Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Rip Van We Go Again on August 17, 2010, 04:21:04 PM
-
According to reports, they may well be taken over by a mega rich Indian businessman, he's promised to give Fat sam '£100m for transfers'
Bullshit or another money burning maniac?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/blackburn_rovers/8920643.stm
-
Big Sam will probably spend it on 20 El Hadj Dioufs.
-
It's amazing that every potential investor keeps ignoring Everton. Liverpool I can see because those two boneheads want stupid money for the club. I mean, why Blackburn? Anyway, just like China Crisis down the road, I'll wait and see how much they actually spend before I believe it. It's so foolish to announce how much you are willing to spend as everyone jacks up their price.
-
I can't see this guy being as wealthy as Man City's owners who appear to have endless financial resources. Probably more akin to the guy that has brought SHA.
-
Even if he gives Fat Sam the Yop man £100 million, that'll still only get him to about eighth in the league, which is round about their level now.
-
Big Sam will probably spend it on 20 El Hadj Dioufs.
Or chewing gum and a new Bluetooth headset.
-
It's all probably bluster. Just like Yeung at the heathens. Remember they had a vast budget to spend on real stars and to which ends they've just taken out a loan deal for Matt Derbyshire.
-
They've only got one year to do it, if they want to. The Platini regulations are coming soon, and next year everyone else will be buckling down in preparation, including Man City. It's the wrong time to buy a football club if you want to buy every player in sight and play European football as well.
-
They can still buy lots of homegrown players with the cash, and up to seventeen star players. I doubt the 25 man squad will make much difference.
I can just imagine Fat Sam moaning at Kaka for not tracking back and telling Messi to work on his long throws.
-
They can still buy lots of homegrown players with the cash, and up to seventeen star players. I doubt the 25 man squad will make much difference.
I can just imagine Fat Sam moaning at Kaka for not tracking back and telling Messi to work on his long throws.
Nothing to do with homegrown and everything to do with spending more than your turnover. In a couple of years the maximum non-turnover (as in, filthy rich bastard) investment for transfers and wages will be £40m, which would bring them up to the level we'd be at if we only spent turnover, not including the maximum £40m which Randy could spend on us. I see nothing to worry about from Blackburn.
-
Can you get around that by offering £5,000 a week in wages... plus £100,000 per match / £125,000 per point 'bonus'?
-
I thought you could get around it by the owner paying massively over the odds for an executive box every year.
-
Can you get around that by offering £5,000 a week in wages... plus £100,000 per match / £125,000 per point 'bonus'?
Bonuses are counted as money paid by the club to the players.
-
Can you get around that by offering £5,000 a week in wages... plus £100,000 per match / £125,000 per point 'bonus'?
I presume that still comes under player remuneration. Maybe they could pay them in buttons and then agree a buy-back deal that values the buttons at an inflated price at the end of the season.
-
I thought you could get around it by the owner paying massively over the odds for an executive box every year.
That sounds like fraud
-
I imagine the clubs will object and FIFA will cave in.
-
I thought you could get around it by the owner paying massively over the odds for an executive box every year.
Or I'd assume getting your own company to sponsor the club for an exorbitant amount.
-
I imagine the clubs will object and FIFA will cave in.
FIFA don't enter into the equation, thankfully.
-
Who is in charge of enforcing the rule then? Can't imagine UEFA or Premier League standing up to Manure and saying sort your debts outs or you're banned from Europe / relegated?
-
I imagine the clubs will object and FIFA will cave in.
Actually the clubs lobbied for it. Chelsea, Man Utd, Barcelona, Milan - it's in their interests for turnover to equal success. Fortunately, it also levels the playing field at crucial levels like Champions' League places, meaning more long-term competition. The only club who objected? You guessed it - Man City.
Who is in charge of enforcing the rule then? Can't imagine UEFA or Premier League standing up to Manure and saying sort your debts outs or you're banned from Europe / relegated?
The punishment is barring from European competition like has happened to Mallorca this season. The only difference is how they're defining debt now - and that debt includes Man City.
-
Be interesting to see if they stick to their guns. Mallorca aren't Barcelona / Manure / Chelski though.
-
Be interesting to see if they stick to their guns. Mallorca aren't Barcelona / Manure / Chelski though.
They aren't the clubs who'll be in trouble, as they don't spend beyond their turnover - Man Utd especially make gargantuan profits. Contracts from before the regulations are meant to come in don't count as much, so expect to see lots of 5- and 6-year contracts signed next year. Then the year after is year zero. The three clubs in Europe who'll benefit most are Arsenal, Barcelona and Milan.
The laws are known as "Financial Fair Play", and are designed to stop a) Portsmouths and b) Man Citys.
-
And C) Aston Villas.
All such regulations will do is perpetuate a natural order. The Man Uniteds, Liverpools, Chelseas and Arsenals have greater turnover and thus a greater chance of success. It will have a deeply negative effect upon competition, probably more so than a Manchester City being able to spend far more than other clubs.
-
And C) Aston Villas.
All such regulations will do is perpetuate a natural order. The Man Uniteds, Liverpools, Chelseas and Arsenals have greater turnover and thus a greater chance of success. It will have a deeply negative effect upon competition, probably more so than a Manchester City being able to spend far more than other clubs.
Not necessarily. Wenger is really on to something when he talks about clubs having "natural potential". Villa have enormous natural potential for fanbase expansion, which brings up gate receipts, merchandising etc. We have also have a good catchment area for local youth players, which is always nice. The important thing about the "Chinese casual fan" who is so valuable to clubs is that his affections are not necessarily monogamist or unchangeable, like ours are. He could have a Man Utd and a Man City shirt and think nothing of it. That market is easy enough to tap into if you can break through the all-important Champions' League barrier, which the regulations help with, providing a great increase in potential revenue.
A key part of the regulations is that you are allowed to spend beyond turnover on a) stadium development, b) youth systems and c) training facilities and other areas of development. Man City, for instance, are building their own hotels near to the ground for away fans and Man City fans who live far away to stay in. This allows outside investment, but in a more indirect way so it benefits the game as a whole. One way or another, clubs will now have to build, which is a good thing.
The real glass ceiling now is countries who are too small for competitive leagues, such as Holland, Belgium or Switzerland. I'm in favour of combining these countries leagues fully at the top level, so a Dutch-Belgian Premier League or a Swiss-Austrian-Hungarian Central European Premier League, but that's just my idea.
-
Why Blackburn though? A club that could barely sell out half of their ground capacity for a cup semi final last season! Wolves or Albion would have been a better investment if a Premier League club was what this guy wanted.
-
I don't get it either.
Still don't know why the Sheikh's at Citeh didn't buy Newcastle, either.
-
I don't get it either.
Still don't know why the Sheikh's at Citeh didn't buy Newcastle, either.
This could be way off beam, but Indians of a certain age are fascinated by Lancashire. Dating back to the time of the textile boom/ industrial revolution and trade between the UK and India. Lancashire/ Blackburn was at the epicentre of all that.
Blackburn might be a name that carries a certain resonance and respectability over there, I dunno.
Whereas here it's synonymous with pies and Sam Allardyce
Or Sam Allthepies.
-
Does seem like a strange purchase, maybe he doesn't have the money for someone like Everton but feels he might make an impact there, all the money in the world wont bring the fans in
-
A price of 300M GBP is being suggested in the press + him taking on Blackburn's 20M of debt.
It might all be smoke and mirrors, but if it goes through what value would you put on Villa?
We certainly have more debt, but even factoring this in we Randy would make a massive profit if he sold.
-
Maybe its because Blackburn have a prem history? They did win the title in the dim distant past:-)
-
The chap on SSN was saying between £80-£100m would be available for transfers.
Firstly, that's not in Man City's league. Secondly, anyone coming on Sky Sports News who simpy cannot wait to blurt out to everyone exactly how much the club would have available for transfers does not sound like someone I would want as our chairman.
-
Kevin Nolan will be Fat Sam's 1st signing.
If that transfer funds of £80-£100m is true. Or should I say, the so-called takeover story is true.