Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Keith Scott

Fair play to Aston Villa

Recommended Posts

Below is a list of clubs that have been relegated from the EPL and have not yet been re-promoted. Obviously a long-term member of this list has finally got promotion this year (Leeds). Many of these clubs have been established top league clubs for many years, have bigger grounds and crowds and have won more.

One things that a lot of these larger clubs have in common, particularly those with longer Championship stays is that they have had financial problems as a consequence of over-spending either trying to get to the EPL or to stay there. Except for the very richest owners (and we are talking billionaires rather than a few hundred million) - e.g. Man City, the extra spending trying to but PL status does not work over the long term. It may last for a few years, but at some stage it goes wrong and then the big spenders find it harder to manage the debt that they have accrued and get re-promoted.

The best chance of becoming established in the Premier League is by well-managed organic growth. (Unless you happen to know of a multi-billionaire going spare). Those that take a "calculated gamble" (i.e. spend more than they can afford) will come down when they stop rolling 6s!

Club Club Re promoted
1997-98 Barnsley N
2010-11 Birmingham City N
2011-12 Blackburn Rovers N
2010-11 Blackpool N
2011-12 Bolton Wanderers N
2006-07 Charlton Athletic N
2000-01 Coventry City N
2007-08 Derby County N
2018-19 Huddersfield Town N
2016-17 Hull City N
1994-95 Ipswich Town N
2016-17 Middlesbrough N
1998-99 Nottingham Forest N
1993-94 Oldham Athletic N
2009-10 Portsmouth N
2014-15 QPR N
2012-13 Reading N
1999-00 Sheffield Wednesday N
2017-18 Stoke City N
2016-17 Sunderland N
1993-94 Swindon Town N
2012-13 Wigan Athletic N
1999-00 Wimbledon N
2018-19 Cardiff City Poss
2018-19 Fulham Poss
2017-18 Swansea City Poss

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not if we'd spent £140 million and had contract liabilities worth tens of millions and no ground I wouldn't!!

I know if i was the Villa Chairman i would get rid of the person who signs their players 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can some of those on this thread bemoaning the lack of "investment" please enlighten me as to where the money would have come from? Given that if you've seen the accounts we made a loss of £33m for the y/e May 2019. Given that everyone knows our owners don't have the sort of money where they can bung £100m to the club as a loan.

I guess we could have sold our ground to someone for £30m like Villa did. 

Today we played a team who have £50m+ players in every position and on the extended subs bench. Our record signing is, what,£8.5m? Villa had 8 players in their team today who cost more than that.

I know it's been disappointing but really, get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Villa stayed up having been relegated with us in 2016.

Bournemouth and Watford go down having been promoted with us in 2015.

Does that mean we stop wanting to be Bournemouth and Watford who we started wanting to be when we stopped wanting to be Aston Villa who I assume we want to be again now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So Villa stayed up having been relegated with us in 2016.

Bournemouth and Watford go down having been promoted with us in 2015.

Does that mean we stop wanting to be Bournemouth and Watford who we started wanting to be when we stopped wanting to be Aston Villa who I assume we want to be again now...

It means we would love to stop in the top league for more than one  season. Norwich fans are very fair with rational expectations and compared to most others not that fickle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrible team horrible supporters horrible so called big team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

It means we would love to stop in the top league for more than one  season. Norwich fans are very fair with rational expectations and compared to most others not that fickle. 

Well that's strange because when we stayed in for three seasons it was no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Well that's strange because when we stayed in for three seasons it was no different.

Once in the last four as you already know. Even with £100m for finishing bottom and parachute payments to top that up we show no signs of learning the game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So Villa stayed up having been relegated with us in 2016.

Bournemouth and Watford go down having been promoted with us in 2015.

Does that mean we stop wanting to be Bournemouth and Watford who we started wanting to be when we stopped wanting to be Aston Villa who I assume we want to be again now...

No Nutty, I won’t settle till we are like Liverpool ! We have a German manager.......step 1 achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Once in the last four as you already know. Even with £100m for finishing bottom and parachute payments to top that up we show no signs of learning the game. 

 

A lot of clubs people used to want to be show far less signs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kick it off said:

There was literally about a point in it at the start of lockdown. Our total collapse doesn't mean they were much better. Before today they'd conceded almost exactly the same amount of goals as our porous defence. They really weren't much better than us.

We were playing better before lockdown and still lost twice to them. They are a better team, but spent a hell of a lot more to achieve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Webber has said publicly that he made a mistake this season. 

Some say we should have invested 100 mill and some defend the fact we invested basically nothing.

The point is the right amount of investment is the amount that would have kept us up, but we didn't stay up so we will never know. 

I wouldn't imagine we will repeat this mistake if we get promoted in the near future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Can some of those on this thread bemoaning the lack of "investment" please enlighten me as to where the money would have come from? Given that if you've seen the accounts we made a loss of £33m for the y/e May 2019. Given that everyone knows our owners don't have the sort of money where they can bung £100m to the club as a loan.

I guess we could have sold our ground to someone for £30m like Villa did. 

Today we played a team who have £50m+ players in every position and on the extended subs bench. Our record signing is, what,£8.5m? Villa had 8 players in their team today who cost more than that.

I know it's been disappointing but really, get a grip.

1. We'd borrow it - and because as a result of spending (what ever amount they say) millions we would be in the Premier league for ever and so would never have to pay it back - I think this is the basic gist.

2. Some on the other hand, thinks "it's just worth a punt."

3. Another group subscribe to the idea that there's loads of multi billionaires queuing up to buy us and invest squillions.

4. There is the "Goldilocks brigade" - we should borrow "not too  much, not too little, but just the perfect amount". This tends to be a fairy tale with predictably little detail or reality.

5. There is a final group who don't say much except, except mumble under their breath about "nepotism Tom," grumble grumble, because others owners really don't pass on control to their family you know - only us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Badger said:

Really?

Watford spent £43 million this season on transfers and went down (+ Welbeck on what was no doubt a huge wage).

Bournemouth spent £50 million.

So their gamble failed as well.

 

So what are you suggesting ,we should spend nothing and go down as the laughing stock of uk  football,get a life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is we didn't spend enough. 

Any counter argument is at best, bizarre and worst, completely deluded. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Canary dwarf said:

reeeettttaaaarrrddd

Is there not a reddit thread missing your insightful input? 

*slow clap*

Edited by Chelm Canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chelm Canary said:

The bottom line is we didn't spend enough. 

Any counter argument is at best, bizarre and worst, completely deluded. 

 

Yeah I completely agree but don't make out us as Norwich fans wanted to spend 100 mill,but yeah we should certainly spend more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chelm Canary said:

Is there not a reddit thread missing your inciteful input? 

*slow clap*

It is very inciteful ,are you not impressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Badger said:

1. We'd borrow it - and because as a result of spending (what ever amount they say) millions we would be in the Premier league for ever and so would never have to pay it back - I think this is the basic gist.

2. Some on the other hand, thinks "it's just worth a punt."

3. Another group subscribe to the idea that there's loads of multi billionaires queuing up to buy us and invest squillions.

4. There is the "Goldilocks brigade" - we should borrow "not too  much, not too little, but just the perfect amount". This tends to be a fairy tale with predictably little detail or reality.

5. There is a final group who don't say much except, except mumble under their breath about "nepotism Tom," grumble grumble, because others owners really don't pass on control to their family you know - only us.

1) Yes. If posters know of financial institutions out there who lend money and never want it repaid could they please send me a personal message.

2)  The more sophisticated version of this is the oxymoronic 'calclated risk' mantra. In this case 'calculated' means 'unjustifiably hopeful'. And with the owners we have cannot take a risk because if it  goes wrong we will actually be in real financial trouble with no obvious or pleasant way out, as opposed to the solvable probems we've had so far the Smith and Jones era.

We could never have remotely been able to justify taking the kind of risk Aston Villa took, but then not even Aston Villa, with the owners they have, could possibly justify that risk. They have been very, very lucky.

 

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to Villa I think  it is utterly pointless to be looking for lessons to learn both positive and negative from them. Completely different club in a completely different situation.

They came up in some quite unique circumstances in that 4 of their key players were on loan and thus would either need to be signed permanently of replaced so were always likely to have to spend. I imagine if we'd have come up and then had to replace Pukki, Godfrey, Zimmerman and Buendia we'd have probably spent a bit more than we did too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

2)  The more sophisticated version of this is the oxymoronic 'calclated risk' mantra. In this case 'calculated' means 'unjustifiably hopeful'. And with the owners we have cannot take a risk because if it  goes wrong we will actually be in real financial trouble with no obvious or pleasant way out, as opposed to the solvable probems we've had so far the Smith and Jones era.

 

You're a smart guy and you know calculated risk isn't an oxymoron so lets start there.

People take calculated risks all the time. You get a mortgage, you're risking that you'll be earning enough money to keep paying it off over a long period. That is a calculated risk

Football clubs take these all the time too. The issue is the apparent threshold for what becomes to risky for NCFC is so much lower than with the 19 other clubs in this league (and likely a few in the league below too). 

According to transfermark, 50 players were signed by Premier League clubs for north of £10m. Yet apparently for us making a signing like that would unfathomable and threaten the long term future of the club. 

I don't think any but the most moronic of posters are calling for us to have done what Villa did. But at some point, if we ever want to really compete at this level we have to be in a position to take some risks with spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, king canary said:

You're a smart guy and you know calculated risk isn't an oxymoron so lets start there.

People take calculated risks all the time. You get a mortgage, you're risking that you'll be earning enough money to keep paying it off over a long period. That is a calculated risk

Football clubs take these all the time too. The issue is the apparent threshold for what becomes to risky for NCFC is so much lower than with the 19 other clubs in this league (and likely a few in the league below too). 

According to transfermark, 50 players were signed by Premier League clubs for north of £10m. Yet apparently for us making a signing like that would unfathomable and threaten the long term future of the club. 

I don't think any but the most moronic of posters are calling for us to have done what Villa did. But at some point, if we ever want to really compete at this level we have to be in a position to take some risks with spending.

This.

You can’t expect to completely luck out on lower league, cheap imports and academy products. We are now in a good position cash wise and will be even more so with the inevitable departure of some of our better players.

I can’t believe that those in charge won’t sanction a decent spend in readiness for next season. Not £100m or whatever but enough to give us a fighting chance of making a decent fist of it in the Championship again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Canary dwarf said:

So what are you suggesting ,we should spend nothing and go down as the laughing stock of uk  football,get a life.

I am saying that clubs, like the ones mentioned above spend a lot and go down.

I don't really understand what my life has to do with the facts. Perhaps the reason that you don't like simple facts says something about the state of yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

This.

You can’t expect to completely luck out on lower league, cheap imports and academy products. We are now in a good position cash wise and will be even more so with the inevitable departure of some of our better players.

I can’t believe that those in charge won’t sanction a decent spend in readiness for next season. Not £100m or whatever but enough to give us a fighting chance of making a decent fist of it in the Championship again.

Yeah I agree we should be able to be competitive financially this season, especially if we do sell a few of our crown jewels for big fees.

The eternal question mark for me will be what happens if we go back up- do we repeat what we did this season and hope for different results? Or do we bank on having recruited more players in the Championship who can step up into the Premier League unlike the current squad? Or do we bite the bullet and pay a couple of big fees and decent wages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

But at some point, if we ever want to really compete at this level we have to be in a position to take some risks with spending.

All transfers are risks - I'm not sure how "calculated" they can be as so much uncertainty surrounds their subsequent performance.

This is particularly the case with promoted clubs, who are normally unable to obtain established top level players unless they loan them - an as we have seen even this does not always work. So, promoted clubs are buying at the riskier end of the scale and hoping that players "step up." This frequently fails:

e.g. Wesley Aston Villa from Club Brugge - £22.5 million

e.g. Ollie McBurnie - £17.5 million - 36 appearances, 6 goals (353 minutes per goal, compared to Drmic's 298 minutes per goal!); Callum Robertson - £10 million but at 25 years old loaned out again

These clubs stayed up - but didn't stay up because they bought these players - the connection people draw is too simplistic.

We could have bought all three for £50 million, but I suspect that we' still have been in the Championship next year - or do you think that they would have made the difference?

In addition, I very much doubt that they would have accepted our relegation wage cuts, so the pay structure would have been messed up for the future years. In short, I think that we would still have been relegated, but our chances of future promotion greatly weakened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...