Questions for Mr. Lerner Sir

[robbyfvillain]

We've spent years saying tickets should be sold cheaper/given away. Then when they're cheaper they should be even cheaper, and when we give some away we should give more. Then season ticket holders moan that they're losing out.

To repeat an old argument, Villa don't regularly get big gates because we never have.

Agree with every word. But you are talking about the past.

Previously the marketing of such schemes have been short lived and focused on immediate results.

I was talking about a concentrated ongoing marketing strategy over a 5 year period with a specific remit to develop a database of younger potential fans, developing a relationship by visiting schools on a continuing basis etc, etc.

The type of scheme I envisaged has to be far more proactive than in the past and with the digital age, enabling us to understand the demographic and locations of our future fanbase and hopefully to expand on the current numbers would lead to huge future potential opportunities.

There are no guarantees but if we sit back and do nothing then you're right it will be the same old same old.

As for giving away freebies upsetting existing ST's as long as the aims of the scheme is explained to them, preferably before it is announced I think we might be surprised as to how few would complain.

At the end of the day we would all like to see a bigger VP full with a better team on the pitch.

For me I can't see what we really have to lose if nothing else it would raise the profile of the club. I equally don't expect it to happen as currently we seem to be totally adverse to seeing our name publicised.



 

[Risso]

The way things are now going, there's almost an argument to say that the big four is now the big three - Man Utd, City and Chelsea looking to break away from the rest. Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs a class behind.

Except that while there are 4 places for the Champions League, there will be a big 4.  I can't see Liverpool or Spurs overtaking Arsenal this year.

[Mazrim]

Neither can I. And Wenger will spend some of that money before the window shuts.
They already have a better side than Spurs or Liverpool and it will get better.

[VillaZogmariner]

I agree that on paper Arsenal have a better side than Liverpool/Spurs, but I'd still not be so certain they will finish in the top 4. They have lost 2 key players in Fabregas and Nasri who won't be easy to replace. Add to that the constant injury issues that RVP has, the uncertainty at the back (rookie keeper and only the one decent centre back). Of course this all depends on who Wenger brings in, but he's never been one to splash the cash on established players that often.

EDIT - they've also got rid of Denilson, Clichy and Eboue with Bentdner looking like he is off too. Although not world beaters, still decent squad players that they haven't really replaced.

[Concrete John]

The thing with Arsenal is that if you judge things based on the ability of the players with the ball at their feet only, then they're better than anything in our league and 2nd only to Barcelona across Europe.  However, being a successful football team involves more than that and it's in these other areas they are lacking:-
1.  Strong defenders
2.  A good leader on the pitch
3.  Being mentally strong enough to roll with the punches over 38 games.
4.  Variation in tactics.

They are a good side undoubtedly, but lesser sides get the better of them, and someone like Liverpool may finish ahead of them, but be ing stronger in these areas. 

[Chris Smith]

Neither can I. And Wenger will spend some of that money before the window shuts.
They already have a better side than Spurs or Liverpool and it will get better.

As it stands they've still got a shit keeper, a dodgy back 4, they've sold their best player and are about to lose their second best in addition they're got 2 players on 3 match bans after only 1 league game. Given Wenger's perverse attitude to signings I don't think you can predict anything with confidence.

[pauliewalnuts]

As for giving away freebies upsetting existing ST's as long as the aims of the scheme is explained to them, preferably before it is announced I think we might be surprised as to how few would complain.

I think that's a gigantic simplification.

I personally wouldn't care how forward thinking the project was, i just wouldn't keep giving the club 600 quid for something they're telling me they are giving away for free.

[Brend'Watkins]

They're an outfit short of confidence at the moment, they don't have that fluidity that they are renown and appear to lack fight.  It's early days I know but if we judge them on their match with Udinese alone then top 6 might be a problem. 

New quality players might help long term but as we know all too well it takes time for players to bed into a system and style.  That puts pressure on Wenger to get results, it's okay building for the future but their supporters are fed up of waiting for the future and want some of that future now putting even more pressure on. 

[not3bad]

It's time we found our new model, rather than the over reliance on tv cash, stinging supporters for tickets and merchandise etc. We need to remember that we are Aston Villa NOT a ManU_lite, and do things our way, the way they should be done. If we end up playing the likes of Forest and Wednesday in a new national league so be it, let the best players bugger off into a european super league, let the tv cash go to the "big / glamour" clubs, at least we'd have our game back.

I like the sound of this, and the more constructive ideas that are now being offered in this thread.  It would be good to think about whether we follow the crowd, and get a portion of the pie that is in keeping with our 'place in the current pecking order', or look at things which will make us more distinct in our identity. 

I know statements like the above are short on specifics but I'd rather be trying something different than thinking about balance sheets and wages all the time.  And a more independent revenue stream would mean we could actually not give a toss if Sky ignored us - which would be nice.

[GJH]

The £7m went towards paying off managers and back room staff.

Houllier and Mcallister must have been on a good screw and we paid £5m for Mcleish and his staff, not to mention the undisclosed fee to O'neill!!

Bad management.

[Brian Taylor]

This will please Randy but will it free up any equity to put into AVFC?
His shares in BoA plunged from $35 to $6 +- and may have been cause of his 'economies' at VP?
I wonder if Warren would be interested in a share of Villa? Now there is an investment!

"Bank of America's battered shares surged after on Thursday afternoon after announcing that Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is to invest $5 billion
 
Over one year the troubled bank's shares have dropped 50%, and over one month they have fallen 37.8%.  But after the news the bank had won the backing of the world's most high profile investor, investor sentiment surged. Shares were nearly 18% higher at $8.22.
 
The bank has spent the last two weeks batting off rumours that it is to be rescued by JP Morgan following blog posts which have speculated that it is lacking $200 billion of capital. 'I remain confident that we have the capital and liquidity we need to run our business,' said Bank of America chief executive officer Brian Moynihan in a statement announcing Berkshire Hathaway's investment today. ..."
http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/warren-buffett-to-invest-5-billion-in-bank-of-america/a519265?re=15634&ea=26592&utm_source=BulkEmail_Money_Daily&utm_medium=BulkEmail_Money_Daily&utm_campaign=BulkEmail_Money_Daily