V Sport Investments Ltd - More Villa Clubs around the world?

[Demitri_C]

10 hours ago, mikeyp102 said:

As a complete wild guess based on nothing, my thought is that we want Vasco and likely to get them, but we are delaying a bit. Knowing how the authorities were with us re Vitoria we are being extra cautious. We also know the league are unhappy with how we’ve (legally) done transfers and are looking at us closely, so we don’t want to get money from Vasco re Coutinho even if a loan. Just to cover our back. 
Second Vasco are a big club, I’m sure a big but out would annoy the fans, so we are trying to do it slowly and build up some support from the fans around the process. 

Some good points there mikey. I think if it was a European team then i think they really would be pissed off with us.

But as its outside europe i dont see why the PL will be annoyed with us. Be good to have a team under every continent under our umbrella

10 hours ago, Alakagom said:

I mean Vasco would cost 330mn usd to buy, that's the asking price. I'm not sure it's even a good investment, if you were to follow City or RB model they do not buy clubs this size. 

It really does depend on what the partnership entails. If its commercial and players could be worth it

[sne]

Multi club ownership is s**te and I think it's wrong. Hate that we are part of that circus.

[ender4]

11 minutes ago, sne said:

Multi club ownership is s**te and I think it's wrong. Hate that we are part of that circus.

Half of the PL is under multi club ownership and the other half won’t be far behind.  So we either need to join them or fall behind.

[sne]

Just now, ender4 said:

Half of the PL is under multi club ownership and the other half won’t be far behind.  So we either need to join them or fall behind.

Doesn't mean I have to like it. And not sure how us owning part of Vitoria is key to us keeping up with Spurs or whatever. Maybe it is.

[Demitri_C]

6 minutes ago, sne said:

Doesn't mean I have to like it. And not sure how us owning part of Vitoria is key to us keeping up with Spurs or whatever. Maybe it is.

We probably would have bought a player or two from vitoria if the ban wasnt in place. Only thing i would like to see is some of our youngsters getting loaned out to these clubs to see how they do

[sne]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

We probably would have bought a player or two from vitoria if the ban wasnt in place. Only thing i would like to see is some of our youngsters getting loaned out to these clubs to see how they do

Farming out African and South American kids for a year until they have enough games for us to be allowed to use them is likely part of the plan yeah.

[briny_ear]

1 hour ago, sne said:

Multi club ownership is s**te and I think it's wrong. Hate that we are part of that circus.

I think it’s what NSWE do.

Would you rather they sold up and left Villa to someone who guaranteed we would be their sole club?

[sne]

Just now, briny_ear said:

I think it’s what NSWE do.

Would you rather they sold up and left Villa to someone who guaranteed we would be their sole club?

Nah, I like our owners. But I don't love everything they've done. The multi club thing I'm still not sure what their plan is after the MLS thing fell through. 

[Isa]

1 minute ago, sne said:

Nah, I like our owners. But I don't love everything they've done. The multi club thing I'm still not sure what their plan is after the MLS thing fell through. 

I think of it as our empire and the other clubs as our colonies

The MLS one will probably happen, they just have to be more patient. 

[villa4europe]

6 minutes ago, sne said:

Nah, I like our owners. But I don't love everything they've done. The multi club thing I'm still not sure what their plan is after the MLS thing fell through. 

Might become clearer if kedhr is the next one out the door for £20m

To the partner clubs it's an investment in the youth infrastructure, the chance to sell themselves as a PL gateway and no doubt some small fees for their best prospects 

For us it's a chance to flip them 2 years later for big profit 

[Demitri_C]

29 minutes ago, sne said:

Nah, I like our owners. But I don't love everything they've done. The multi club thing I'm still not sure what their plan is after the MLS thing fell through. 

I understand that but if its allowed at other clubs what do we do? Just accept they do it or do nothing or do the same and compete with them. Blame the rule makers not the club i think.

Uefa should not have allowed multi club ownership in any capacity 

[beasley14]

9 hours ago, sne said:

Farming out African and South American kids for a year until they have enough games for us to be allowed to use them is likely part of the plan yeah.

Also helps with global sponsorship deals too I'd imagine.

[thunderball]

NSWE are ambitious, smart and strategic. The qualified intellectual expertise they have introduced through employment, or equity partners is another level. If there wasn’t merit in multi club ownership, they wouldn’t do it. They are one step ahead, let’s not over think it. As others have said, other do so let’s not get left behind, there must be something in it.

Could help facilitate deals and outsourcing (Coutihno to VdeG) in turn aiding finances. Could provide a route to overseas talent by easing South American Spanish or Portuguese even French (African) speaking youngsters into Europe initially without visa issues etc?

After all it’s not Villa owning them, it’s the holding company, we should be grateful we are top dog in the group. It won’t mean any less investment, you get the impression all the money we need is there, it’s just the rules which stop them spending.

Edited Sunday at 06:29 by thunderball

[bobzy]

20 hours ago, ender4 said:

Half of the PL is under multi club ownership and the other half won’t be far behind.  So we either need to join them or fall behind.

 

19 hours ago, briny_ear said:

I think it’s what NSWE do.

Would you rather they sold up and left Villa to someone who guaranteed we would be their sole club?

 

18 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

I understand that but if its allowed at other clubs what do we do? Just accept they do it or do nothing or do the same and compete with them. Blame the rule makers not the club i think.

Uefa should not have allowed multi club ownership in any capacity 

Does it matter if other clubs are doing it or if it’s legal? It’s wank.

It is quite interesting seeing our fans react as our owners take the club more down the route of “the big clubs”. Stuff that usually would be hated or frowned upon because those clubs do it now becomes lauded because it’s Villa. Pretty funny. 

[CVByrne]

21 hours ago, sne said:

Multi club ownership is s**te and I think it's wrong. Hate that we are part of that circus.

I agree within Europe it shouldn't be allowed. However I've no issues with multiple clubs in different parts of the world. Like say a team from Europe, Africa, South America, USA and Asia. I think the benefits are an elite organisation and can apply top level scouting and player development in multiple regions. 

People want to decry sale of young players for PSR etc.. but for those young players often a team who wants to buy you has a plan for you and a team whon it cost nothing but time  develop you may not have a clear pathway for you. What matters is the fact the player was developed within elite systems. 

[Demitri_C]

44 minutes ago, bobzy said:

 

 

Does it matter if other clubs are doing it or if it’s legal? It’s wank.

It is quite interesting seeing our fans react as our owners take the club more down the route of “the big clubs”. Stuff that usually would be hated or frowned upon because those clubs do it now becomes lauded because it’s Villa. Pretty funny. 

As i said above what do we do instead then?

Its quite interesting you mocking afew of us above but provide no other way in which we compete with these clubs? I guess you would be more happier being like brentford or fulham? Give us a detailed planned how we consistently finish above chelsea and man utd each season without doing what we have been doing under NSWE. We are all ears.

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

As i said above what do we do instead then?

Its quite interesting you mocking afew of us above but provide no other way in which we compete with these clubs? I guess you would be more happier being like brentford or fulham? Give us a detailed planned how we consistently finish above chelsea and man utd each season without doing what we have been doing under NSWE. We are all ears.

What benefits have multi club ownership brought to anybody. Troyes, Molenbeek and Lorient are teams connected to Premier League multi club owners who were relegated last season

Ita a scum model and killing the game along with other things. Real Union away kit looking like Villa colours is awful but people mocked Newcastle and Wolves having Saudi/Portuguese jerseys

[ender4]

39 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Real Union away kit looking like Villa colours is awful but people mocked Newcastle and Wolves having Saudi/Portuguese jerseys

Proudly wearing murder & torture colours is slightly different to the long-term manager of Villa having his own team wearing Villa colours as their away kit. 

[The_Steve]

23 hours ago, ender4 said:

Half of the PL is under multi club ownership and the other half won’t be far behind.  So we either need to join them or fall behind.

Just want to reiterate this point - and I would argue that in the lower leagues of English football and across other smaller European leagues multi-club ownerships exist in ways a lot of people do not realise. Fleetwood Town, for example, have their own team in Dubai - it helps them with scouting. It’s not so drastically different nor killing the game there either. Salford are co-owned by the Valencia owner and Barnsley are part of a bigger conglomerate called NewCity Capital. Look at Udinese and Watford. I could go on. 

There’s a huge difference between predatory models like Red Bull fundamentally changing teams to the City Group moving players around aggressively amongst their vast portfolio for profit at the behest of other teams.

A lot of these ownership go back many years - it would be wrong to assume it is a new thing too. I don’t think that’s it helpful to conflate the worst examples with what is standard practice. 

For English clubs, the realities of Brexit make it harder to attract talent because of visas and bands. Be it minority or majority stakes. The partnerships help in different ways. The GBE points system - Spain is better ranked than Denmark, meaning that gaining work permits are much, much harder. If people don’t like it, a major factor is Brexit. 

One of the best recent examples of clubs using the multi-model to bring in talent for visa reasons you could otherwise do was Mitoma at Brighton - without the multi-club model they have with their Belgian club - he would not have met the requirements. 

The model is nowhere to the level some make out and totally in line with what many clubs have done for decades. In a post-Brexit world we have to maintain our competitive edge, it’s not ideal, but I think whilst there’s underlying concerns (and rightly so), some are perhaps unaware of the differences in models. 

You can still have models of multi-club ownership built on the principles of co-operation - investing in small clubs and improving their performance and facilitates that might one day help the other club find and bring in talent. The ecosystem will always have exploitation, but it can also be one that is mutually beneficial to both, or somewhere in the between. I don’t think conflating both helps. 

[Zatman]

13 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Proudly wearing murder & torture colours is slightly different to the long-term manager of Villa having his own team wearing Villa colours as their away kit. 

Portugal those mass murderers