$200 Million Takeover

[Butterfingers]

If you wish for an owner who will chuck £20 million in, then why not wish for one who will chuck £200 million?

 

Theres no difference so if you're happy for an owner to throw money in then why not throw more money in than any other owner?

 

Its a bit hypocritical to accept one figure but not another.

[Isa]

As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments.

[Xela]

If you wish for an owner who will chuck £20 million in, then why not wish for one who will chuck £200 million?

 

Theres no difference so if you're happy for an owner to throw money in then why not throw more money in than any other owner?

 

Its a bit hypocritical to accept one figure but not another.

 

Hypocritical? Point out where i said I wouldn't accept it if a new owner chucked £200m in? I can't see that anywhere can you? You're just making things up to suit your post. 

 

My point was, I'd be happy if someone came in and made us stronger but also pointed out that the owners who come and chuck £200m at players are the exception, not the rule.  

 

For the record I would be fookin delighted if we spent £200m on players in the summer, but I am a realist. 

[Butterfingers]

Liverpool were half way there & have spent considerably-They also pay very high wages which is half the battle.

 

In addition, they have won nothing yet & will very likely loose their best player in the summer.

 

From our perspective, good management & smart investments will not see us anywhere near the top 4 & you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. For us, we need to buy our way in, as I said football has moved on from the "good management/smart investment" era.

[sexbelowsound]

Liverpool were half way there & have spent considerably-They also pay very high wages which is half the battle.

 

In addition, they have won nothing yet & will very likely loose their best player in the summer.

 

From our perspective, good management & smart investments will not see us anywhere near the top 4 & you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. For us, we need to buy our way in, as I said football has moved on from the "good management/smart investment" era.

 

Everton seem to be doing ok.

[Butterfingers]

Xena-Not saying you're hypocritical

 

BUT think about it realistically, if we're going to accept hand outs, where do we draw the line? What is an acceptable figure to accept before "the heart & soul" is ripped out of our club?

 

Money talks all the way through the PL & beyond. We wanted Bent, we got him, we wanted Lambert, we got him-All clubs do this & always have done

 

£20 million will allow us to bully teams like Stoke & Hull for their players. £250 will allow us to bully teams like Everton & Newcastle for their players. Me personally would prefer to be taking players from Newcastle & Everton than I would from Stoke & Hull.

[dakid007]

Xena-Not saying you're hypocritical

 

BUT think about it realistically, if we're going to accept hand outs, where do we draw the line? What is an acceptable figure to accept before "the heart & soul" is ripped out of our club?

 

Money talks all the way through the PL & beyond. We wanted Bent, we got him, we wanted Lambert, we got him-All clubs do this & always have done

 

£20 million will allow us to bully teams like Stoke & Hull for their players. £250 will allow us to bully teams like Everton & Newcastle for their players. Me personally would prefer to be taking players from Newcastle & Everton than I would from Stoke & Hull.

Realistically even 100m would be a monumental step up

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

Xena-Not saying you're hypocritical

 

BUT think about it realistically, if we're going to accept hand outs, where do we draw the line? What is an acceptable figure to accept before "the heart & soul" is ripped out of our club?

 

Money talks all the way through the PL & beyond. We wanted Bent, we got him, we wanted Lambert, we got him-All clubs do this & always have done

 

£20 million will allow us to bully teams like Stoke & Hull for their players. £250 will allow us to bully teams like Everton & Newcastle for their players. Me personally would prefer to be taking players from Newcastle & Everton than I would from Stoke & Hull.

 

The heart and soul of football was ripped out circa 1992, pretty much the only way to get anywhere nowadays is to spend, spend, spend.

 

Couldn't be arsed really how much we spent if it meant we started challenging near the top again, if you can't beat them, join 'em.

 

Personally, if we get new owners, I'd like to see us continue with our current "policy" (Young and "Hungry") but with higher fees and wages to attract better players.

Edited April 19, 2014 by MessiWillSignForVilla

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

Of course there is a chance of us becoming the new Chelsea or City-We have no idea who the prospective buyers are or their intentions. The chances are that they won't have/be prepared to throw in the kind of money required to put us in that category.

In order to compete at the highest level these days, you need money-The days are long gone when Brian Clough or Ron Saunders can take teams from Division 2 to European Champions within a few seasons.

What is wrong with becoming the new Man City? do people want to see us compete for the title again? compete in the CL? The only way this will happen is by becoming the new Man City.

I don't understand the mentality of just wanting to drift along in the PL-We might just as well stay where we are, costing the owner next to nothing, with the added challenge of fighting for survival every season to make it interesting.

You need to take a look at how Mansour differs from your 'normal' billionaire. He's part of the Al Nahyan family who are extremely wealthy and powerful with a complex structure of business entities; many of whom are privately owned/state backed.

Not only does this money allow them to spend beyond the City fans' wildest dreams, it also allows them to create ridiculously inflated sponsorship deals. I saw something that said four of their five biggest deals are with Emirates based entities with links to the Al Nahyan family.

[leviramsey]

If we're looking for US sports owners who are candidates, start with a list of MLB, NBA, and NHL teams that either own stakes in or could potentially start up Regional Sports Networks....

(the sale of a 3 hour weekly block of AVTV content to a related US network is also a nice FFP dodge...)

Edited April 19, 2014 by leviramsey

[useless]

That group who own the La Dodgers was an interesting mention.

[smetrov]

As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments.

 

Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? 

[One For The Road]

 

Xena-Not saying you're hypocritical

 

BUT think about it realistically, if we're going to accept hand outs, where do we draw the line? What is an acceptable figure to accept before "the heart & soul" is ripped out of our club?

 

Money talks all the way through the PL & beyond. We wanted Bent, we got him, we wanted Lambert, we got him-All clubs do this & always have done

 

£20 million will allow us to bully teams like Stoke & Hull for their players. £250 will allow us to bully teams like Everton & Newcastle for their players. Me personally would prefer to be taking players from Newcastle & Everton than I would from Stoke & Hull.

 

 

 

 if you can't beat them, join 'em.

 

 

absof*******lutley!

[OutByEaster?]

Xena-Not saying you're hypocritical

 

BUT think about it realistically, if we're going to accept hand outs, where do we draw the line? What is an acceptable figure to accept before "the heart & soul" is ripped out of our club?

 

Money talks all the way through the PL & beyond. We wanted Bent, we got him, we wanted Lambert, we got him-All clubs do this & always have done

 

£20 million will allow us to bully teams like Stoke & Hull for their players. £250 will allow us to bully teams like Everton & Newcastle for their players. Me personally would prefer to be taking players from Newcastle & Everton than I would from Stoke & Hull.

 

£20m a season is almost exactly what Lerner puts in now. To compete in the top half we'll need significantly more than that. 

[leviramsey]

Cuban's NBA team, the Mavericks, at last report, had a deal that expired in 2016 with Fox Sports Southwest, which may have just blown their budget on a long term deal with the Texas Rangers baseball team. His national general interest TV channel also doesn't have extensive carriage on the main cable systems in the Dallas area, so he's talked about setting up his own channel and bundling the general interest channel to get better carriage.

He could definitely team up with other Dallas-area team owners, including Clark Hunt (FC Dallas) and the Dallas Stars owner (Tom Gaglardi).

[Butterfingers]

I have not stated we WILL become the next Man City, in fact I've stated the chances are that we won't.

 

The point I'm making is that if people are happy to accept funding from a new owner, why complain if this money is beyond their wildest dreams?

 

I don't buy into this "I don't want to become the next Man City" cr#p. The top teams all survive on money, why is it acceptable for Man United to receive more money from various sources than we do but not for Man City to receive more money from their owners than we do?

 

Times have changed, not only in football, but all walks of life-Football has improved in so many ways from the 70's when I first started going, mainly for the better. I know many people who are glad that Man City broke the stranglehold at the top, just like they were when Blackburn won the title. I wouldn't mid betting that Man City fans who feel "the heart & soul" of their club have been ripped out are very much in the minority.

 

& as for Everton-All hail the saving grace that is Everton-The peoples club who climbed the table on a shoestring. Well this isn't strictly true. They've regularly paid higher transfer fees for players than we have & this season alone have spent millions on two loan players who have probably kept them where they are. If it is argued that Everton have got where they are by good management & wise investment alone then they are a one off, set against everyone else who have progressed because of cash injections.

[sexbelowsound]

I think going down the route of smart investment and good management can be done. I look at teams like Real Sociedad who last season came 4th with a very young squad as testament to this. Dortmund also won the league following the same route but the difference is that the Premier League is much more competitive. People can argue about which league has the best football or offers the most entertainment but i'm not sure many would disagree that the Premier League is the most competitive making it even more challenging for an English version of Sociedad or BVB to compete.

 

I personally would rather see us go the route of Dortmund, Sociedad and to some extent Atletico (Who actually have spent quite a bit on players) rather than the Man City, Chelsea, PSG route but to do that I think everything at the club would need to be overhauled and everyone following the same ideology. In the long run if that route worked I think it would be much more fulfilling as a fan.

 

Saying that though, if whoever the owner is rocks up and brings in Cristiano Ronaldo for 200 million and gives 500k a week I doubt i'd be complaining. 

[Butterfingers]

OBE

 

You are being pedantic. OK replace £20mil a season with £50mil a season. Happy now?

 

I have always maintained elsewhere on this site its not only transfer fees, it is the wage structure we have that limits us to unknowns from Europe. People keep on harping about signing "2 quality players" instead of 6 average ones. Show me where you can get these type of players from who will sign for £15k a week. Stoke pay more than we do & have recently signed Ireland who we didn't want. Its not as easy as some people think to just sign a couple of quality players when the chairman is looking to sell the club.

[Isa]

As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments.

 

Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ?

They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register.

[One For The Road]

 

 

As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments.

 

Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ?

They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register.

 

The thing is though, Liverpool have spent/are spending an obscene amount of money compared to us and indeed most clubs. I appreciate your point but to compete you DO need a lot of money. Good management merely mitigates HOW obscene your spending needs to be.