What's changed?

[madirishvillain]

Unfortunately the era we are in prevents us from holding onto our best players as they all want to play in the champions league and them clubs are able to offer larger wages than us due to their income and the fact they play in the champions league. If Villa started offering high wages then we would go under as we dont bring in the amounts of money the bigger clubs do.  MON tried do that and got quite close but always fell at the final hurdle.
At least we gave it a go when MON was in charge but I cant see if happening again for sometime.

none of the top 4 or 5 or 6 bring in any amount of money compared to what they are spending bar maybe Arsenal

agree with the rest of your post

we gave it a go for 3ish seasons - but no more - we are going to be a mid table team, selling our best player every season, hoping for a run in the cups for the forseeable

[mal]

I wonder if we would have signed Bent instead of Harewood what would have been?

I wonder if we had signed Zamora instead of Harewood...

[Lambert and Payne]

The gap has got too big during Lerner's tenure. I wonder how we would have fared had he been at the helm a decade earlier.

Most thought provoking and possibly depressing post of the day. We coulda been top dog!

[Brend'Watkins]

The gap has got too big during Lerner's tenure. I wonder how we would have fared had he been at the helm a decade earlier.

Most thought provoking and possibly depressing post of the day. We coulda been top dog!

You could also say what if Doug stayed on a little bit longer and Sheik Mansour preffered us to Man City.  We could be the club doing the 'Poznan' now.

[TheSandman]

The gap has got too big during Lerner's tenure. I wonder how we would have fared had he been at the helm a decade earlier.

This is the most important change. City coming from nowhere,Spurs spending big year on year,and the usual big four forever being in the CL gaining more dough every year have made it virtually impossible to crack.

 Randy gave it a good shot in those first 3 years or so,shame a lot of the money was spunked on very average signings.

I agree with these points. The most depressing thing is that now should one of the teams currently holding the top four blow up (Chelsea and Arsenal look like contenders) Tottenham and Liverpool would be far better placed than us to replace them.

[ez]

I wonder if we would have signed Bent instead of Harewood what would have been?

Or Bent instead of Heskey. Surely that would have nailed a top four spot.

[supertom]

With the new financial rules coming into play, and the domestic quotas, and if they are actually adhered to, then it puts more onus on academies. When we finally feel that impacting on the game (if we do at all), then I fancy we could compete again. At the same time we need enough luck to get the sort of genius manager, who can get the extra 10% from his squad to make them out perform. O Neill did get some momentum going, but could only get so far. Someone even better could nuture our kids to become a top team. It may sound idealistic, but perhaps there's potential for us to build a side like Man Utd did in the early 90's. If Fifa genuinely want people to stop spunking money to build great sides, then we could be a competitive side again. If that happened, the game would be better for it. I don't think the Abramovich and Sheikh factor has been good for football at all. We need to, best as possible, weed out the mercanary mentality. At the very least, if teams are only allowed to buy 1-2 superstars to be in financial fair play compliance, as opposed to splurge on a whole 11, then the league will be more competitive. If in the next ten years the league shapes up to reflect the best youth production, then I firmly believe that would make us one of the top 4 easily. With luck and good management, we can compete year in and year out in the top 6.

But for the time being, we have to settle for mid-table, or if we're lucky a best of the rest scrap with the likes of Liverpool, Everton and maybe even Spurs if they lose their star players.

[Villa'Zawg]

The gap has got too big during Lerner's tenure. I wonder how we would have fared had he been at the helm a decade earlier.

A decade earlier Doug was investing a similar amount in the squad as Lerner has, in relative terms.

[Neil Hawkes]

I'll ask again, as no one has given a satisfactory answer - who said we are not going to spend any more large amounts of money?

[Villa'Zawg]

I'll ask again, as no one has given a satisfactory answer - who said we are not going to spend any more large amounts of money?

Martin O'Neill last January.

[Neil Hawkes]

I'll ask again, as no one has given a satisfactory answer - who said we are not going to spend any more large amounts of money?

Martin O'Neill last January.

Subsequently proved to be wrong. Next?

[Villa'Zawg]

I'll ask again, as no one has given a satisfactory answer - who said we are not going to spend any more large amounts of money?

Martin O'Neill last January.

Subsequently proved to be wrong. Next?

No it hasn't. He said we needed to sell to buy and that's exactly what we've done.

If you're saying we'll spend plenty because we'll raise plenty in sales, I wouldn't argue with you.

[Neil Hawkes]

I'll ask again, as no one has given a satisfactory answer - who said we are not going to spend any more large amounts of money?

Martin O'Neill last January.

Subsequently proved to be wrong. Next?

No it hasn't. He said we needed to sell to buy and that's exactly what we've done.

If you're saying we'll spend plenty because we'll raise plenty in sales, I wouldn't argue with you.

Really, so GH only spent the Milner money last season? Don't think so.

[Villa'Zawg]

We also sold Gardner, Sidwell, Shorey and Davies. We've balanced the transfer books since Summer 2009.

[paulcomben]

I still wonder if we signed sheringham rather than cascarino what would have been?

Or just let Ian Olney carry on as he was.