UK time is: 01:45:25
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

Are takeovers bad for football?

Are takeovers bad for football?

Whilst it is not suggested Villa will have the type of funds available that Chelski have had, our recent good fortune suggests we will have much needed investment.

However, with West Ham now in their own takeover talks it does raise an interesting question;

Are takeovers good for football?

It is clear that once one or two teams break through with limitless resources the rest can forget it. Fans become disillusioned, matches can become predictable and boring.

Even some Chelsea fans are reported to yearn for the days when games were more open and postmatch discussion was about moaning about bad players,
managers and refereeing decisions.

Should there be limit on funds available to spend on players or even wage caps?

Are the Randy Lerner's of this world ruining the beautiful game?

Article by Gazvilla

Use your social login to comment on front page articles. Login using you Facebook, Twitter, Google or LinkedIn accounts and have your say!

Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

The Journalist

Writer: J P Fear Mail feedback, articles or suggestions

Date:Sunday September 3 2006

Time: 11:13AM

Your Comments

I must admit, I think they are bringing colour to the Premiership. We can't judge how RAL will be for Villa as they aren't even fully in power yet, although they should be soon. I can't see how - without the likes of RAL - Villa could ever progress and get back to where we were, so I'm all for it!
The Fear
Its good for Aston Villa but not for other clubs to be took over from our point of view. it seems now we have been bought by a Billionaire tons of other clubs will be too and we will proberly be back where we were before just like nearly every other premiership football team and at the moment it really is a big blow now West Ham have tons of money as the big names are likely to go there instead of Villa because they are a London club
If as reported the West Ham takeover will be funded by the former mentor of Roman Abramovich I feel it will have a negative aspect on the game. Will these two Russian Billionaires turn the Premiership into their personal playthings? A player becomes available and both teams want him will silly inflated prices come into the battle. A player comes on the market one team wants him another doesn't will they bid for the sake off it? i honestly can't see Lerner being able to compete against men whose personal fortunes are worth around 4 to 5 Billion sterling. Also a worrying fact about the influx of Russian money most of these men are wanted for questioning in the own country regarding fraud and the like.
still skeggy
Takeovers will eventually kill football - make no mistake, Villa will NEVER be the club you all loved as kids again. It's sad that so many genuine football fans seem prepared to sell their ethics so quickly, just to get a few quid for their club...
Take overs are a two edged sword. If, like with Villa, it is to get rid of someone who considered the club to be his own personal fiefdom and who was strangling the club with his out of date ideas and personal greed then 'Yes' it is good. But if it then means that hunfreds of millions of 's can be spent just to stop others buying a very good player, much like Chelski seem to do then 'No' it is not so good. It is pricing teams out of the market and whatever you may think; buying success like some teams are trying to do, takes away from the concept under which these tweams were formed 120 odd years ago. They were local teams of local lads not bought in superstars c.f. Arsenal without one English born player onn the field. I can understand Chelski fans becoming disillusioned, it is not what local support is all about. But, I don't know the answer.
What about spending limits or wags caps?
As long as we are members of the European Union, we will never be allowed to introduce limits or caps...
So, if it ws possible should UEFA /FIFA change it? What about the old argument of having so many Brits on the team?
The great Liverpool side had no English players on occassions...Anyway, the question of whether takeovers are bad for football is hard to answer - in my opinion, takeovers rapidly lead to franchised sports entertainment. Fans of lower league clubs would doubt whether what goes on in the Prem is really football anyway!
It all depends on what type of new owner a club gets and the starting point of the club. Villa is a massive club that has been gradually run dow with investment being made inconsistently and often in the wrong places. RAL bring with them investment and marketing stratergies, not an open cheque book as with Abramovic. RAL talk about raising funds for investment through marketing and sponsorship, Chelsea talk about Abramovic opening his wallet and either giving or more often lending them money. In my mind, anything that takes football forward as a both a sport and a business, in the way RAL are planning is good, anyone that uses football as their plaything, like Abramovic, is bad for the game. Just because the prospective new owner of Wham is a multi-billionair does not mean that he will behave like Abramovic, heck Randy could easily spend the kind of money Abramovic has (ok so after a few years he would run out of cash - at least way before Abramovic) but he is a sensible business man who sees opportunities to build and realises that when he leaves (he will one day, even if it's by reason of death) that he has a responsibility to hundreds of people for their livelyhoods and thousands of football fans, to leave a viable business / product. Abramovic will also one day leave Chelski, on that day they will be doomed to catastrophy and decades of insecurity due to overpaid players being bought for overinflated prices (on which they will never recoup theit investment) which has lead to massive debt.
Villain Of The North
Takeovers can be either good or bad. Our Latvian one seems to be going alright at the least off the field!
i think takeovers are good really gets more money into the game and more fans through the gates
green giant 12
Thank you, Villian Of The North I think your assessment of the situation is good. In a way I actually feel sorry for Chelski because sooner or later their house of cards will come down while , like you I believe RAL is building for the future.
superb post Villain, think you are spot on, RAL won't be throwing silly money they will be using good business practices and building an empire. I hate the way Chelski have been 'bought' and they were Abramovich's third choice behind Man Utd and Arsenal.
The Fear
The choice is quite simple. If you want football to remain a sport, where all teams have similar chances, there must be a "cap" on what players are paid otherwise those clubs with the deepest pockets will buy the best players and obviously have the best chance of winning most trophies -what a bore! Let's see every team in the Premiership all paid on the same pay structure and more money going into "grass roots" football and soccer academies.
I think this question is misguided. The question shouldn't be are takeovers bad for the game. It should be are the 'Are player wage/transfer fees too high and should agents 'own' the rights to players? Look at the West Ham situation - who owns the two Argentinians? My suspicion is that the agent will be the one to decide when and to whom they are sold. This is an area that needs investigation. It has been practice in south american football for agents to buy the rights to players and then move them on to places like Russia - hence all the Brazillians plying their trade in the frozen wastes of that country. They establish a name for themselves (a gamble on behave of the agent) and move on for a bigger sum and then eventually a move to 'glamour' club ensures a hansome profit for the agent. Players in south america are cheap (relatively) and thus offering a potential windfall to the agent willing to take a gamble on a player with potential. This is the situation with West Ham. Two players who haven't played outside of south america - it's a gamble but imagine the profit the agent will make if they are both successful! This is just another cattle trade and this is where FIFA or some authority really needs to step in and investigate the situation.
Without takeovers some clubs will just sink into oblivion. We were going that way with you know who. Whether we like it or not premiership football is about money.
Football is a business and as such takeovers are part of business, you cant stop it. Personally I think the more money being pumped into football the better, just so long as measures are put in place to make sure some of that money gets filtered through to grass roots.
Just a we think the backers behind AV06 may be the people behind the west ham takeover (couldnt get the real claret and blue but went for the soft southern alternative). AV06 did claim to have billionaires and london based which would fit in with the MIS company. If this is true would we have been the club getting tevez and the other argie if AV06 had been successful?
tylervilla I would much rather have Lerner, we do not need any argies to be succesfull, a lot of imports end up as expensive missfits, unable to cope with life in the premiership, the grass is rarely greener, I may only be speaking for myself, but, yes I have to admit to being a very happy and contented villan (did those words really come from a villa fan????) I think our squad have tremendous promise even with our lack of size, and we have a manager who is second to none, VOTN good post, I do not believe that Lerner is the same kind of owner as Roman, and the pennies will be spent wiser, I would trust our management to do the job right.
Selfishly I suppose, I'm only interested in how a takeover relates to AVFC. It was our only way forward, and as such has to be a good thing. Football is changing, and we have to keep up with the changes, the new ideas, the innovations. The traditionalists wont like it, but the alternative is to be left hopelessly behind.

Have Your Say

Log in...
with your social network     OR     with your Vital account

Recent Aston Villa Articles

Stats: Aston Villa v Southampton (Monday November 24 2014)

Tadic Was Our Failed January Buy (Sunday November 23 2014)

Something For The Weekend (472) (Friday November 21 2014)

Aston Villa FC - 140 Years And Counting (Friday November 21 2014)

Villa Support 21st Minute Initiative (Thursday November 20 2014)

Injury Update Ahead Of Southampton (Thursday November 20 2014)

Villa In Talks With Justice For The 21 (Thursday November 20 2014)

Archived Aston Villa Articles

List All Vital Villa Articles
Have your say
Click here to suggest an article
Click here to suggest a poll

Vital Members League (view all)

1. Pride of Lions 814
2. ClivetheVillan 785
3. The Fear 609
4. kefkat 281
5. Freeman14 231
6. sirdennis 179
7. DeanoVilla 162
8. Villan57 140
9. Fulford 96
10. gator 91

League Results (view all)

League Table (view table)

Team P W D L GD Pts
13. WBA 12 3 4 5 -4 13
14. Sunderland 12 2 7 3 -7 13
15. Crystal Palace 12 3 3 6 -4 12
16. Aston Villa 12 3 3 6 -11 12
17. Hull City 12 2 5 5 -3 11
18. Leicester City 12 2 4 6 -7 10
19. Burnley 12 2 4 6 -12 10

Breaking League News

Taylor's Career Not Off The Rayls
Newcastle : 24/11/2014 23:45:00
Kids Continue To Prosper
Newcastle : 24/11/2014 23:22:00
Southampton : 24/11/2014 22:04:00
Aston Villa : 24/11/2014 21:50:00
Hull 1-2 Tottenham
Hull City : 24/11/2014 20:58:00

Current Site Poll (view all polls)

Southampton MotM
Suggested By:  MF
Guzan 10%
Hutton 6%
Okore 27%
Clark 44%
Cissokho 0%
Cleverley 0%
Westwood 0%
Sanchez 0%
N'Zogbia 0%
Agbonlahor 10%
Weimann 0%
Sub - Richardson 0%
Sub - Bent 3%