UV Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I don't think there is any pride to be had in 'doing it the hard way' in modern football. Maybe half a decade ago when it was still possible to make a dent on the league without huge funding it was but now it seems suicidal to shun the idea of a rich owner. Nowadays teams are capable of being rich and not instantly being the spawn of the devil - take Villa for example. I'm not excusing it as I think it's an awful way for football to be ran but for success it's the only way. I ideally want to see Newcastle win something as soon as possible and if stupid amounts of cash are needed to do that then so be it. It certainly wouldn't take the shine of success. I'd certainly be happy with the way Villa have done things. Yes, they've still spent decent money but it's seemed much more respectable IMO - buying a number of young and/or English players for example. Didn't Villa run up £70m worth of debt in Learner's first 2 years?. It will be more now, and what do they have to show for it? 11th, 6th, 6th. When we ran up £70m of debt after 15 years, most of which was spent on expanding the stadium not just on the team, we were one of the worst run football teams ever according to most. A few months into the season after we finished one place lower than the best Villa have achieved so far under Learner, there were people on here staring campaigns and advocating protesting and boycotting games to get rid of the old board. And people wonder why other supporters see us as unrealistic and too demanding. People keep saying how well Villa are being run, and I don't disagree that from the outside it looks like they're doing okay and going about things the right way, but I don't see how the same people who criticised how we were run financially under the old board can hold that view just because the money is owed to a rich owner instead of to a bank. Why isn't Learner being heavily criticised for running his club way beyond it's self-sustaining means? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 We can scoff at City but they're probably going to win something major as a result of this spending eventually. Chelsea were in a very similar position and got a tonne of derision heaped on them but the minute they started winning they became part of the furniture. Their fans are quite happy not only because they're the richest club in the world but because the people who run them aren't complete wankers. Their reps have met with the fans and actually made changes at the club based on the feedback. The thing is, Chelsea already had a pretty good spine of players before Abramovich entered the scene, Lampard and Terry being the key ones (along with Drogba) over the past 5 years. Man City are building from scratch, don't have the recognition and aren't based in London, it'll be a lot more difficult for them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 We can scoff at City but they're probably going to win something major as a result of this spending eventually. Chelsea were in a very similar position and got a tonne of derision heaped on them but the minute they started winning they became part of the furniture. Their fans are quite happy not only because they're the richest club in the world but because the people who run them aren't complete wankers. Their reps have met with the fans and actually made changes at the club based on the feedback. The thing is, Chelsea already had a pretty good spine of players before Abramovich entered the scene, Lampard and Terry being the key ones (along with Drogba) over the past 5 years. Man City are building from scratch, don't have the recognition and aren't based in London, it'll be a lot more difficult for them two things make ronaldo's point worthless - city are missing one thing: a manager top players respect. combine that with their money and they'll take it all don't delude yourself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Surely the state of Chelsea when Abramovich arrived is a big factor? If you think of their best players, most of them were already in place. City might be rich, but they can't offer the history and kudos that the best teams in Europe can. They will attract the second tier of player but will struggle to get the very best IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 We can scoff at City but they're probably going to win something major as a result of this spending eventually. Chelsea were in a very similar position and got a tonne of derision heaped on them but the minute they started winning they became part of the furniture. Their fans are quite happy not only because they're the richest club in the world but because the people who run them aren't complete wankers. Their reps have met with the fans and actually made changes at the club based on the feedback. The thing is, Chelsea already had a pretty good spine of players before Abramovich entered the scene, Lampard and Terry being the key ones (along with Drogba) over the past 5 years. Man City are building from scratch, don't have the recognition and aren't based in London, it'll be a lot more difficult for them Drogba is a terrible example. He was bought by Abramovich for 25 million pounds. But your point still holds up. Chelsea were already a pretty successful and popular club before Roman. In fact, a quick glance tells me that they never finshed below 6th in the 5 years before the Russian took over. Infact, the season beofre he bought them, they finished 4th. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Surely the state of Chelsea when Abramovich arrived is a big factor? If you think of their best players, most of them were already in place. City might be rich, but they can't offer the history and kudos that the best teams in Europe can. They will attract the second tier of player but will struggle to get the very best IMO. jesus christ dude, history and kudos? how long have you been watching football? lampard and terry were all that CH had at that time... this is turning to tragedy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakie Doke Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 :lol: Roeder, Allardyce, Hughton and Kinnear would all like a word with you. they were all worse than Souness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Surely the state of Chelsea when Abramovich arrived is a big factor? If you think of their best players, most of them were already in place. City might be rich, but they can't offer the history and kudos that the best teams in Europe can. They will attract the second tier of player but will struggle to get the very best IMO. jesus christ dude, history and kudos? how long have you been watching football? lampard and terry were all that CH had at that time... this is turning to tragedy Mate, I didn't mean Chelsea... I meant that City couldn't compete with the likes of Barca, Madrid and Man Utd for the best players - even if they could spend more. Calm down FFS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Surely the state of Chelsea when Abramovich arrived is a big factor? If you think of their best players, most of them were already in place. City might be rich, but they can't offer the history and kudos that the best teams in Europe can. They will attract the second tier of player but will struggle to get the very best IMO. jesus christ dude, history and kudos? how long have you been watching football? lampard and terry were all that CH had at that time... this is turning to tragedy Mate, I didn't mean Chelsea... I meant that City couldn't compete with the likes of Barca, Madrid and Man Utd for the best players - even if they could spend more. Calm down FFS i'm calm, just saying the bold bit is what everyone was saying about chelsea then...too inconceivable to think city might emulate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Surely the state of Chelsea when Abramovich arrived is a big factor? If you think of their best players, most of them were already in place. City might be rich, but they can't offer the history and kudos that the best teams in Europe can. They will attract the second tier of player but will struggle to get the very best IMO. jesus christ dude, history and kudos? how long have you been watching football? lampard and terry were all that CH had at that time... this is turning to tragedy Mate, I didn't mean Chelsea... I meant that City couldn't compete with the likes of Barca, Madrid and Man Utd for the best players - even if they could spend more. Calm down FFS i'm calm, just saying the bold bit is what everyone was saying about chelsea then...too inconceivable to think city might emulate? Not inconceivable no, but let's admit that Chelsea had a much stronger base to build from. And London is a much bigger draw to players. Anyway, just realised I've sidetracked the thread... I'd go for the money! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Surely the state of Chelsea when Abramovich arrived is a big factor? If you think of their best players, most of them were already in place. City might be rich, but they can't offer the history and kudos that the best teams in Europe can. They will attract the second tier of player but will struggle to get the very best IMO. jesus christ dude, history and kudos? how long have you been watching football? lampard and terry were all that CH had at that time... this is turning to tragedy Mate, I didn't mean Chelsea... I meant that City couldn't compete with the likes of Barca, Madrid and Man Utd for the best players - even if they could spend more. Calm down FFS i'm calm, just saying the bold bit is what everyone was saying about chelsea then...too inconceivable to think city might emulate? Not inconceivable no, but let's admit that Chelsea had a much stronger base to build from. And London is a much bigger draw to players. Anyway, just realised I've sidetracked the thread... I'd go for the money! i'll say it again, the momemt city get a respectable manager it'll all change...but yeah, the money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I don't think there is any pride to be had in 'doing it the hard way' in modern football. Maybe half a decade ago when it was still possible to make a dent on the league without huge funding it was but now it seems suicidal to shun the idea of a rich owner. Nowadays teams are capable of being rich and not instantly being the spawn of the devil - take Villa for example. I'm not excusing it as I think it's an awful way for football to be ran but for success it's the only way. I ideally want to see Newcastle win something as soon as possible and if stupid amounts of cash are needed to do that then so be it. It certainly wouldn't take the shine of success. I'd certainly be happy with the way Villa have done things. Yes, they've still spent decent money but it's seemed much more respectable IMO - buying a number of young and/or English players for example. Didn't Villa run up £70m worth of debt in Learner's first 2 years?. It will be more now, and what do they have to show for it? 11th, 6th, 6th. When we ran up £70m of debt after 15 years, most of which was spent on expanding the stadium not just on the team, we were one of the worst run football teams ever according to most. A few months into the season after we finished one place lower than the best Villa have achieved so far under Learner, there were people on here staring campaigns and advocating protesting and boycotting games to get rid of the old board. And people wonder why other supporters see us as unrealistic and too demanding. People keep saying how well Villa are being run, and I don't disagree that from the outside it looks like they're doing okay and going about things the right way, but I don't see how the same people who criticised how we were run financially under the old board can hold that view just because the money is owed to a rich owner instead of to a bank. Why isn't Learner being heavily criticised for running his club way beyond it's self-sustaining means? Because they are consistently getting into Europe? I'm sure if they flop next season then just like Shepherd, Lerner will also come in for major stick. Everything is ok if the results are going your way, when they don't then expect that to change. Valid point about the stadium expansion though, I don't like Shepherd but credit where it's due. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 We were the same, weren't we? We didn't complain about Shepherd or the Halls when Tino was heading stunners against Barcelona... but it was really just temporary success that we mortgaged the club's long term future to achieve. (Also agree they did a great job with SJP mind) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Because they are consistently getting into Europe? I'm sure if they flop next season then just like Shepherd, Lerner will also come in for major stick. Everything is ok if the results are going your way, when they don't then expect that to change. We were in Europe that year. Not good enough for some though. We were the same, weren't we? We didn't complain about Shepherd or the Halls when Tino was heading stunners against Barcelona... but it was really just temporary success that we mortgaged the club's long term future to achieve. So 2 months into next season if Villa have a shed load of injuries and get off to a bad start will you be agreeing with any Villa fans who want to start campaigns and protests to get Learner out when an unknown hedge fund wants to buy him out like 89% on here wanted in October 06? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Because they are consistently getting into Europe? I'm sure if they flop next season then just like Shepherd, Lerner will also come in for major stick. Everything is ok if the results are going your way, when they don't then expect that to change. We were in Europe that year. Not good enough for some though. We were the same, weren't we? We didn't complain about Shepherd or the Halls when Tino was heading stunners against Barcelona... but it was really just temporary success that we mortgaged the club's long term future to achieve. So 2 months into next season if Villa have a shed load of injuries and get off to a bad start will you be agreeing with any Villa fans who want to start campaigns and protests to get Learner out when an unknown hedge fund wants to buy him out like 89% on here wanted in October 06? We were generally performing far below the standards you would expect for the amount of money we spent in most of the last few seasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Because they are consistently getting into Europe? I'm sure if they flop next season then just like Shepherd, Lerner will also come in for major stick. Everything is ok if the results are going your way, when they don't then expect that to change. We were in Europe that year. Not good enough for some though. We were the same, weren't we? We didn't complain about Shepherd or the Halls when Tino was heading stunners against Barcelona... but it was really just temporary success that we mortgaged the club's long term future to achieve. So 2 months into next season if Villa have a shed load of injuries and get off to a bad start will you be agreeing with any Villa fans who want to start campaigns and protests to get Learner out when an unknown hedge fund wants to buy him out like 89% on here wanted in October 06? We were generally performing far below the standards you would expect for the amount of money we spent in most of the last few seasons. Plus I can't really see Lerner suddenly interfering with transfers or sacking MON for finishing 5th, and hiring someone shite to replace him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I'll ignore any debate thats going on in here and just say Money. Shearer has proved nothing but his love, and that wins nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I'll ignore any debate thats going on in here and just say Money. Shearer has proved nothing but his love, and that wins nothing. The money we have spent since Sir Bob left has also won us nothing, if anything it's put us in a worse position now we've been relegated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sheds Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Because they are consistently getting into Europe? I'm sure if they flop next season then just like Shepherd, Lerner will also come in for major stick. Everything is ok if the results are going your way, when they don't then expect that to change. We were in Europe that year. Not good enough for some though. We were the same, weren't we? We didn't complain about Shepherd or the Halls when Tino was heading stunners against Barcelona... but it was really just temporary success that we mortgaged the club's long term future to achieve. So 2 months into next season if Villa have a shed load of injuries and get off to a bad start will you be agreeing with any Villa fans who want to start campaigns and protests to get Learner out when an unknown hedge fund wants to buy him out like 89% on here wanted in October 06? We were generally performing far below the standards you would expect for the amount of money we spent in most of the last few seasons. The team that finished in 3rd place the season before had the addition of Darren Ambrose and no one else in the last full season Bobby was in charge yet that level of investment meant we were "generally performing far below the standards you would expect for the amount of money we spent"? A pitiful 5th was all we could manage with such 'backing' You must be delighted with the value for money the team has received since those terrible under-achieving days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Because they are consistently getting into Europe? I'm sure if they flop next season then just like Shepherd, Lerner will also come in for major stick. Everything is ok if the results are going your way, when they don't then expect that to change. We were in Europe that year. Not good enough for some though. We were the same, weren't we? We didn't complain about Shepherd or the Halls when Tino was heading stunners against Barcelona... but it was really just temporary success that we mortgaged the club's long term future to achieve. So 2 months into next season if Villa have a shed load of injuries and get off to a bad start will you be agreeing with any Villa fans who want to start campaigns and protests to get Learner out when an unknown hedge fund wants to buy him out like 89% on here wanted in October 06? We were generally performing far below the standards you would expect for the amount of money we spent in most of the last few seasons. The team that finished in 3rd place the season before had the addition of Darren Ambrose and no one else in the last full season Bobby was in charge yet that level of investment meant we were "generally performing far below the standards you would expect for the amount of money we spent"? A pitiful 5th was all we could manage with such 'backing' You must be delighted with the value for money the team has received since those terrible under-achieving days. I was quite happy with the two seasons you have picked where we finished 3rd and 5th, good use of stats to pick those out though, very relevant to what I was saying - and no, I'm not happy with the value for money with our current bunch I apologise if any of my thousands of posts have led you to believe this. Need any futher pointless clarifications or will that do for now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now