Whats with people coming on here saying we're not a big club? I agree, we are a mid table premier league side.. we have struggled to hold on to our best players for the past couple of years. History makes you big, not you current position in the league. Leeds are giants of the english game, just because they're in a lower league does not change that. unfortunately we are taking backward steps. we are the 4th most successful ever english club. Spurs and Everton and both massive clubs, a great past and with spurs, a bright future. Man city are not a massive club, but their fans are second to none because they were still there when they were s***.. Our ambitions are high, what is so wrong with that and people slating us fans for having tthat high ambition? I am not being arrogant, im proiud of our past and doesnt matter how much youve won, every fan loves their club more than anything else. I have no particular dig at any other club, i just hate birmingham simply because of local rivalry.. there are idiots at every club. I dislike the graffiti at our training ground but i agree with the message. Its some thing we have to accept and eck has to convice himself, he is a decent bloke but it is very difficult to welcome someone who has juts served at our local rivals, can people not see that?
posted on 17/6/11
i dont agree money has ruined the game, without it we wouldnt have great stadiums from the prem right down league 2. something england can be proud of.
----
of course you disagree, without Sky's money the PL wouldn't be half as good as most people make it out to be. what would happen if Sky withdrew their funding, would it still be the beutiful game? i doubt it a lot of teams would go to the wall
posted on 17/6/11
Our ambitions are high, what's so wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with ambition, I'd like to be a top class guitarist - but I know that I'm not at present and it would take alot of hard work to get there. This is what most villa fans don't seem to accept - that villa are currently an 8th-9th place club at best and if you expect anything more than this next season, you're being umrealistic.villa went backward last season and have alot pfwprk to do to get back into the top six.
posted on 17/6/11
8th-9th place? UMAD? I would say were a 10th-12th/13th team at the moment. I cant stand fans who think 1 or 2 signings and we will become champions of england.
I expect us to finish midtable again this season.. maybe about 11th if im perfectly honest. I think 9th place was right last year because we played very, very well in away games where we failed to get a result or a win.
posted on 17/6/11
Its all about the money
If Swansea was taken over by owners like Man City then over next 5 years they would compete for more than Villa.
Liverpool and Arsenal was amoung the best clubs, Man Utd under Sir Alex from the 90's made Man Utd a big name.
Chelsea, Spurs and Villa all fought for 3rd-6th each season, back in the day other sides would creep into the top 4 and better including Blackburn and Newcastle
Its all about the money nowadays.
Villa, Everton and then Sunderland and Newcastle are the sides on paper to challenge for 7th-10th each season.
But sides can have ups and downs, hence Villa in bottom half, even relegation battles Sunderland likewise.
While a Fulham, Bolton and Stoke could all climp and get a 7th-10th.
But no matter what that Top 6 Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs looks hard to break.
The KiD
posted on 17/6/11
Are we big? Except in money terms, yes, and even there we're not poor. The money bit means we can't buy our place in the big 5 year after year, but money doesn't always work, and with a good manager, developing our players and shrewd signings we can be knocking on the door. Spurs the last couple of years have done more with less. It's still possible, here and in Europe, for teams in our position climb above the "bigger" clubs. We're already one of the best clubs for turning out young internationals. We can build on that.
We ought to have a better season this year than last, even though the PL will be at least as tough. So 8th or above. If the manager turns out as the optimists say and we all hope, but ...
posted on 17/6/11
History only counts if you can rememeber it. No point reading about it in books.
If you can't remember it then why worry about it.
In that case the above teams you mentioned are no longer 'MASSIVE'!
posted on 17/6/11
Newcastle are big and Sunderland if your looking at it like that, Wolves have potential to be Everton Big if we are looking at fanbase/gates.
If you have to add history into it then this is where a Spurs and Villa should be taking the Top 5 spots, and with Chelsea.
But Chelseas cash made them the step up from Spurs and Villa, and Man City cash would turn them from a no bigger club than a Coventry or WBA to a force.
The KiD
posted on 17/6/11
my dad sharing his experiences of things like the last day at arsenal in '81 and the european cup campaign are things that I love to learn about, realise as much as I can what he experiences although ill never fully know how great it was. Sharing those moments with my dad i cherish and will tell my own kids what my dad said.. and also the ups and downs of my experiences.
posted on 17/6/11
it's not all about money, it's all about lerner who is being stubborn and ignoring the only people that he should be answerable to - a club is only about it's fans. this move will reduce the fan base - so we'll become a worse club. full stop.
i guess he wants to reduce costs and by having mcleish he feels the club will maintain mid-table with cheaper players.
there'll be less fans and tv revenue will reduce with awful defensive football.
i have an awful feeling he just wants to balance the books and sell up in a couple of years
posted on 17/6/11
40 years ago Manyoo were in the 2nd div and got gates of 50k. At the same time Villa were in the 3rd div and they had 30k+ crowds. Thats what makes them big clubs and makes Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan, QPR, Fulham, Hull, Burnley, Pompey. Cardiff, and plenty more not!