packoman Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 What's the point in getting taken over now? Financial Fair Play means that it's too late. Couldn't they just "sponsor" the stadium for hundreds of millions though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted November 21, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2013 Now that a few more people have joined the thread I'll throw this perspective from a couple of days ago back into the mixer. OK then, I've been reading this topic without adding anything as yet. But here's something to think about. What would William McGregor do? It seems like an easy enough question to answer. You'd think that as the main who laid the foundations for our history and heritage he'd protect fiercely if he were here today. But would he really? Aston Villa were once pioneers. In our era of success, and I mean sustained success, we were constantly striving for better. For the first 13 years of our history the kit wasn't claret and blue at all. In fact it included black, red and blue hoops, even cow print style piebald. We were in an ever growing stadium - but for the first World War we'd have had a Villa Park, or Aston Lower Grounds, with a capacity of over 100,000. We weren't about history when we were truly successful, we were about change. Change in the name of growth and success. That's what football clubs are about after all. The game now has moved on, and we're reluctant to go with it because of our history. In the last 100 years we've won the league once and FA Cup twice. Yes, we were Champions of Europe over 30 years ago and have won the league cup a few times. But what hope of winning winning the Champions League now? None at all. Are we as fans so concerned with preserving our history because it's all we have? With no imminent chance of success we are keen to protect that which we once had, much of which wasn't even in our father's lifetime. I'm not saying I agree, and for all the money Manchester City and PSG etc have spent the impact on the "tradition" isn't what would likely happen if Red Bull took over, but what would William McGregor do? He created pioneers, innovators, and brought success. Isn't that tradition he would seek to preserve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 What's the point in getting taken over now? Financial Fair Play means that it's too late. Couldn't they just "sponsor" the stadium for hundreds of millions though? True but Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool would probably complain to the Premier League and put in some kind of rule to stop it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 What's the point in getting taken over now? Financial Fair Play means that it's too late. Couldn't they just "sponsor" the stadium for hundreds of millions though? True but Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool would probably complain to the Premier League and put in some kind of rule to stop it happening. They weren't able to stop Man City doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted November 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) I'll be honest. Changing the name "Aston Villa" is a big no. Anything else after that.... I'd accept. I think. If we have to sell our soul to win something then so be it. We aren't going to do it any other way so yeah, I'd quite like to see Villa lift a trophy to be honest. As i've not seen it yet. EDIT: Oooooh that post was number 6,666 .... Red Bull are the Devil? Edited November 21, 2013 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'll be honest. Changing the name "Aston Villa" is a big no. Anything else after that.... I'd accept. I think. If we have to sell our soul to win something then so be it. We aren't going to do it any other way so yeah, I'd quite like to see Villa lift a trophy to be honest. As i've not seen it yet. EDIT: Oooooh that post was number 6,666 .... Red Bull are the Devil? As I keep on saying though, it wouldn't even be a guarantee of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 We aren't going to do it any other way so yeah, I'd quite like to see Villa lift a trophy to be honest. As i've not seen it yet. Quit yer whining. You must have seen NRC lifting the Peace Cup. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 What's the point in getting taken over now? Financial Fair Play means that it's too late. Couldn't they just "sponsor" the stadium for hundreds of millions though? True but Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool would probably complain to the Premier League and put in some kind of rule to stop it happening. They weren't able to stop Man City doing that. Yeah but FFP wasn't in place then. I just think it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted November 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'll be honest. Changing the name "Aston Villa" is a big no. Anything else after that.... I'd accept. I think. If we have to sell our soul to win something then so be it. We aren't going to do it any other way so yeah, I'd quite like to see Villa lift a trophy to be honest. As i've not seen it yet. EDIT: Oooooh that post was number 6,666 .... Red Bull are the Devil? As I keep on saying though, it wouldn't even be a guarantee of success. No, but it would go a long way to helping achieving success. The current model pretty much guarantees no success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 What's the point in getting taken over now? Financial Fair Play means that it's too late. Couldn't they just "sponsor" the stadium for hundreds of millions though? True but Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool would probably complain to the Premier League and put in some kind of rule to stop it happening. They weren't able to stop Man City doing that. Yeah but FFP wasn't in place then. I just think it's too late. Yes it is. They are currently getting around FFP by sponsoring their stadium for massive money. You can't prevent someone spending money on their own club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chakal Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 What's the point in getting taken over now? Financial Fair Play means that it's too late. Couldn't they just "sponsor" the stadium for hundreds of millions though? True but Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool would probably complain to the Premier League and put in some kind of rule to stop it happening. They weren't able to stop Man City doing that. Yeah but FFP wasn't in place then. I just think it's too late. No its not. There are quadrillion ways to get around FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Just ask Paris St Germain. As recently as last month they announced they had managed to get €200m a year in 'sponsorship' from a bunch of people who are essentially the Qatari government, and they had somehow managed to get that sponsorship backdated so it would be easier to cook the books. If Bill Gates suddenly decides he wants to spend two billion pounds on Aston Villa all we have to do is get the 'sponsorship' money backdated to 1995 when we had AST Computers on our shirts and claim it was money owed to us. FFP is bullshit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 aren't man city's owners sponsoring pretty much the entire postcode? that way there is no precedent or similar sponsorship deal in place, you cant compare it to the emirates deal for example because they sponsor more than just the stadium haven't Liverpool got a huge deal with warrior because their owners also have some fingers in that pie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Has any club been sanctioned for FFFP? (the extra F is for ****). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 if their is it wont be a big club. Will be a club not big enough to get unnoticed but it will be one that be noticed. think Malaga getting european ban for this season be one example of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Yeah, Malaga are the only team I can think of and that was because their owner decided to suddenly turn off the tap for some strange reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Just ask Paris St Germain. As recently as last month they announced they had managed to get €200m a year in 'sponsorship' from a bunch of people who are essentially the Qatari government, and they had somehow managed to get that sponsorship backdated so it would be easier to cook the books. If Bill Gates suddenly decides he wants to spend two billion pounds on Aston Villa all we have to do is get the 'sponsorship' money backdated to 1995 when we had AST Computers on our shirts and claim it was money owed to us. FFP is bullshit. This is 'allowed' under the FFP rules though because PSG are part of the established order. I very much doubt it'd go unnoticed/unchallenged if a club like ours tried the same thing. I've said it on here before - the rules were created to maintain the status quo and not to help create a level playing field. I could imagine PSG successfully arguing that they're an established CL club, and the biggest in France, so £200million can be considered 'fair' market value. We're a shit club from the Midlands, nowhere near the biggest in the country, and we haven't won anything of note for over 30 years. We'd have no argument for a blatant attempt at bypassing the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 Malaga - he blamed it on the TV rights in la liga, claimed it was unfair not sure how he didn't know about it before so it smells like bullshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 and i think rapid Bucharest, besiktas and bursapor have also had bans from what I can gather they threaten to withhold prize money from teams that don't comply but those teams get a period to balance the books, atletico, fenerbahce, ruben Kazan and sporting have all had that threat but pulled their finances round before the penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Wasn't Besiktas and Bursaspor because of match-fixing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts