Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Gaztonniller on January 12, 2012, 09:00:51 PM
-
....we/VP were located in the capital, with the same ground capacity, catchment area etc, and only difference being situated in london. Would we/the club be in a better situation than we are now; Or wouldnt it make that much difference to the clubs fortunes.
-
Wouldn't make a difference imo.
-
Then London would have a European Cup and the whole world would not make a lick of sense.
Cats would marry dogs and the seas would boil.
But to answer your point, we'd be the best supported club in the land as we'd all be cock-er-nees and not miserable Brummie wankers and downtrodden Yammers, with more cash in the pocket to get down the game.
The press would fawn over us and print endless stories about us.
Redknapp would be our manager and we'd play 'triffic football.
And we’d sing fack orf Arsenal, the city is ours.
Of course, we'd have more fans wearing berets and flap caps at silly angles.
-
I think it makes a massive difference in this era of global Premiership football
You can sell living in London to a player, especially a foreign player. Birmingham is a much harder sell.
If a player was offered Birmingham or London on the same wages, they'd go for London every time.
-
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
-
I think it makes a massive difference in this era of global Premiership football
You can sell living in London to a player, especially a foreign player. Birmingham is a much harder sell.
If a player was offered Birmingham or London on the same wages, they'd go for London every time.
But Manchester/Liverpool is as difficult a sell as Birmingham surely?
-
And Tottenhams a shit hole!
They set it on fire!
Doesn't stop old 'arry though.
-
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.
-
If we were in London, then we'd have always been in London and therefore we'd be bigger than those Mickey Mouse clubs you've mentioned, like we have been for most of our 130 odd year history.
Alright, maybe Arsenal would be an exception.
-
IF you can keep your head when all about you...
That's one of my very favourite poems. Rock on, Leeg!
If...Villa were London. We would be Arsenal. Or Dagenham and Redbridge if we hadn't grabbed all the opportunities.
-
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.
-
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 it makes a massive difference in this era of global Premiership football
You can sell living in London to a player, especially a foreign player. Birmingham is a much harder sell.
If a player was offered Birmingham or London on the same wages, they'd go for London every time.
But Manchester/Liverpool is as difficult a sell as Birmingham surely?
Those two tend to pay higher wages and can also guarantee (until recently in Liverpool's case) Champions League and the chance of winning medals. Playing for United is an easier sell than the Villa, even the most blinkered Villa fan would ageree. Even so, players have left Manchester, in spite of playing for "the greatest club in the world", because they dont settle.
-
If we were in the south-east we wouldn't have won much of what we've won. I don't think the first London club joined the Football League until we'd won it five times.
-
Then London would have a European Cup and the whole world would not make a lick of sense.
Cats would marry dogs and the seas would boil.
But to answer your point, we'd be the best supported club in the land as we'd all be cock-er-nees and not miserable Brummie wankers and downtrodden Yammers, with more cash in the pocket to get down the game.
The press would fawn over us and print endless stories about us.
Redknapp would be our manager and we'd play 'triffic football.
And we’d sing fack orf Arsenal, the city is ours.
Of course, we'd have more fans wearing berets and flap caps at silly angles.
English humour is fantastic, this is the main reason why I love so much this Country!
-
(http://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/if.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/190000/images/_192615_alf_garnett_correct_portrait_150.jpg)
App the Villa ! Cam on you Lions !
-
Us being in London is the only way to make the SHA top dogs in this city.
-
We will be London version of Arsenal and big as Barcelona :)
-
We'd be QPR/Fulham mark 2.
-
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.
-
We'd be QPR/Fulham mark 2.
Why QPR/Fulham?
-
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.
-
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.