??% Villa - how bad are Citeh for football?

[Russ aka Big Nose]

I don't hate Citeh, but I hate some of what they do.

They are not the basket-case with loyal fans they once were, but their wealth affords them power and (presently) I see no sense of responsibility within their club to do other than further their own interests, even at the expense of what is good (or bad) for football.

Garry Cook and his sidekick Marwood could create a mountain of problems in the next few years.

Yesterday offered a few good examples. A bright young talent developed by Citeh was frozen out because they have the wealth to upgrade and their treatment of him was very poor.

They also loaned out Bellamy - one of their best performers last year. Nice for him to do a season at his home town club, but also very convenient for Citeh. They did not want to sell or loan him to Spurs, Villa, Everton or another challenger to protect their interests even beyond what the player can do for their side.

Fair enough, but they are funding his move to Cardiff to the tune of £2.5m (BBC report). Cardiff are a club in a financial mess and they owe other clubs, like Motherwell, money that might keep them afloat or aid their development.

So Cardiff have a player paid for by Citeh that might get them into the Premier League. How do other Championship sides feel about their competition being distorted by the intervention of a club effectively funding the major part of Cardiff's campaign this season?

Could other clubs sue Cardiff because of the unfair advantage they have on non-commercial terms and isn't it against any sense of fair competition as well?

Citeh will also (probably) mothball or place good players - Given, RSC and others - at clubs that are no threat - perhaps legitimate? - but when they fund it to the extent they have for Bellamy it is another matter and something that fundamentally undermines competition in football.

Reduce competition and you lose what football (and sport) is about, but I suspect Cook and Marwood think it is about 'content' and 'new markets'.

[Concrete John]

My concern is with the Bellamy thing.  Championship clubs have at times had good players - anyone remember Hoddle as Swindon player manager?  he did contribute on the field, so you could argue they had an unfair advantage.  But the issue for me is not that Cardiff has Bellamy, but that they wouldn't sanction a move to a club where he could hurt them.  If you take that to it's nect logical level, what's to stop them signing someone like Gabby to nobble us, then loaning him out to a Championship club as they have no intention of playing him?  Buying who they want is one thing, trying to manipulate the transfer market to the detriment of their rivals is quite another.

[damon loves JT]

It was the little skit on the inside cover of H&V that made me realise what's bad for football.

The richest clubs get richer, their position at the top becomes unassailable, the games become boring and predictable.

Man City are trying to buy their way in, and maybe they'll succeed and maybe they won't, but nothing will change the fact that too few teams are playing to win anything.

And meanwhile Sky are having to shout louder and louder about how exciting and unpredictable it all is, using Cantona as shorthand for offbeat, original, startling entertainment.

[Ger Regan]

Very. That said, if they keep giving us their best players on the cheap, fill yer boots ye blue moon goons.

[JJ-AV]

It would have benefitted Citeh way more if they'd sent Bellamy to Fulham. He couldn't play against them, he wouldn't be playing for a divisional rival, but he would be able to play and score against us, Spurs, Liverpool, Everton and Arsenal.

[damon loves JT]

`Craig Bellamy does not play for shit clubs'

[Mazrim]

You know how vulgar it's all becoming when you see SSN interviewing some bloke after Blackburn and within 5 seconds are asking him how much money there will be for transfers. Nothing about whether he's fit to run a football club or whatever.

And then we have that fake SSN "transfer"advert about moving away from freeview or something with that shouty scotch twat bellowing at the camera about how good they'll look in HD. Excuse me? You'll still look like an emaciated donkey scrotum, just in sickeningly clear definition.
But everything is transfers this and that. Money money money. Just fuck off!

As for Man City, I don't hold them to blame but they're the evolution of all this bollocks. The most ludicrous outcome.
Money and how it is affecting the game is the problem. It doesnt really matter who has it.

[Hookeysmith]

You know how vulgar it's all becoming when you see SSN interviewing some bloke after Blackburn and within 5 seconds are asking him how much money there will be for transfers. Nothing about whether he's fit to run a football club or whatever.

And then we have that fake SSN "transfer"advert about moving away from freeview or something with that shouty scotch twat bellowing at the camera about how good they'll look in HD. Excuse me? You'll still look like an emaciated donkey scrotum, just in sickeningly clear definition.
But everything is transfers this and that. Money money money. Just fuck off!

As for Man City, I don't hold them to blame but they're the evolution of all this bollocks. The most ludicrous outcome.
Money and how it is affecting the game is the problem. It doesnt really matter who has it.

Agreed but in reality there is not a football fan in the country that did not wish it was "their "club spending like City - we all did when Randy rocked up to VP

Who would have thought having a billionairre own us and we still could not compete at the highest level.

[TopDeck113]

The Premier League years have seen success "bought" in two ways.   

Firstly there is the long-term consistent management of Wenger and Fergie, albeit in the case of the latter with as much money to spend as anyone else, at least pre-the Glazers.

Secondly there is rich men throwing money about: first Blackburn, then Chelsea and now Man City.

What has changed is the scale of the spend:  Jack Walker was the local man made good, Abramovich is the overseas owner with self-made billions, but City are in a totally different league: they're effectively spending sovereign wealth. 

I really hope that they f*ck it up, but the reality is that the money will keep being spent and eventually they'll assemble a group of galácticos (and a strong enough manager to gel them) who will certainly quality for the Champions League, possibly even win the Premier League.

[Monty]

You know how vulgar it's all becoming when you see SSN interviewing some bloke after Blackburn and within 5 seconds are asking him how much money there will be for transfers. Nothing about whether he's fit to run a football club or whatever.

And then we have that fake SSN "transfer"advert about moving away from freeview or something with that shouty scotch twat bellowing at the camera about how good they'll look in HD. Excuse me? You'll still look like an emaciated donkey scrotum, just in sickeningly clear definition.
But everything is transfers this and that. Money money money. Just fuck off!

As for Man City, I don't hold them to blame but they're the evolution of all this bollocks. The most ludicrous outcome.
Money and how it is affecting the game is the problem. It doesnt really matter who has it.

Agreed but in reality there is not a football fan in the country that did not wish it was "their "club spending like City - we all did when Randy rocked up to VP

Who would have thought having a billionairre own us and we still could not compete at the highest level.

I don't. I hate it, the vulgarity of the thing. I was a little uncomfortable with the way we'd spend large money on average players in the earlier Randy/MON days (not least because they were average players), but it was nothing like the scale of Man City. They've spent 150% of their turnover on transfers alone this summer, and that's not including the wages. I'm all for a bit of competition and investment and so forth, but that's disgusting.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

Money talks in football and thats always been the case. Its on a much much larger scale now.
How bad are the way they are doing things at City ?
Put it this way, if I had untold wealth and owned Villa the main thing I would do is it would be maximum £5 to get in whatever the game and a £1 for kids, season tickets would be about £80. With the crowds that attracted, I would be building to a 70,000 plus capacity which on these prices you would easily fill. This way virtually nobody who followed Villa would be excluded from being able to come to games because of lack of money and you would be building up a new massive base of lifelong supporters. Look at what they do at Bradford City in this respect, albeit on a smaller scale.

[LeeS]

I can put my hand on my heart and say for definite that I DO NOT WISH IT WAS US.

Just like I wouldnt swap my actual life for that of Mikey Carroll, the chav bin man who won the lottery and spunked it all on cocaine and gold necklaces.

Yeah, I'd take the millions, just as I'd take the multi-billionaire owner, but I'd live my life with a lot more class and dignity and I'd want my football club to act the same way.

[LeeS]

If I was a multi billionaire and I wanted to take Villa to the next level (not that I would ever give a penny of my money to mercenaries and their parasitic agents) I would do it gradually.

I’d start from the bottom and build the club up with decent foundations.

1 – start with a ten year plan to win the league, not get 4th place. I’m a billionaire I dont need the Champs League money I want trophies. Money comes with success anyway.

2 – Invest in the world’s finest training facilities and open it up to the public so they can see their team training. Footballers only train for about 8 hours per week so I’d also share the facilities with local schools and other sports clubs from the area. My club would be part of the community.

3 – Recruit the best youth team coaches I could get and start to build an academy of local kids. Not go around hoovering up the best talent from academy’s across Europe. I’d start them young and get my coaches to teach them how to pass and move and use their brains. Any youth team players who got too big for their boots or got into trouble would be out. No matter how good they were. There would be a Villa philosophy of good morals and players would have an appreciation of their fortunate position. All players would be expected to take and pass GCSEs and A-levels (or equivalent) and any players not making it as pros would be supported in their search for other careers (possibly in other sports).

4 – Employ a manager with character and morals (a Roy Hodgson type) rather than a superstar name figure poached from a rival club in an unseemly tug of war. Then give him a 5 year contract and tell him he has 5 years to get it right. Not 6 months and then sack him when we lose a couple of games. I’d also give him complete freedom in footballing matters and keep my nose out of his business (except for point 5)

5 – I’d sanction the signing of no more than 3 big name players per season. You can’t build a brand new team each year and expect them to win anything. I’d want continuity. I have a ten year plan anyway so am in no hurry. I’d also make it clear to my manager that I value the inclusion of home grown talent who are brought up with the Villa philosophy. Any player caught doing a John Terry or getting into trouble with police would be sacked. No matter who they are. I’d conduct my transfers within the letter and spirit of the rules. No poaching or tapping up. And if a club thought they could take me for a ride because I was loaded then they could forget it.

6 – Every member of staff from the tea lady up to the star striker would be expected to give something back to the local community. We’d provide support to charities, give discounts to local schoolchildren and members of the armed forces. We’d have a different local charity as our shirt sponsor every two years (not an original idea, I admit) and the players would be expected to know and understand about the lives of local fans.

7 – I’d build the stadium up to cater for 55-60k fans and then I’d sell tickets at pre-Sky prices. I’d keep the same kit for two seasons rather than replace it every year like most clubs do. I’d sell real ale and quality food in my stadium at normal prices. And I’d let every paying adult bring a child under 10 in for free. As a billionaire I wouldnt be interested in squeezing my fans for every last penny. I’d just want a full stadium each week and happy fans.

[garyshawsknee]

It's the way they've gone about things that gets on my tits. They mucked around with Everton last summer,us this summer,who's to say it won't be Spurs or Liverpool next summer.

Also as they're not in the Champions League yet,they sign players on obscene wages( Viera on £100 grand or so Toure on £200 grand a week)at a time when the rest of the league are trying to tighten their belts. Its not sour grapes as football isn't just about the wealth of the team and players and buying trophies,it worries me that football in general will be worse off in a year or two.

But then again,if it sells more T.V games in Asia that tool Scudamore won't give a monkeys.

[Hookeysmith]

I can put my hand on my heart and say for definite that I DO NOT WISH IT WAS US.

Just like I wouldnt swap my actual life for that of Mikey Carroll, the chav bin man who won the lottery and spunked it all on cocaine and gold necklaces.

Yeah, I'd take the millions, just as I'd take the multi-billionaire owner, but I'd live my life with a lot more class and dignity and I'd want my football club to act the same way.

Mate from my hill of moral highground i totally agree with you but in reality they will eventually win everything and in football being morally correct means jack shit to players - its money and trophies that count

100% agree with you about building a standium and subsidising the entrance fees