If......

[joe_c]

[Billy Walker]

Don't think so, one of our problems is that we'd have big, arguably bigger than Villa, clubs in close proximity to us as competition, in Spurs, Chelsea, and Arsenal. One of our advantages is that we've got a reputation (rightfully so) as the 'Biggest club in the Midlands', and I reckon we get the biggest draw of the area. Competing for fans with the afore mentioned big London clubs would probably mean that we'd be a club similar to the size of Fulham, with similar attendances around the 25,000 mark.

We'd be bigger than Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelsea because (assuming we had the same history) we would be the oldest, most established club in the whole of the south east.  Not only that, but if Villa had been a London club I don't think there would be an Arsenal as such.  My understanding of Herbert Chapman was that his vision for Arsenal was to make them into the Aston Villa of the south, even down to rebuilding their stadium to match the grandeur of Villa Park.  Indeed, I'm sure he changed Arsenal's kit to the red body/white sleeves (from all red) because he admired the famous claret body/blue sleeves design of the Villa kit.

Yeah but you've got to take into account that Chelsea and Arsenal have vastly bigger a fan base than us, with significantly bigger revenue. I wouldn't mind betting Spurs are in that bracket as well, as much as it's a shame to say, History means very little when dealing with catchment areas and the like, we're just not fashionable enough to compete with those 3 in terms of fan base and revenue in my opinion.

Ah, but if Villa were based in London surely we would be fashionable with the fan base and revenue to match?  One of the main reasons in my view why we are not in the headlines all the time is because we are a Birmingham/Midlands team.  When it comes to the national UK media industry (as has been discussed many a time on H&V) the Midlands and Brum might as well be a black hole.  If the Aston Villa we all know and love had been a London based club these past, nigh on, one hundred and forty years, I reckon it would be the biggest and most respected club in the capital.  A whole load more football journalists would be Villa fans, and a whole load more TV people would be, too.

[Chipsticks]

Don't think so, one of our problems is that we'd have big, arguably bigger than Villa, clubs in close proximity to us as competition, in Spurs, Chelsea, and Arsenal. One of our advantages is that we've got a reputation (rightfully so) as the 'Biggest club in the Midlands', and I reckon we get the biggest draw of the area. Competing for fans with the afore mentioned big London clubs would probably mean that we'd be a club similar to the size of Fulham, with similar attendances around the 25,000 mark.

We'd be bigger than Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelsea because (assuming we had the same history) we would be the oldest, most established club in the whole of the south east.  Not only that, but if Villa had been a London club I don't think there would be an Arsenal as such.  My understanding of Herbert Chapman was that his vision for Arsenal was to make them into the Aston Villa of the south, even down to rebuilding their stadium to match the grandeur of Villa Park.  Indeed, I'm sure he changed Arsenal's kit to the red body/white sleeves (from all red) because he admired the famous claret body/blue sleeves design of the Villa kit.

Yeah but you've got to take into account that Chelsea and Arsenal have vastly bigger a fan base than us, with significantly bigger revenue. I wouldn't mind betting Spurs are in that bracket as well, as much as it's a shame to say, History means very little when dealing with catchment areas and the like, we're just not fashionable enough to compete with those 3 in terms of fan base and revenue in my opinion.

Ah, but if Villa were based in London surely we would be fashionable with the fan base and revenue to match?  One of the main reasons in my view why we are not in the headlines all the time is because we are a Birmingham/Midlands team.  When it comes to the national UK media industry (as has been discussed many a time on H&V) the Midlands and Brum might as well be a black hole.  If the Aston Villa we all know and love had been a London based club these past, nigh on, one hundred and forty years, I reckon it would be the biggest and most respected club in the capital.  A whole load more football journalists would be Villa fans, and a whole load more TV people would be, too.

I get where you're coming from, but my only problem is that there's not enough room in London for another decent club.

I think I'm trying too hard to think of it from the perspective that if we literally just packed up and moved there now though, so my opinion's probably as much use as a chocolate teapot.

[KevinGage]

Don't think so, one of our problems is that we'd have big, arguably bigger than Villa, clubs in close proximity to us as competition, in Spurs, Chelsea, and Arsenal. One of our advantages is that we've got a reputation (rightfully so) as the 'Biggest club in the Midlands', and I reckon we get the biggest draw of the area. Competing for fans with the afore mentioned big London clubs would probably mean that we'd be a club similar to the size of Fulham, with similar attendances around the 25,000 mark.

We'd be bigger than Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelsea because (assuming we had the same history) we would be the oldest, most established club in the whole of the south east.  Not only that, but if Villa had been a London club I don't think there would be an Arsenal as such.  My understanding of Herbert Chapman was that his vision for Arsenal was to make them into the Aston Villa of the south, even down to rebuilding their stadium to match the grandeur of Villa Park.  Indeed, I'm sure he changed Arsenal's kit to the red body/white sleeves (from all red) because he admired the famous claret body/blue sleeves design of the Villa kit.

Yeah but you've got to take into account that Chelsea and Arsenal have vastly bigger a fan base than us, with significantly bigger revenue. I wouldn't mind betting Spurs are in that bracket as well, as much as it's a shame to say, History means very little when dealing with catchment areas and the like, we're just not fashionable enough to compete with those 3 in terms of fan base and revenue in my opinion.

I think his point is IF what the OP outlined was actually reality, we'd have been far bigger far sooner than any of the clubs you've mentioned. So the fanbases you see today  have absolutely no relevance at all.

For years Arsenal were roughly seen as on a par with us, and in my lifetime Chelsea have been a 'nothing' club until quite recently. Post Gullit 95/96.   We have always had up and down gates, but as recently as the mid 90's we had the highest attendance in the whole country. Two seasons in a row, in fact.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

App the Villa ! Cam on you Lions !

[N'ZMAV]

Us being in London is the only way to make the SHA top dogs in this city.

[Salsa Party Animal]

We will be London version of Arsenal and big as Barcelona

[PaulTheVillan]

We'd be QPR/Fulham mark 2.

[The Laughing Policeman]

We'd all talk like Dick Van Dyke.
Wear strange clothes covered in pearl buttons.
Think Chaz & Dave are the greatest band ever.
Eat jellied eels.
Nick Hornby and David Mellor would be fans.
Wouldn't be able to get sarf of the river after midnight guv.

[Gaztonniller]

We'd be QPR/Fulham mark 2.

Why QPR/Fulham?

[The Man With A Stick]

A season ticket would be about £1,200 and that überc**t Tim Lovejoy would have started supporting us in 1993.

For that, we should be eternally thankful.

[hawkeye]

If you moved The Villa to London now with the right amount of Investment it would in 10 years become a bigger Club than it could ever be in Birmingham.