The Takeover Thread - Recon Group - NOW WITH NEW POLL

[Ron Manager]

As dismal as the last four years have been, it's difficult not to feel some sympathy for Lerner.  As others have said, his intentions were undoubtedly good and for a while it looked as if we might break through.  But as soon as O'Neill walked and Lerner had to start making some important decisions, his lack of football nous was there for all to see.

It's scarcely believable when you look at our squad that a quarter of a billion quid has been spent on players since he took over.

I just think in the end, hindsight being what it is, he backed the wrong horse. He came in wanting to make Villa a top side again and it looked like MON was a solid choice. It certainly wasn't unpopular. He gave him the keys to the kingdom and the debt was way too deep when it all came crashing to a halt. Everything from that point was an attempt to stop the bleeding while hoping they could find a David Moyes who made something out of very little. Unfortunately McLeish and Lambert haven't done the job that I think he hoped Moyes or even Martinez might have had he managed to get either manager.

The only time I can ever claim to be ITK was when Gerald Houllier left the club. I know someone at the club made contact with David Moyes because a relation who worked for Everton at the time overheard a brief conversation that one of their coaches had with Moyes. He said 'Anything in this rumour about Villa I've heard?' Moyes said Well, yeah, but what would be the point of that'. I suppose he meant lack of finance but I dont know for sure. I still think Moyes is a very good manager having to sort out an ageing squad but I was very pleased indeed when we got Lambert. I havent been so dissapointed in a Villa manager since The Doc failed to achieve what I thought he would. But at least he was funny!

[bob]

I actually think it would be harder now to break through, compared to 2006. 

Back then, it was really only the top 4 (and Newcastle, to an extent) who had real money, and of those Arsenal were reluctant to spend following the stadium move and Liverpool had looked unconvincing (CL win apart) for a few years.

So two of the established four looked vulnerable, and a new player on the block could justify spending a decent amount in what would be a calculated gamble.

Now, the current top 4 plus Man U and Tottingham all have the resources to have top 6 sewn up for the foreseeable, never mind the top 4.   Everton somehow manage to remain competitive at the right end of the table too, it wouldn't be easy to eclipse them either.

There also seems to be an assumption that any new owner will automatically want to have the club fighting it out at the top of the league.  But on top of the purchase cost (at the reported £200+ million mark) how much would they need to spend to have a chance of CL football?  If Citeh are any sort of yardstick, you are easily talking another £200 million.

That's a phenomenal amount, even for a billionaire.

Citeh's owners effectively see that deal as very expensive promotion for Abu Dhabi. They don't seem particularly keen to turn a profit (though I'm sure the association helps their other brands too).

So unless any potential new bidder is coming in with similar motivation, I wouldn't see it as a given that they'll throw money at the thing.   If it's another American owner (as the speculation points to) rather than a big player from an emerging Gulf nation, they might be quite happy to keep the club ticking over on the new TV deal for a while and then sell on for a profit a few years down the track.

The TV rights don't seem to be on the decline, so even if we weren't particularly successful over the next 5/10 years, there is still a strong chance the club could be sold on again at a profit.

Agree. I think it's unrealistic to think we might get someone come in and spend the money required to compete at the top.

Realistic expectations for me are to spend enough to improve the squad sufficiently so that it can:
Win a lot more home games
Play good football
Score lots of goals
Challenging for the top 6 every season

In a good season we can win a cup or qualify for the Champions League. If we manage that then we go again. Shit, I mean... er... go from there?

[john e]

Who wouldn't like the type of players and success enjoyed by Man City over the last few years? You'd be barmy not to want that.

I would find it a lot easier to support Lowton, Baker, Clark, KEA, Albrighton, Bennett etc in a Villa shirt than the cream of Europe players brought in on a mega billionaires money

I realise I'm out on my own here, but that's the way I feel
Like I say I don't want to be Chelsea or City I don't envy their hollow successes one bit

[lovejoy]

It struck me earlier that we're probably the only ever-present PL team not to look like we belong in the league. We haven't had a decent title challenge since '93, haven't troubled fourth since '96, haven't had a sniff of a CL challenge since that Stoke equaliser and haven't won a pot in nearly twenty years.

Not sure I agree with that at all.

Who are these clubs, for example, records since 1992:

Club 1

7 bottom half finishes
6 top six finishes
Best finish 4th

Club 2

6 bottom half finishes
9 top six finishes
Best finish: 2nd

Club 1 is Spurs. Club 2 is us.

Cut it off in 2008 and re work.

Why?

The original post didn't say since 2008.

I agree we have been poor in recent years but I don't see why it needs to be spun out to be worse than it already is. Other clubs of our station have had add many poor spells as we Have - I don't hugely care about anyone who isn't Villa but to suggest we are the only ever presents to look like we don't belong is not true.

The point is, you can spin this either way depending on where you draw the arbitrary starting point. Also more recent history is a better indicator of future success than older history. I agree that over the entire life of the premier league we are on a par with Spuds, Everton, Newcastle but in the next 5 years we are less likely to be successful than those teams based on the last 5 years. We were more successful than them 1892-1907 but that is of little relevance today.

[DB]

It struck me earlier that we're probably the only ever-present PL team not to look like we belong in the league. We haven't had a decent title challenge since '93, haven't troubled fourth since '96, haven't had a sniff of a CL challenge since that Stoke equaliser and haven't won a pot in nearly twenty years.

Not sure I agree with that at all.

Who are these clubs, for example, records since 1992:

Club 1

7 bottom half finishes
6 top six finishes
Best finish 4th

Club 2

6 bottom half finishes
9 top six finishes
Best finish: 2nd

Club 1 is Spurs. Club 2 is us.

Cut it off in 2008 and re work.

Why?

The original post didn't say since 2008.

I agree we have been poor in recent years but I don't see why it needs to be spun out to be worse than it already is. Other clubs of our station have had add many poor spells as we Have - I don't hugely care about anyone who isn't Villa but to suggest we are the only ever presents to look like we don't belong is not true.

The point is, you can spin this either way depending on where you draw the arbitrary starting point. Also more recent history is a better indicator of future success than older history. I agree that over the entire life of the premier league we are on a par with Spuds, Everton, Newcastle but in the next 5 years we are less likely to be successful than those teams based on the last 5 years. We were more successful than them 1892-1907 but that is of little relevance today.

All that happened in 1992 was a name change. It holds no other relevance other for Sky to use since they got involved in football at that time.

[Jimbo]

Who wouldn't like the type of players and success enjoyed by Man City over the last few years? You'd be barmy not to want that.

I would find it a lot easier to support Lowton, Baker, Clark, KEA, Albrighton, Bennett etc in a Villa shirt than the cream of Europe players brought in on a mega billionaires money

I realise I'm out on my own here, but that's the way I feel
Like I say I don't want to be Chelsea or City I don't envy their hollow successes one bit

I'd prefer it if all our players were Villa fans born within in a ten-mile radius of B6, but that's not realistic. It's equally unrealistic to expect the likes of Clark, Baker, Lowton and Bennett to improve us significantly. They're just not good enough for Villa, hence the mess we're in.     

[pauliewalnuts]

I just want us to have players who are - at the very least - good enough. The current squad includes too many who clearly are not good enough.

[john e]

Who wouldn't like the type of players and success enjoyed by Man City over the last few years? You'd be barmy not to want that.

I would find it a lot easier to support Lowton, Baker, Clark, KEA, Albrighton, Bennett etc in a Villa shirt than the cream of Europe players brought in on a mega billionaires money

I realise I'm out on my own here, but that's the way I feel
Like I say I don't want to be Chelsea or City I don't envy their hollow successes one bit

I'd prefer it if all our players were Villa fans born within in a ten-mile radius of B6, but that's not realistic. It's equally unrealistic to expect the likes of Clark, Baker, Lowton and Bennett to improve us significantly. They're just not good enough for Villa, hence the mess we're in.     

Like I say, I know I'm in the minority

[WarszaVillan]

It struck me earlier that we're probably the only ever-present PL team not to look like we belong in the league. We haven't had a decent title challenge since '93, haven't troubled fourth since '96, haven't had a sniff of a CL challenge since that Stoke equaliser and haven't won a pot in nearly twenty years.

Not sure I agree with that at all.

Who are these clubs, for example, records since 1992:

Club 1

7 bottom half finishes
6 top six finishes
Best finish 4th

Club 2

6 bottom half finishes
9 top six finishes
Best finish: 2nd

Club 1 is Spurs. Club 2 is us.

Cut it off in 2008 and re work.

Why?

The original post didn't say since 2008.

I agree we have been poor in recent years but I don't see why it needs to be spun out to be worse than it already is. Other clubs of our station have had add many poor spells as we Have - I don't hugely care about anyone who isn't Villa but to suggest we are the only ever presents to look like we don't belong is not true.

The point is, you can spin this either way depending on where you draw the arbitrary starting point. Also more recent history is a better indicator of future success than older history. I agree that over the entire life of the premier league we are on a par with Spuds, Everton, Newcastle but in the next 5 years we are less likely to be successful than those teams based on the last 5 years. We were more successful than them 1892-1907 but that is of little relevance today.

All that happened in 1992 was a name change. It holds no other relevance other for Sky to use since they got involved in football at that time.

Unfortunately it was far more than this, it marked the time when money stopped being redistributed throughout the leagues and the rich clubs were able to accumulate the new revenue coming through the new TV deal. From this time on there has been no chance of a club like Forest or Ipswich (or Villa for that matter) being able to challenge for the league and the only 'outsiders' that can do so are those with new mega rich owners (Chelsea, Man City).

[kipeye]

In regard to Man City-Their investment is one involving infrastructure. They have developed large areas of land at low cost and continue to expand thanks to benign councils and other opportunities thrown the way of people with ready cash.
This could be easily replicated in the Midlands and elsewhere, but there are a limited number of these available at any one time-it likely takes a government as well as a corporation. Tata and a few others (mostly Chinese) could do it in Brum. Otherwise it is a case of get rich for nothing owners typified by the Glasers.

[DB]

Off the pitch yes, but the real difference are the super rich that came in to buy a PL club. On the pitch it's still the same game, I hate Sky using terms like - top goal scorer in PL history....as if everything that happened before is irrelevant

[Jimbo]

It's just the way modern football is. The game is all about money. If it were that simple to cultivate young and hungry players, every club would be doing it. Every other club can look at us for proof that it just doesn't work. Even we now realise what a balls up we've made by pursuing such a risky course, as Lambert's recent comments illustrate.

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

Those living in a dreamworld where we're taken over by a billionaire, what makes you think we'd be able to buy players to compete and beat the other teams with billionaires?

[PaulWinch again]

It's not necassarily 'dreamland'. Like I've said before I believe Randy has Villa's best interests at heart, I truly believe he'd try and find us the best possible buyer.

[aj2k77]

Those living in a dreamworld where we're taken over by a billionaire, what makes you think we'd be able to buy players to compete and beat the other teams with billionaires?

Nothing.

But I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be buying anymore players from Crewe, Chesterfield, Sheff Utd, French second division sides etc etc and I'm finding it pretty hard to get excited about the current crop who struggle to take a throw in at times.