holtender67 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Would Tevfik Arif be classed as an American buyer? . i'm guessing it could be someone we haven't heard of yet........UTV Very likely.......like Ann Summers or someone? At least VP would be buzzin' again imagin the halftime entertainment, would be interesting.....UTV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLeftSide Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I don't get all this tradition over buying success. To me it's as if fans have heard this philosophy and believe by saying it and sticking to it will make up for the lack of success and will somehow make them feel superior or on a par with fans of successful clubs. My meaning behind this is look back through the years and it's always been a case of the more money spent equals more success, with some exceptions that can still happen now, granted the exceptions though only seem to win a cup or gain/challenge top 6 and not win the league (although look across to Spain....) As long as I can remember (and I'm only mid thirties) there have been transfer fees for players. These fees have not been flat rate for goalie, flat rate for defender and so on, they have been dynamic rates based in ability etc. so taking this into account it has always been (since eighties at least) a case of if you can afford the better individuals you'll have more chance. The skill though is in developing a team, and this counts just as much if you are buying a first 11, as you need to ensure you buy the relevant strengths and mesh them together. You can of course buy 11 individuals that just won't mix. Spend the money I say, just don't spend it on an ego, make sure the player is grounded but ambitious and competitive and not a lazy arse who is more interested in his personal life and surely the 'soul' remains but you have bought the best players available to build a team?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Because of the new BS Premier League FFP rules whereby you can increase your wage bill by £4 million a season unless you increase your sponsorship income I can't see us spending more than £15 to £20million this summer regardless of who takes us over. Macron & Dafabet deals can't be replaced until next summer at the earliest so the new owners have no choice other than selling the grounds naming rights to increase our commercial income and our spending power. With us being in profit for this season, along with Given, Bent, Hutton, and Nzogbia gone, new kit sponsor & manufacturer possible ground sponsorship and other revenue streams increased somehow. Next summer is when we could spend big. IMO it makes sense to keep Lambert for this season continuing to keep finances in check then next summer when we have cash to spend replace him then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Would Tevfik Arif be classed as an American buyer? this is just another name in the mix of many, so who says he's defo interested. i think we'll have to wait and see where this lottery ends up and who is the eventual winner. i'm guessing it could be someone we haven't heard of yet........UTV So would he be classed as an American buyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 In all fairness, it's long been a case that the richest clubs would win the league. Liverpool used to consistently outspend the other Division 1 clubs when they were top dog. Granted, it's harder for Forest or ourselves to crack the top spot like we did back then, but the concept is nothing new. It's no different to Blackburn buying the title in the 90's. What has changed is the sheet amount of money that the top clubs have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NurembergVillan Posted May 31, 2014 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) **** nonsense to be honest mate. I follow football because I love the game and Aston Villa were the club closest to my heart growing up. In my lifetime, I've seen us win TWO TROPHIES. That's 27 years of winning, essentially, **** all. I have no entitlement to winning things. I'd love to see us win another European Cup; I doubt this will happen. Despite how most people feel about certain footballers, I love the fact we've fielded Agbonlahor, Albrighton, Delfouneso, Gardner etc. as local lads playing for a local team. Chelsea have none. Man City have none. If this is the route we all want to take, fine - let's just get bought out by someone who has no emotional connection to the club and sell our soul. If there is substantial financial backing, the youth setup will be obsolete; or, to further, it will exist but be pointless. See: Chelsea, Man City. If you're asking me what I'd prefer; a backer throwing £1bn at our playing staff at us being instantaneously successful or having a poor owner who cares for the club, but we get relegated I'd take the latter everytime. Surely success breeds money breeds success? I can't imagine it was an entirely level playing field even back in the Victorian era when we were smashing all-comers to win the league so many times, and the double. I also don't think we'd necessarily see a decline in the youth system. If anything we'd be more attractive because better players want to play for successful clubs, however old they are. If we were a Champions League team would Dan Crowley have left for Arsenal? Look how many academy players feature for Real, Barça, Bayern. Liverpool and Yernited too. Quite how anyone can think that a serious level of investment would destroy the soul of this great club, pioneers of league football across the world, the fourth most successful club in English history (despite winning practically bugger in the best part of 80 years) and one time Champions of Europe is beyond me. We're going against the tradition and foundations of the club right now by being crap. They don't give out trophies for moral victories I'm afraid. And William McGregor founded us to be the best club in the world, not to win debating competitions down the pub. Edited May 31, 2014 by NurembergVillan 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I hate the idea that it's only possible to succeed by being richer than other teams in your league, there's no longer scope for organisation, or team work, or good planning, they're all secondary to money. It's made the manager increasingly irrelevant and the players disposable. It's taken the values of hard work, patience and development out of the game and it's removed part of the fun of the more level playing field of times gone by. The game is massively worse for it. I hate the idea, but I understand it's true, I know there is no other way; so I'm happy for us to buy success rather than fail, and disappointed that we have to. I agree and disagree to an extent here, OBE. I agree that you need vast sums to get into the top echelons of the league, but once there, the manager, his organsiation, the team work, tactical nous, hard work and discipline all help determine the order of the finish. Look at the top 7 this year. Liverpool are hardly operating on a shoestring, but have no where near as much money as Man City. Yet they still came within one more win of taking the title, and still finished ahead of Chelsea and Arsenal, both of whom have more money. Everton finished ahead of Man United - a far richer club. The also bettered Spurs, who had £100m to play with. So I agree you need the money to get near the top, but it's those traditional footballing qualities that make even more of a difference when the margins become so fine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 For me, I just don't want it to be with billions and billions. I don't want to simply buy success - it doesn't prove anything other than money wins. I take it you were furious when Lerner bought the club and started spending lots more than most teams? Were you wishing for the days of Doug when Lerner was spending cash fast trying to buy success? No because, much like now, our spending had dried up under Doug (if it was ever flowing ) and we needed re-investment. Exactly the same situation now, we need re-investment because our owner is basically stopping his. There's a vast difference between spending, say, £60m on new playing staff and spending £200m, though. To come from nowhere like Man City/Chelsea or to spend gradually and improve your infrastructure like, say, Arsenal or Spurs. I know Arsenal have won not as much as they'd like, but I'd much rather see that sort of sustainable running of a club at Villa. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 **** nonsense to be honest mate. I follow football because I love the game and Aston Villa were the club closest to my heart growing up. In my lifetime, I've seen us win TWO TROPHIES. That's 27 years of winning, essentially, **** all. I have no entitlement to winning things. I'd love to see us win another European Cup; I doubt this will happen. Despite how most people feel about certain footballers, I love the fact we've fielded Agbonlahor, Albrighton, Delfouneso, Gardner etc. as local lads playing for a local team. Chelsea have none. Man City have none. If this is the route we all want to take, fine - let's just get bought out by someone who has no emotional connection to the club and sell our soul. If there is substantial financial backing, the youth setup will be obsolete; or, to further, it will exist but be pointless. See: Chelsea, Man City. If you're asking me what I'd prefer; a backer throwing £1bn at our playing staff at us being instantaneously successful or having a poor owner who cares for the club, but we get relegated I'd take the latter everytime. Surely success breeds money breeds success? I can't imagine it was an entirely level playing field even back in the Victorian era when we were smashing all-comers to win the league so many times, and the double. I also don't think we'd necessarily see a decline in the youth system. If anything we'd be more attractive because better players want to play for successful clubs, however old they are. If we were a Champions League team would Dan Crowley have left for Arsenal? Look how many academy players feature for Real, Barça, Bayern. Liverpool and Yernited too. Quite how anyone can think that a serious level of investment would destroy the soul of this great club, pioneers of league football across the world, the fourth most successful club in English history (despite winning practically bugger in the best part of 80 years) and one time Champions of Europe is beyond me. We're going against the tradition and foundations of the club right now by being crap. They don't give out trophies for moral victories I'm afraid. And William McGregor founded us to be the best club in the world, not to win debating competitions down the pub. Money breeds success breeds money, really. Look at the variation in league winners before the Premier League came to life. I would hazard a guess at essentially **** all academy players playing for Real, Bayern, Liverpool and United by the way? Not that Liverpool are really in the same bracket as the others despite them having a great season last time out. It definitely happens at Barcelona... but then they poach youngsters illegally and then train them up. Hey, maybe we'd be ok with that too since winning is all that matters apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Really I don't see why we should have a moral problem with buying success. Clubs like Man Utd have bought success in a different way: With an army of glory-hunting plastic fans worldwide which wouldn't exist if they didn't happen to be the most successful club at the time when worldwide televising of English football became common. Getting money from an "official diesel engine partner" (yes, Man Utd have an official diesel engine partner!) vs getting money from a discerning billionaire with superlative taste in football clubs? I don't see a great amount of moral difference in it either way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted May 31, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2014 There's a vast difference between spending, say, £60m on new playing staff and spending £200m, though. To come from nowhere like Man City/Chelsea or to spend gradually and improve your infrastructure like, say, Arsenal or Spurs. I know Arsenal have won not as much as they'd like, but I'd much rather see that sort of sustainable running of a club at Villa. Spurs spent over £100m this summer. Stewart Downing is our second highest ever fee. Spurs have signed at least ten players for the same as or more than that. Arsenal spent well over £40m on one player. Back in 1999 they spent £11m on Thierry Henry. Apart from Downing and Bent that's more than we've ever spent on anyone. And it was 15 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) There's a vast difference between spending, say, £60m on new playing staff and spending £200m, though. To come from nowhere like Man City/Chelsea or to spend gradually and improve your infrastructure like, say, Arsenal or Spurs. I know Arsenal have won not as much as they'd like, but I'd much rather see that sort of sustainable running of a club at Villa. Spurs spent over £100m this summer. Stewart Downing is our second highest ever fee. Spurs have signed at least ten players for the same as or more than that. Arsenal spent well over £40m on one player. Back in 1999 they spent £11m on Thierry Henry. Apart from Downing and Bent that's more than we've ever spent on anyone. And it was 15 years ago. Spurs received £80m+ on one player. Not sure what Stewart Downing has to do with anything. Spurs received £80m+ on one player. Arsenal are a well run club with minimal debt and high turnover - exactly what we should be aiming for. Back in 1999, they received over £20m for Nicolas Anelka and bought Thierry Henry the day after. That transfer window they (apparently) received £29m and spent £23m. In the same transfer window, Villa (apparently) received £4.5m and spent £7.2m. But ok. Edited May 31, 2014 by bobzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holtender67 Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 **** nonsense to be honest mate. I follow football because I love the game and Aston Villa were the club closest to my heart growing up. In my lifetime, I've seen us win TWO TROPHIES. That's 27 years of winning, essentially, **** all. I have no entitlement to winning things. I'd love to see us win another European Cup; I doubt this will happen. Despite how most people feel about certain footballers, I love the fact we've fielded Agbonlahor, Albrighton, Delfouneso, Gardner etc. as local lads playing for a local team. Chelsea have none. Man City have none. If this is the route we all want to take, fine - let's just get bought out by someone who has no emotional connection to the club and sell our soul. If there is substantial financial backing, the youth setup will be obsolete; or, to further, it will exist but be pointless. See: Chelsea, Man City. If you're asking me what I'd prefer; a backer throwing £1bn at our playing staff at us being instantaneously successful or having a poor owner who cares for the club, but we get relegated I'd take the latter everytime. Surely success breeds money breeds success? I can't imagine it was an entirely level playing field even back in the Victorian era when we were smashing all-comers to win the league so many times, and the double. I also don't think we'd necessarily see a decline in the youth system. If anything we'd be more attractive because better players want to play for successful clubs, however old they are. If we were a Champions League team would Dan Crowley have left for Arsenal? Look how many academy players feature for Real, Barça, Bayern. Liverpool and Yernited too. Quite how anyone can think that a serious level of investment would destroy the soul of this great club, pioneers of league football across the world, the fourth most successful club in English history (despite winning practically bugger in the best part of 80 years) and one time Champions of Europe is beyond me. We're going against the tradition and foundations of the club right now by being crap. They don't give out trophies for moral victories I'm afraid. And William McGregor founded us to be the best club in the world, not to win debating competitions down the pub. victorian era ya cheeky f***er......lol. i'm only 46.............UTV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 The only problem I have with buying success is finding someone to underwrite it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted May 31, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2014 Money breeds success breeds money, really. Look at the variation in league winners before the Premier League came to life. I would hazard a guess at essentially **** all academy players playing for Real, Bayern, Liverpool and United by the way? Not that Liverpool are really in the same bracket as the others despite them having a great season last time out. It definitely happens at Barcelona... but then they poach youngsters illegally and then train them up. Hey, maybe we'd be ok with that too since winning is all that matters apparently Bayern's academy products - Schweinsteiger (captain), Badstuber, Müller, Kroos, Contento, Alaba. Barça's academy products - Piqué (captain), Puyol, Xavi, Iniesta, Tello, Messi, Busquets, Pedro. Also the manager, Luis Enriqué. United's academy products - Giggs (captain), Evans, Fletcher, Cleverley, Welbeck, Wilson. Liverpool's academy products - Gerrard (captain), Sterling, Ibe, Kelly, Flanagan, Wisdom (on loan at Derby though). Would we be OK with poaching other people's academy players? Probably, yeah. I didn't have an issue with that when we signed Samuel, Hitzlsperger, Barry, Weimann, Herd, Olejnik, Stieber (x2), Ridgewell, Samir Carruthers. We've even done it in the last two weeks - http://tinyurl.com/pxbu5qy I'm struggling to understand your argument. It's got more holes in it than our current, cheaply assembled back-line. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdomlahor Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 This idea that "buying success" is a bad thing is curious. Every professional team in existence tries to buy success by spending money on players. If some are able to throw more money than others at players, why should that be looked down on? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted May 31, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2014 Spurs received £80m+ on one player. Not sure what Stewart Downing has to do with anything. Spurs received £80m+ on one player. Arsenal are a well run club with minimal debt and high turnover - exactly what we should be aiming for. Back in 1999, they received over £20m for Nicolas Anelka and bought Thierry Henry the day after. That transfer window they (apparently) received £29m and spent £23m. In the same transfer window, Villa (apparently) received £4.5m and spent £7.2m. But ok. The Stewart Downing example shows that we've only signed one player more expensive than him EVER. Spurs have signed ten. I'm well aware Spurs received £80m for Bale. They hadn't got that money when they signed Bent, Dembele, Modric, Pavlyuchenko, Keane, Bentley or Defoe though. As for Arsenal, yes they're well run. But again there, they've just won their first trophy in 9 years. Look at Wiltord, Arshavin, Reyes, Nasri, Cazorla, Bergkamp, Overmars - they've always spent big money on players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Money breeds success breeds money, really. Look at the variation in league winners before the Premier League came to life. I would hazard a guess at essentially **** all academy players playing for Real, Bayern, Liverpool and United by the way? Not that Liverpool are really in the same bracket as the others despite them having a great season last time out. It definitely happens at Barcelona... but then they poach youngsters illegally and then train them up. Hey, maybe we'd be ok with that too since winning is all that matters apparently Bayern's academy products - Schweinsteiger (captain), Badstuber, Müller, Kroos, Contento, Alaba. Barça's academy products - Piqué (captain), Puyol, Xavi, Iniesta, Tello, Messi, Busquets, Pedro. Also the manager, Luis Enriqué. United's academy products - Giggs (captain), Evans, Fletcher, Cleverley, Welbeck, Wilson. Liverpool's academy products - Gerrard (captain), Sterling, Ibe, Kelly, Flanagan, Wisdom (on loan at Derby though). Would we be OK with poaching other people's academy players? Probably, yeah. I didn't have an issue with that when we signed Samuel, Hitzlsperger, Barry, Weimann, Herd, Olejnik, Stieber (x2), Ridgewell, Samir Carruthers. We've even done it in the last two weeks - http://tinyurl.com/pxbu5qy I'm struggling to understand your argument. It's got more holes in it than our current, cheaply assembled back-line. Think you will find Sterling started his career at QPR - [The Liverpool PR machine is alive and well in 2014] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted May 31, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2014 victorian era ya cheeky f***er......lol. i'm only 46.............UTV I'm not referring to 1981 and 1982 - most of our honours list (leagues and FA Cups) is pre-1910. This idea that "buying success" is a bad thing is curious. Every professional team in existence tries to buy success by spending money on players. If some are able to throw more money than others at players, why should that be looked down on? The key points there... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted May 31, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 31, 2014 Think you will find Sterling started his career at QPR - [The Liverpool PR machine is alive and well in 2014] And signed for Liverpool at what, 15? 16? Same us as saying that Barry is a product of our academy really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts