$200 Million Takeover

[Isa]

The guy with 98 followers?

Not that I'm saying to take him as gospel or anything but followers isn't an indicator of accuracy. Some of the most bullshit ITK accounts have thousands of followers.

[smetrov]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Not really - Liverpool paid a £600, 000 fee - which could rise to £5m....................................[but not a lot of people know that]

[NurembergVillan]

Barry joined Aston Villa from Brighton and Hove Albion as a trainee in 1997 along with Michael Standing. The move was controversial as the Brighton board demanded £2.5 million for the two players; the Football Association's transfer tribunal panel came up with a deal which would have seen Brighton make £2.4 million in the event of Barry and Standing making international appearances for England, as well as sell-on clauses.

Edited May 31, 2014 by NurembergVillan

[Silent_Bob]

 

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. 

 

 

You don't need crazy amounts of money, but you do need enough money to keep your best players at the club.

 

We had a strong team a few seasons back, but lost our key players to bigger clubs. Like Barry, like Young, like Milner. That is what happens. The top clubs don't want competition, so they buy the best players from 2nd tier clubs to prevent future competition.

 

I remember Newcastle selling Andy Cole to Man U when they were pushing them for the title. He wasn't very successfull at United, but at least they won the league.

 

So if we get the right manager, who buys up and coming players and we have enough money to keep them happy we can challenge for at least a CL spot in a few years time.

[StanBalaban]

 

 

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. 

 

 

You don't need crazy amounts of money, but you do need enough money to keep your best players at the club.

 

We had a strong team a few seasons back, but lost our key players to bigger clubs. Like Barry, like Young, like Milner. That is what happens. The top clubs don't want competition, so they buy the best players from 2nd tier clubs to prevent future competition.

 

I remember Newcastle selling Andy Cole to Man U when they were pushing them for the title. He wasn't very successfull at United, but at least they won the league.

 

So if we get the right manager, who buys up and coming players and we have enough money to keep them happy we can challenge for at least a CL spot in a few years time.

 

That's where you need direction from the board to work alongside a clued-up manager.

 

Top clubs buying up your best players see the club left with money coming in. We wasted our money on poor replacements, and saw a good chunk being diverted to cover costs elsewhere within the club. 

 

If we had the proceeds from selling Barry, Milner, Young (and Downing), we're looking at around £70m. If that was reinvested wisely then the club should be in a stronger position.

 

Spurs are an example of how they took £100m transfer kitty to make themselves weaker, when really they should've been in a much stronger position last season. 

[AshEdwards27]

Just had a quick scan through the last few pages and didn't notice this mentioned, so apologies if it has been said already.

 

News on SSN saying: "Sky Sources- New York property tycoon Tevfik Arif to unlikely be in running to buy Aston Villa"

[Rovers13]

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.

What city are doing is sustainable though.

[Isa]

What city are doing is sustainable though.

Yep and Chelsea who are breaking even now the last I heard.

[Brumstopdogs]

 

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.  

 

Across the premier league era Villa's overall net spend is higher than Tottenham's (if you believe the transfer league site).

 

I think it is fair to say in the last 5-10 years Tottenham have spent their money far better than Villa have and have therefore been able to sell players at a better price and buy generally decent replacements.

 

Anyway back on topic - I'm fairly optimistic the takeover will all be done and dusted before the season has started.

[StanBalaban]

 

 

 

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.

What city are doing is sustainable though.

 

Once you become consistently successful, you become hugely commercially viable.

 

As Crackpot Foreigner mentioned, Man Utd have an 'official diesel engine partner', along with separate sponsors for the training kit and match shirts. Even in Dubai, where Man City are the 'local' team, Emirates NBD Bank will offer you a Man United Mastercard if you want one.#

 

If people follow your club, then corporate money will be thrown at it, thus requiring less and less money to be put in by the owners. It was once mooted that the highest earning sports team in the world was the Indian cricket team, simply because of the reach of their endorsements.

 

Man United and Liverpool have traditionally had that power. Chelsea have a very wide reach and Man City are getting there. Arsenal are huge in Africa. These clubs are like celebrities in the bigger they become, the less they actually have to pay for stuff. What you need is the owner willing to get you into that position, and keep you there, for a few seasons. After that, the club's success will generate a new following which, in turn, will generate a new income stream that allows you to keep spending. It's almost self-perpetuating providing you have the team in place to spend the money wisely.

 

Throw in attractive football, and a bit of a swagger when you're winning, and you're golden. Simples!!

Edited May 31, 2014 by StanBalaban

[bobzy]

 

 

 

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.

What city are doing is sustainable though.

 

 

Which is, of course, why they've been hit with (nonsense, but that's a different point) FFP infringement punishments.

[islingtonclaret]

The guy with 98 followers?

Not that I'm saying to take him as gospel or anything but followers isn't an indicator of accuracy. Some of the most bullshit ITK accounts have thousands of followers.

Incognito_avfc has 1165 followers on twitter, and is a non-confirmed leaking source direct from the club.

Avfctransfertweet has 4665 followers on twitter and is, well I'm not going to bother.

[VillanousOne]

Just had a quick scan through the last few pages and didn't notice this mentioned, so apologies if it has been said already.

 

News on SSN saying: "Sky Sources- New York property tycoon Tevfik Arif to unlikely be in running to buy Aston Villa"

Love the way everyone is too busy arguing to read that our 'new buyer' may have already withdrawn their interest.

 

Also plenty of clubs like Spurs have billionaires funnelling money into them, no-one questions where that money comes from and their fans strut around like their money is handed down by God himself.

[StanBalaban]

Whomever ends up with the keys to VP, I hope they liven up the place a little. I've always thought that Villa have fallen into line with Birmingham in having a lack of identity. Living abroad, I'll meet lots of people from other nations that would struggle to tell you what city Aston Villa are from.

 

Birmingham and the midlands have always looked a bit like this guy 

when it comes to marketing the place, despite having so much to shout about.

 

A colleague of mine had the Selfridges building as his desktop screensaver, but had no idea that it from in Birmingham. Manchester and Liverpool trade off their music scene vibe,and generally seem trendier to some as a result, despite Birmingham and the Midlands having some seriously good bands. Off the top of my head, from the Midlands I can think of Black Sabbath, Robert Plant (Led Zepplin), Nick Mason (Pink Flloyd), ELO, Ocean Color Scene. Judas Priest, UB40... certainly enough to go toe-to-toe with any other part of the country - but we're not seen to have a cool vibe. There's a general malaise about the Midlands. The nice but dull guys!

 

I hope someone comes in and puts us back on the map once more. Tired of hearing about the mancs, the scousers, the geordies and the cockneys all the time. It's time to awaken the Lion!! 

Edited May 31, 2014 by StanBalaban

[Isa]

The guy with 98 followers?

Not that I'm saying to take him as gospel or anything but followers isn't an indicator of accuracy. Some of the most bullshit ITK accounts have thousands of followers.

Incognito_avfc has 1165 followers on twitter, and is a non-confirmed leaking source direct from the club.

Avfctransfertweet has 4665 followers on twitter and is, well I'm not going to bother.

Indykalia has 138k followers! If there is one account that summarises all that is bad about Twitter, it is that one.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Just had a quick scan through the last few pages and didn't notice this mentioned, so apologies if it has been said already.

 

News on SSN saying: "Sky Sources- New York property tycoon Tevfik Arif to unlikely be in running to buy Aston Villa"

 

It has, or we'd still be debating whether it's really that bad to have a politician-bribing, prostitute-partying, yacht-sailing friend of Donald Trump as owner as long as the team is successful

 

Of course I am merely referring to ALLEGATIONS. Of course there's no reason in theory why somebody shouldn't emerge from Kazakhstan a billionaire on the basis of good, honest hard work and being nice to everyone.

Edited May 31, 2014 by CrackpotForeigner

[TreeVillan]

 

Just had a quick scan through the last few pages and didn't notice this mentioned, so apologies if it has been said already.

 

News on SSN saying: "Sky Sources- New York property tycoon Tevfik Arif to unlikely be in running to buy Aston Villa"

Love the way everyone is too busy arguing to read that our 'new buyer' may have already withdrawn their interest.

 

 

We already knew.

[AValon]

 

 

Just had a quick scan through the last few pages and didn't notice this mentioned, so apologies if it has been said already.

 

News on SSN saying: "Sky Sources- New York property tycoon Tevfik Arif to unlikely be in running to buy Aston Villa"

Love the way everyone is too busy arguing to read that our 'new buyer' may have already withdrawn their interest.

 

 

We already knew.

 

 

 

Yep, old news.

[useless]

That Russ Lynch said there would be more news to come next week regarding Arif so It'll be interesting to see if that is still the case. As I say I wouldn't be surprised if he's involved with one of the parties interested, but perhaps just advising or something. Wasn't he an economic advisor to the Russian government or something.

[stewiek2]

Also the success of these clubs has come from incredible off the field management. Newcastle and Spurs for all their bloated swagger have less appeal in new territories due to what seems bad international marketing to me. What we need is a structure that pushes us globally. This means exploiting a market, but that of coursr does go hand in hand with being relatively successful on the field and having at least 2 or 3 marquee names. We have criminally undersold Villa's history and key role in football. We're the club that created the league system ffs!?! Have more England internationals than any other club. This is unique, yet the corner shop "are you local" mentality has held us back when other clubs have seen that the global market is where you make your dollar. I mean serious dollar too.