The Randy way or Citeh's Trillions ?

[pauliewalnuts]

I know people are concerned we might lose Milner on a Bosman eventually but he hasn't even reached half-way through his first ever Villa contract.

And that sums up how fucked-up, immoral and depressing football is these days.

[TheSandman]

I agree that they are a bunch of repugnant, cocks who are destroying our game but I'm sorry we just cannot compete with their spending and as such no matter what Randy does we will not compete. We are not even aiming for the same things any more unless it goes wrong there next season.

Also I have to say whilst we cannot compete with Man City in the Football Largesse Premiership we have far from shy splashing the cash. What must supporters of Bolton, Blackburn and so on think of us? We may not be a bunch of morally repugnant cocks like them. We at least are gentlemanly when we try to poach their players but the fact remains we spend more than these clubs can damaging their ability to compete and I've noticed an arrogance amongst some of our support (I might even be guilty of it myself) towards the likes of Bolton and Blackburn.

[Concrete John]

The thing about what City are doing is that it's only viable aslong as the Arab money keeps flowing and they stay interested.  Are they putting any money into the club's infrastructure, as Randy has?

If you imagine how each club would be if the respective owners walked away tomorrow, that is the difference and why I'm more confident our club is in better hands.

[Greg N'Ash]

I'm not even sure what Randy's way is. Has he got a plan?

I thought it was to invest in promising young players and turn them into great Villa players. It wasn't what I expected when our new billionaire owner turned up but I accepted it was a good way to do things.

If you then bend over and take it from Man City as soon as the first of those young players establishes himself as an international, you have to look at the plan again.

I know people are concerned we might lose Milner on a Bosman eventually but he hasn't even reached half-way through his first ever Villa contract.

spot on.

[TheSandman]

It is hardly surprising it may seem that way when its own residents are so happy to talk it down.

Better shopping than Manchester, better restaurants than Manchester, and - at worst - you're in London in a little over an hour, or less if you live between here and London.

The three things you mentioned are all clutching at straws especially as one of them involves leaving the city. You cant shop and go to a resturatnt every weekend, it becomes boring and monotomus.

It should be about things to remain her or attract an outsider here. As I said, it has potential, yet is so outward facing it forgets what it has (Eg. leaving Cadburys off one of the city promotional videos).

Its not the best of cities, but granted, its certainly not the worst.

Eh? What else is there in Manchester beyond restaurants and shopping centres? Is a lot of rain an attraction these days?

[pauliewalnuts]

The thing about what City are doing is that it's only viable aslong as the Arab money keeps floating and they stay interested.  Are they putting any money into the club's infrastructure, as Randy has?

If you imagine how each club would be if the respective owners walked away tomorrow, that is the difference and why I'm more confident our club is in better hands.

The thing is, though, it is all relative.

What Man City look like to everyone else, we looked like to Newcastle when we took Milner off them two years ago, which is what we probably look like to Everton.

They'd be fucked if their sugar daddy walked away, yes, but then again so would we.

Less fucked, but still fucked.

[dave.woodhall]

Manchester City took him off us, took him off Newcastle, took him off Leeds. I'm sure the other two clubs will be looking at any Albion-style "It's not FAIR!!!!!" histronics on our part with a wry smile.

[Dave Javu]

When Villa use American £millions to try and buy success, it's our right and the most natural thing in the world.

When City use (even more) Middle East £millions to try and buy them success, it's now an unfair playing field and football has somehow gone crazy.

I just don't get it. Albeit on a smaller scale, English football has probably been like this for the last 100 years.

Until there is watertight limits on how much a club can spend as a proportion of turnover and TV revenue is distributed more evenly, the "Man City scenario" will happen again.

[KevinGage]

We have an owner who oozes class.

Let's keep it this way.

I like RL's approach thus far.

I have a few doubts about him, and I always have TBH.

His track record in sports management with the Browns isn't all that hot, lets face it. And he inherited his wealth, rather than building it from nowt. The latter has plusses and minuses. The minus being that he might not be the guy to bring us to the next level re global impact and sustainability. The plus being that he might have more of an artistic eye towards us, as he does with other historical English items. A labour of love, as it were. Rather than judging the project purely with the bottom line in mind (though that is of course crucial).

I say stick with him no question. He gets the club and I like his approach to the role to-date. But the sad fact is we don't look like being in the hunt for major trophies anytime soon - a scenario not unlike the latter part of the Ellis years. Whereas players will be joining Citeh with thoughts of titles, trophies and glory.  It might not pan out that way of course, but they are in a far better position to achieve it than we are.

And who would have said that back in Sep 2006?

[dave.woodhall]

And who would have said that back in Sep 2006?

If ever there was a wrong time for a mere billionaire to buy your club.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

Do it the Man City Way?  
You want the type of scumbags like Gary Cook getting involved in the club ? The scumbag who came out with the statement  "China and India are gagging for football content to watch and we’re going to tell them that City is their content. We need a superstar to get through that door. Richard Dunne doesn’t roll off the tongue in Beijing".
No thanks.

[Concrete John]

The thing about what City are doing is that it's only viable aslong as the Arab money keeps floating and they stay interested.  Are they putting any money into the club's infrastructure, as Randy has?

If you imagine how each club would be if the respective owners walked away tomorrow, that is the difference and why I'm more confident our club is in better hands.

The thing is, though, it is all relative.

What Man City look like to everyone else, we looked like to Newcastle when we took Milner off them two years ago, which is what we probably look like to Everton.

They'd be fucked if their sugar daddy walked away, yes, but then again so would we.

Less fucked, but still fucked.

I'm not so sure.  Our wagebill is high in relation to our turnover, but not unsustainable in so far as selling 1 top earner wouldn't have a significant impact towards bringing it back into line.  We've also just got a good sponsorship deal, so even if it stayed as it was it would fall in relation to turnover.  I also think that Randy's thinking in the whole 'buy to sell' philosophy is as much to do with long term stability as it is immediate freeing of wages for this summer's arrivals.

We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm not so sure.  Our wagebill is high in relation to our turnover, but not unsustainable in so far as selling 1 top earner wouldn't have a significant impact towards bringing it back into line.  We've also just got a good sponsorship deal, so even if it stayed as it was it would fall in relation to turnover.  I also think that Randy's thinking in the whole 'buy to sell' philosophy is as much to do with long term stability as it is immediate freeing of wages for this summer's arrivals.

We're being viewed as and run as a business, Man City simply aren't.

It isn't only about wage bills. You specifically mentioned if the owners walked away.

We're in debt to Randy by a large amount of money. He's pumped lots and lots of money into the club in the last four years, for which we're grateful, but that doesn't change the fact that he's put the money in, and it will need to be repaid at some point.

We're not as much at risk as Man City would be, not at all, but we'd still be in big, big trouble.

[TheBarneyArmy]

I would much rather have a club to support in years to come, than be in the position of the pompey fans who face championship / league 1 oblivion at best. Who knows what will happen when when these rich arabs have had enough. Randy's way for me.

[KevinGage]

I just don't get it. Albeit on a smaller scale, English football has probably been like this for the last 100 years.
 

Not sure about that deej.

You had the Bank of England Sunderland side in the earlier part of the century. And we were hardly short of a bob or two either. Later in the century there was of course Walker's Blackburn and -to a certain extent- Hayward's Wolves. Though his impact was limited to those divisions outside the topflight.

But football was generally more organic, with available finance being dictated by success on the pitch or revenue at the gate.

The Forest team of the 80's for example were in a position to break the British transfer record and sign Shilton - but only on the back of what they'd already achieved.

Personally I hope pop gorges itself and the arse falls out of the Sky phenomenon. It will take something like subscriptions to be down for that to occur -not entirely unthinkable in the PC age where games can be watched for a fraction of the price online (and in most cases free).

The repercussions could be serious -for most clubs. But it might just take something drastic for the game to get it's house in order.