The Takeover Thread - Recon Group - NOW WITH NEW POLL

[brian green]

In a nutshell Jimbo.

[pauliewalnuts]

Man City and West Ham both got new grounds as a result of the stadiums being built to hold athletics events and needing some future use, it wasn't getting West Ham and Man City to play in them that encouraged investment, it was the events for which they were built in the first place that did that.

I'm sure Bore and Street would know the direction the city wants to go in, definitely, but I don't see the link between that and being able to get someone to buy, and invest a load of cash in, a football club.

[brian green]

Nor do I.  The sort of people who might want to come to Birmingham to invest in a new high tech industry are very different from the select few rich enough and mad enough to invest in a football club.  My present home is bursting at the seams with incoming investment but the city's football ground is a dump and the sponsor is a muck shifter.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Birmingham will always have an image problem while those knuckledraggers down the road are in existence. Fingers crossed, next year could turn out to be not only a great year for the Villa but also the city of Birmingham.

Go, Carson!

[brian green]

The big opportunity lost for us was that not enough people took seriously Doug Ellis's plan for Wembley to move to the M6/M42 junction. It would have provided an infinitely more economic and fan-fairer solution than the monster debt mountain the FA have saddled themselves with and maybe we could have been selected as the club in residence.  However the lets-take-the-piss-out-of-Birminham media cliques ensured the project was stillborn.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The big opportunity lost for us was that not enough people took seriously Doug Ellis's plan for Wembley to move to the M6/M42 junction.

True but the bigger mistake was not proposing to build a 100,000+ stadium. Fans would have supported the move as they'd be a hell of a better chance to get tickets.

[Billy Walker]

Man City and West Ham both got new grounds as a result of the stadiums being built to hold athletics events and needing some future use, it wasn't getting West Ham and Man City to play in them that encouraged investment, it was the events for which they were built in the first place that did that.

I'm sure Bore and Street would know the direction the city wants to go in, definitely, but I don't see the link between that and being able to get someone to buy, and invest a load of cash in, a football club.

Fair enough.  I think the dream/hope  I have for Villa's eventual takeover is that it simply doesn't end up a case of Randy selling to a Randy MkII (or worse).  I'd just love it for the club to get real ambition and vision on board - club and city have been underachieving for far, far too long.

[pauliewalnuts]

The big opportunity lost for us was that not enough people took seriously Doug Ellis's plan for Wembley to move to the M6/M42 junction.

True but the bigger mistake was not proposing to build a 100,000+ stadium. Fans would have supported the move as they'd be a hell of a better chance to get tickets.

There was no way, given the cost of building it, that the new Wembley was ever going to be anywhere but London.

It wouldn't have made any difference if there had been a proposal for 200,000 capacity stadium just off the M42.

[aev]

The crazy thing is a National stadium close to the NEC would take me only slightly longer to get to than me getting to Wembley.

[saunders_heroes]

Birmingham will always have an image problem while those knuckledraggers down the road are in existence. Fingers crossed, next year could turn out to be not only a great year for the Villa but also the city of Birmingham.

Go, Carson!

Ha!

But very true...

[Neil Hawkes]

Man City and West Ham both got new grounds as a result of the stadiums being built to hold athletics events and needing some future use, it wasn't getting West Ham and Man City to play in them that encouraged investment, it was the events for which they were built in the first place that did that.

I'm sure Bore and Street would know the direction the city wants to go in, definitely, but I don't see the link between that and being able to get someone to buy, and invest a load of cash in, a football club.

Fair enough.  I think the dream/hope  I have for Villa's eventual takeover is that it simply doesn't end up a case of Randy selling to a Randy MkII (or worse).  I'd just love it for the club to get real ambition and vision on board - club and city have been underachieving for far, far too long.

Do you not think that with the initial investment given to MON that had we had a more progressive manager we would actually be sitting at the top table now?

[Billy Walker]

Man City and West Ham both got new grounds as a result of the stadiums being built to hold athletics events and needing some future use, it wasn't getting West Ham and Man City to play in them that encouraged investment, it was the events for which they were built in the first place that did that.

I'm sure Bore and Street would know the direction the city wants to go in, definitely, but I don't see the link between that and being able to get someone to buy, and invest a load of cash in, a football club.

Fair enough.  I think the dream/hope  I have for Villa's eventual takeover is that it simply doesn't end up a case of Randy selling to a Randy MkII (or worse).  I'd just love it for the club to get real ambition and vision on board - club and city have been underachieving for far, far too long.

Do you not think that with the initial investment given to MON that had we had a more progressive manager we would actually be sitting at the top table now?

That's a great "what if?" question.  The thing is, no matter who the manager was, we would still have needed a plan and  long-term vision in place to be at the top table right now. 

[Neil Hawkes]

Man City and West Ham both got new grounds as a result of the stadiums being built to hold athletics events and needing some future use, it wasn't getting West Ham and Man City to play in them that encouraged investment, it was the events for which they were built in the first place that did that.

I'm sure Bore and Street would know the direction the city wants to go in, definitely, but I don't see the link between that and being able to get someone to buy, and invest a load of cash in, a football club.

Fair enough.  I think the dream/hope  I have for Villa's eventual takeover is that it simply doesn't end up a case of Randy selling to a Randy MkII (or worse).  I'd just love it for the club to get real ambition and vision on board - club and city have been underachieving for far, far too long.

Do you not think that with the initial investment given to MON that had we had a more progressive manager we would actually be sitting at the top table now?

That's a great "what if?" question.  The thing is, no matter who the manager was, we would still have needed a plan and  long-term vision in place to be at the top table right now. 

I agree up to a point; if we had qualified and done well in the champions league with the intial investment, wouldn't the cash cow that produces be virtually self sustainable? At least it would have given a good return on the initial investment that would encourage re-investment from the owner.
A plan and long term vision would then have been met by having a progressive manager in place to deliver the goods expected.

[Ads]

Under a more progressive manager than O'Neill we would have qualified for the Champions League on two occassions, I am sure of that. We went pretty close, twice and it was always our home form that let us down.

[ChicagoLion]

Under a more progressive manager than O'Neill we would have qualified for the Champions League on two occassions, I am sure of that. We went pretty close, twice and it was always our home form that let us down.

His one dimensional tactics, his money wasted on average players, running the fit players to a stand still in march etc.

There was enough investment to have got us there then.