Aston Villa 2015-16

christmasborocooper wrote:Being a "big club" is fucking worthless and all talk of size and history is worthless.

Cheers

A bunch of clubs staring down the barrel of 100 years of nothingness and clinging onto a meaningless title to keep the depression at bay, much like Rooney and his world class tag probably.

It's hilarious. I remember Wolves fans arguing they were too big to go down a few years back. So much more history than other clubs staying up. Like it means a fucking thing. If you're shite, you're shite. If you didn't strike it lucky and get a sugar daddy, you're stuck with the rest.. And it's a fight to be the least shit poor team. The fact you might have won a European trophy 50 years ago means f**k all and you're a desperate c**t for bringing it up.

How is history meaningless? And where is the cut off point Borocooper, 40 years, 10 years, 5 years? Aston Villa have won 2 European Cups and nobody can take that away from them. It's a fact that they have won more European Cups than Chelski and Chelski fans can't argue with that fact. Cups won now mean something so in 50 years they will still mean something. If we (Barcelona) become shit in 50 years time then I will still look back to now with pride and joy. The whole point of winning trophies is to add them to your tally, so then you can compare to other clubs and judge who is more successful.

Lets put it this way, if I pulled a HB10 this week I would still be bragging about it in 50 years time (this is worms we are talking about so obviously this is just hypothetical    ).

Kloppo Koppo wrote:How is history meaningless? And where is the cut off point Borocooper, 40 years, 10 years, 5 years? Aston Villa have won 2 European Cups and nobody can take that away from them. It's a fact that they have won more European Cups than Chelski and Chelski fans can't argue with that fact. Cups won now mean something so in 50 years they will still mean something. If we (Barcelona) become shit in 50 years time then I will still look back to now with pride and joy. The whole point of winning trophies is to add them to your tally, so then you can compare to other clubs and judge who is more successful.

The difference is football has changed, in 50 years time I expect the same teams to be on top winning the trophies, unless there's world war 3 or a new injection of sugar daddies. If I think about Villa or Everton, what is more important to me, the fact they won some trophies before I was born, or the fact they stand zero chance of ever winning another major trophy?

Kloppo Koppo wrote:How is history meaningless? And where is the cut off point Borocooper, 40 years, 10 years, 5 years? Aston Villa have won 2 European Cups and nobody can take that away from them. It's a fact that they have won more European Cups than Chelski and Chelski fans can't argue with that fact. Cups won now mean something so in 50 years they will still mean something. If we (Barcelona) become shit in 50 years time then I will still look back to now with pride and joy. The whole point of winning trophies is to add them to your tally, so then you can compare to other clubs and judge who is more successful.

Er we only won one. Still, better than none. Hi Arsenal

debaser wrote:

Kloppo Koppo wrote:How is history meaningless? And where is the cut off point Borocooper, 40 years, 10 years, 5 years? Aston Villa have won 2 European Cups and nobody can take that away from them. It's a fact that they have won more European Cups than Chelski and Chelski fans can't argue with that fact. Cups won now mean something so in 50 years they will still mean something. If we (Barcelona) become shit in 50 years time then I will still look back to now with pride and joy. The whole point of winning trophies is to add them to your tally, so then you can compare to other clubs and judge who is more successful.

Er we only won one. Still, better than none. Hi Arsenal

Did you know Arsenal have won fewer European trophies than Spurs? Despite us being shit for pretty much most of the late 80's through to mid-00's (ie not qualifying for Europe for almost that entire period)? I bet Puro didn't.

0trick, mon ami. Of course I knew that you c**t!

The thing is, the Europa League (prestigious trophy) is not as valuable as winning the domestic title from the top 4 leagues (La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, EPL).

Order of prestige:

1. Champions League

2. Domestic Title (only if from La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, EPL)

3. Europa League *(a Europa League win from a club NOT from the top 4 leagues trumps their own domestic title. For instance Marseille, Benfica, Zenit or Ajax winning the EL has more prestige than winning their own domestic title)

4. Domestic Title - the rest of the leagues

5. Domestic Cup (All of these are "in case shit happens cups" EXCEPT Copa del Rey and DFB Pokal)

Kloppo Koppo wrote:How is history meaningless? And where is the cut off point Borocooper, 40 years, 10 years, 5 years? Aston Villa have won 2 European Cups and nobody can take that away from them. It's a fact that they have won more European Cups than Chelski and Chelski fans can't argue with that fact. Cups won now mean something so in 50 years they will still mean something. If we (Barcelona) become shit in 50 years time then I will still look back to now with pride and joy. The whole point of winning trophies is to add them to your tally, so then you can compare to other clubs and judge who is more successful.

It is literally meaningless. Who cares? Does it help the club? f**k no. If Chelsea and Villa go for the same player.. He's singing for Chelsea. He'll say "Oh got some history have you? Well keep that cos I'm off over here in the present to earn a shit load of money and probably win some trophies now thanks".

Players won't even sign for Liverpool anymore. Because they don't compete, they don't have the money.

Money shots on history and "how big" the club is.

In 30 years all these clubs people say have no history, and aren't big because they haven't won x number of trophies.. Well they will have then. And Liverpool probably still won't. Presumably they'll be considered some little no mark club by that point.

History means something to fans and clubs still need fans, even though money clearly dominates everything.

And sure, history isn't going to make up for more money on offer or much greater likelihood of trophies, but it will still count for something in a closer situation. If a player is choosing between clubs who aren't likely to win trophies and offer similar money they will most likely pick the bigger club (i.e. bigger status/fanbase &, yes, history). Villa and Newcastle are in bottom three but I suspect most players would pick them over WBA or Leicester if offered same money, for example.

Genuinely, genuinely don't think that's true. They'll go where they think they're most likely to get success

Well okay, but how do they assess likelihood of success? They'd probably look at how long they've been in the top flight, how they've done over the last few years. And if the answer is 'pretty similar' you might go back further. Or start to think about things like size of fanbase/media exposure (i.e which club is likely to be a better stepping stone to a club that offers more money/trophies).

I'm not under illusions that players would line up to sign for Villa based on trophies won 30+ years ago, but I can't agree that history & status are completely meaningless.

Our history is a big reason why we (Liverpool) have such a big revenue. So it does matter at least in that respect. Even though we haven't won the league in 25 years we are still seen as a big club except by the most deluded people.

Liverpool is a great case to examine. in the eyes of many of their fans and proliferated by all of the ex boot room boys who have infiltrated the media, there is the belief that they are somehow special, beyond just being a big club - you'll hear plenty of public mouthpieces saying they have the best fans in the world / special nights at Anfield etc etc.

So whilst they should be seen as a big club, they are one where a lot of hot air and bluster has propelled them into being a super club, an exceptional club, which is of course absolute bollocks based on the last decade and current form.

History is something every club and fan should be proud of, but Liverpool are an absolutely excellent case of when it goes wrong spending too long looking backwards. The way Sterling was utterly strung up and the disbelief of the boot room boys perfect example of it - no amount of history changes the fact he is more likely to win things with City than Liverpool and that was a huge kick in the bollocks for all the fans who love the history channel.

The sad but undeniable fact is if you ask the young generation today who are the bigger clubs they will say City and Chelsea over the likes of Arsenal, Spurs, Villa, Liverpool because in recent times of which they are experiencing that is the case. As for special nights, the cost of tickets and globalization of the PL means those special nights at Anfield are a nonsense too, you get a better atmosphere at a championship game these days. Or Germany - look at Dortmunds support, now THAT is special.

Isco Benny wrote:

The sad but undeniable fact is if you ask the young generation today who are the bigger clubs they will say City and Chelsea over the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool 

I think only a minority would.

Anyone under the age of 20 would have a strong case, and judging by Sterling and the plethora of Arsenal players who left for City, it's probably a healthy amount of people.

In Multicultural urban London, that Worms detests, Liverpool are still a big club.

Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool are the 3 most supported teams, then Spurs.

Very few MUL's support Chelsea except for recent Ivorian/ghanahian immigrants (Drogba/essien fanboys).

Also more support Palace south of the river than I realised, but they have a good history with black players.

Isco Benny wrote:Anyone under the age of 20 would have a strong case, and judging by Sterling and the plethora of Arsenal players who left for City, it's probably a healthy amount of people.

Sterling didn't join City because they are a bigger club than Liverpool, he joined them because he would get paid more and have a better chance of winning trophies.

Exactly

The club is being bought by a made-up-sounding Hong Kong businessman named Dr Tony Xia for a price just shy of 1 Angel Di Maria (which seems insanely cheap). Have to say I'm rather dubious about this.

Anyhow, farewell Randy Lerner. An ownership of two halves: ~5 years of promise & hope followed by ~5 years of misery and decline. He's sure lost a shedload of money on this venture.