Will we ever make the big four

[ChicagoLion]

Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.

Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell?

[Stirchley Villain]

Rage against the dying of the light...

[old man villa fan]

Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.

Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell?

Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point.  The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner.  As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.

[ChicagoLion]

Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.

Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell?

Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point.  The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner.  As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.

it is not even a remote possibility, not on this planet anyway. You can not get half pregnant.your point that a club being beyond the affordability of one owner bares no relation to reality. Club ownership obviously not your strongest subject.

[Dave]

Less if Lerner was to dilute is ownership value and bring in a partner/partners.

Why would he do that? Have you seen any PL owner do that? Why would he dilute his ownership and make the bit that he still owns impossible to sell?

Nobody has done it but there are some people out there that have invested in football that may well write off their investment to a point.  The cost of ownership of football clubs has risen so dramatically, to the point of being beyond the affordability of one owner.  As I mentioned, stepped change is what it is going to take and this could be a future possibility.

it is not even a remote possibility, not on this planet anyway. You can not get half pregnant. your point that a club being beyond the affordability of one owner bares no relation to reality. Club ownership obviously not your strongest subject.

I don't think it's in any way likely to happen to us, but Kroenke owns 66% of Arsenal and Usmanov and Moshiri own most of the rest. Five different people/groups hold more than a 10% shareholding in Swansea.

It's got nothing to do with the affordability being beyond one person, but there's no reason why more than one person couldn't hold a large number of shares in the club.

[Steve R]

"It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them."

It will take more than just a change of TV partner, even if this does change it may not make a scrap of difference. But one thing is for sure, if Sky continue to influence the Premier League the way that they do (and they are unlikely to change) then they will continue to be a big stumbling block - one of several - for any aspiring contender.

If you look at all the things that TV does to keep ManU/Arsenal/Chelsea exactly where they are, it isn't just prize money. Sky uses them to 'brand' the product that Sky sells to the world. This works to Villa's disadvantage in all kinds of ways, and it really does make a big difference. Maybe BT would do things differently.

[Whiney MacWhineface]

Sky, BT or whoever gets the UK contract would love more than anything for the league to be made up of 20 competitive teams, which would mean more people watch, and subscribe to their TV phone and broadband services, and the more advertisers will pay.

To suggest there's some sort of evil plot to keep the status quo is a little naive I think.

[tommy_boy]

We got Grealish, Traore, Amavi, they are probably going to be world class players. We have to stop being a selling club, that's our only chance for a top4 finish. The only other way is a wealthy owner that spends huge every year

[aj2k77]

We are already in the big four. We're just not in the top 4. Chelsea and Man City are not big clubs, they've just been massively financially doped the last few years. Let's not forget clowns like John Bumstead and a crowd of 8,000 not too long ago for a league game.

[SoccerHQ]

"It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them."

It will take more than just a change of TV partner, even if this does change it may not make a scrap of difference. But one thing is for sure, if Sky continue to influence the Premier League the way that they do (and they are unlikely to change) then they will continue to be a big stumbling block - one of several - for any aspiring contender.

If you look at all the things that TV does to keep ManU/Arsenal/Chelsea exactly where they are, it isn't just prize money. Sky uses them to 'brand' the product that Sky sells to the world. This works to Villa's disadvantage in all kinds of ways, and it really does make a big difference. Maybe BT would do things differently.

Sky will not give up premier league football at any cost, if they lose it they lose most of their subscribers overnight and they'd probably collapse rather than any clubs. You see it in them cutting back on other sports like the Ashes how much they need the premier league.

Also worth noting even if the domestic rights slow down what the PL accumulate from foreign channels showing the games is extraordinary   and will keep ticking it along nicely.

I wonder what will run out first, The Sun or money for the premier league? I'd be tempted to go for the Universe!

As regards us, well certainly nothing under this ownership. We saw in the MON days 60 + points was never enough for top 4, you need around 70 and we barely even get 40 points in seasons nowadays so we're miles short of quality to get an extra 30 points in seasons.

I think under new sensible ownership we could start finishing 6-8th again and maybe again start building something although it's getting worse now for top clubs cherrypicking players.

We had our go under MON and failed so I'm not too fussed, just rather we stopped nearly getting relegated. I'd much rather win one of the cups and have a steady mid table season, that would do me.

[edgysatsuma89]

"It will probably take quite a few things to change, but BT kicking Sky to one side is probably one of them."

It will take more than just a change of TV partner, even if this does change it may not make a scrap of difference. But one thing is for sure, if Sky continue to influence the Premier League the way that they do (and they are unlikely to change) then they will continue to be a big stumbling block - one of several - for any aspiring contender.

If you look at all the things that TV does to keep ManU/Arsenal/Chelsea exactly where they are, it isn't just prize money. Sky uses them to 'brand' the product that Sky sells to the world. This works to Villa's disadvantage in all kinds of ways, and it really does make a big difference. Maybe BT would do things differently.

Sky will not give up premier league football at any cost, if they lose it they lose most of their subscribers overnight and they'd probably collapse rather than any clubs. You see it in them cutting back on other sports like the Ashes how much they need the premier league.

Also worth noting even if the domestic rights slow down what the PL accumulate from foreign channels showing the games is extraordinary   and will keep ticking it along nicely.

I wonder what will run out first, The Sun or money for the premier league? I'd be tempted to go for the Universe!

As regards us, well certainly nothing under this ownership. We saw in the MON days 60 + points was never enough for top 4, you need around 70 and we barely even get 40 points in seasons nowadays so we're miles short of quality to get an extra 30 points in seasons.

I think under new sensible ownership we could start finishing 6-8th again and maybe again start building something although it's getting worse now for top clubs cherrypicking players.

We had our go under MON and failed so I'm not too fussed, just rather we stopped nearly getting relegated. I'd much rather win one of the cups and have a steady mid table season, that would do me.

They had a channel solely for the ashes which makes that comment a little odd. Apart from that though I agree.

[Steve R]

Sky, BT or whoever gets the UK contract would love more than anything for the league to be made up of 20 competitive teams, which would mean more people watch, and subscribe to their TV phone and broadband services, and the more advertisers will pay.

To suggest there's some sort of evil plot to keep the status quo is a little naive I think.

It's no evil dark plot, just the way Sky run their business. You are the one being naive.

If you don't think that is the agenda Sky have been following take a look at Sky Sports news any day of the week - where an obvious penalty not being given only gets airtime if the decision went against a 'newsworthy' team - or Kamara's football show or the Sunday supplement or indeed the actual football coverage where a once popular font team of Villa/Everton and Coventry men has been opportunistically supplanted by ....

If you think that all makes no difference, it is a struggle for Villa to get a main short sponsor that pays £5 mill a year, yet ManU have an official Pharmaceutical Partber for Thailand and Vietnam. I doubt they have even been to Vietnam just as much as I doubt too many Vietnamese could name a single Villa player.

If Sky wanted a twenty team equal opportunity collective then that would be one hell of a catalyst for getting there. They dont.

[SoccerHQ]

They've shown all England away matches in the Ashes since the early 90s, they're not showing the next one, BT are.

They're also cutting down on some of their other sports shows, read they've stopping screening a Rugby review show so these are little things that make sure they can continue to afford premier league aswell as upping the subscription.

[edgysatsuma89]

They've shown all England away matches in the Ashes since the early 90s, they're not showing the next one, BT are.

They're also cutting down on some of their other sports shows, read they've stopping screening a Rugby review show so these are little things that make sure they can continue to afford premier league aswell as upping the subscription.

I didn't know the ashes will be on BT. Interesting.

[SoccerHQ]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3208147/BT-Sport-grab-2017-18-Ashes-TV-rights-rivals-Sky-Sports-80m-coup.html