Ah, that lovely "t" word is back in the press again.
Yes, lo and behold, Aston Villa takeover rumours are swirling around the internet once more.
And that’s a bad thing.
People have these grandiose ideas of what Villa will look like in a post-takeover world. There are the people who think we’ll be the next Manchester City or Paris Saint-Germain, while others have a steadfast belief a takeover would turn us into, effectively, Spurs.
Neither of those things are going to happen.
The Financial Fair Play world is and odd one. Unlike the "glory days" of football (and I use that very sarcastically), sugar daddies can’t come in, spend a bunch of money, and have a team that’s going to go on and win the Premier League. It’s not how it works.
In the grand scheme of things, the most important things an owner can do is to employ people who maximize turnover (revenue to us Americans) and to invest in infrastructure.
And it’s more of the first thing that concerns me. Tom Fox, by all accounts, has shown at Arsenal that he’s very capable of maximizing the amount of money the club brings in each year through his sponsorships. I’m intrigued to see our next kit deal come through the wire, as this one with Macron expires at the close of next season.
He seems to be a good fit for the job.
And believe it or not? Randy Lerner isn’t that miserable of an owner. Look at Dr. Allam over at Hull City. Or Vincent Tan at Cardiff. Or Carson Yeung at that other club who play in the same city as us.
As long as the owner isn’t just using the club for personal profit (I’m looking at you, Oystons), I’m of the belief there isn’t much importance as to who a club’s owner is.
Granted, Randy Lerner’s critics will look to his handling of the last few managerial appointments, but Fox has seemingly proven he’s capable of doing his job.
Perhaps above all else?
I can’t remember the last time I felt this good about Villa. We’re a win from safety, and in just over two weeks’ time, we’ll be taking to the famed pitch at Wembley to play the FA Cup Final.
It’s the brightest moment for the club in the five years since Martin O’Neill unceremoniously left B6.
Do we really want to throw that away for a complete unknown?
The most-reported takeover bid this week was one with Tony Adams involved, which I simply can‘t get behind. There were reports the group could only match half Lerner’s price — which would be a miserable idea in the first place — and while I’m not going to get much into the details, SB Nation’s Arsenal blog, The Short Fuse, took a closer look at Adams’s relationship with Azerbaijan. It’s a good read if you have a little chance.
Sure, my initial reaction to the whole thing was me laughing about the idea of Villa having "Land of Fire" on all its kits, but slowly but surely, this started to look like a terrible idea.
Throw aside the human rights concerns with Azerbaijan and just ask yourselves this question: How many times have rich guys or countries shown a sudden interest in sport, only to pull out within five years?
And let’s go back to a bit of theory.
As far as the press are concerned, Villa are an attractive target because they’re playing well.
If we really want to get the right chairman in, wouldn’t it make sense to wait another year until next year, when Villa finally (should) take that next step forward?
It’s not all to say I want Randy Lerner to own the club for ages. God no.
But shouldn’t we be more interested in taking our time to make sure we sell to the perfect buyer?
Villa are a bright spot of positivity right now.
Why should I want to take a chance on something else?