Going Straight Back Down?

[Smirker]

Cheers everyone!

Some of my Villa shirts have DOGTANIAN on the back and now and then I hear someone behind me start humming the theme tune 

😂 Welcome mate.

[ktvillan]

Good post which supports the fact that the Fulham comparison has only ever been a lazy one or an optimistic one from those who desperately want to see us fail.  We may succeed, we may fail, it's got fuck all to do with what Fulham did.   

[rougegorge]

Good stats there.

In order to get a foothold, teams do need to spend more than usual as the players they had in the Championship are generally weaker. The problem they usually have is that they don't have the resources to compete with the other clubs as they haven't had the TV money. Also teams promoted via the play offs are often necessarily behind the rest in planning as they don't know which division they'll be in.

Thus far, only Atletico Madrid, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus have spent more than us so that's huge testament to the owners' commitment.

I actually haven't heard a lot of people, whether other fans, journalists etc predicting that we are going straight back down. Most have the other 2 promoted teams in their list along with Brighton, Burnley and Newcastle.

[The Edge]

Great post Dogtanian some spot on research. People making the comparison with Fulham are secretly hoping we get relegated.
1. Ours isn't a vanity project by our owners and backroom staff. It's a thought out process of replacing the 14 players going out the door with younger more talented players with bags of potential.
2. We are Aston Villa not Fulham.
3. Fuck em all.

[Smithy]

thank fuck we are not. This could easily be a mid-table squad.

Newcastle finished 10th last season. Go and have a look at their squad and tell me if you'd swap it for ours? We've got so much competition for places now we can actually afford to have a few of the new players not hit the ground running at 100% (except maybe Wesley). I think you could pick what you think should be the first choice 11 for Spurs, and you could easily get it wrong by four or five players, given the quality Dean now has available to him. I think mid-table should be the absolute minimum now. I'm sure that's the expectation inside the club.

[West Derby Villan]

Great first post Dogtanian I, like previous posters, was expecting some jealous drivel from our nearest and dearest neighbours. So I was relived and surprised by such an informative post. Thanks UTV

[garyshawsknee]

Very good post Dogtanian, the Fulham comparison has really grinded my gears this summer, that'll teach me for catching some Talksport.

[Jon Crofts]

Having been told by every man and his dog that we are going straight back down, I thought I would do a bit of digging and discovered the following three interesting facts.

1. The newly promoted side who spends least after promotion is the most likely to be relegated.
In the last 15 years, the newly promoted team who spent the least out of the three was relegated 12 times.  The newly promoted side who spent most out of the three was only relegated twice in that period.  The team who spent the middle amount went straight back down on four occasions.

2.  Getting up via the playoffs makes no difference to your survival chances.
Of the last 15 sides to get promoted via the playoffs, ten have gone straight back down.  Seven of those teams were the lowest spending of the newly promoted sides and fell foul of point 1.  Of the other three, two spent the middle amount and only Fulham spent the most. This shows that whether you get up via automatic or playoffs, it's not as important as how you invest in your squad.

3.  Newly promoted teams have to spend more than average to stay up.
Sounds common sense, but it doesn't always happen.  Over the last 15 years, newly promoted sides that went straight back down had a below average net spend that season compared to the Premier league average.  The average net spend of the 19 clubs to be relegated straight back down in the last 15 years was around 97% of the average net spend per club that year in the Premier league.  Those newly promoted sides that survived their first season spent an average of 175% of the average net spend per club that season.

All this shows that Fulham were actually an anomaly and Villa are doing the right thing to stay in the Premier league.

Nice post.

I'm going to be disappointed if every post isn't made with three points now.

I'm going to be disappointed if every game doesn't come with three points at the end now.

[brian green]

Three pints of Old Peculier on the bar at the Bartons will do for starters.

[usav]

Any excuse to revel in some childhood nostalgia.

https://youtu.be/P-xO72s5EBY

Fucking ace!

[somec]

Great first post Dogtanian!

This 'will Villa do a Fulham?' shite is getting tiresome.

[Legion]

It is. We're not going to 'do a Fulham'. For that matter, we're not going to 'do a Man City', either. We've stabilised, consolidated and strengthened. The middle ground will do nicely.

[brian green]

We are in with a bit of a shout of being as good as Leicester or the Dogheads.

[john e]

My 3 for the drop are

18  Sheff Utd. ( but I hope not )
19  Newcastle
20. Brighton & HA

[Hookeysmith]

Norwich
Newcastle (fingers crossed)
Brighton / Southampton / Bournemouth (certainly one of the south coast lot)

With scares for Sheff Utd, Palace, Burnley