What's new

What Our Opponents' Fans Are Saying About Us 19/20

SugarRay

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2011
7,984
11,110
To be fair, they’re a very big club historically. Loads of league titles and of course were European champions too.

Bigger than Chelsea and City, certainly. Can fully understand where some of their entitlement comes from, mix that up with massive frustration that they aren’t quite the club the fans think they should be, and it makes for delusion central usually!
 

Sid Tottenham

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2015
531
1,291
They won most of their league titles in the 1800s they still won them granted but they’re was about 12 teams in the league I think.
They won the European cup and the league in the 80s though.
The 1980s
 

GMI

G.
Dec 13, 2006
3,090
12,122
Thirteen years ago, they were competing with us for top 4, finishing 6th three years in succession, when we finished 11th, 8th and then 4th. Many people thought they were better placed than we were to take the next step. But ten years ago, they fell out with Martin O'Neill over lack of funding for transfers and they lost their way thereafter.
I recall John Gregory had them at the top of the table around Christmas 2001 and was begging for funds to push them forward and keep them competing. Doug Ellis declined to invest further and they slipped back down. There are a lot of similarities between Villa and ourselves.
 

spids

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
6,647
27,841
Thirteen years ago, they were competing with us for top 4, finishing 6th three years in succession, when we finished 11th, 8th and then 4th. Many people thought they were better placed than we were to take the next step. But ten years ago, they fell out with Martin O'Neill over lack of funding for transfers and they lost their way thereafter.

I got the impression they ran into money troubles after over spending, especially on wages, and that was behind their decline.
 

Cochise

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2019
4,762
12,519
The only thing I'd agree on is that Grealish could go for £80m. Given current market values etc he's worth £60m, but someone like UTD might come in with a bid like that.
 

Timberwolf

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2008
10,328
50,217
The only thing I'd agree on is that Grealish could go for £80m. Given current market values etc he's worth £60m, but someone like UTD might come in with a bid like that.
I watched him a lot when we were initially linked to him and he is hugely talented - I think we missed a massive trick there. I could definitely see him going for £60m but if Villa are back in the Championship their bargaining position will be weakened so I doubt it would be any more than that. Jack has already paid his dues and I just can't see them pricing him out of a move and threatening to consign him to the championship AGAIN after all he's done for the club.

EDIT: If Villa stay up though...fuck knows.
 
Last edited:

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,985
81,903
They refused to give O'neil anymore, which is why he walked i think the same happened to him at Sunderland? After? But when we into for


I was really referring to that period around Benteke coming to us and they really felt they were bigger and would be challenging ahead of us by but that time I'm sure we were finishing ahead of them.

They had a good run under O'Neil but he had the same problem at Sunderland there was not the funds available to back him
Wasn't really a case of refusing to back O'Neill. They had no more money. Under O'Neill they had the second highest wages to turnover ratio in the league. They had a few financial successes in Benteke, Milner and Young but this was eaten up by a huge amount of flops leading to them losing 11 first team squad players on free transfers.

Villa's board was negligent with their spending but O'Neill mostly bought ageing players with no sell on value and once they had no money, largely down to him, he quit.

Edit: actually think Benteke was under Lambert. Downing was the 3rd player they made a good profit on. Harewood, Sutton, Reo Coker etc were expensive flops.
 
Last edited:

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
Wasn't really a case of refusing to back O'Neill. They had no more money. Under O'Neill they had the second highest wages to turnover ratio in the league. They had a few financial successes in Benteke, Milner and Young but this was eaten up by a huge amount of flops leading to them losing 11 first team squad players on free transfers.

Villa's board was negligent with their spending but O'Neill mostly bought ageing players with no sell on value and once they had no money, largely down to him, he quit.

Edit: actually think Benteke was under Lambert. Downing was the 3rd player they made a good profit on. Harewood, Sutton, Reo Coker etc were expensive flops.
Yep they ran out of money and sold the core of their team without replacements. Namely, Milner, Barry, Young and Downing. They were spending around 90% of their income on wages with big debts over 100 million. Selling was inevitable.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
It's notable how many people here refer to the destructive effects of Villa's overspending on salaries - I hadn't realised it rose to 90% of turnover, that's suicidal.

It's notable how few people here attribute our own contemporaneous rise to Champions League perennials to our long-term wage restraint. Instead, they would get very angry when we would "miss out" on another new player whose transfer fee was no problem, but whose wages we would refuse to meet.

And here we are. And there Villa are. Snap.
 

Jimmypearce7

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2005
1,473
2,255
It's notable how many people here refer to the destructive effects of Villa's overspending on salaries - I hadn't realised it rose to 90% of turnover, that's suicidal.

It's notable how few people here attribute our own contemporaneous rise to Champions League perennials to our long-term wage restraint. Instead, they would get very angry when we would "miss out" on another new player whose transfer fee was no problem, but whose wages we would refuse to meet.

And here we are. And there Villa are. Snap.

This is a good post. Don't repeat these views on Twitter though, you will be abused as a "Levioligist" - anything remotely positive draws the ire of the Levy haters.
 

Hakkz

Svensk hetsporre
Jul 6, 2012
8,196
17,270
To be fair, they’re a very big club historically. Loads of league titles and of course were European champions too.

Bigger than Chelsea and City, certainly. Can fully understand where some of their entitlement comes from, mix that up with massive frustration that they aren’t quite the club the fans think they should be, and it makes for delusion central usually!

So be it, but no one (players they want to sign especially) give a shit where they were 30+ years ago.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143


Fecking hell

Ridiculous

Utter cnut

Jammy twats again!


Lucky plonkers


Those jammy, jammy feckers.

Liverpool type of luck for Mourinho

Feck me how do we not get luck like that Jesus wept

Bastards.

Every fecking time. Jammy pricks.

Jammy Spurs cnuts. Another listless performance under Mourinho but they seem to be getting out of jail again. Sickening.

:whistle:
 
Jan 28, 2011
5,645
78,672
Villa Talk

villa.PNG


Yes. Yes it would.

:D
 
Top