I reckon certain members would. Edited August 12, 2013 by Mantis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 To be honest I think not having Birmingham in the name helps Aston Villa if anything. Birmingham is not the most fashionable of cities and Benteke may have had second thoughts if he'd known where Aston Villa were actually from Can I offer £1 billion for the use of your username as it has 'London' in the title Sorry - changed my mind - just seen Villafromluton turn up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Not just United though. Surely if you're talking about City then you're just disproving your own point? Having Manchester in the name did very very little for city before they got bought by bazillionaires. Their success/profile has come since they've been spending fortunes on players and buying league titles. **** all to do with Manchester being in their name. But having Manchester in their name is probably what attracted the investment. Did it? It was just a club ripe for purchasing. If having a city in your name helps attract investment then why hasn't Birmingham been purchased by a rich investor instead of a procession of clowns like it has over the years. Has Manchester as a city benefited from having 2 high profile football teams named after the city? I don't think so! There is no noticeable extra investment going into the city as a result. I don't see movie stars or rock stars lining up to move there. I love the fact we have a unique name. We're not just a city or united. We're Aston Villa. The best name in world football. That's more marketable than being named after an industrial city in the middle of England 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 I love the fact we have a unique name. We're not just a city or united. We're Aston Villa. The best name in world football. That's more marketable than being named after an industrial city in the middle of England Absolutely agree with this. He may not be a hardcore fan or anything but Tom Hanks started supporting Villa purely because of the name. It's a good bit of PR, but as far as regular fans go you need to be as unique as possible if you're not currently winning loads of trophies. I wouldn't be surprised if the name was one of the main reasons why people with no connection to Villa through family or birth started following us. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 It opens up a whole can of worms with franchising and marketing, and you don't want to give football clubs any excuse to make money. We'll have the Manchester Red Bulls in no time. Arsenal Emirites. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 If anything, the city of Manchester has benefited from the success of Manchester United in terms of raising it's profile rather than the other way round which is slightly ironic because Old Trafford is outside the city limits of Manchester. Having a hugely successful team can do that though, I wonder how many people think Munich is Germany's second city simply because Bayern have been so dominant over the past forty years? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Jesus. We never need to change our name. It is Aston Villa. We're almost unique in the fact we've ALWAYS been called Aston Villa unlike Newton Heath (United) Dial Square (Arsenal) Thames Ironworks (West Ham) et cetera. We don't need to change our name and I hope we never will. Also having Birmingham in our name is a **** ridiculous idea and only those with a narrow-minded Birmingham/English-centric brain would think otherwise. I don't give a **** where people think we're from, we're Aston Villa and if they can't be bothered to Google it or find out, boo hoo. Juventus are arguably the biggest club in Italy ad how popular does that make Turin in comparison to Milan and Rome etc. Hell do even half the kids these days even know where Juventus are from? Christ on wheels. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 There are only 2 clubs in the whole league that do not have their city/town name incorparated in their name, they are. Aston Villa and Everton,...I hate Everton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts