Other games (2024/25)

[Andy84]

Squad is debatable if we had Hall and Botman fit.  Definitely have more options in the central striker department 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, 54 said:

I don't think that's true like, we're actually remarkably alike when it comes to potential, and just general size of club as well. They're remarkably well run, and seem to be willing to push the boat out financially if required.

The owners of our club also own our 2 biggest sponsors and will build our new stadium essentially for free. 
 

Villa will have to continue to distort their accounts through various sales. We will inflate our primary sponsors as much as possible and juice the youth academy and infrastructure the way Villa cant.  
 

We are owned by the state of Saudi Arabia. Villa are owned by the richest Egyptian. 
 

Our potential is far greater than Villa’s. 

[huss9]

if we hadnt been playing thm this weekend i would have wanted villa to go through.

so was actually hoping for a 0-5 loss so they would be on such a downer against us.

tonight's brave deafeat may actually inspire them.

[AngelofTheFourth]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

The owners of our club also own our 2 biggest sponsors and will build our new stadium essentially for free. 
 

Villa will have to continue to distort their accounts through various sales. We will inflate our primary sponsors as much as possible and juice the youth academy and infrastructure the way Villa cant.  
 

We are owned by the state of Saudi Arabia. Villa are owned by the richest Egyptian. 
 

Our potential is far greater than Villa’s. 

 

There is a little something called ffp and also fair market value. The big 6 clubs can spend way more than us even though their owners are no where,near richer due to psr/ffp. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, AngelofTheFourth said:

 

There is a little something called ffp and also fair market value. The big 6 clubs can spend way more than us even though their owners are no where,near richer due to psr/ffp. 

Yes these are factors but we are essentially self sponsoring and these rules are under attack from City at any rate. 

 

The benefit of this for us is we can essentially get the max amount possible under the rules without having to compete in the marketplace against the Manchester United and Spurs.

 

The key thing is sustainable revenue, one off shots in the arm are great (Grealish sale) for example but such things can't be relied upon. Our revenue is higher and our wage bill is lower our overall position financially is better than Villa as is our potential. We have someway to go to catch the sky 6 but that's a different discussion. 

[The College Dropout]

It’s not really a debate.  Our potential is unrivalled. Which is why we attract the likes of Isak and Tonali.  
 

Our sponsors are capped by football regulations and are still artificially high.  Our deal with Adidas is so high because of our potential.  
 

Our stadium and training grounds etc. will be built loan free right? 
 

The POTENTIAL is unrivalled. It might not happen and PIF might not leverage all their might.  But they can do things Villa’s owners can’t.  

[ramirez]

Much like with Wembley where 23 was a lot about the experience etc (not for everyone) but the players seem to have learned I’m hoping for the same from Europe and hopefully the champions league next season. I was quite happy with the draw last time as thought why not have all the glamour ties but happy enough to just progress next time and no reason why we can’t emulate Villa with a fair wind. Almost still guaranteed a few big games along the way but also. Few fairly winnable ones. I think feyenoord and Leverkusen are our only away wins from three campaigns now, not including qualifiers, that’s something we will be looking to remedy.

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, AngelofTheFourth said:

 

There is a little something called ffp and also fair market value. The big 6 clubs can spend way more than us even though their owners are no where,near richer due to psr/ffp. 

FFP isn’t impacted by stadium building nor by investing in youth, and we can inflate our sponsorship to the maximum level possible.  Villa can’t do all of this.  

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Yes these are factors but we are essentially self sponsoring and these rules are under attack from City at any rate. 

 

The benefit of this for us is we can essentially get the max amount possible under the rules without having to compete in the marketplace against the Manchester United and Spurs.

 

The key thing is sustainable revenue, one off shots in the arm are great (Grealish sale) for example but such things can't be relied upon. Our revenue is higher and our wage bill is lower our overall position financially is better than Villa as is our potential. We have someway to go to catch the sky 6 but that's a different discussion. 

Yep - and FFP is liable to limit Villa’s future opportunities re crazy sales prices

[Unbelievable]

Considering the Aston Villa owner’s wealth is around 10b, they seem willing to spend at least as much as these regulations allow and they’re consistently voting with City, Forest and us to get the shackles removed I’m not sure I agree out potential is all that different to ours. Still, I’d rather them in the CL than any of the “big six”. At least we’d be competing on an even playing field with them and both teams doing well should eventually start hurting the finances of the likes of Spurs, Man U and Chelsea.

[AngelofTheFourth]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

FFP isn’t impacted by stadium building nor by investing in youth, and we can inflate our sponsorship to the maximum level possible.  Villa can’t do all of this.  

 

I disagree with the youth comment. Villa are years ahead of us when it comes to this. They have been making impressive money from their academy players not the level of Chelsea and City though.

 

7 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Yes these are factors but we are essentially self sponsoring and these rules are under attack from City at any rate. 

 

The benefit of this for us is we can essentially get the max amount possible under the rules without having to compete in the marketplace against the Manchester United and Spurs.

 

The key thing is sustainable revenue, one off shots in the arm are great (Grealish sale) for example but such things can't be relied upon. Our revenue is higher and our wage bill is lower our overall position financially is better than Villa as is our potential. We have someway to go to catch the sky 6 but that's a different discussion. 

 

They have sold more players because they have brought more players. Our starting 11 is better than theirs but they have more depth due to the sales. Their revenue will most likely be more than ours this season due to UCL football. 

 

 

 

 

 

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, AngelofTheFourth said:

 

I disagree with the youth comment. Villa are years ahead of us when it comes to this. They have been making impressive money from their academy players not the level of Chelsea and City though.

 

 

They have sold more players because they have brought more players. Our starting 11 is better than theirs but they have more depth due to the sales. Their revenue will most likely be more than ours this season due to UCL football. 

 

 

 

 

 

The depth people are talking about is 2 loan players who are costing them over half a million a week in wages. 

 

It's a short term moonshot. They have sold more players and will have to continue to do so in order to remain compliant, meanwhile we don't have to sell anyone this window and will be on the prowl looking for bargains at the end of May. 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

Considering the Aston Villa owner’s wealth is around 10b, they seem willing to spend at least as much as these regulations allow and they’re consistently voting with City, Forest and us to get the shackles removed I’m not sure I agree out potential is all that different to ours. Still, I’d rather them in the CL than any of the “big six”. At least we’d be competing on an even playing field with them and both teams doing well should eventually start hurting the finances of the likes of Spurs, Man U and Chelsea.

Our Owners also own our two main shirt sponsors and the value of those will be as high as regulations allow. Can Villa's owners do that?

 

Could Villa's owners build a £2Bn stadium? I suspect without a loan. I don't think any other Owner would be building that.

 

The our Owners will slap a sponsor on that new stadium at maximum value allowed. Could Villa's owners do that?

 

The maximum potential of us is similar to Man City. It could genuinely help to regenerate the entire City - campuses etc. Could Aston Villa's owners do that?

 

Transfer market is major but it's not the only thing. Think what this could look like in 15 years. Our ceiling is considerably higher. It's like Abramovic vs Abu Dhabi. That's the model Villa will pursue. Youth academy manufacturer line, player development and sale, get the best of what the market can offer in terms of sponsorships. We (should) pursue the City model - youth sales + juicing the sponsorships as much as possible, build a network of related-clubs to trade with.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:57 by The College Dropout

[TheBrownBottle]

34 minutes ago, AngelofTheFourth said:

 

I disagree with the youth comment. Villa are years ahead of us when it comes to this. They have been making impressive money from their academy players not the level of Chelsea and City though.

 

 

They have sold more players because they have brought more players. Our starting 11 is better than theirs but they have more depth due to the sales. Their revenue will most likely be more than ours this season due to UCL football. 

 

 

 

 

 

Nowt to disagree about - funding youth academies etc are FFP exempt

[The Prophet]

Arsenal fans already peddling conspiracy theories. They're mental.

[Big River]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Arsenal fans already peddling conspiracy theories. They're mental.

 

tonight could be so so special  I'm getting a bit giddy at the thought of them fucking it up

[54]

6 minutes ago, Big River said:

 

tonight could be so so special  I'm getting a bit giddy at the thought of them fucking it up

Arsenal Losing.... Real Madrid Winning

 

[alexf]

Arteta crying would trump any negative of real winning for me. Can't see them throwing a 3:0 though. Madrid look poor this year.

 

[Choppy Chop Chop]

 I actually felt sorry for Villa, great entertainment, never thought I'd say that 

[David Edgar]

Any injury issues for Arsenal? Specifically short term out of the blue injures which will be overcome by the weekend. 

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

Our Owners also own our two main shirt sponsors and the value of those will be as high as regulations allow. Can Villa's owners do that?

 

Could Villa's owners build a £2Bn stadium? I suspect without a loan. I don't think any other Owner would be building that.

 

The our Owners will slap a sponsor on that new stadium at maximum value allowed. Could Villa's owners do that?

 

The maximum potential of us is similar to Man City. It could genuinely help to regenerate the entire City - campuses etc. Could Aston Villa's owners do that?

 

Transfer market is major but it's not the only thing. Think what this could look like in 15 years. Our ceiling is considerably higher. It's like Abramovic vs Abu Dhabi. That's the model Villa will pursue. Youth academy manufacturer line, player development and sale, get the best of what the market can offer in terms of sponsorships. We (should) pursue the City model - youth sales + juicing the sponsorships as much as possible, build a network of related-clubs to trade with.

 

 

 

See, I was and still am of the opinion that the potential of this football club we support is as high as that of any other club regardless of who owns it. We went from a penny-pinching leech to the “richest owners in world football”, but in either scenario our potential was for us to challenge at the top of the (domestic) game for titles, European football qualification and cups. I think the first three years of this ownership bear that out, because we’ve not even really had to tap into the unthinkable wealth of our owners to achieve 2/3 simply by being very well managed and united. That is not beyond the likes of Villa, and indeed they are also demonstrating this.

 

As I’ve argued before I will happily accept a form of FFP that prevents owners such as ours to simply outspend the competition tenfold and thereby compete by default, such as PSG are doing in France. That would feel hollow to me. I much prefer beating the “big six” by being smarter than by simply being richer and I also respect our owners even more for taling on this challenge without flashing cheque books left, right and center. They are building us up to be a sustainable top club rather than a flash in the pan. Your view may differ and that is ok, but for me the owners are extracting potential that was always here rather than taking the club places no “normal” owner could have.

[The College Dropout]

33 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

See, I was and still am of the opinion that the potential of this football club we support is as high as that of any other club regardless of who owns it. We went from a penny-pinching leech to the “richest owners in world football”, but in either scenario our potential was for us to challenge at the top of the (domestic) game for titles, European football qualification and cups. I think the first three years of this ownership bear that out, because we’ve not even really had to tap into the unthinkable wealth of our owners to achieve 2/3 simply by being very well managed and united. That is not beyond the likes of Villa, and indeed they are also demonstrating this.

 

As I’ve argued before I will happily accept a form of FFP that prevents owners such as ours to simply outspend the competition tenfold and thereby compete by default, such as PSG are doing in France. That would feel hollow to me. I much prefer beating the “big six” by being smarter than by simply being richer and I also respect our owners even more for taling on this challenge without flashing cheque books left, right and center. They are building us up to be a sustainable top club rather than a flash in the pan. Your view may differ and that is ok, but for me the owners are extracting potential that was always here rather than taking the club places no “normal” owner could have.

I disagree fundamentally.  Without an owner willing to invest substantial sums or with some other type of genius we have a ceiling. 
 

You do realise we are still a doped club right? Just because we can’t go crazy in the market doesn’t mean we are not benefitting from being owned by a State.  

[Unbelievable]

59 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I disagree fundamentally.  Without an owner willing to invest substantial sums or with some other type of genius we have a ceiling. 
 

You do realise we are still a doped club right? Just because we can’t go crazy in the market doesn’t mean we are not benefitting from being owned by a State.  

In my view we could conceivably have been where we are today without the new owners’ spending post takeover if Ashley had allowed the club to grow commercially in line with our competitors at the time he took over. We were in the CL more often then not the years before he took over and our revenue was only slightly lower than some of the “big six” at the time. We are only a doped club now insofar as the new owners have us sponsored at a level that would be seen as normal for a club of our statute and potential, as opposed to the free advertising that Mike Ashley arranged for SD.
 

The reason we were a yoyo club performing at well below our potential is because for 14 years we had an incompetent, petulant piece of shit consistently running us into the ground. Our potential was always there though. Keegan saw it, some fans did and luckily for us, Amanda Stavely did too.

 

 

[andyc35i]

2 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

In my view we could conceivably have been where we are today without the new owners’ spending post takeover if Ashley had allowed the club to grow commercially in line with our competitors at the time he took over. We were in the CL more often then not the years before he took over and our revenue was only slightly lower than some of the “big six” at the time. We are only a doped club now insofar as the new owners have us sponsored at a level that would be seen as normal for a club of our statute and potential, as opposed to the free advertising that Mike Ashley arranged for SD.
 

The reason we were a yoyo club performing at well below our potential is because for 14 years we had an incompetent, petulant piece of shit consistently running us into the ground. Our potential was always there though. Keegan saw it, some fans did and luckily for us, Amanda Stavely did too.

 

 

I’ve never wanted us to be like PSG or Man City and blow everyone out of the water as that would always feel tainted to me.
 

I’m happy with how we’ve achieved our success so far and nobody can ever take away that cup win from us - they’ll never be able to say we bought that success.

 

Obviously we wouldn’t have players like Isak, Bruno or Tonali without the ambition associated with our ownership, but everything we’ve done so far has been down to great coaching, togetherness and determination and quality transfer business

[Turnbull2000]

26 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

I’ve never wanted us to be like PSG or Man City and blow everyone out of the water as that would always feel tainted to me.
 

I’m happy with how we’ve achieved our success so far and nobody can ever take away that cup win from us - they’ll never be able to say we bought that success.

 

Obviously we wouldn’t have players like Isak, Bruno or Tonali without the ambition associated with our ownership, but everything we’ve done so far has been down to great coaching, togetherness and determination and quality transfer business

 

We might think that. But as far as the majority of other clubs fans seem to think, we've been financially juiced to the eyeballs like City, Chelsea and PSG and our achievements are deeply tainted.