[Football] 'Top flight needs Villa vibrancy' Stan Collymore.

Garry Nelson's Left Foot · May 24, 2018

He almost has a point. If it weren't for:

A number of those clubs haven't played in the top flight for years

None of them have had any kind of success for 25 or more years

Some of the worst teams in top flight(and certainly premier league) history have been produced by those clubs(and sunderland).

The reason why many of those clubs are outside looking in at the premier league is because they believed the hype, spent way beyond their means trying to match these unrealistic expectations and crashed and burned. How many admins have they been in? How many times have they been near admin and how many times would they have gone into admin if they didn't have very rich owners?

Bakero · May 24, 2018

Weststander said:
Didn’t Arsenal win the 1971 title and Derby in 1972?

And Man U came second in each of the years mentioned above.
But they did win it 3 times in a row in the 90s and 00s.

lancyclaret · May 24, 2018

Ninja Elephant said:
The thing is that his ultimate point isn't wrong. Aston Villa, Leeds and Forest in particular are clubs which should be playing in the Premier League based on history and relative size of the club. But he's missing the main point - Premier League status is earnt, not gifted. Mentioning Derby is ridiculous, they're not in the same bracket as Villa, Leeds and Forest and would contribute almost nothing at all. I agree with him that small clubs like Palace and Burnley are hardly enhancing the Premier League as a brand but they're not there by accident. They earnt their place, and they've earnt their stay.

Yes, you are right. Burnley have twice EARNED promotion in recent years unlike some clubs - Bournemouth, QPR, Leicester and now Wolves - who have had promotion "BOUGHT" for them by rich owners/sugar daddies. Villa, Leeds, Forest and Derby have all tried to "buy" promotion in recent years but so far have failed dismally.

Kalimantan Gull · May 24, 2018

Ok, I think he really does have a point. Doesn't argue it very well, but he does have a point.

There is absolutely zero doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth, Burnley, Huddersfield, Palace, Watford and Saints deserve to be in the premier league. We got promoted fair and square, played well, stayed up, no arguments there.

But I think is point is more one of ambition. We've been told that our target for at least the next five years is survival in the premier league. Thats true also of the other clubs above. Occasionally one will talk about pushing on to the next level of getting to Europe, and that is usually the death knell, as Stoke, West Brom, Swansea found out - and going back, Middlesbrough, Charlton, Bolton, found out to their downfall. Palace flirt with this idea every season. A sensible policy for the lower-end premier league club is pure survival - get higher ideas and it almost never works out for more than a season or two.

Which goes back to Collymore's point - teams like Everton, West Ham, Newcastle, Leeds, Wednesday, Forest, Villa, Blackburn will always have more ambition than mere survival - and more ambition than a Europa league place. Leicester have now also crossed this pantheon in their own minds. By their very nature these teams will push higher - and also a consequence several of them will crash and burn and are now languishing further down the league. It doesn't mean they will always be run that way - some of their owners have settled for the cash, Villa and Everton spent years being dull - but the potential to push for the top 4 is never too far away for teams like that, whilst it is an impossibility for teams like us.

So for us, as a team, we are delighted to set survival as a target. But for the rest of football, it is more interesting when more teams are trying to get to the very top of the table. In reality its fine to have a mix of all these teams, the premier league would also be poorer without the likes of Blackpool and Reading having a go, but this season the balance felt shifted more to those teams who just want to survive.

el punal · May 24, 2018

Mackenzie said:
Villa have the most miserable fans in football. Vibrancy isn’t a word I’d associate with that club.

I remember when we played them in the FA Cup at Villa Park in 2010. Villa were in the top six, still in the FL Cup, and then, were considered to be a strong side under Martin O’Neill. I couldn’t get a ticket in the Albion section so I sat in the Doug Ellis Stand surrounded by Villa fans. Tickets for the match were being banged out at £10 a pop, so a lot of ‘tourists’ turned up. The Albion faithful were on top form singing their hearts out, when I heard this flat Brummie voice say “What’s this sighgools, sighgools them lot are singing?” :facepalm:

Taybha · May 24, 2018

Webb 72 .

spence · May 24, 2018

Kalimantan Gull said:
Ok, I think he really does have a point. Doesn't argue it very well, but he does have a point.

There is absolutely zero doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth, Burnley, Huddersfield, Palace, Watford and Saints deserve to be in the premier league. We got promoted fair and square, played well, stayed up, no arguments there.

But I think is point is more one of ambition. We've been told that our target for at least the next five years is survival in the premier league. Thats true also of the other clubs above. Occasionally one will talk about pushing on to the next level of getting to Europe, and that is usually the death knell, as Stoke, West Brom, Swansea found out - and going back, Middlesbrough, Charlton, Bolton, found out to their downfall. Palace flirt with this idea every season. A sensible policy for the lower-end premier league club is pure survival - get higher ideas and it almost never works out for more than a season or two.

Which goes back to Collymore's point - teams like Everton, West Ham, Newcastle, Leeds, Wednesday, Forest, Villa, Blackburn will always have more ambition than mere survival - and more ambition than a Europa league place. Leicester have now also crossed this pantheon in their own minds. By their very nature these teams will push higher - and also a consequence several of them will crash and burn and are now languishing further down the league. It doesn't mean they will always be run that way - some of their owners have settled for the cash, Villa and Everton spent years being dull - but the potential to push for the top 4 is never too far away for teams like that, whilst it is an impossibility for teams like us.

So for us, as a team, we are delighted to set survival as a target. But for the rest of football, it is more interesting when more teams are trying to get to the very top of the table. In reality its fine to have a mix of all these teams, the premier league would also be poorer without the likes of Blackpool and Reading having a go, but this season the balance felt shifted more to those teams who just want to survive.

Bournemouth don't deserve to be in the Premier league. They broke FFP rules.

lancyclaret · May 24, 2018

Kalimantan Gull said:
Ok, I think he really does have a point. Doesn't argue it very well, but he does have a point.

There is absolutely zero doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth, Burnley, Huddersfield, Palace, Watford and Saints deserve to be in the premier league. We got promoted fair and square, played well, stayed up, no arguments there.

But I think is point is more one of ambition. We've been told that our target for at least the next five years is survival in the premier league. Thats true also of the other clubs above. Occasionally one will talk about pushing on to the next level of getting to Europe, and that is usually the death knell, as Stoke, West Brom, Swansea found out - and going back, Middlesbrough, Charlton, Bolton, found out to their downfall. Palace flirt with this idea every season. A sensible policy for the lower-end premier league club is pure survival - get higher ideas and it almost never works out for more than a season or two.

Which goes back to Collymore's point - teams like Everton, West Ham, Newcastle, Leeds, Wednesday, Forest, Villa, Blackburn will always have more ambition than mere survival - and more ambition than a Europa league place. Leicester have now also crossed this pantheon in their own minds. By their very nature these teams will push higher - and also a consequence several of them will crash and burn and are now languishing further down the league. It doesn't mean they will always be run that way - some of their owners have settled for the cash, Villa and Everton spent years being dull - but the potential to push for the top 4 is never too far away for teams like that, whilst it is an impossibility for teams like us.

So for us, as a team, we are delighted to set survival as a target. But for the rest of football, it is more interesting when more teams are trying to get to the very top of the table. In reality its fine to have a mix of all these teams, the premier league would also be poorer without the likes of Blackpool and Reading having a go, but this season the balance felt shifted more to those teams who just want to survive.

Have you checked out Wolves main forum (Molineux Mix)?....the majority of their posters think anything less than a "Top Ten" finish next season will be a big disappoinment while many posters think a Champions League (top four) place should be a realistic target within 3/4 seasons.

They think the only thing that can prevent them from overtaking Man City and Man United to become England's No 1 team is the fact they will not be "allowed" to outspend the big guns even though their owners have the money.

banjo · May 24, 2018

Do people really care what this bellend thinks.

Surf's Up · May 24, 2018

banjo said:
Do people really care what this bellend thinks.

Which particular bellend are you referring to?

Nixonator · May 24, 2018

Pavilionaire said:
Of the 6 lowest Prem points totals of all-time, 5 were achieved by a "big" club - Sunderland (3 times), Villa and Derby. Only Portsmouth let the small clubs down and that was only down to their financial bubble bursting.

Collymore is being very selective about who is and who isn't a 'big' club. He's picked some clubs that were decent in the 70s and 80s but smaller, more historic clubs like Bolton, Blackburn and Charlton have all played more Prem matches than Derby or Forest.

And to the new, global fans of the Prem then Leicester, Burnley and Palace are a bigger deal than the likes of Forest, Derby and Wolves.

As for small clubs rolling over and having their tummies tickled the top 6 regularly get embarrassed by the promoted Championship sides and those fighting relegation.

Two of the clubs he mentions he used to play for (one of which he supports), Leeds are just the no-brainer choice when categorising a big club falling from grace and the other is the rival of a team he used to play for.

I don't think there any deeper thought gone into his list than that, he's just a bit thick or is trying to take a swipe at Wolves.

Brok · May 24, 2018

el punal said:
I remember when we played them in the FA Cup at Villa Park in 2010. Villa were in the top six, still in the FL Cup, and then, were considered to be a strong side under Martin O’Neill. I couldn’t get a ticket in the Albion section so I sat in the Doug Ellis Stand surrounded by Villa fans. Tickets for the match were being banged out at £10 a pop, so a lot of ‘tourists’ turned up. The Albion faithful were on top form singing their hearts out, when I heard this flat Brummie voice say “What’s this sighgools, sighgools them lot are singing?”

A kipper tie might have cheered him up...

Nixonator · May 24, 2018

Kalimantan Gull said:
Ok, I think he really does have a point. Doesn't argue it very well, but he does have a point.

There is absolutely zero doubt that Brighton, Bournemouth, Burnley, Huddersfield, Palace, Watford and Saints deserve to be in the premier league. We got promoted fair and square, played well, stayed up, no arguments there.

But I think is point is more one of ambition. We've been told that our target for at least the next five years is survival in the premier league. Thats true also of the other clubs above. Occasionally one will talk about pushing on to the next level of getting to Europe, and that is usually the death knell, as Stoke, West Brom, Swansea found out - and going back, Middlesbrough, Charlton, Bolton, found out to their downfall. Palace flirt with this idea every season. A sensible policy for the lower-end premier league club is pure survival - get higher ideas and it almost never works out for more than a season or two.

Which goes back to Collymore's point - teams like Everton, West Ham, Newcastle, Leeds, Wednesday, Forest, Villa, Blackburn will always have more ambition than mere survival - and more ambition than a Europa league place. Leicester have now also crossed this pantheon in their own minds. By their very nature these teams will push higher - and also a consequence several of them will crash and burn and are now languishing further down the league. It doesn't mean they will always be run that way - some of their owners have settled for the cash, Villa and Everton spent years being dull - but the potential to push for the top 4 is never too far away for teams like that, whilst it is an impossibility for teams like us.

So for us, as a team, we are delighted to set survival as a target. But for the rest of football, it is more interesting when more teams are trying to get to the very top of the table. In reality its fine to have a mix of all these teams, the premier league would also be poorer without the likes of Blackpool and Reading having a go, but this season the balance felt shifted more to those teams who just want to survive.

Your choice of clubs is curious but anyway, you may have been half correct a few years ago but that time has been and gone.

Leeds overstretched, Villa overstretched etc etc, they were unable to balance ambition whilst remaining grounded.

As TB said recently in Burnley, there is no competing with the current top 6 globally, its over. Any new contender trying to do a Man City (Wolves for example, their fans are in for a shock) will face hurdles that never used to exist. Someone may break into the top 6 consistently, it could happen, but it would be over a very long period and require a current member to implode. Certainly a longer period than it took for Man City with a bottomless pit of cash and zero hurdles along the way and even that still took a few years.

In today's climate it would be utterly moronic for any owner/chairman, no matter what club it is, to aim any higher than we do, survival first and build slowly.

SAC · May 24, 2018

spence said:
Bournemouth don't deserve to be in the Premier league. They broke FFP rules.

I'd agree with you if punishment for breaking FFP rules was not to be promoted. But it's not.

Plenty of clubs have bent or broken FFP rules. In year one of FFP very few Championship clubs kept within the limits.

Nixonator · May 24, 2018

SAC said:
I'd agree with you if punishment for breaking FFP rules was not to be promoted. But it's not.

Plenty of clubs have bent or broken FFP rules. In year one of FFP very few Championship clubs kept within the limits.

Leicester's 'fairytale' also began with sticking two fingers up at FFP, which annoys me far more than Bournemouth does. In fact it doesn't really bother me at all, we were shite that season anyway.

Easy 10 · May 24, 2018

Nixonator said:
Leeds overstretched, Villa overstretched etc etc, they were unable to balance ambition whilst remaining grounded.

Villa didn't overstretch as such. They had an owner in Lerner who made a play for the top 4 at one point (£24m on Bent ??), but then realised trying to bridge the gap was futile, gave up, got bored, stopped investing, and allowed Villa to drift along and stagnate as he tried to sell the club. It was more of a slow decay that eventually culminated in the Championship, but I don't believe they were ever in the kind of financial strife Leeds put themselves into.

Peter Grummit · May 24, 2018

Easy 10 said:
Contracts are between clubs and players to draw up, can't see how it'd be against any rules. Similar to when a player arrives on loan - the clubs decide between themselves whether that player will be allowed to play against his parent club or not.

Indeed. But the point is that it's symptomatic of the sort of club ethos Villa has. The exact opposite of the #Together spirit that has been so important to us.

Last season, Villa's wage bill was twice ours: they finished 31 points behind us. Vibrant?

PG

Simster · May 24, 2018

Anyway, fingers crossed that Fulham thump Villa (and that Collymore doesn't consequently THUMP whoever his girlfriend is these days)

Nixonator · May 24, 2018

Easy 10 said:
Villa didn't overstretch as such. They had an owner in Lerner who made a play for the top 4 at one point (£24m on Bent ??), but then realised trying to bridge the gap was futile, gave up, got bored, stopped investing, and allowed Villa to drift along and stagnate as he tried to sell the club. It was more of a slow decay that eventually culminated in the Championship, but I don't believe they were ever in the kind of financial strife Leeds put themselves into.

You're right but it was overstretching in a sense, Lerner piled quite alot of cash in for transfers over a couple of seasons, saw Man City coming over the horizon and lost interest.

Thunder Bolt · May 24, 2018

spence said:
It amazes me Gillingham isn't better supported being the only professional Kent club.

Charlton is classed as Kent.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] 'Top flight needs Villa vibrancy' Stan Collymore.

Well-known member

Languidly clinical

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Whalewhine

British and Proud

New member

GOSBTS

Well-known member

Well-known member

😐

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

Well-known member

"the man's an arse"

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Share this page