Aston Villa: Marco Bizot

[HattoriHanzo]

I didn’t say they were. The current rules prevent you from doing either.

You cant become a club that has built its revenue base because all the clubs who already have that like Madrid, Utd etc can spend vastly VASTLY more money than you because of their revenue and nobody can get close

In last 15 years City spent more money than any other club.
You can check the facts on Transfermarkt.
It is very likely that they spent even more, through fake sponsorship deals and paying under the table, hence the 115 charges

 

[ArsenesCoatMaker]

ah right yeah Arsenal + Rice good and just, City and Grealish bad.

Last season was our first season spending over 200m Euro outlay when they had their first 200m Euro outlay 8 years ago and multiple times since.

Let's all ignore transfer inflation when they spent 500m Euros in 2 seasons only 7 seasons ago, which translates to more than a billion in the modern transfer market

iTz tHe SAme tHing bRO

 

[lomekian]

So had these rules been in place it would have protected the established big clubs at that time and not let any new clubs draw level with them?

kind of proving my point there

Not in the slightest - Chelsea pre Abramovic had already become competitive, trophy winning and qualifiying for ECL, and were on course to catch Arsenal & Man U without excessive spending. They still attracted high class players, and had they continued spending well within these rules transposed backwards, they still would have heavily outspent Arsenal who were 2 years away from a CL final.

You are deliberately missing the point. Chelsea's impact was not just spending to win, it was to do so in an unprecedented way that not only transformed their fortunes but also had a massive inflationary effect on wages on transfer fees that was felt Europe wide. This was only magnified by the state owned clubs entering European football. Record transfer fees doubling and tripling in no time at all, and players wages increasing at a rate never before dreamt of. Which has had the effect of actually making the league far less competitive and harder to prevail in without state money - which illustrates how well Villa have done.

It certainly makes the chance of clubs without fantastically wealth backers ever competing far slimmer.

I agree the rules need a tweak as Villa's situation highlights perfectly the need for greater flexibility, but if we didn't have the rules at all, it will be City vs Newcastle and everyone else can go bust trying to even get a sniff. It would literally allow these teams to comfortably buy your whole club every year for ever. Which would leave the only place to go more and more state owned clubs or a dead league.

Its why I like the new proposed rules. A bit more leeway - a more level playing field - and still scope for owners to impact teams significantly without totally distorting the whole league. IT would allow Villa to keep their players but would stop the state owned clubs destroying the league. IT would also to a greater degree reward excellence at the top rather than purely riches.

And I say that, even though under those rules, Arsenal would be worse off.

 

[lomekian]

I didn’t say they were. The current rules prevent you from doing either.

You cant become a club that has built its revenue base because all the clubs who already have that like Madrid, Utd etc can spend vastly VASTLY more money than you because of their revenue and nobody can get close

Man U are doing their best to undermine this take!

 

[lomekian]

ah right yeah Arsenal + Rice good and just, City and Grealish bad.

Arsenal saved up for the best part of 15 years and now can't make any big signings this year. City can buy Grealish and bin him off for 2/3 of the season and spunk 50m twice on two midfielders and give them a couple of games each. Jog on, troll

 

[Deleted member x1214]

Last season was our first season spending over 200m Euro outlay when they had their first 200m Euro outlay 8 years ago and multiple times since.

Let's all ignore transfer inflation when they spent 500m Euros in 2 seasons only 7 seasons ago, which translates to more than a billion in the modern transfer market

iTz tHe SAme tHing bRO

Never said it was the same thing, but a lot of you acting like Arsenal is the Virgin Mary is actually childish.

These clubs are all owned by dusty billionaires, questionable sponsorships, employ conniving lawyers and since when was the prem this beacon of morality and fairness?

Point the finger at City all you want but the only reason you care if because they beat us to two titles recently.

 

[jones]

These clubs are all owned by dusty billionaires,

This is what it boils down to, read recently 16 out of 20 clubs in the league are owned by billionaires/bn+ legal entities, Luton owner is a broke ass with 25m the other three are all worth 100m+ as well.

The entire league is a joke at this point.

 

[Deleted member x1214]

This is what it boils down to, read recently 16 out of 20 clubs in the league are owned by billionaires/bn+ legal entities, Luton owner is a broke ass with 25m the other three are all worth 100m+ as well.

The entire league is a joke at this point.

I dunno where tf these guys were when kicking our players was a viable tactic or publicly courting our best players was allowed.

Everyday faux outrage over City, I must have missed the bit where the league was nice and fair.

 

[Stevo the Villan]

In 5 seasons Villa has gone from the Championship to the Champions League.
How is this cemented status quo?
If you're not satisfied with P&S rules, your club (Villa) should establish the league together with City, Newcastle and whoever else wants this, without any limits to spending.

We’ve just qualified for the champions league and we’re having to sell two players to make sure we comply with the rules. That’s how

Again, I didn’t say I didn’t want rules. I just said these rules have drawbacks

 

[Stevo the Villan]

In last 15 years City spent more money than any other club.
You can check the facts on Transfermarkt.
It is very likely that they spent even more, through fake sponsorship deals and paying under the table, hence the 115 charges

What has this got to do with anything?

 

[Deleted member x1214]

We’ve just qualified for the champions league and we’re having to sell two players to make sure we comply with the rules. That’s how

Again, I didn’t say I didn’t want rules. I just said these rules have drawbacks

The rules are due an update anyways. Things to safeguard against another City but reasonable ones that reward competitive achievements like Villa reaching the CL.

I haven’t checked but would you say you spent a bomb to get there? And is other things like covid having a knock on effect in regards to losses?

 

[HattoriHanzo]

What has this got to do with anything?

Your quote:
You cant become a club that has built its revenue base because all the clubs who already have that like Madrid, Utd etc can spend vastly VASTLY more money than you because of their revenue and nobody can get close

City outspent all of them in last 15 years.
And now they sue the whole league because they want even more.
I guess Grealish sitting on the bench is not enough.
And you know much they paid to Villa for him.

 

[ArsenesCoatMaker]

Never said it was the same thing, but a lot of you acting like Arsenal is the Virgin Mary is actually childish.

These clubs are all owned by dusty billionaires, questionable sponsorships, employ conniving lawyers and since when was the prem this beacon of morality and fairness?

Point the finger at City all you want but the only reason you care if because they beat us to two titles recently.

Most fans found it unsporting when Klopp was screwed over by City's financial doping too. Their spending in the past has been absolutely insane and for anyone who cares about sport to justify it is either ignorant or doesn't care about fair play

Ironically Arsenal was the virgin Mary for a decade when we had zero net spend too.

 

[Stevo the Villan]

Your quote:
You cant become a club that has built its revenue base because all the clubs who already have that like Madrid, Utd etc can spend vastly VASTLY more money than you because of their revenue and nobody can get close

City outspent all of them in last 15 years.
And now they sue the whole league because they want even more.
I guess Grealish sitting on the bench is not enough.
And you know much they paid to Villa for him.

But city have cheated so this is completely irrelevant

 

[Stevo the Villan]

The rules are due an update anyways. Things to safeguard against another City but reasonable ones that reward competitive achievements like Villa reaching the CL.

I haven’t checked but would you say you spent a bomb to get there? And is other things like covid having a knock on effect in regards to losses?

Yeah we’ve spent a fair bit. You have to spend to grow, that’s my point.

But we haven’t spent irresponsibly. The club has no debt, very rich owners, the money has been spent on sensible players. That shouldn’t be what the rules do. They shouldn’t restrict clubs spending money sensibly otherwise it just cements the big clubs and lets nobody challenge them.

 

[<<reed>>]

In the last 3 year period Villa has spend around 340M on transfers and only sold Grealish of note. You knew the rules but are now crying about them being unfair because you have to sell someone.

How is this unfair?

340m in 3 seasons isn't that much for a PL club though?
The FFP rules in football are a joke, just look at Chelsea - spent like 1 billion in 1,5 years, but they signed the players on 10 year contracts and sold the hotel to themselves, so everything is fine.
The Villa owner is right, the rules are there just to protects grand ol' rich clubs from any serious competition from below mostly.

 

[jones]

Yeah we’ve spent a fair bit. You have to spend to grow, that’s my point.

But you don't, it's perfectly possible to grow with sensible transfers and a decent academy it will simply take longer. Just because the rules aren't punishing the scüm at City, Chelsea etc doesn't mean they should allow everyone to cheat the grind.

You bought Moussa Diaby for 55m when you were midtable last season, a player who could easily have played for any CL team last season. Now he's allowed you to get into the CL spots on the back of your owner spending money you never earned on sporting merit while other teams - especially abroad - were without chance to compete for his signature. How is that something that the rules should allow?

 

[<<reed>>]

I just checked Villa's transfers over the last 4 years and it's nothing crazy, 100m spent and 50m sold more or less every year, no idea why they are having any troubles at all

 

[Stevo the Villan]

But you don't, it's perfectly possible to grow with sensible transfers and a decent academy it will simply take longer. Just because the rules aren't punishing the scüm at City, Chelsea etc doesn't mean they should allow everyone to cheat the grind.

You bought Moussa Diaby for 55m when you were midtable last season, a player who could easily have played for any CL team last season. Now he's allowed you to get into the CL spots on the back of your owner spending money you never earned on sporting merit while other teams - especially abroad - were without chance to compete for his signature. How is that something that the rules should allow?

Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules. I'm saying the current rules favour the already established clubs.

You say it's possible, but who has done it?
You can grow to a certain point and then there's a huge chasm which is almost impossible to bridge. You basically HAVE TO spend for a short period of time, make sure it's spent effectively and then catch up with the revenue you get as a result. It's a risk, but it's that or just stay in the pack with everyone else.


As for Diaby, we finished 7th in 22/23 and qualified for Europe. That's hardly midtable. We finished abovcve Sp**s. And we bought Diaby in a summer when our net spend was about 70m, which isn't exactly huge these days for a premier league club in the european places. Plus we have an elite manager now who will help attract players so we probably have a slight advantage over other teams at that level because they want to play for him. I hardly think that's a crazy transfer.

In the same window Forest spent 35m on a midfielder. Sp**s spent 100m on two midfielders, West Ham spent 45m on a midfielder, Wolves spent 50m on a midfielder.

Diaby seems like a really weird transfer to single out as being excessive spending. Really weird.
Or are non CL teams not allowed to pull off small coups now?

 

[Stevo the Villan]

I just checked Villa's transfers over the last 4 years and it's nothing crazy, 100m spent and 50m sold more or less every year, no idea why they are having any troubles at all

We're not having troubles financially, we're having troubles staying within the rules (but we are staying within the rules)
Which is basically the point.

As you say, we haven't spent CRAZY money. But unfortunately we are quite a way behind clubs like yourselves, Sp**s, Liverpool, Chelsea etc in terms of revenue. So because we don't bring in as much revenue we can't spend as much.

I of course understand the reasons for those rules. It's a good thing to not let teams spend loads of money they don't have.

All I'm saying in this thread is that as a result of those rules, it's much harder for clubs to bridge the gap between being a good premier league club, and being a top 6 premier league club.
I think there is a discussion to be had about whether the rules in their current format are entirely suitable, and whether there's a way that can be tweaked to ensure that clubs are protected from mismanagement AND the elite clubs aren't ringfenced like they are now