Are takeovers bad for football?

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

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...

What about spending limits or wags caps?

So, if it ws possible should UEFA /FIFA change it? What about the old argument of having so many Brits on the team?

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.

i think takeovers are good really gets more money into the game and more fans through the gates

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.

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.

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.

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.