Date: 3rd September 2006 at 11:13am
Written by:

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


21 Replies to “Are takeovers bad for football?”

  • 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 g

  • 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 prem

  • 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 avail

  • 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to get rid of someone who considered the club to be his own personal fiefdom and who was strangling the club with his out of date ideas and personal greed then ‘Yes’ it is good.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 the

  • 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 d

  • 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

  • Takeovers can be either good or bad. Our Latvian one seems to be going alright at the moment…at least off the field!

  • 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 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 c

  • 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 Arg

  • 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

  • Just a thought…do 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

  • 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

Comments are closed.