Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: PaulTheVillan on August 02, 2011, 05:14:36 PM
-
Due shortly, said the General.
Wonder what he's going to say?
Interesting.
Selling up?
-
I bet he didn't say it here.
-
I'll guess at "need to get finances in order, needs to be run like a sustainable business, Mcleish the right man to take the club forward and still aspiring to compete at the top level."
-
Or here. Finical state? Or ambition? Wonder if he'll actually open his mouth or perhaps it's sealed up from all the silence.
-
Interesting.
Anyone know when the next set of accounts are due?
-
Doesnt he normally speak to the Press once a year?
-
Due shortly, said the General.
Wonder what he's going to say?
Interesting.
Selling up?
Where did you hear that from?
-
Maybe we've been "in a state" and come out of and Randy thinks we may not have noticed the improvement?
;-)
-
Due shortly, said the General.
Wonder what he's going to say?
Interesting.
Selling up?
Where did you hear that from?
The General.
-
I wonder if he has found some outside investment.
-
Due shortly, said the General.
Wonder what he's going to say?
Interesting.
Selling up?
Where did you hear that from?
The General.
Was that on Villatalk? If so, why won't he respond to the ''difficult'' questions on H&V?
-
Due shortly, said the General.
Wonder what he's going to say?
Interesting.
Selling up?
Where did you hear that from?
The General.
Was that on Villatalk? If so, why won't he respond to the ''difficult'' questions on H&V?
Ask him on VT
-
I wonder if he has found some outside investment.
The rest of the General's post doesn't sound like he has.
-
Due shortly, said the General.
Wonder what he's going to say?
Interesting.
Selling up?
Where did you hear that from?
The General.
Was that on Villatalk? If so, why won't he respond to the ''difficult'' questions on H&V?
Or the easy ones.
-
I wonder if he has found some outside investment.
The rest of the General's post doesn't sound like he has.
What has he said then?
-
I wonder if he has found some outside investment.
The rest of the General's post doesn't sound like he has.
What has he said then?
General Krulak here:
1. Last comment first. I told everyone that I would be on the site once a week. Having flunked retirement for the 3rd time, I do have a full time job running a university (www.bsc.edu) and my ability to come on the site daily just isn't in the cards. I do the best I can. It is up to the fans as to whether the site is worth while....if the Fans say, "Np", then so be it.
2. Villarocker and others: Comment by AM....I am not sure how many Managers of any Clubs would go to the media before the first Premiership game is played and claim that their Club (one that ended in 9th place last year) is going to make massive strides. Most managers would do exactly what AM has done....he made a statement that keeps expectations at a level that does not "set the club up." NOW, I have been taking huge amounts of "stick" for my prediction....so let me make a simple (but true) confession. I was typing so fast that I hit the 4 key vice the 5 key. That is the truth. I would hope that most fans would realize that I DO recognize that ManU, Chelsea, ManCity and Arsenal DO play in our league! I do not feel we are yet at the stage where we can logically expect to knock one of them off. I do stick by my comment that I believe we are going to surprise folks this year and that we will end up anywhere from 5th to 9th. As I indicated, I say this as a fan and I just have a sense that we are going to do better than many believe. I also know that I am now open to massive criticism if we don't get there....and you can have at me if we don't. BUT, let's at least wait and see. Who would have guessed we would have beat Arsenal at their "home" and Liverpool at Villa Park as the last two games of last year. Think back to those two weekends....who really thought we were going to win both of those games? My point is pretty basic....football is a funny game and things can happen that are good.
3. smetov: "Time at Villa drawing to an end." Not sure what you mean. I have just told you all why I have not been a regular, daily, member of this site. That does NOT mean my days at Villa are drawing to an end. I have not lost my passion...even after the events of last year. As for Randy, I see NO diminishing of his passion for the Club.
4. mykeyb: Not sure why I am a liar. We purchased two fine players. Randy will be putting out a "state of Villa" statement. We did get a Manager (you and others may not like him but we think he will do a fine job.) etc. etc. The fact that the "action" that has taken place at this time is not what you or others may have wanted does not lessen the fact that action has taken place. I don't know how many times I have to discuss the "business of football." It is a balancing act of expenses vs. revenue....of new players and youth, vs experienced players already on the team...of trying to find the right players to "fit" into the Squad (the way we want to play the game) vs. players who are available...etc. etc. I recognize the fact that the "right" solution for most Fans would be to go out and "splash" money around, forget about the business aspects and just shoot the moon. It just doesn't work that way...unless you happen to own half the oil reserves in the world or something like that. Randy has splashed a good deal of money...and has done so since his arrival. Again, I recognize that most Fans want more...I am not naive.
5. Chelsea match: I think that both sides were "experimenting"...that it was, indeed, a friendly. I thought we were not as tough in the center of the Pitch that we needed to be...but, again, I think AM was checking out his players. I was neither overjoyed with the win in the tournament nor devastated by the loss. I would imagine that the Manager got out of both games what he wanted to get out of them.
-
I wonder if he has found some outside investment.
there have been a few rumours about this floating around. The one I heard was he'd sold 17% to someone in the far east. Think I read it on VT. Probably BS though.
-
Interesting.
Anyone know when the next set of accounts are due?
Not for ages. The company which owns the club has a May year end so doesn't have to file accounts until the following February, something the club take advantage of every year.
-
Thanks Adam (re accounts).
-
Randy does an annual statement to the press. I've no reason to doubt this one will be any different to the rest.
-
Due shortly, said the General.
Shortly? Is that in an hour or sometime soon in August?
-
Interesting.
Anyone know when the next set of accounts are due?
Not for ages. The company which owns the club has a May year end so doesn't have to file accounts until the following February, something the club take advantage of every year.
Take advantage of it in which sense?
Filing accounts at the last minute?
-
Interesting.
Anyone know when the next set of accounts are due?
Not for ages. The company which owns the club has a May year end so doesn't have to file accounts until the following February, something the club take advantage of every year.
Take advantage of it in which sense?
Filing accounts at the last minute?
Yep.
Our accounts have hardly been a textbook example of prudent financial management over the past few years so the later the club can leave it before announcing to the world how much debt we're in and how high our wages to turnover ratio has reached this year the better is generally the view.
-
Probably gonna be a whole lot of nothin. Hope he's telling us mcleish was a smoke screen for Hughes ;-)
-
Interesting.
Anyone know when the next set of accounts are due?
Not for ages. The company which owns the club has a May year end so doesn't have to file accounts until the following February, something the club take advantage of every year.
Take advantage of it in which sense?
Filing accounts at the last minute?
Yep.
Our accounts have hardly been a textbook example of prudent financial management over the past few years so the later the club can leave it before announcing to the world how much debt we're in and how high our wages to turnover ratio has reached this year the better is generally the view.
I'm not for one second defending the running of the club, which is shambolic by most companies' standards, but I don't know many companies who don't file their accounts on the deadline day, successful or not.
-
Any idea when we'll get this statement?
-
Any idea when we'll get this statement?
4th August 3012
-
I'm not for one second defending the running of the club, which is shambolic by most companies' standards, but I don't know many companies who don't file their accounts on the deadline day, successful or not.
I've acted for dozens of businesses over the years and have found a very clear correlation between their relative performance in any particular year and their eagerness to get those results out in to the public domain.
It stands to reason. Customers, suppliers, financiers, etc are going to look at your last set of accounts as a first port of call when deciding whether you're a business they want to work with. If your current results are worse than your last set then you want them to be the latest set of results for the shortest time possible which means delaying their publication. If your current results are better though then you'll get them out there ASAP so that they tell the world what a great business you are.
-
Statement from Mr. R. Lerner owner of Aston Villa Football Club..........
Don't worry about a thing
cause every little thing is gonna be alright
don't worry about a thing
every little thing is gonna be alright
Rise up this morning
smiled with the rising sun
three little birds
pitch by my door step
singing sweet songs
of melodies pure and true
saying, this is my message to you:
don't worry about a thing...
-
I've just watched the General's speech on being announced President of Birmingham Southern College. He speaks just how I imagined he would, with a lot of warmth and sincerity. He means it, like only very successful men can.
But Proud History, Bright Future also gets a mention. I feel a bit cheap.
-
I've just watched the General's speech on being announced President of Birmingham Southern College. He speaks just how I imagined he would, with a lot of warmth and sincerity. He means it, like only very successful men can.
But Proud History, Bright Future also gets a mention. I feel a bit cheap.
Is it on youtube?
-
Statement from Mr. R. Lerner owner of Aston Villa Football Club..........
Don't worry about a thing
cause every little thing is gonna be alright
don't worry about a thing
every little thing is gonna be alright
Rise up this morning
smiled with the rising sun
three little birds
pitch by my door step
singing sweet songs
of melodies pure and true
saying, this is my message to you:
don't worry about a thing...
Is he buying Ajax ?
I think he's lost a bit of interest in the EPL as he knows he can't win, and he desperately wants success.
He has invested an awful lot of money into the club, but it's sadly not enough to compete at the highest level.
He bought the club cheaply, so, time to sell ??
I bet he's thought about it, but with Everton struggling to find a buyer, multi-billionaires don't appear to be growing on trees!
I do wish he'd open up just a bit more, but he won't.
Ho hum.
-
Randy does an annual statement to the press. I've no reason to doubt this one will be any different to the rest.
I agree. I expect it will be nothing revolutionary.
-
I've just watched the General's speech on being announced President of Birmingham Southern College. He speaks just how I imagined he would, with a lot of warmth and sincerity. He means it, like only very successful men can.
But Proud History, Bright Future also gets a mention. I feel a bit cheap.
Is it on youtube?
www.bsc.edu/livestream/index.cfm
I'm trying to decide if that could be a Villa tie.
-
Just two quotes from that struck me.......when talking about his wife he said "this would be their 32nd move in 47 years of marriage". Does this mean he is moving to the other Birmingham? And if so where does that leave us?
"Proud History Bright Future." That sounds very hollow now, talk about being sold a line.
After I heard him say that I stopped the vid, I didn't want to listen to anymore. Like many on here I always assumed that "Proud History Bright Future" was specific to The Villa. Now it just sounds like a bit of glib sales patter. General when you said that in your speech as far as I'm concerned you may just as well have burst into a chorus of SOTV.
-
I'm not for one second defending the running of the club, which is shambolic by most companies' standards, but I don't know many companies who don't file their accounts on the deadline day, successful or not.
I've acted for dozens of businesses over the years and have found a very clear correlation between their relative performance in any particular year and their eagerness to get those results out in to the public domain.
It stands to reason. Customers, suppliers, financiers, etc are going to look at your last set of accounts as a first port of call when deciding whether you're a business they want to work with. If your current results are worse than your last set then you want them to be the latest set of results for the shortest time possible which means delaying their publication. If your current results are better though then you'll get them out there ASAP so that they tell the world what a great business you are.
I doubt any of our customers took even a cursory look at my business's accounts, otherwise they wouldn't have touched us with a bargepole.
-
The VT General thread has turned into Where has all the money gone?
-
I've just watched the General's speech on being announced President of Birmingham Southern College. He speaks just how I imagined he would, with a lot of warmth and sincerity. He means it, like only very successful men can.
But Proud History, Bright Future also gets a mention. I feel a bit cheap.
Is it on youtube?
www.bsc.edu/livestream/index.cfm
I'm trying to decide if that could be a Villa tie.
It's not. The stripes are green.
-
Couldn't help doubting the sincerity of the General's words after seeing that.
It's fine if he means what he says to us via his thread, but that really felt recycled.
"Bright Future" indeed...
-
Sorry but after listening to that load of old bollocks I can't help but feeling we've been had. I wonder what other straplines they've got up their sleeve? Reckon they gave out free scarves as well?
-
This is getting a bit precious. He's copied a marketing slogan, and not an original one at that, not sold Aston Park to the Indians.
-
Sorry but after listening to that load of old bollocks I can't help but feeling we've been had. I wonder what other straplines they've got up their sleeve? Reckon they gave out free scarves as well?
What's wrong with giving out free scarves?
-
They should make amends by giving out free scarves this season but with slogans which reflect how they really think.
I was thinking "meh" or *shrug*
-
They should make amends by giving out free scarves this season but with slogans which reflect how they really think.
I was thinking "meh" or *shrug*
Too expensive, it would be cheaper to chop off the Bright Future bit and just give us the half that says Proud History. Maybe they can attach it to a stick and pretend it is a woolen flag.
-
I see no problem with GK using the "Proud history..." slogan, in fact one could view it as a little nod to Villa that he decided to throw into his speech. Surely it's no different to him signing off his posts with "semper fidelis" - just a simple nod to an institution he is part of/worked for?
-
New Middle-Eastern owners. Sidwell on the board of directors. Renaming the Holte End the "Genting Casinos End".
Standard stuff.
-
I see no problem with GK using the "Proud history..." slogan, in fact one could view it as a little nod to Villa that he decided to throw into his speech. Surely it's no different to him signing off his posts with "semper fidelis" - just a simple nod to an institution he is part of/worked for?
Absolutely. Good luck to him in his new post.
-
"It is a balancing act of expenses vs. revenue....of new players and youth, vs experienced players already on the team...of trying to find the right players to "fit" into the Squad (the way we want to play the game) vs. players who are available...etc. etc. I recognize the fact that the "right" solution for most Fans would be to go out and "splash" money around, forget about the business aspects and just shoot the moon. It just doesn't work that way...unless you happen to own half the oil reserves in the world or something like that. Randy has splashed a good deal of money...and has done so since his arrival. Again, I recognize that most Fans want more...I am not naive"
This is totally correct, and proves why football has been ruined by money.
-
Can I be as bold to ask the question:
What is it most of you guys want?
Randy has spent well over £200mill on the infrastructure of the club and players. He gave MON a free reign and got his fingers burnt, is it any wonder he pulled back a bit?
But, when we were desparate for a striker he came up with Darren Bent.
We have sold Ash and Downing, so what, we have a ready made replacement for Downing in Albrighton, who, in my opinion, will be better, and we have bought in CN'Z to replace Ash, again, he could work out better.
Would you rather have a Man City, Man Utd or Chelsea type instead?
I think he's building a stable platform from which we can jump to the next step.
I can't believe some would go back to the Ellis days (not on this posting yet)
I liked Doug, but, I'm convinced had he remained we would be languishing midtable in the championship. Doug invested diddly squat in his last 2 years at Villa.
Be careful what you wish for, you might end up with someone like the chap at Small Heath!!
-
Be careful what you wish for, you might end up with someone like the chap at Small Heath!!
good point
-
The way I see it, Randy wants what's best for the club and was a bit like a kid in a sweet shop when he first arrived - throwing money at things. I'm sure there was a business plan behind it, but that relied on a greater increase in turnover than we've seen since 2006. So now he's acting more business like and trying to get the house in order. What remains unknown is his strategy going forward, other than wanting to get more from our excellent accademy. We'll have a large minus net spend by the time this window ends, which doesn't tally with his splashing out on Bent. Are we just waiting for a full clearing of the decks so we can start spending/building again? Or is it a matter of cutting our cloth to our revenue and settling for being an upper mid-table PL side?
-
Do you think they're going to raise our debt ceiling?
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
-
The way I see it, Randy wants what's best for the club and was a bit like a kid in a sweet shop when he first arrived - throwing money at things. I'm sure there was a business plan behind it, but that relied on a greater increase in turnover than we've seen since 2006. So now he's acting more business like and trying to get the house in order. What remains unknown is his strategy going forward, other than wanting to get more from our excellent accademy. We'll have a large minus net spend by the time this window ends, which doesn't tally with his splashing out on Bent. Are we just waiting for a full clearing of the decks so we can start spending/building again? Or is it a matter of cutting our cloth to our revenue and settling for being an upper mid-table PL side?
I'd say that's a very accurate summary of the Lerner Era so far, John.
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
Not only will it be picked apart, it'll also be twisted to suit whatever opinion people already hold.
-
Maybe the statement will simply be that a W. Gates of Seattle and a W. Buffett of Omaha have bought the club ?
-
The way I see it, Randy wants what's best for the club and was a bit like a kid in a sweet shop when he first arrived - throwing money at things. I'm sure there was a business plan behind it, but that relied on a greater increase in turnover than we've seen since 2006. So now he's acting more business like and trying to get the house in order. What remains unknown is his strategy going forward, other than wanting to get more from our excellent accademy. We'll have a large minus net spend by the time this window ends, which doesn't tally with his splashing out on Bent. Are we just waiting for a full clearing of the decks so we can start spending/building again? Or is it a matter of cutting our cloth to our revenue and settling for being an upper mid-table PL side?
The way I see it is he'll continue to spend on top players that will straight into the first team but wants the kids to make up the squad (where possible). What he won't do is buy and pay top salaries to squad fillers on long term contracts.
-
Can I be as bold to ask the question:
What is it most of you guys want?
Randy has spent well over £200mill on the infrastructure of the club and players. He gave MON a free reign and got his fingers burnt, is it any wonder he pulled back a bit?
But, when we were desparate for a striker he came up with Darren Bent.
We have sold Ash and Downing, so what, we have a ready made replacement for Downing in Albrighton, who, in my opinion, will be better, and we have bought in CN'Z to replace Ash, again, he could work out better.
Would you rather have a Man City, Man Utd or Chelsea type instead?
I think he's building a stable platform from which we can jump to the next step.
I can't believe some would go back to the Ellis days (not on this posting yet)
I liked Doug, but, I'm convinced had he remained we would be languishing midtable in the championship. Doug invested diddly squat in his last 2 years at Villa.
Be careful what you wish for, you might end up with someone like the chap at Small Heath!!
/\
/\
Took the words out of my mouth.
MON had a reserve team who he wouldnt play but cost us circa £250,000 per week. Its no wonder Randys trying to level things out.
And to feel 'used' because the generals used our 4 year old slogan is ridiculous. Id see it more as a respectful nod to one of his passions. Fair play to him.
-
The way I see it is he'll continue to spend on top players that will straight into the first team but wants the kids to make up the squad (where possible). What he won't do is buy and pay top salaries to squad fillers on long term contracts.
And who could really argue with that?
Where the balance comes is how many 1st teamers we can carry and the wagebill sustain, as more than the bare 11 is needed.
-
I think the way he is running the club now is the way forward, maybe we didn't have the caliber of youth team players when MON came in to have the current approach. I'm not sure, just making the point.
-
Not sure why people are getting worked up about our supposed sole claim to "Proud History Bright Future". A cursory search on Google shows that we were far and away not the first to have it as a motto - it seems pretty commonplace across the pond -
http://www.aacc.org/members/divisions/animal/res_center/Pages/article_1.aspx
http://www.delburne.ca/
http://www.skylinerc.com/
http://www.jhu.edu/rotc/history.htm
etc, etc, etc
-
The way I see it is he'll continue to spend on top players that will straight into the first team but wants the kids to make up the squad (where possible). What he won't do is buy and pay top salaries to squad fillers on long term contracts.
And who could really argue with that?
Martin O'Neill? (winky)
Where the balance comes is how many 1st teamers we can carry and the wagebill sustain, as more than the bare 11 is needed.
Absolutely but despite the financial mess we're in, I still don't think we're paupers and Randy is not going to slash the wage bill from one season to the next. I'd imagine we'll have no more than 8 youngsters making up a squad of 24 that we can expect to really be challenging for places.
-
We really just have to look across the road to see how lucky we are. Lerner has spent £200m on all sorts of projects and players. We are not Man City but we still have some top players. Bent, Given, Nzogbia etc and now a stable manager who wants to do well for Aston Villa. Think its time to get off Lerners back and start beimg grateful for a very good set up .......
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
You are prejudging and criticising the actions of "keyboard warriors" who you think will prejudge Randy's statement?
-
Lerner won't get everything right, which owners and chairmen do?
Lerner, probably by his own admission, will admit that he's not Sheikh, but more importantly we know he's no Peter Ridsdale or Carsen Yeung either.
I'm happy with what he's done and what structure he has in place for the future of our club. There are a number of clubs, even in the Premier League that would kill to be in our position with our structure etc.
-
The way I see it is he'll continue to spend on top players that will straight into the first team but wants the kids to make up the squad (where possible). What he won't do is buy and pay top salaries to squad fillers on long term contracts.
And who could really argue with that?
Martin O'Neill? (winky)
Where the balance comes is how many 1st teamers we can carry and the wagebill sustain, as more than the bare 11 is needed.
Absolutely but despite the financial mess we're in, I still don't think we're paupers and Randy is not going to slash the wage bill from one season to the next. I'd imagine we'll have no more than 8 youngsters making up a squad of 24 that we can expect to really be challenging for places.
The thing is, I don't class us as being in a 'financial mess'. We need to get the wages/turnover ratio under control, which should be done by next summer, and stop making losses, which more prudent transfer spending should accomplish.
We were slightly over stretched, but not to the level of a Leeds/Portsmouth.
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
"Don't tell me, SHOW me!"
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
"Don't tell me, SHOW me!"
Does the "show me" consist of anything other spending money on players? How much would be enough? What does he have to do to demonstrate his commitment to you?
-
The way I see it is he'll continue to spend on top players that will straight into the first team but wants the kids to make up the squad (where possible). What he won't do is buy and pay top salaries to squad fillers on long term contracts.
And who could really argue with that?
Martin O'Neill? (winky)
Where the balance comes is how many 1st teamers we can carry and the wagebill sustain, as more than the bare 11 is needed.
Absolutely but despite the financial mess we're in, I still don't think we're paupers and Randy is not going to slash the wage bill from one season to the next. I'd imagine we'll have no more than 8 youngsters making up a squad of 24 that we can expect to really be challenging for places.
The thing is, I don't class us as being in a 'financial mess'. We need to get the wages/turnover ratio under control, which should be done by next summer, and stop making losses, which more prudent transfer spending should accomplish.
We were slightly over stretched, but not to the level of a Leeds/Portsmouth.
Do you think our wage bill is still a problem? Even now?
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
"Don't tell me, SHOW me!"
Does the "show me" consist of anything other spending money on players? How much would be enough? What does he have to do to demonstrate his commitment to you?
I want to see a photo of his ankle tatoo, then, and only then, will I be satisfied!!
-
The way I see it, Randy wants what's best for the club and was a bit like a kid in a sweet shop when he first arrived - throwing money at things. I'm sure there was a business plan behind it, but that relied on a greater increase in turnover than we've seen since 2006. So now he's acting more business like and trying to get the house in order. What remains unknown is his strategy going forward, other than wanting to get more from our excellent accademy. We'll have a large minus net spend by the time this window ends, which doesn't tally with his splashing out on Bent. Are we just waiting for a full clearing of the decks so we can start spending/building again? Or is it a matter of cutting our cloth to our revenue and settling for being an upper mid-table PL side?
The way I see it is he'll continue to spend on top players that will straight into the first team but wants the kids to make up the squad (where possible). What he won't do is buy and pay top salaries to squad fillers on long term contracts.
agreed. Which is why I'm dismissing anyone of the player links today that would have had every chance of coming true under MON. Like you said, I think we'll sign a combination of proven quality, up and coming talent discovered through scouts, and our academy. I would like to think the days of signing high salary average talent cast offs are over.
-
Do you think our wage bill is still a problem? Even now?
I think it's vastly improved, but without knowing the detail of by how much or what percentage the club want it to be in relation to turnover, it's impossible to say. But with players like Beye and, to a lesser extent Heskey, doing very little for circa £5m a year between them, then there is still room for improvement.
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
"Don't tell me, SHOW me!"
Does the "show me" consist of anything other spending money on players? How much would be enough? What does he have to do to demonstrate his commitment to you?
I want to see a photo of his ankle tatoo, then, and only then, will I be satisfied!!
I have AVFC on my cock. Only 8/10's get to see the full name of the club and my commitment to the cause.
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
You are prejudging and criticising the actions of "keyboard warriors" who you think will prejudge Randy's statement?
I am making a prediction based on experience.
-
Are u sure you can fit all 4 letters? :)
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
You are prejudging and criticising the actions of "keyboard warriors" who you think will prejudge Randy's statement?
I am making a prediction based on experience.
As inevitable as taxes and death there will be a few who will dismiss anything Randy says as soundbytes and marketing spin. He could make his statement with all the sincerity in the world, but because we've hired McLeish and haven't kept up with the Liverpool's of the world, his words and the paper they are read from will be torn to shreds and discarded by some without a second thought.
-
Are u sure you can fit all 4 letters? :)
He uses a small font.
-
Are u sure you can fit all 4 letters? :)
I can fit it width wise let alone in length...
Fuck me I'm beginning to sound like The Situation. I'm posting this while bench pressing 300lbs with 4 naked hot birds walking on my chest.
-
The thing is, I don't class us as being in a 'financial mess'. We need to get the wages/turnover ratio under control, which should be done by next summer, and stop making losses, which more prudent transfer spending should accomplish.
We were slightly over stretched, but not to the level of a Leeds/Portsmouth.
By financial mess, I mean we've been forced to change our plans to suit our pocket. It should never have happened, at least not to this scale. My guess is that Lerner never anticipated the we'd end up with so many players with little or no resale value, add to that the stupidity of signing aged players on high salaries on long term deals and generally paying better wages than were necessary, he really only has himself to blame.
Don't get me wrong, he's done a lot right too but it's a reflection of our current situation that we have Alex McLeish as manager (who I think will surprise a few people) rather than somebody that we'd imagine to be pushing us at the top end of the table. The problem is, at least in the forseeable future, we're not likely to see a manager so well backed. Still, if we can at least start producing quality winning performances at Villa Park, something that's been missing for years, he may finally be able to fill those wonderful corporate facilities we have, increase gate receipts and sell more merchandise.
Everton have managed to generally finish above us with next to no money, something like an average of £3m a season since 2006. Let's hope with a little bit more backing, Randy has found his own David Moyes in Alex McLeish.
-
Are u sure you can fit all 4 letters? :)
He uses a small font.
And it's comic sans.
-
Are u sure you can fit all 4 letters? :)
He uses a small font.
And it's comic sans.
No way man. Font size 72 is too small but will have to do, and all in Times New Roman capitals all the way
-
Are u sure you can fit all 4 letters? :)
He uses a small font.
And it's comic sans.
'So what did you do today?"
"I chatted to a man in Canada on the Internet about his penis."
-
Are u sure you can fit all 4 letters? :)
He uses a small font.
And it's comic sans.
'So what did you do today?"
"I chatted to a man in Canada on the Internet about his penis."
My missus would probably say "Don't tell lies, you've been on that H&V again haven't you?"
-
Has anybody posted this, yet? From the Telegraph, today.
Perhaps connected with a 'state of play' statement. Or was this the beginning of the thread?
God it's hot, isn't it.
'Owners fork out on City and Villa
The high price of progress, and even standing still, in the Premier League is highlighted by the fresh injections of funding into Manchester City and Aston Villa committed by their owners.
Companies House filings lodged last month reveal that Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan pumped a further £36m into City in June. The equity stake, which adds to an investment that has already cost more than £500m, was raised by issuing new shares in Manchester City Limited.
Villa owner Randy Lerner, meanwhile, put another £7.5m into the club in equity last season, also by means of new shares in the club’s holding company, Reform Acquisitions Limited. Lerner’s equity investment now totals £128m.'
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
"Don't tell me, SHOW me!"
Does the "show me" consist of anything other spending money on players? How much would be enough? What does he have to do to demonstrate his commitment to you?
I usually ignore your posts yet still I'm not surprised that you've managed to completely miss the point somehow.
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
"Don't tell me, SHOW me!"
Does the "show me" consist of anything other spending money on players? How much would be enough? What does he have to do to demonstrate his commitment to you?
I usually ignore your posts yet still I'm not surprised that you've managed to completely miss the point somehow.
I missed it too. You could just explain it.
-
Just an extention to Chris's prediction.
Expected responses to Randy's speech may be "talk is cheap" (as in Chris's post) or "don't tell me, show me" (as in my post). I put my post in quotation marks hoping to make it clear.
That was all.
-
The statement, whatever he says, will be picked apart by the usual keyboard warriors. The same people who have been banging on about the need for him to say something will respond with things like "talk is cheap" and will find hidden meanings in innocuous phrases.
You are prejudging and criticising the actions of "keyboard warriors" who you think will prejudge Randy's statement?
I am making a prediction based on experience.
As inevitable as taxes and death there will be a few who will dismiss anything Randy says as soundbytes and marketing spin. He could make his statement with all the sincerity in the world, but because we've hired McLeish and haven't kept up with the Liverpool's of the world, his words and the paper they are read from will be torn to shreds and discarded by some without a second thought.
This is a very typical response from you two to the "other posters" responses to the Randy Lerner statement that hasn't yet been made. It has tickled me.
-
So frustrating that he doesn't talk to anyone.
It's always the quiet ones ;-)
-
Just tweeted by Mat Kendrick:
This Lerner statement likely to be in form of letter to season ticket holders rather than a press release
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
They are better fans than you.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
I can't answer that as I no longer communicate with second class supporters.
-
I think we were bought by a guy who inherited his money and wanted a bit of fun with it.
The fun is now waning.
Plus, the kids aren't good enough and most will never be.
The Everton 'model' will take years to build, so it's 'austerity Villa' and hope in what we have ( plus the odd loanee) time.
Suppose we could be Blackburn Rovers fans and settle for what we have, but Villa fans 'expect'.
Maybe we ought to take on the Blackburn mentality and not be disappointed at
what we see at Villa ?
-
I particularly don't communicate with second rate supporters who have failed as a parent and allowed their son to be an Olbiyun fan.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Did somebody say something?
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Yup.
-
Just out of interest, should Randy want to write to the fans then how could this be done, other than by using the database of names and addresses for ST holders? This isn't a 'better fan that you thing', but how would he be bale to identify the fans who don't regularly attend in order to contact them?
Randy doesn't like speaking through the press and like it or not, that's how he is. Only other solution I can think of is have a letter printed and ready for every fan who walks through the gates on the first game, but even then those that can't attend that match, even some ST holders, will be moaning.
-
............and to save on postage, why not go to the Birmingham Mail and communicate that way ?
It'll end up there anyway !
-
I have lost the passion, all we can hope for at the very best this season is 5th. Over past few years it's go worse where you know that we can't compete unless we have a multi-billionaire. So I buy a ST knowing this? Also, footballers are 90% idiots - I really don't like the thought of my hard earned cash going striaght to their pockets, which, lets face it is where our money goes. I can no longer justify spending the cash on a ST after all these years, if that makes me a worse fan then so be it.
-
Just an extention to Chris's prediction.
Expected responses to Randy's speech may be "talk is cheap" (as in Chris's post) or "don't tell me, show me" (as in my post). I put my post in quotation marks hoping to make it clear.
That was all.
To me, it couldn't have been more obvious.
-
Just out of interest, should Randy want to write to the fans then how could this be done, other than by using the database of names and addresses for ST holders? This isn't a 'better fan that you thing', but how would he be bale to identify the fans who don't regularly attend in order to contact them?
Randy doesn't like speaking through the press and like it or not, that's how he is. Only other solution I can think of is have a letter printed and ready for every fan who walks through the gates on the first game, but even then those that can't attend that match, even some ST holders, will be moaning.
I think they have the names and addresses of everyone who has bought a match ticket in the last x years don't they?
There is no shortage of mass media communication channels, the problem is his Howard Hughes approach to them.
-
Yes, but those tickets won't be 100% bought by Villa fans, plus is there any legal barrier to using that database for what could be viewed as a marketing exercise?
I'd say stick the letter on the website myself, but I don't see that it's a big issue if he wants to try and communicate with the fans more directly.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
I've got freinds who just can't afford to go anymore which is a shame but i value their opinion much more than people who just refuse to go and still whinge for the sake of it. There's a difference.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
How ridiculous! Hasn't the club just been out in Hong Kong? Was that because we couldn't find anyone else to play, or a marketing exercise designed to raise our profile in Asia? I am jealous of anyone who can get to every game (I manage about three a season plus any others that coincide with me coming back to Blighty for a visit), but a "State of The Villa" statement is relevant to everybody with an interest in the club, not just those with a season ticket.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
How ridiculous! Hasn't the club just been out in Hong Kong? Was that because we couldn't find anyone else to play, or a marketing exercise designed to raise our profile in Asia? I am jealous of anyone who can get to every game (I manage about three a season plus any others that coincide with me coming back to Blighty for a visit), but a "State of The Villa" statement is relevant to everybody with an interest in the club, not just those with a season ticket.
My point being...
Someone who lives 1000 miles away and can't get to games - what difference does it make to Aston Villa what their opinion is and their thoughts on the club?
Does it matter to your employers what someone who logs on to a website every day thinks of their company?? No.
All I'm saying is (and this is the bit where people don't like to hear the truth / the state of the world) unless you financially back something or make your interest in a company / football club / charity, whatever - worth its while. Why would and why should they give a shed on your opinion?
-
[/quote]Just an extention to Chris's prediction.
Expected responses to Randy's speech may be "talk is cheap" (as in Chris's post) or "don't tell me, show me" (as in my post). I put my post in quotation marks hoping to make it clear.
That was all.
Fair enough. Toronto confused me.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
How ridiculous! Hasn't the club just been out in Hong Kong? Was that because we couldn't find anyone else to play, or a marketing exercise designed to raise our profile in Asia? I am jealous of anyone who can get to every game (I manage about three a season plus any others that coincide with me coming back to Blighty for a visit), but a "State of The Villa" statement is relevant to everybody with an interest in the club, not just those with a season ticket.
My point being...
Someone who lives 1000 miles away and can't get to games - what difference does it make to Aston Villa what their opinion is and their thoughts on the club?
Does it matter to your employers what someone who logs on to a website every day thinks of their company?? No.
All I'm saying is (and this is the bit where people don't like to hear the truth / the state of the world) unless you financially back something or make your interest in a company / football club / charity, whatever - worth its while. Why would and why should they give a shed on your opinion?
I do take your point, businesses do not give a flying fuck about anyone who doesn't give them money, why would they? But this isn't the annual accounts, it's a bit of PR from our silent benefactor. It will be a pep-talk, or an announcement that he's selling up and will cost him nowt, so why not make it on the OS? It won't really matter because someone will have copied and pasted it within 20 seconds of receving it!
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
How ridiculous! Hasn't the club just been out in Hong Kong? Was that because we couldn't find anyone else to play, or a marketing exercise designed to raise our profile in Asia? I am jealous of anyone who can get to every game (I manage about three a season plus any others that coincide with me coming back to Blighty for a visit), but a "State of The Villa" statement is relevant to everybody with an interest in the club, not just those with a season ticket.
My point being...
Someone who lives 1000 miles away and can't get to games - what difference does it make to Aston Villa what their opinion is and their thoughts on the club?
Does it matter to your employers what someone who logs on to a website every day thinks of their company?? No.
All I'm saying is (and this is the bit where people don't like to hear the truth / the state of the world) unless you financially back something or make your interest in a company / football club / charity, whatever - worth its while. Why would and why should they give a shed on your opinion?
I do take your point, businesses do not give a flying fuck about anyone who doesn't give them money, why would they? But this isn't the annual accounts, it's a bit of PR from our silent benefactor. It will be a pep-talk, or an announcement that he's selling up and will cost him nowt, so why not make it on the OS? It won't really matter because someone will have copied and pasted it within 20 seconds of receving it!
That being the case, what does it matter? You'll be reading what it says within a minute anyway.
Everyone seems to think they have a right to know the goings on behind the scenes at every little juncture of life in this era.
Not one club reveals or has top directors directly interacting with its supporters like the administration of our great establishment... Not one!
We've got an ex-general for christs sake who speaks to us.
So the benefactor is 'camera shy' - so what, its his porogative. He put £67mil into buying this club, and has spent a total of near on £200mil since 2006. That's more in 5 years than we've EVER spent.
This clubs in a lot better shape than it's been since pre-WWI. Some of you lot really need to take a step back and stop knocking RAL for the sake of it.
Fans have options - put up or shut up. Buy the shirt or don't. Go to games, or don't. Simple.
-
I suppose it's a matter of 'interest' against 'vested interest'. Those that go and punp money into the club are the latter, but those who don't/can't for whatever reason are the former. It's only right that the club recognises this. Plus, as I said above, it's difficult for them to communicate directly with larger following.
The whole 'better fan than you' thing gets brought up from time to time on here, but usually in the vein of "You weren't there so how does your opinion count?" That's wrong as no one opinion is more valid than any other, whether it be a Villa ST holder, a Villa fan who doesn't go or a neutral observer. That's not what this is, as anyone can voice their opinion on the contents of the letter, but rather the club wanting to reach out to it's fans/customers and get a message to them.
Now, this could be done on the website, but how is that any different to any other press release or interview? I think they're trying to communicate more personally with the fanbase and this is the only way that can be done, even if it does put some people's noses out of joint.
-
...
That being the case, what does it matter? You'll be reading what it says within a minute anyway.
Everyone seems to think they have a right to know the goings on behind the scenes at every little juncture of life in this era.
Not one club reveals or has top directors directly interacting with its supporters like the administration of our great establishment... Not one!
We've got an ex-general for christs sake who speaks to us.
So the benefactor is 'camera shy' - so what, its his porogative. He put £67mil into buying this club, and has spent a total of near on £200mil since 2006. That's more in 5 years than we've EVER spent.
This clubs in a lot better shape than it's been since pre-WWI. Some of you lot really need to take a step back and stop knocking RAL for the sake of it.
Fans have options - put up or shut up. Buy the shirt or don't. Go to games, or don't. Simple.
Are you confusing Aston Villa Football Club with Aston Villa Football Shop?
-
How ridiculous! Hasn't the club just been out in Hong Kong? Was that because we couldn't find anyone else to play, or a marketing exercise designed to raise our profile in Asia? I am jealous of anyone who can get to every game (I manage about three a season plus any others that coincide with me coming back to Blighty for a visit), but a "State of The Villa" statement is relevant to everybody with an interest in the club, not just those with a season ticket.
My point being...
Someone who lives 1000 miles away and can't get to games - what difference does it make to Aston Villa what their opinion is and their thoughts on the club?
Does it matter to your employers what someone who logs on to a website every day thinks of their company?? No.
All I'm saying is (and this is the bit where people don't like to hear the truth / the state of the world) unless you financially back something or make your interest in a company / football club / charity, whatever - worth its while. Why would and why should they give a shed on your opinion?
Again, like German James said, why has the club just been out to Hong Kong. Just because someone doesn't have a season ticket doesn't mean they don't buy shirts, subscribe to AVFC, subscribe to Sky (indirect impact on the Villa through TV money), etc, etc. I'm sure the club gets a considerable amount of money out of people who are not season ticket holders.
On top of that, if the club only ever cared about current season ticket holders and never tried to get new people interested in the club then we'd go bust eventually. You can't just rely on Villa fans being born and supporting the club because their dad takes them when they have no choice. The club has got to reach out to new fans.
So your attitude of "fuck em, they're 2nd rate fans anyway unless they've got a season ticket" is at best naive and at worst ridiculous.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Next you will be wanting a statement sent to those who only go when they get a free ticket from somewhere. ;)
-
I suppose it's a matter of 'interest' against 'vested interest'. Those that go and punp money into the club are the latter, but those who don't/can't for whatever reason are the former. It's only right that the club recognises this. Plus, as I said above, it's difficult for them to communicate directly with larger following.
The whole 'better fan than you' thing gets brought up from time to time on here, but usually in the vein of "You weren't there so how does your opinion count?" That's wrong as no one opinion is more valid than any other, whether it be a Villa ST holder, a Villa fan who doesn't go or a neutral observer. That's not what this is, as anyone can voice their opinion on the contents of the letter, but rather the club wanting to reach out to it's fans/customers and get a message to them.
Now, this could be done on the website, but how is that any different to any other press release or interview? I think they're trying to communicate more personally with the fanbase and this is the only way that can be done, even if it does put some people's noses out of joint.
They send out millions of pieces of marketing to supporters who are not season ticket holders. He can of course choose to send a letter to season ticket holders but it isn't being done because he has no other choice.
-
It rather suggests that this statement isn't exactly going to be 'I've got brilliant news', because if it was, it would be sent out to everybody on their database as a marketing exercise to generate more season ticket sales.
-
Suggesting season ticket holders are the ones the club should be most worried about carries a bit of sense. Like it or not, they're the ones whose money is most vital to the club.
However, it is absolute fucking nonsense to suggest they're the only ones who count.
What about people who do a game or two a season? It'd be nice to convert them into season ticket holders, too, but you're not going to have a chance if you act like they don't matter.
-
Mat Kendrick on Twitter told me not to get too excited about it. Or I assume he did, I got bored half-way through his tweet and stopped reading
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
I'm sorry, but that is the most ridiculous post i've seen on this site.
I only managed to get to 5 games last season, due to my work commitments.(Strangely I have an aversion to being fired so I couldn't dig my heels in).
Say if we are playing Manure / Chelsea, and the game is sold out. A guy tries a little to late to buy tickets for the match and is therefore unable to go. He either watches the game on TV or listens to it on the radio. Is his opinion of the game not as valid as those lucky enough to obtain tickets.
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
I'm sorry, but that is the most ridiculous post i've seen on this site.
There's some stiff competition for that crown!!!!
-
It will be a statement about our financial position, which I think all know about.
As Mat Kendrick tweeted, nothing relating to good news, more so, the way we're approaching 2013 ( what a fab excuse, bet he's wiping his brow) !!
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
I knew my ever so slightly tongue in cheek comment would hook someone!
Of course ST holders are the most important fans (well, you could make an argument that corporates are even more important if we a simply talking financial commitment season-in season-out, hence the moving of DC5 and Villajk to put new corporate seating in), but us part-timers are very important to Villa I'd have thought.
A couple of reasons:
1. We probably spend more on a match day than a ST holder, it's more of an occasion for us, we'll visit the shop, probably secure a few back issue programmes, make sure we get a balti pie for the authentic match-day experience, that sort of thing.
2. This is from someone who knows.
If your visits to VP are curtailed for whatever reason, could be a move to shift or weekend working, could be a drop in cash or a new family addition, anything) it's very easy to fall out of the habit of going at all. Where previously you had an ST and knew you were going whatever, not having an ST means anything can get in the way and sometimes you'll find an excuse NOT to go because it looks like rain, or it's bloody Blackburn again, or another Sunday morning means either not going to the pub the night before or enduring Wolves with a hangover.
We are actually just the sort of people Villa should be targetting to get us there more often. Without us part-timers Villa's average crowd would be below 30K.
-
Although I agree with pretty much everything you say, that average attendance would be below 20k without the ST holders.
I don't think anyone wants to see any section of the fans out in the cold, but then as a ST holder what extra benefits do we get, other than the free AVTV, which has only happened this season?
-
Isn't the number of season tickets capped though to ensure there are a number of seats available for the casual fans?
Anyone else see that Brighton have sold over 18,000 season tickets for their new stadium. Also that the away end will import a beer/ale from the area of the away team each match. That's quality!
-
Isn't the number of season tickets capped though to ensure there are a number of seats available for the casual fans?
Anyone else see that Brighton have sold over 18,000 season tickets for their new stadium. Also that the away end will import a beer/ale from the area of the away team each match. That's quality!
Now that is quality. Well done to all concerned.
-
You can argue the case which fans are more important either way.
From the point of view of any business, regular income ( i.e. season tickets) are tremendously important because they cover the overheads first and are reliable. On the other hand, you want the casual fans too because they bring higher profit - once the overheads are covered, the more casual fans you get the better as their tickets are more profitable. As the ground fills up, the last tickets sold to casual fans are the most profitable of all. That's the reason there's a limit to the number of season tickets the club would like to sell - if the team was winning every week and VP was full - they'd much prefer them to be casual fans - on the other hand if you're losing, you want as many season ticket holders as possible!
-
So those of us who can't afford an ST / work on some matchdays / are under the thumb and not allowed to go to every game are not important then?
Quite frankly - yes.
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
It's like the voting system - if you don't vote, you've got no right to complain.
I knew my ever so slightly tongue in cheek comment would hook someone!
Of course ST holders are the most important fans (well, you could make an argument that corporates are even more important if we a simply talking financial commitment season-in season-out, hence the moving of DC5 andforwards Villajk to put new corporate seating in), but us part-timers are very important to Villa I'd have thought.
A couple of reasons:
1. We probably spend more on a match day than a ST holder, it's more of an occasion for us, we'll visit the shop, probably secure a few back issue programmes, make sure we get a balti pie for the authentic match-day experience, that sort of thing.
2. This is from someone who knows.
If your visits to VP are curtailed for whatever reason, could be a move to shift or weekend working, could be a drop in cash or a new family addition, anything) it's very easy to fall out of the habit of going at all. Where previously you had an ST and knew you were going whatever, not having an ST means anything can get in the way and sometimes you'll find an excuse NOT to go because it looks like rain, or it's bloody Blackburn again, or another Sunday morning means either not going to the pub the night before or enduring Wolves with a hangover.
We are actually just the sort of people Villa should be targetting to get us there more often. Without us part-timers Villa's average crowd would be below 30K.
You selfish bastard. You already get your cheap deals, where a family of 12 can get in for 10p with the Dad getting a blow job from Miss Aston Villa at half time and yet you still resent us our letter.
-
This is getting a bit precious. He's copied a marketing slogan, and not an original one at that, not sold Aston Park to the Indians.
Neither has he sold aston villa to the cowboys- not yet anyway.
-
I don't want a blow job, I want a letter from Randy.
After all, I can't sell a blow job on ebay (not legally anyway).
-
I don't want a blow job, I want a letter from Randy.
After all, I can't sell a blow job on ebay (not legally anyway).
And if you could I doubt anyone would buy it.
-
A football clubs lifeblood whether you like it or not are season ticket holders (and shareholders). These are the people who do (exactly what the word means) "support" their club. Not sitting behind a computer moaning and whaling about why they aren't as good as Man Utd, but actually putting £££ into the club. Because that's all that matters.
I don't have a season ticket any more and don't go to many home games these days but I spend more than the cost of a season ticket on tickets to watch Villa away.
Not a penny of that goes towards Villa but if you somehow think that I'm not supporting the club then you obviously define the word "support "differently to me.
-
I don't want a blow job, I want a letter from Randy.
After all, I can't sell a blow job on ebay (not legally anyway).
And if you could I doubt anyone would buy it.
I would. The little slut.
-
Isn't the number of season tickets capped though to ensure there are a number of seats available for the casual fans?
Anyone else see that Brighton have sold over 18,000 season tickets for their new stadium. Also that the away end will import a beer/ale from the area of the away team each match. That's quality!
Now that is quality. Well done to all concerned.
All that way for a pint of Brew XI!
-
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/1992-to-2011.html (http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/1992-to-2011.html)
I stumbled on this website today which may or may not be of interest. It's a 'Transfer League Table' that details each clubs spending since 1992. I don't know that it has much bearing on the discussion here, but it seemed the best thread to put it in.
Apologies if it's something everyone has already seen before!
-
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/1992-to-2011.html (http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/1992-to-2011.html)
I stumbled on this website today which may or may not be of interest. It's a 'Transfer League Table' that details each clubs spending since 1992. I don't know that it has much bearing on the discussion here, but it seemed the best thread to put it in.
Apologies if it's something everyone has already seen before!
Quick, delete your post before the inevitable happens.
-
Oh no. What has he done?
-
I can't get my hat on.
-
There's a column missing in that table, a very important column.
-
calling villadawg ,theres something to get your teeth into.
-
Has this "Statement" actually been released?
-
Has this "Statement" actually been released?
Yes, he said all the Villa fans are sound except for yowe.
-
Has this "Statement" actually been released?
Don't worry about a thing
cause every little thing is gonna be alright
don't worry about a thing
every little thing is gonna be alright
Rise up this morning
smiled with the rising sun
three little birds
pitch by my door step
singing sweet songs
of melodies pure and true
saying, this is my message to you:
don't worry about a thing... :)
-
Has this "Statement" actually been released?
Yes, he said all the Villa fans are sound except for yowe.
That was nice of him!
-
Mat Kendrick on Twitter told me not to get too excited about it. Or I assume he did, I got bored half-way through his tweet and stopped reading
*bangs head against wall*
-
This statement must be longer than War And Peace the amount of time it's taking him to prepare it.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-08/browns-lerner-to-get-investment-in-hedge-fund-back-judge-rules.html
some Randy news
-
Gosh, 'forced to invest $326 million' in the Villa.
Either the FA or Paul Faulkner is a lot harder than I've been led to believe.
-
Some interesting stuff in the judgement on that court case...
"The Paiges claim that the Lerner Fund was experiencing severe
financial distress as of that time because the family had retained a substantial block of
Bank of America stock it had received when MBNA was sold to Bank of America and
the value of that stock had decreased from $40.56 per share at the beginning of 2008 to
$14.08 per share by the end of 2008. Although I find this claim to have no substantial
basis, for reasons I later discuss, I have little doubt that the decline in Bank of America’s
value and the general market conditions led the Lerner Fund to look closely at its
investments and to review whether they were prudent. But, I find no reliable basis to
conclude that the Lerner Fund was in emergency mode or faced a liquidity or solvency
crisis."
-
Some interesting stuff in the judgement on that court case...
"The Paiges claim that the Lerner Fund was experiencing severe
financial distress as of that time because the family had retained a substantial block of
Bank of America stock it had received when MBNA was sold to Bank of America and
the value of that stock had decreased from $40.56 per share at the beginning of 2008 to
$14.08 per share by the end of 2008. Although I find this claim to have no substantial
basis, for reasons I later discuss, I have little doubt that the decline in Bank of America’s
value and the general market conditions led the Lerner Fund to look closely at its
investments and to review whether they were prudent. But, I find no reliable basis to
conclude that the Lerner Fund was in emergency mode or faced a liquidity or solvency
crisis."
What is more worrying is that the Bank of America share price is now down to $6.89 a share! I have long held the view that the economic crisis has hit Randy hard. I am led to believe that the deal they cut with Bank of America for MBNA was a combination of cash plus shares and irrespective of the split, Randy and his family have lost a huge amount of money as far as net worth is cocnerned.
I think Randy will be looking to either sell part or all of AVFC at the moment.
-
Some interesting stuff in the judgement on that court case...
"The Paiges claim that the Lerner Fund was experiencing severe
financial distress as of that time because the family had retained a substantial block of
Bank of America stock it had received when MBNA was sold to Bank of America and
the value of that stock had decreased from $40.56 per share at the beginning of 2008 to
$14.08 per share by the end of 2008. Although I find this claim to have no substantial
basis, for reasons I later discuss, I have little doubt that the decline in Bank of America’s
value and the general market conditions led the Lerner Fund to look closely at its
investments and to review whether they were prudent. But, I find no reliable basis to
conclude that the Lerner Fund was in emergency mode or faced a liquidity or solvency
crisis."
What is more worrying is that the Bank of America share price is now down to $6.89 a share! I have long held the view that the economic crisis has hit Randy hard. I am led to believe that the deal they cut with Bank of America for MBNA was a combination of cash plus shares and irrespective of the split, Randy and his family have lost a huge amount of money as far as net worth is cocnerned.
I think Randy will be looking to either sell part or all of AVFC at the moment.
The Lerners got something like $2.5billion in Bank of America shares and $300million in cash, for their share of MBNA.
-
The Lerners got something like $2.5billion in Bank of America shares and $300million in cash, for their share of MBNA.
If that's true and the above figures are correct, then that $2.5bn is now worth about $400m, or about £250m. Add in his recent dicorce, and I think you can start to see why the investment in Aston Villa isn't looking like such a good idea any more.
-
The Lerners got something like $2.5billion in Bank of America shares and $300million in cash, for their share of MBNA.
If that's true and the above figures are correct, then that $2.5bn is now worth about $400m, or about £250m. Add in his recent dicorce, and I think you can start to see why the investment in Aston Villa isn't looking like such a good idea any more.
And why we're selling to buy.
-
He has lost more money in recent times than most of us could dream of but it's all relative. He's a business man and is tightening his belt. Amongst his portfolio of interests is AVFC and it has been losing money so he has taken steps to deal with that. At the same time he realises he still has to speculate to accumulate. He will be fine and we will be fine.
-
He has lost more money in recent times than most of us could dream of but it's all relative. He's a business man and is tightening his belt. Amongst his portfolio of interests is AVFC and it has been losing money so he has taken steps to deal with that. At the same time he realises he still has to speculate to accumulate. He will be fine and we will be fine.
Hands above the head clappy smiley thing.
-
He has lost more money in recent times than most of us could dream of but it's all relative. He's a business man and is tightening his belt. Amongst his portfolio of interests is AVFC and it has been losing money so he has taken steps to deal with that. At the same time he realises he still has to speculate to accumulate. He will be fine and we will be fine.
I'm not syaing he is going to go short of a meal and nor will Villa go to the wall. I do still firmly believe he is looking to sell though.
-
The letter from Mr Lerner Sir landed on my doormat this morning. In short - thanks for your support, knew McLeish would be unpopular at first but right man for the Villa, ambitions to manage for growth. Commercial activities to generate revenue for player and manager wages and costs and create stable business. Target to be in top 20 ranking clubs in Europe by revenue, which we already are.
Worrying take on that by me is that commercial revenue has replaced CL qualification, though of course they are by no means mutually exclusive - but certainly the 'five year plan' seems to have shifted from competing in Europe football-wise to competing in Europe commercially.
-
Interesting that the managerial changes last August were 'unexpected'. They must have known that something would be done which was sufficient to have to pay O'Neill off, such as sacking him.
I think that the reasons for appointing Alex McLeish are very worthy ones.
It is quite clear that the club are not going to throw money away and who can blame them. There is a balance to be found though as we will have to spend to create the 'enduring business model'.
-
The letter from Mr Lerner Sir landed on my doormat this morning. In short - thanks for your support, knew McLeish would be unpopular at first but right man for the Villa, ambitions to manage for growth. Commercial activities to generate revenue for player and manager wages and costs and create stable business. Target to be in top 20 ranking clubs in Europe by revenue, which we already are.
Worrying take on that by me is that commercial revenue has replaced CL qualification, though of course they are by no means mutually exclusive - but certainly the 'five year plan' seems to have shifted from competing in Europe football-wise to competing in Europe commercially.
Shame on you CJ, you shouldn't be sharing this privileged information with the hoi polloi.
-
Nothing unexpected in the letter. I mean he's hardly going to come out and say "im cutting costs so we look more attractive to the rich arabs" - not that i think he's trying to sell anyway.
Im sure some people wont be happy and will find some things to pick fault with, but hey, you cant please everyone.
-
The letter from Mr Lerner Sir landed on my doormat this morning. In short - thanks for your support, knew McLeish would be unpopular at first but right man for the Villa, ambitions to manage for growth. Commercial activities to generate revenue for player and manager wages and costs and create stable business. Target to be in top 20 ranking clubs in Europe by revenue, which we already are.
Worrying take on that by me is that commercial revenue has replaced CL qualification, though of course they are by no means mutually exclusive - but certainly the 'five year plan' seems to have shifted from competing in Europe football-wise to competing in Europe commercially.
So, nothing about football ambitions then?
-
The letter from Mr Lerner Sir landed on my doormat this morning. In short - thanks for your support, knew McLeish would be unpopular at first but right man for the Villa, ambitions to manage for growth. Commercial activities to generate revenue for player and manager wages and costs and create stable business. Target to be in top 20 ranking clubs in Europe by revenue, which we already are.
Worrying take on that by me is that commercial revenue has replaced CL qualification, though of course they are by no means mutually exclusive - but certainly the 'five year plan' seems to have shifted from competing in Europe football-wise to competing in Europe commercially.
So, nothing about football ambitions then?
Absolutely nothing. According to the letter the main ambition is to reach the top 20 ranking clubs by revenue.
-
The letter from Mr Lerner Sir landed on my doormat this morning. In short - thanks for your support, knew McLeish would be unpopular at first but right man for the Villa, ambitions to manage for growth. Commercial activities to generate revenue for player and manager wages and costs and create stable business. Target to be in top 20 ranking clubs in Europe by revenue, which we already are.
Worrying take on that by me is that commercial revenue has replaced CL qualification, though of course they are by no means mutually exclusive - but certainly the 'five year plan' seems to have shifted from competing in Europe football-wise to competing in Europe commercially.
So, nothing about football ambitions then?
Absolutely nothing. According to the letter the main ambition is to reach the top 20 ranking clubs by revenue.
I've just checked the post and mine has arrived too.
Seems a bit strange, really, you'd think they'd throw a line in about on the pitch ambitions.
-
Contents below.
Googled a line, in case anyone thinks I'm sad enough to type it all up ;)
As we approach the 2011-12 season, we wanted to express our thanks for your support. The last year was fraught with the unexpected, and was certainly frustrating and at times even disappointing. Throughout this past year, however, and now looking forward to the new season, you have continued your support and commitment to the club, and for that we are very appreciative.
The managerial changes that commenced last August, still less than a year ago, were unexpected, unsettling and certainly took their toll. Despite this, the team came through, finishing with good wins against Arsenal and Liverpool to secure a 9th place finish as we headed into the short summer break.
Looking ahead to this season, we feel that in Alex McLeish we have found a very special football man to manage Villa. Being deeply conscious of the controversy that would at first come along with selecting him as manager, we still felt that his broader and career-long reputation for hard work, leadership and professional enthusiasm, together with his willingness to work with the club, made him a worthy and in fact uniquely god fit for our club. To this end, we wish him every success in his new role and hope others do the same as there is no doubt that the great support of our fans will make a massive difference to the team, whether at Villa Park or away.
As regards our personal ambitions for the Club they remain as they've been from the beginning: to manage the club for growth. More precisely, our focus is to manage the investments we've made at Villa Park to promote strong financial performance in terms of our commercial activities in order that the Clubs revenue can grow and contribute accordingly to player, manager and other football related wages and costs. This approach is at the core of our broader strategy yo create an enduring business model that is stable and yet has the potential to grow, as we feel that the club revenue and player wages are the key to consistent competitiveness. In connection with this strategy, we have targeted being at or within range of a top 20 ranking among clubs in Europe by revenue, which was achieved in the last Deloitte Football report
So again, let us express our appreciation for your support as we look forward with hope and pride to the upcoming season
Yours sincerely
Randy Lerner... Paul Faulkner
-
The letter from Mr Lerner Sir landed on my doormat this morning. In short - thanks for your support, knew McLeish would be unpopular at first but right man for the Villa, ambitions to manage for growth. Commercial activities to generate revenue for player and manager wages and costs and create stable business. Target to be in top 20 ranking clubs in Europe by revenue, which we already are.
Worrying take on that by me is that commercial revenue has replaced CL qualification, though of course they are by no means mutually exclusive - but certainly the 'five year plan' seems to have shifted from competing in Europe football-wise to competing in Europe commercially.
So, nothing about football ambitions then?
Absolutely nothing. According to the letter the main ambition is to reach the top 20 ranking clubs by revenue.
I've just checked the post and mine has arrived too.
Seems a bit strange, really, you'd think they'd throw a line in about on the pitch ambitions.
For me it just confirms we won't be splashing out at all in the foreseeable future.
We go with what we've got, but I'm pretty sure we all knew that anyway.
-
Nice of them to mention our footballing ambitions?!?
Replace the name Aston Villa Football Club with Any Company PLC and release it to shareholders then it would do the job.
-
I just got mine. My immediate reaction is I wish they'd shut up about beating Arsenal and Liverpool as if it's some sort of achievement. It wasn't long ago we were competing with them in regards to league position - and both of those clubs have been in decline since.
-
Nice of them to mention our footballing ambitions?!?
Replace the name Aston Villa Football Club with Any Company PLC and release it to shareholders then it would do the job.
Tgey've learnt from experience that there is no point in making specific predictions as so much is out of their control and it can be used against them when it doesn't come to pass. However, the line " the Clubs revenue can grow and contribute accordingly to player, manager and other football related wages and costs" clearly states that the plan is to keep improving but that this has to be sustainable.
It might suit the quick fix mentslity of some supporters but it is consistent with the type of club I want us to be.
-
The letter from Mr Lerner Sir landed on my doormat this morning. In short - thanks for your support, knew McLeish would be unpopular at first but right man for the Villa, ambitions to manage for growth. Commercial activities to generate revenue for player and manager wages and costs and create stable business. Target to be in top 20 ranking clubs in Europe by revenue, which we already are.
Worrying take on that by me is that commercial revenue has replaced CL qualification, though of course they are by no means mutually exclusive - but certainly the 'five year plan' seems to have shifted from competing in Europe football-wise to competing in Europe commercially.
So, nothing about football ambitions then?
no, nothing about football apart from the apparent glory in turning over Arsenal & Liverpool at the arse end of a majorly crap season.
It fair breaks yer 'eart Tom that AVFC is just a business model and not a football club these days but in truth that goes for most clubs (franchises, plc's, whatever they're called these days). I cling on to the Villa like a love-sick teenager but I know she's gone really and i should just let her go.
-
I just got mine. My immediate reaction is I wish they'd shut up about beating Arsenal and Liverpool as if it's some sort of achievement. It wasn't long ago we were competing with them in regards to league position - and both of those clubs have been in decline since.
Exactly!
Nothing has been said that we didn't deduce anyway, in fact it shows a lot of naiievity on how they backed MON and now they have finally realised that they cannot give another Manager/Coach the same kind of remit.
They have gone some way as to detail their thinking in employing AM. Unique, I'll give them that. Only time will tell, but I can see nothing more than a big "told you so" coming their way in the future. (I hope that I'm wrong before anyone jumps on my back)
-
The letter just furthers my belief that for all their good they really need an experienced football man on the board.
Stride and Dein are the obvious choices.
-
Nice of them to mention our footballing ambitions?!?
Replace the name Aston Villa Football Club with Any Company PLC and release it to shareholders then it would do the job.
Tgey've learnt from experience that there is no point in making specific predictions as so much is out of their control and it can be used against them when it doesn't come to pass. However, the line " the Clubs revenue can grow and contribute accordingly to player, manager and other football related wages and costs" clearly states that the plan is to keep improving but that this has to be sustainable.
It might suit the quick fix mentslity of some supporters but it is consistent with the type of club I want us to be.
How about a word about aiming to be competitive in the league? Not about making predictions, not about saying they're lavishing millions on us, nothing that extreme, but something to say we're going to compete on the pitch, rather than letting us infer it from the line you quoted.
Something about managing the club prudently, increasing commercial revenue etc BUT with a little of the above would have done the job much better than this, which really reads like a letter to shareholders and just makes the situation look even less inspiring.
How are we meant to be inspired by the increase of revenues and breaking the Deloitte top 20?
Our lack of PR savvy is just amazing.
-
It's pretty stark, isn't it?
I'd expected some guff about our ambitions on the pitch that whilst largely made up as flannel would be aimed at placating the supporters. They didn't even bother to do that. You have to admire their honesty.
-
So, in short - Randy hasn't talked about footballing targets on the pitch and were we are aspiring to be one of the top 20 clubs in Europe financially.
I can see why this was only sent out to season ticket holders, it's hardly likely to inspire your casual supporter to make the decision to buy a season ticket is it?
I can fully understand Randy's reasons for doing what he's trying to do and I agree that we couldn't continue with the same transfer policy as under O'Neill however, he should at least have said something along the lines of;
"improving on the pitch significantly after last season in the league AND aiming to win a domestic cup - this club needs to win trophies"
-
How are we meant to be inspired by the increase of revenues and breaking the Deloitte top 20?
Our lack of PR savvy is just amazing.
I don't know about that. Aiming for something we've already achieved (Deloitte's top 20) is pretty sharp. I'm now concentrating all my enthusiasm on an increase in revenue. We'll have it made then!
-
I just got mine. My immediate reaction is I wish they'd shut up about beating Arsenal and Liverpool as if it's some sort of achievement. It wasn't long ago we were competing with them in regards to league position - and both of those clubs have been in decline since.
Indeed. In fact we finished above Liverpool in 2009/10 having also beaten them during the season. They've since gone backwards but managed to climb a place in the league as we've gone backwards even quicker. But in the eyes of the board we should be celebrating beating them in a meaningless (for them) end of season game with a goal from a player we then flogged to them. Happy days
-
Pretty much as expected. As mentioned above it's pretty hard to state a "pitch related" objective as there are too many variables that the club cannot control.
I've just tried writing what I would like to have read but it's just too vague. Indeed the "competitive in the league" ambition above would cause all sorts of confusion and over analysis. After all I'd say we were competitive now.
-
"More precisely, our focus is to manage the investments we've made at Villa Park to promote strong financial performance in terms of our commercial activities in order that the Clubs revenue can grow and contribute accordingly to player, manager and other football related wages and costs."
Hmmm, exciting times.
Obviously, I do realise the bottom line in running a football club, but I'm a bit surprised this has been stated in an address to season ticket holders. I might have expected an injection of just a sliver of excitement to whet the appetite for the forthcoming campaign.
I guess we can always bring out a 'Deloitte Top 20 2011-12' commemorative shirt at the end of the season.
-
Proud history, fiscally prudent future.
-
It is up to the Youth Academy now to produce a few stars, or they can add mediocrity as well. I hope he gets that $40m back from his hedge fund soon.
"It fair breaks yer 'eart Tom that AVFC is just a business model and not a football club these days but in truth that goes for most clubs (franchises, plc's, whatever they're called these days). I cling on to the Villa like a love-sick teenager but I know she's gone really and i should just let her go".
Hard words Russon..there is always hope and a bit of luck!
-
I read the other day in the Sun (yeah i know what you are thinking) that even though our fans general concensus is that we are totally skint that we are in fact the 7th biggest spenders in the prem this close season
For all the gnashing of teeth by everyone, including me, its really only the usual suspects of
Man U
Man Shitty
Chelsea
Liverpool
Arsenal
that have done real spending - they just happen to be the biggest / richest / most in debt (delete as appropriate) clubs in the league
Sunderland have just spent a huge amount on not a single player that i feel would make our first team
So are we really the paupers of the prem?
-
I read the other day in the Sun (yeah i know what you are thinking) that even though our fans general concensus is that we are totally skint that we are in fact the 7th biggest spenders in the prem this close season
For all the gnashing of teeth by everyone, including me, its really only the usual suspects of
Man U
Man Shitty
Chelsea
Liverpool
Arsenal
that have done real spending - they just happen to be the biggest / richest / most in debt (delete as appropriate) clubs in the league
Sunderland have just spent a huge amount on not a single player that i feel would make our first team
So are we really the paupers of the prem?
I'm not sure how that is possible, we've spent around - £24 million. I'd imagine we are closer to bottom.
-
Until Arsenal finalise the Fabregas and Nasri deals we're probably the biggest sellers too, though.
We've spent £13m this summer. By the end of August I think we'll be much lower than 7th in the spending list. But no, we're not exactly the PL's paupers.
PS Surely Sunderland have spent more than us? Wickham was £12-13m, Gardner about £5-6....
-
Tries to begin chant, to the tune of Yellow Submarine:
"have you ever been in the top 20 Euro clubs, top 20 Euro clubs, top 20 Euro clubs?"
Sits back down, in silence.
-
Proud history, fiscally prudent future.
Exactly, that's the sort of statement you put in a set of company accounts, not into a letter to supporters. When lLrner took over I thought we were entering a new era where we'd have a great marketing presence, I really couldn't have been more wrong, the man doesn't have a clue.
-
Different, honest and totally uninspiring.
Almost defiant, by not even trying to encourage people to go to B6. This is how it is, support us if you want.
I almost prefer being bulls***ed to, Bright Future etc'.
Marketing/PR budget has obviously been cut as well.
Let's hope the team talks are not like that!
-
Tries to begin chant, to the tune of Yellow Submarine:
"have you ever been in the top 20 Euro clubs, top 20 Euro clubs, top 20 Euro clubs?"
Sits back down, in silence.
"My balance sheet, is bigger than this, my balance sheet is bigger than this"
"My old man, said keep the wages down....."
-
I saw it coming when Topps Tiles turned up to do the mosaic
-
Proud history, fiscally prudent future.
Exactly, that's the sort of statement you put in a set of company accounts, not into a letter to supporters. When lLrner took over I thought we were entering a new era where we'd have a great marketing presence, I really couldn't have been more wrong, the man doesn't have a clue.
I think they are very well meaning, but the leadership of the club seem utterly without a clue.
God knows what the PR department thought they were going to achieve with this letter.
Was it meant to rouse ST holders before the season? I actually feel less inspired after reading it than I did before.
Having come under loads of stick for not spending money, it also seems a bit counterproductive to then write a letter in which you crow about being one of the richest 20 clubs in the world, as it just begs the question "why so tight on the spending, if we're that rich"
-
I read the other day in the Sun (yeah i know what you are thinking) that even though our fans general concensus is that we are totally skint that we are in fact the 7th biggest spenders in the prem this close season
Are we talking spenders, or nett spenders.
What is it-minus £21.5M we have spent.
-
When I read the letter this morning it said to me that he would like some of his money back.
Totally agree with N'isso and Pauliezognuts with the overall running of the club as being really quite amateurish.
How the hell did he become so rich, if this is how he runs his trust fund I'm not sure he's got enough to stay wealthy.
I would also guess that this might be a precursor to selling the Villa in the next couple of years when he realises how difficult it is to even break even in the premiership.
-
Tries to begin chant, to the tune of Yellow Submarine:
"have you ever been in the top 20 Euro clubs, top 20 Euro clubs, top 20 Euro clubs?"
Sits back down, in silence.
"My balance sheet, is bigger than this, my balance sheet is bigger than this"
"My old man, said keep the wages down....."
"Oh when fair rules come marching in, oh when fair rules come marching in, I wanna see profit numbers, oh when fair rules come marching in."
-
When I read the letter this morning it said to me that he would like some of his money back.
Totally agree with N'isso and Pauliezognuts with the overall running of the club as being really quite amateurish.
How the hell did he become so rich, if this is how he runs his trust fund I'm not sure he's got enough to stay wealthy.
I would also guess that this might be a precursor to selling the Villa in the next couple of years when he realises how difficult it is to even break even in the premiership.
Yeah made me quite sick, he just inherited his wealth from his father didnt he which is obvious now he couldn't have built it up himself. Im afraid to say as much as it pains me i think this will be my last year as a season ticket holder and i wont be on my own.
-
Proud history, fiscally prudent future.
Exactly, that's the sort of statement you put in a set of company accounts, not into a letter to supporters. When lLrner took over I thought we were entering a new era where we'd have a great marketing presence, I really couldn't have been more wrong, the man doesn't have a clue.
I think they are very well meaning, but the leadership of the club seem utterly without a clue.
God knows what the PR department thought they were going to achieve with this letter.
Was it meant to rouse ST holders before the season? I actually feel less inspired after reading it than I did before.
Having come under loads of stick for not spending money, it also seems a bit counterproductive to then write a letter in which you crow about being one of the richest 20 clubs in the world, as it just begs the question "why so tight on the spending, if we're that rich"
I does come across as a letter to Shareholders, but I guess that was the intention. We had all the stuff in the ST pack for the trumpet blowing approach.
-
So why bother with the letter at all?
We're not shareholders.
Assuming the letter was intending to steady nerves amongst the season ticket holders, did they really think that talking about financial performance and targets was going to do it when, actually, it does quite the opposite?
-
Maybe this is why he doesn't talk to the press?
-
Is it true his wealth has gone from 2.5billion down to 400million, with all the American shares etc?
I'd tighten my belt abit if that was the case.
-
Is it true his wealth has gone from 2.5billion down to 400million, with all the American shares etc?
I'd tighten my belt abit if that was the case.
Don't forget, he also owns the Cleveland Browns, which is valued at over a billion dollars.
Don't get me wrong, if we're tightening our belts and becoming self sustaining then that's fair enough, even though it is the end of any ambition for the foreseeable future.
What concerns me more is the amateurishness of attempting to reach out to a disgruntled, nervy fanbase with a letter which actually says everything they don't want to hear. It makes it sound like we're supporters of a hedge fund or something.
Really strange.
-
What a waste of a stamp.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
-
Seems as if it just as well could have said: "The chance of qualifying for Champions League is gone. No we don't know what to do. So we'll try to bubble along while we spend as little as possible. We'd like to raise revenues, but unfortunately we're clueless."
-
Although Randy has been good for Villa, I think his time is up if all he wants is to see us bump along in mid table because of limited funds
I would like to think there are lots of wealthy Arabs, Ruskies and (dare I say it) Chinese who seem to want a piece of premier footy and Villa must be attractive
-
I watched McLeish's pre-match press conference earlier. I have to admit, for the first time I felt a little down afterwards. I always thought that the no money to spend thing was just something being said so we didn't get screwed in the market, and that if McLeish was to target a player he'd still get him. Just as the board had done on countless other occasions with MON and GH. For the first time, today, I felt that wasn't going to happen this window. Mcleish went on about trading players. We don't have much more left to give up in order that we bring in a player or two that will push us on. I do agree with him that we have to see what the likes of Warnock, Ireland and Delph have, but surely we have a few million quid sitting in the bank should the right player or two become available?
Again, I will still hope that in the last 20 or so days, one or two players will arrive, that the current concerns I am beginning to feel are completely unjustified and that I was somewhat right all along. However, on the eve of the new season, it wasn't the most uplifting press conference.
-
So the alternatives are:
1. Become the plaything of some eccentric foreign multibillionaire (probably not a viable option for Villa anyway)
2. Float along in mid-table.
3. Embark on some vague but cunning slow-growth strategy that might or might not yield success in 20 years.
Villa are actually choosing (2) but trying to portray it as (3).
-
For me, it's not so much the lack of re-investment, i'm happy for us to bring in loan players if we have to go down that route, but with 8 players off the wage bill and only 2 added to it, it's a worry that we need to get even more out the door before we bring in anyone else.
-
I agree with toronto villa, Mcleish was virtually sowing the seeds of excuses - no money to spend, senior players have left etc etc How depressing is that!!
No money even for loan signings!
Please be patient Villa Fans! Season hasn't even started yet! This could be a long old hard season no 2 ways about it!
-
For me, it's not so much the lack of re-investment, i'm happy for us to bring in loan players if we have to go down that route, but with 8 players off the wage bill and only 2 added to it, it's a worry that we need to get even more out the door before we bring in anyone else.
That just says that the wage bill is about where they want it for now. if they buy players without selling then it goes back up, so to keep it on an even keel it's one in, one out.
They've said in the letter that they want to increase revenue in order to fund wages, if they do that then, in theory, they can improve the squad.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
-
So why bother with the letter at all?
We're not shareholders.
Assuming the letter was intending to steady nerves amongst the season ticket holders, did they really think that talking about financial performance and targets was going to do it when, actually, it does quite the opposite?
I took the letter as treating us like grown ups. Fans had been demanding some sort of statement so he's given an outline of what the club want to do to improve the finances in order to improve the team.
Dull and understated it might be but that's Lerner way isn't it?
-
For me, it's not so much the lack of re-investment, i'm happy for us to bring in loan players if we have to go down that route, but with 8 players off the wage bill and only 2 added to it, it's a worry that we need to get even more out the door before we bring in anyone else.
That just says that the wage bill is about where they want it for now. if they buy players without selling then it goes back up, so to keep it on an even keel it's one in, one out.
I realise that and it makes sense of course, but it's frustrating when another body or two (depending who they are) could make a difference.
-
We have no money for players because we have spent 10m+ on Managers!!!
10m would get you one decent signing or a few loan signings.
-
I wonder how much more it will cost us to get shot of the scapegoat at the end of the season.
-
No lose situation for Mcleish! never heard such a low beat press conference before the start of the season.
Even the promoted sides who know they are going to struggle are more positive than us!
Trading players? WTF is that?
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
Did anyone really think the spending would continue indefinitely if we failed to make the Champions League?
I would prefer it if he could spend, spend, spend, but I can live with a couple of years of retrenchment if it means we can be competitive again in a few years time. I just hope he has enough spare cash to get us out of the shite if we land in it.
-
I agree with toronto villa, Mcleish was virtually sowing the seeds of excuses - no money to spend, senior players have left etc etc How depressing is that!!
No money even for loan signings!
Please be patient Villa Fans! Season hasn't even started yet! This could be a long old hard season no 2 ways about it!
I don't think he's making excuses, and I'm sure he is being as truthful as possible about the current state of affairs. I do think this squad has more about it than most people have given it credit for, so I'm not going to tell you that we'll finish in the bottom half because I don't believe that for a second. I just feel that we need another solid signing or two to really ensure we stay strong throughout the season.
What concerned me the most about today was how definitively McLeish came over regarding the finances of the club, and the use of the word "trading" is bothering me too. I agree with the club looking to get things back on an even keel wage wise, but you don't want to cut so deep so as to potentially incur other penalties (performance - attendance - merchandising) when you could invested something and didn't. It's a very fine balancing act. You can go for it as we did with MON and not have it come off and find ourselves where we are. Or you can not go for it and have other equally significant difficult consequences to deal with. The answer likely lies in the middle, but it's a bloody hard place to get to.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
The real question here though dave is was he spending his money or future revenues from the Villa. If he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy. If on the other hand he charges the club interest, management charges and loan repayments etc then we will all be agreeing with Fuse I imagine.
-
If TV is downbeat I am off to jump off a cliff.See ya.
-
How have season ticket sales been? Any figures been released?
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
The real question here though dave is was he spending his money or future revenues from the Villa. If he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy. If on the other hand he charges the club interest, management charges and loan repayments etc then we will all be agreeing with Fuse I imagine.
That's a completely different argument. What Fuse is saying is that as Randy seems to have reached the bottom of his pockets we should want him to sell the club and another owner take his place - debts and all.
-
It's Randys club he can do what he likes with it.
Just like Doug could.
Nowt we can do about it.
-
So why bother with the letter at all?
We're not shareholders.
Assuming the letter was intending to steady nerves amongst the season ticket holders, did they really think that talking about financial performance and targets was going to do it when, actually, it does quite the opposite?
I took the letter as treating us like grown ups. Fans had been demanding some sort of statement so he's given an outline of what the club want to do to improve the finances in order to improve the team.
Dull and understated it might be but that's Lerner way isn't it?
The concern is that he's detached from reality enough to think that the fans wanted an outline of financial plans. The only mention of footballing issues was a trumpeting of the fact we beat Arsenal and Liverpool.
Out of interest, how far has our non Sky commercial income grown so far?
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
The real question here though dave is was he spending his money or future revenues from the Villa. If he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy. If on the other hand he charges the club interest, management charges and loan repayments etc then we will all be agreeing with Fuse I imagine.
That's a completely different argument. What Fuse is saying is that as Randy seems to have reached the bottom of his pockets we should want him to sell the club and another owner take his place - debts and all.
If he's reached the bottom of his pockets then what kind of plan was it that involved giving the lot to MON? And handing out so much in paying off managers?
That's hardly long term planning.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
The real question here though dave is was he spending his money or future revenues from the Villa. If he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy. If on the other hand he charges the club interest, management charges and loan repayments etc then we will all be agreeing with Fuse I imagine.
That's a completely different argument. What Fuse is saying is that as Randy seems to have reached the bottom of his pockets we should want him to sell the club and another owner take his place - debts and all.
If he's reached the bottom of his pockets then what kind of plan was it that involved giving the lot to MON? And handing out so much in paying off managers?
That's hardly long term planning.
Shall I throw in that Woody Allen quote about how to make God laugh?
-
So the alternatives are:
1. Become the plaything of some eccentric foreign multibillionaire (probably not a viable option for Villa anyway)
2. Float along in mid-table.
3. Embark on some vague but cunning slow-growth strategy that might or might not yield success in 20 years.
Villa are actually choosing (2) but trying to portray it as (3).
Another alternative is to organise enough investment to build a squad capable of delivering the promised "qualifying for the Champions League and competing for trophies" and to do so with a talented group of experienced and knowledgeable executive directors. That's what four of last season's top six clubs have done.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
The real question here though dave is was he spending his money or future revenues from the Villa. If he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy. If on the other hand he charges the club interest, management charges and loan repayments etc then we will all be agreeing with Fuse I imagine.
That's a completely different argument. What Fuse is saying is that as Randy seems to have reached the bottom of his pockets we should want him to sell the club and another owner take his place - debts and all.
It is a variation of the argument.
The reality is that the club is now loaded with debt albeit all owed to Randy. So the point is was he spending his money or the club's future revenues which he now intends to extract.
If it is the latter then quite frankly I would expect most people would prefer him to fuck off now.
The debt issues are all of randy's own making through incompetent financial management. It is not unreasonable that the average supporter would have assumed that the guy knew what he was doing so were quite happy to see him spending.
-
I think Randy has been brilliant, but has had a difficult 12 months. I hope he pulls through and is proved right on the current strategy, as it could backfire. We are ok 11 wise, but 2-3 injuries and we are even more threadbare than we were last season. We had a small squad 2 years ago. The balance is out, and I hope they know what they are doing. I admire them for sticking to their guns on their choice of manager etc, but the current policy will see us lose Bent and if he plays well NZogbia, then whichever of the kids are successful before long.
-
Difficult, it has been a shit of a year.and Randy still doesn't learn,until football people get on the board it will stay the same.
-
I think Randy's been brilliant too. Maybe this is just a year to consolidate, and by the end of this season you've also dropped the burdenous contracts of Heskey and Beye too. I do think the club will invest as soon as the time is right, but only on players that are proven quality and not just looking for a hefty payout to end their career. We might have to accept that may not happen during this window. But players like N'Zogbia are the right age, on money worthy of their talents, and will be here on decent length contracts and unavilable for sale unless some stupid offer comes in. What we are seeing right in front of our eyes is the era of Davies, Sidwell, NRC, Harewood, Heskey etc, players bought for really good money and wages that just sat on the bench come to a crashing end.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
The real question here though dave is was he spending his money or future revenues from the Villa. If he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy. If on the other hand he charges the club interest, management charges and loan repayments etc then we will all be agreeing with Fuse I imagine.
That's a completely different argument. What Fuse is saying is that as Randy seems to have reached the bottom of his pockets we should want him to sell the club and another owner take his place - debts and all.
It is a variation of the argument.
The reality is that the club is now loaded with debt albeit all owed to Randy. So the point is was he spending his money or the club's future revenues which he now intends to extract.
If it is the latter then quite frankly I would expect most people would prefer him to fuck off now.
The debt issues are all of randy's own making through incompetent financial management. It is not unreasonable that the average supporter would have assumed that the guy knew what he was doing so were quite happy to see him spending.
So if he ever wants his money back he should "fuck off now". Charming.
We must be the only supporters in football who are unhappy that our owner spent too much of his own money.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
The real question here though dave is was he spending his money or future revenues from the Villa. If he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy. If on the other hand he charges the club interest, management charges and loan repayments etc then we will all be agreeing with Fuse I imagine.
That's a completely different argument. What Fuse is saying is that as Randy seems to have reached the bottom of his pockets we should want him to sell the club and another owner take his place - debts and all.
It is a variation of the argument.
The reality is that the club is now loaded with debt albeit all owed to Randy. So the point is was he spending his money or the club's future revenues which he now intends to extract.
If it is the latter then quite frankly I would expect most people would prefer him to fuck off now.
The debt issues are all of randy's own making through incompetent financial management. It is not unreasonable that the average supporter would have assumed that the guy knew what he was doing so were quite happy to see him spending.
We must be the only supporters in football who are unhappy that our owner spent too much of his own money.
But that is exactly the point is it his money or the club's future revenues. Only time will tell.
-
Does anybody think he will ever get his money back?
-
But that is exactly the point is it his money or the club's future revenues. Only time will tell.
Of course it's his money. He lent it to the club. Do you think he should never get it back?
-
But that is exactly the point is it his money or the club's future revenues. Only time will tell.
Of course it's his money. He lent it to the club. Do you think he should never get it back?
When he has mismanaged it to the extent that he has, then NO I don't think he should get all of it back because if he does then the club will have carried the burden of his financial incompetence.
-
But that is exactly the point is it his money or the club's future revenues. Only time will tell.
Of course it's his money. He lent it to the club. Do you think he should never get it back?
When he has mismanaged it to the extent that he has, then NO I don't think he should get all of it back because if he does then the club will have carried the burden of his financial incompetence.
"We must be the only supporters in football who are unhappy that our owner spent too much of his own money."
-
But that is exactly the point is it his money or the club's future revenues. Only time will tell.
Of course it's his money. He lent it to the club. Do you think he should never get it back?
When he has mismanaged it to the extent that he has, then NO I don't think he should get all of it back because if he does then the club will have carried the burden of his financial incompetence.
I don't remember it being called incompetence when we were paying top money for players.
Presumably your rule should apply to any other potential owner that might be out there - come in, spend a fortune, then fuck off when you can't spend any more.
-
Ok i'll try not to be thick! I always thought Randy brought the football club so why are we paying him back? Am I missing something?
-
It frustrates me but we should be rid of the overpaid crap this time next year. By which time we'll have had a couple of years of not spending big, which should enable us to have another crack at the top 4 again.
That's the way I see it anyway. We just can't afford to bring in players to replace the likes of Heskey, Dunne, Beye, Warnock and Ireland as they'll just be sitting in the stands picking up their astronimical wages.
And as there's no takers it's a stand off where we'll just have to wait until they're on frees/someone wants them.
-
I'm having a hard time believing Randy has given up on the club. I do think he's said that we need to get our house in order before we try again. He tried it using one method and it nearly crippled the club. Now to try a different approach, more patient and sustainable. I think the club have placed a lot of stock in FFP and I hope for our sake that it is what they hope it is, and truly does provide a little bit of balance to the playing field. It's going to be hard to compete with the very top clubs as long the CL money creates such a financial disparity, but good future in-house management should always give us a chance to try and get there.
-
But that is exactly the point is it his money or the club's future revenues. Only time will tell.
Of course it's his money. He lent it to the club. Do you think he should never get it back?
When he has mismanaged it to the extent that he has, then NO I don't think he should get all of it back because if he does then the club will have carried the burden of his financial incompetence.
I don't remember it being called incompetence when we were paying top money for players.
Presumably your rule should apply to any other potential owner that might be out there - come in, spend a fortune, then fuck off when you can't spend any more.
I like it. Good call.
-
But that is exactly the point is it his money or the club's future revenues. Only time will tell.
Of course it's his money. He lent it to the club. Do you think he should never get it back?
When he has mismanaged it to the extent that he has, then NO I don't think he should get all of it back because if he does then the club will have carried the burden of his financial incompetence.
I don't remember it being called incompetence when we were paying top money for players.
Presumably your rule should apply to any other potential owner that might be out there - come in, spend a fortune, then fuck off when you can't spend any more.
As financial statements aren't released for the best part of 6 months later than the period to which they relate then you would have to be mystic meg to know how well the commercial and marketing side were doing.
As for any new owners, on a personal level I absolutely would not want them to spend a fortune. I would prefer them to grow the business as per the current regime intend to but with 2 exceptions.
1) They need to start from a sensible wage structure. Cutting back the way Randy is doing at the moment could well result in the unthinkable happening if we hit a run of injuries.
2) They need to get football knowledge on the board.
I have to say I have no faith in any part of their management skills and feel if past performance is anything to go by then the future is looking anything but bright.
-
I really should try and find a copy of the last accounts so I stop asking dumb questions (although I doubt I'd understand them). If we ignore abnormals costs etc (two lots of compensation for managers etc) how much money would be generated for transfers each financial year.
That is, based on current turnover what is a "sustainable" transfer budget for each transfer window/season etc?
-
I think Randy has been brilliant, but has had a difficult 12 months. I hope he pulls through and is proved right on the current strategy, as it could backfire. We are ok 11 wise, but 2-3 injuries and we are even more threadbare than we were last season. We had a small squad 2 years ago. The balance is out, and I hope they know what they are doing. I admire them for sticking to their guns on their choice of manager etc, but the current policy will see us lose Bent and if he plays well NZogbia, then whichever of the kids are successful before long.
Brilliant? You're joking aren't you, the man is a crap businessman, and an even worse football team owner. He hasn't got the first clue. He inherited a fortune and is doing his best to piss most of it up the wall.
-
Why am I being quoted for something I haven't said.
That is very strange.
-
But that is exactly the point is it his money or the club's future revenues. Only time will tell.
Of course it's his money. He lent it to the club. Do you think he should never get it back?
When he has mismanaged it to the extent that he has, then NO I don't think he should get all of it back because if he does then the club will have carried the burden of his financial incompetence.
I don't remember it being called incompetence when we were paying top money for players.
Presumably your rule should apply to any other potential owner that might be out there - come in, spend a fortune, then fuck off when you can't spend any more.
As financial statements aren't released for the best part of 6 months later than the period to which they relate then you would have to be mystic meg to know how well the commercial and marketing side were doing.
As for any new owners, on a personal level I absolutely would not want them to spend a fortune. I would prefer them to grow the business as per the current regime intend to but with 2 exceptions.
1) They need to start from a sensible wage structure. Cutting back the way Randy is doing at the moment could well result in the unthinkable happening if we hit a run of injuries.
2) They need to get football knowledge on the board.
I have to say I have no faith in any part of their management skills and feel if past performance is anything to go by then the future is looking anything but bright.
I agree with the numbered points, but please tell me what they've done that is so bad beyond giving the manager too much money to spend, and why no-one criticised them for it when the team was doing well.
-
Somebody is using my username.
They might talk more sense than me.
-
The wage is still high, remember nearly every single player is on to much, I think it will take a few year to basically turn the squad around and get all the high earners out. Next year Beye, Heskey, Young, Cuellar will leave (I think).
We need to start from a solid base which will take time to achieve.
-
The assertion that Randy Lerner's investment in the team has been in any way excessive or extravagant is complete and utter bollocks.
He invested an average of £20m a season for four seasons. He then stopped investing and has now reversed. To put that in perspective, £20m net spend is the same amount of money that McLeish spent at Blues during his final two seasons.
-
Try comparing that net spend with all the other clubs in the league over the last four years. Man City aside, we will be right up there...very possibly top.
-
Try comparing that net spend with all the other clubs in the league over the last four years. Man City aside, we will be right up there...very possibly top.
Not when you subtract the claw back this summer.
-
I agree with the numbered points, but please tell me what they've done that is so bad beyond giving the manager too much money to spend, and why no-one criticised them for it when the team was doing well.
1) Inability to grow the commercial revenue
2) Allowing the wages to grow to (difficult to be sure of the % as the latest accounts are not yet available) say 85% of turnover.
3) The lack of information flowing out of the club. We are not a bank which treats its customers like something on the bottom of its shoe. We need to be wooed, they need to develop better relations with the press.
4) The strategy - they didn't have one except to finish in the champions league places. In this letter to ST's it states their ambitions have not altered which is to 'manage the club for growth'. Well that's the first time I have heard that statement so it appears to me they have either changed their strategy (no problem with that but at least be honest) or they think they can pull the wool over our eyes.
5) The lack of specific business acumen, particularly with football knowledge but also with the marketing of the club. We have been unable to keep a number of board members over any period of time. This is a pointer that all is not well in the big house.
Oh yeah and the bastards took my seat off me (Trinity 400). In fact I could see the commercial sense of that and agreed with it although their handling of the move was poor.
My criticism is less about the team although the last year of MON did cure my insomnia.
When looking at the management of any business it is only after the fact that a true picture emerges. Finance and filing of accounts only tell you what has happened from 18 months or more earlier which is why it is only in the last year that all of this is coming to light.
The effects of the spending slurge and wage expansion will be with us for years to come. The wages will reduce next year with Heskey and Beye coming off the bill, but if Randy charges interest on his loans and his management charges then we are going to struggle for a long time to come.
-
Try comparing that net spend with all the other clubs in the league over the last four years. Man City aside, we will be right up there...very possibly top.
Not when you subtract the claw back this summer.
Regardless of this summer Some other club's transfer balance sheet - Clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/tottenham-hotspur/transferbilanz/verein_148.html)
-
What was the 12m management charge for?
-
I agree with the numbered points, but please tell me what they've done that is so bad beyond giving the manager too much money to spend, and why no-one criticised them for it when the team was doing well.
1) Inability to grow the commercial revenue
2) Allowing the wages to grow to (difficult to be sure of the % as the latest accounts are not yet available) say 85% of turnover.
3) The lack of information flowing out of the club. We are not a bank which treats its customers like something on the bottom of its shoe. We need to be wooed, they need to develop better relations with the press.
4) The strategy - they didn't have one except to finish in the champions league places. In this letter to ST's it states their ambitions have not altered which is to 'manage the club for growth'. Well that's the first time I have heard that statement so it appears to me they have either changed their strategy (no problem with that but at least be honest) or they think they can pull the wool over our eyes.
5) The lack of specific business acumen, particularly with football knowledge but also with the marketing of the club. We have been unable to keep a number of board members over any period of time. This is a pointer that all is not well in the big house.
Oh yeah and the bastards took my seat off me (Trinity 400). In fact I could see the commercial sense of that and agreed with it although their handling of the move was poor.
My criticism is less about the team although the last year of MON did cure my insomnia.
When looking at the management of any business it is only after the fact that a true picture emerges. Finance and filing of accounts only tell you what has happened from 18 months or more earlier which is why it is only in the last year that all of this is coming to light.
The effects of the spending slurge and wage expansion will be with us for years to come. The wages will reduce next year with Heskey and Beye coming off the bill, but if Randy charges interest on his loans and his management charges then we are going to struggle for a long time to come.
1) They tried. Some of their marketing strategies have been innovative but it's not their fault they couldn't bring in massive amounts of commercial revenue nor improve the gates higher than the levels of a couple of seasons ago, which were on a par with our best ever. It's this which shows Villa aren't as big as we like to think they are.
2) The "spending too much of his own money" argument again.
3) I can remember when it was a great thing that Randy didn't talk to the media - it made a change from Doug. I also don't know of many clubs who tell their supporters more than we do.
4) I also don't know of any other club with a defined strategy, nor how one could be implemented.
5) We all know why the CEOs left. Apart from that there was Steve Stride (retired) and two Americans who we never heard from and who never seemed to do much,.
-
I think Randy has been brilliant, but has had a difficult 12 months. I hope he pulls through and is proved right on the current strategy, as it could backfire. We are ok 11 wise, but 2-3 injuries and we are even more threadbare than we were last season. We had a small squad 2 years ago. The balance is out, and I hope they know what they are doing. I admire them for sticking to their guns on their choice of manager etc, but the current policy will see us lose Bent and if he plays well NZogbia, then whichever of the kids are successful before long.
Brilliant? You're joking aren't you, the man is a crap businessman, and an even worse football team owner. He hasn't got the first clue. He inherited a fortune and is doing his best to piss most of it up the wall.
His overall life maybe, but he came in and did just what as fans you would want, and yes, he was brilliant. Unfortunately he made massive mistakes, not having football men around him in positions that could question O'Neill being one, but the training ground, the pub, the general feel good factor was brilliant. The problem is he has got burnt, but rather than scale back gradually and changing policy so high wage players are replaced with young ones that will have sell on potential etc, he has gone into recession mode, and I feel has left his new manager high and dry at the moment. Questions need to be asked of him, as they should of anyone at the top of the tree if things start to go awry, but to suggest he should go is wrong.
-
The assertion that Randy Lerner's investment in the team has been in any way excessive or extravagant is complete and utter bollocks.
He invested an average of £20m a season for four seasons. He then stopped investing and has now reversed. To put that in perspective, £20m net spend is the same amount of money that McLeish spent at Blues during his final two seasons.
Net spend for the last five years:
# 2006 - 2011 Purchased Gross --- Sold --- Nett --- Per Season
1 Manchester City --- £455,670,000 --- £75,550,000 --- £380,120,000 --- £76,024,000
2 Chelsea --- £199,500,000 --- £101,800,000 --- £97,700,000 --- £19,540,000
3 Tottenham --- £230,300,000 --- £135,100,000 --- £95,200,000 --- £19,040,000
4 Aston Villa --- £145,350,000 --- £67,650,000 --- £77,700,000 --- £15,540,000
5 Sunderland --- £122,850,000 --- £65,725,000 --- £57,125,000 --- £11,425,000
6 Liverpool --- £253,240,000 --- £205,280,000 --- £47,960,000 --- £9,592,000
7 Stoke City --- £54,725,000 --- £10,920,000 --- £43,805,000 --- £8,761,000
8 West Ham --- £105,070,000 --- £68,225,000 --- £36,845,000 --- £7,369,000
9 Fulham --- £63,675,000 --- £28,875,000 --- £34,800,000 --- £6,960,000
10 Bolton --- £52,150,000 --- £26,750,000 --- £25,400,000 --- £5,080,000
11 Wolves --- £33,525,000 --- £8,225,000 --- £25,300,000 --- £5,060,000
12 West Bromwich Albion --- £46,585,000 --- £27,560,000 --- £19,025,000 --- £3,805,000
15 Everton --- £64,750,500 --- £48,250,000 --- £16,500,500 --- £3,300,100
14 Manchester United --- £164,300,000 --- £150,850,000 --- £13,450,000 --- £2,690,000
15 Birmingham City --- £64,875,000 --- £53,850,000 --- £11,025,000 --- £2,205,000
16 Blackpool --- £4,700,000 --- £250,000 --- £4,450,000 --- £890,000
17 Wigan --- £58,500,000 --- £60,200,000 --- -£1,700,000 --- -£340,000
18 Blackburn Rovers --- £41,752,000 --- £47,290,000 --- -£5,538,000 --- -£1,107,600
19 Arsenal --- £85,150,000 --- £113,000,000 --- -£27,850,000 --- -£5,570,000
20 Newcastle --- £63,100,000 --- £112,650,000 --- -£49,550,000 --- -£9,910,000
We went for broke and the chance has gone. Time to reign it in.
-
I agree with the numbered points, but please tell me what they've done that is so bad beyond giving the manager too much money to spend, and why no-one criticised them for it when the team was doing well.
1) Inability to grow the commercial revenue
2) Allowing the wages to grow to (difficult to be sure of the % as the latest accounts are not yet available) say 85% of turnover.
3) The lack of information flowing out of the club. We are not a bank which treats its customers like something on the bottom of its shoe. We need to be wooed, they need to develop better relations with the press.
4) The strategy - they didn't have one except to finish in the champions league places. In this letter to ST's it states their ambitions have not altered which is to 'manage the club for growth'. Well that's the first time I have heard that statement so it appears to me they have either changed their strategy (no problem with that but at least be honest) or they think they can pull the wool over our eyes.
5) The lack of specific business acumen, particularly with football knowledge but also with the marketing of the club. We have been unable to keep a number of board members over any period of time. This is a pointer that all is not well in the big house.
Oh yeah and the bastards took my seat off me (Trinity 400). In fact I could see the commercial sense of that and agreed with it although their handling of the move was poor.
My criticism is less about the team although the last year of MON did cure my insomnia.
When looking at the management of any business it is only after the fact that a true picture emerges. Finance and filing of accounts only tell you what has happened from 18 months or more earlier which is why it is only in the last year that all of this is coming to light.
The effects of the spending slurge and wage expansion will be with us for years to come. The wages will reduce next year with Heskey and Beye coming off the bill, but if Randy charges interest on his loans and his management charges then we are going to struggle for a long time to come.
1) They tried. Some of their marketing strategies have been innovative but it's not their fault they couldn't bring in massive amounts of commercial revenue nor improve the gates higher than the levels of a couple of seasons ago, which were on a par with our best ever. It's this which shows Villa aren't as big as we like to think they are.
2) The "spending too much of his own money" argument again.
3) I can remember when it was a great thing that Randy didn't talk to the media - it made a change from Doug. I also don't know of many clubs who tell their supporters more than we do.
4) I also don't know of any other club with a defined strategy, nor how one could be implemented.
5) We all know why the CEOs left. Apart from that there was Steve Stride (retired) and two Americans who we never heard from and who never seemed to do much,.
1) Yes they tried but equally they failed.
2) When he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy it will have been his own money. While he charges the club interest then he is, on behalf of the club borrowing the money and spending (wasting) it. Not my idea of good management.
3) Don't care whether Randy says anything or not but the silence at critical times over the last few years is deafening. Look at the way we handled the appointment of both Houllier, who was announced but couldn't start till (well nobody knew at the time) , and McLeish, well the less said about that the better.
4) I have never heard of any business above one or two man bands which doesn't have a strategy. What the hell is any board there for if not to define and constantly evaluate the strategy. Strategies change - there is nothing wrong with that and ours has clearly changed. Yet we get a letter which states their ambitions have not changed. The General has constantly stated exactly the same. Who believes them?
5) We may well know why the CEO's left but if the board is so weak as to not stand up to the manager then I would certainly class that as poor management.
-
The assertion that Randy Lerner's investment in the team has been in any way excessive or extravagant is complete and utter bollocks.
He invested an average of £20m a season for four seasons. He then stopped investing and has now reversed. To put that in perspective, £20m net spend is the same amount of money that McLeish spent at Blues during his final two seasons.
Net spend for the last five years:
# 2006 - 2011 Purchased Gross --- Sold --- Nett --- Per Season
1 Manchester City --- £455,670,000 --- £75,550,000 --- £380,120,000 --- £76,024,000
2 Chelsea --- £199,500,000 --- £101,800,000 --- £97,700,000 --- £19,540,000
3 Tottenham --- £230,300,000 --- £135,100,000 --- £95,200,000 --- £19,040,000
4 Aston Villa --- £145,350,000 --- £67,650,000 --- £77,700,000 --- £15,540,000
5 Sunderland --- £122,850,000 --- £65,725,000 --- £57,125,000 --- £11,425,000
6 Liverpool --- £253,240,000 --- £205,280,000 --- £47,960,000 --- £9,592,000
7 Stoke City --- £54,725,000 --- £10,920,000 --- £43,805,000 --- £8,761,000
8 West Ham --- £105,070,000 --- £68,225,000 --- £36,845,000 --- £7,369,000
9 Fulham --- £63,675,000 --- £28,875,000 --- £34,800,000 --- £6,960,000
10 Bolton --- £52,150,000 --- £26,750,000 --- £25,400,000 --- £5,080,000
11 Wolves --- £33,525,000 --- £8,225,000 --- £25,300,000 --- £5,060,000
12 West Bromwich Albion --- £46,585,000 --- £27,560,000 --- £19,025,000 --- £3,805,000
15 Everton --- £64,750,500 --- £48,250,000 --- £16,500,500 --- £3,300,100
14 Manchester United --- £164,300,000 --- £150,850,000 --- £13,450,000 --- £2,690,000
15 Birmingham City --- £64,875,000 --- £53,850,000 --- £11,025,000 --- £2,205,000
16 Blackpool --- £4,700,000 --- £250,000 --- £4,450,000 --- £890,000
17 Wigan --- £58,500,000 --- £60,200,000 --- -£1,700,000 --- -£340,000
18 Blackburn Rovers --- £41,752,000 --- £47,290,000 --- -£5,538,000 --- -£1,107,600
19 Arsenal --- £85,150,000 --- £113,000,000 --- -£27,850,000 --- -£5,570,000
20 Newcastle --- £63,100,000 --- £112,650,000 --- -£49,550,000 --- -£9,910,000
We went for broke and the chance has gone. Time to reign it in.
I'll take a look at these figures. Where are they from?
-
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html
I've seen them posted elsewhere at the end of May, so they won't be including this summer.
-
It would be good to see wages in those figures too .
-
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html
I've seen them posted elsewhere at the end of May, so they won't be including this summer.
It's the best site for transfer data that I know of. I suspect that when Randy took over most of us understood we'd need to spend on transfer fees to catch up with the likes of Liverpool?
-
It would be good to see wages in those figures too .
It would be really interesting to see wages paid over the course of the same 5 years as Mellin's figures for transfers.
-
It frustrates me but we should be rid of the overpaid crap this time next year. By which time we'll have had a couple of years of not spending big, which should enable us to have another crack at the top 4 again.
That's the way I see it anyway. We just can't afford to bring in players to replace the likes of Heskey, Dunne, Beye, Warnock and Ireland as they'll just be sitting in the stands picking up their astronimical wages.
And as there's no takers it's a stand off where we'll just have to wait until they're on frees/someone wants them.
I don't see that, sadly. I did (I had already written off this window) up until this statement came out but with the focus upon sustainability within the statement I feel that the time of Lerner splashing the cash has well and truly gone. If you think about the wage situation we have already waved goodbye to a large number of players who were earning a decent whack and have had a lot coming in in terms of fees.
-
The recent example of finally courting an impressive sponsorship deal and bagging it gives me hope that a concerted effort is going to be made to maximise our income, away from selling players as much as possible.
I think there could be something in the theory that once we wait for O'Neill's remaining deadbeats to stop draining us - most will be gone by this time next year, we can rise again.
But watching McLeish in all seriousness say in his press conference today that we would aiming to ''emulate or better'' last season's league position, my heart did sink a bit. I've no doubt that he's as much of a bad loser as has been reported lately but I don't want him having a slightly more elevated sense of expectation from his players than wit that lot down the road. Regardless of all the turmoil this summer we should be battling our arses off for a top six place.
-
Maybe it's becasue I have been in business many years, but I respect what RL is doing at the moment. He is simply cutting the gross wage bill as we know. Someone reported 88% of turnover! That is simply unsustainable. Any Chairman would attack that.
My hope is that we see us reduce this by letting go of the expensive dead wood, bringing through selected kids while purchasing players of quality who are a beneficial addition to the squad ( Bent, N'Zog).
The strategy must be to have a higher quality, higher value (on the books) but less costly squad. Oxymoronic I know but the kids will be the key to this. The danger is obviously concern about 'strength in depth'.
Better that than an overpaid, unmotivated group of journyemen.
-
Randy let MON get out of control.And it's only now he trying to do something about it.
I am getting a little sick of people defending Randy when it's his mess in the first place.
-
Randy let MON get out of control.And it's only now he trying to do something about it.
I am getting a little sick of people defending Randy when it's his mess in the first place.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. The January window in MON's final season was when we first saw a change, so he's been trying to something about it for 18 months.
-
Randy let MON get out of control.And it's only now he trying to do something about it.
I am getting a little sick of people defending Randy when it's his mess in the first place.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. The January window in MON's final season was when we first saw a change, so he's been trying to something about it for 18 months.
That's not quite right Chris, apparently we overspent budget the previous summer with the additional signing of Warnock.
Pretty pointless exercise discussing whether or not Randy has invested enough when we only look at the transfer fees and ignore the wage bill. Still, if it makes a few happy..
-
Randy let MON get out of control.And it's only now he trying to do something about it.
I am getting a little sick of people defending Randy when it's his mess in the first place.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. The January window in MON's final season was when we first saw a change, so he's been trying to something about it for 18 months.
That's not quite right Chris, apparently we overspent budget the previous summer with the additional signing of Warnock.
Pretty pointless exercise discussing whether or not Randy has invested enough when we only look at the transfer fees and ignore the wage bill. Still, if it makes a few happy..
Isn't that the same thing, we overspent in the summer so started doing something about it in January?
Agree with the second bit though.
The problem with all of this s that it takes time. As others have pointed out we'll have a few players at the end of their contracts next year which should give him room for manoeuvre. If that is coupled with the increased revenue they talk about then things might look a lot healthier ths time next year.
-
The problem with all of this s that it takes time. As others have pointed out we'll have a few players at the end of their contracts next year which should give him room for manoeuvre. If that is coupled with the increased revenue they talk about then things might look a lot healthier ths time next year.
Agreed, and this potentially makes a lot of sense - a period of stability wouldn't go amiss even if it costs us a place in the Deloitte's Top 20 (wink) though by this time next year we may have a considerable number of players to replace in the squad with the contract expirations and the ageing of players such as Dunne.
And please, let's not have the guff about "the kids". Our record over the last 10 years in bringing genuine top talent through isn't that fantastic. Decent lower premier players, yes, but top 6 players, no.
The good thing is that we won't have many top players leave next summer...
-
I didn't think the letter was cynical but it told us pretty much what we already knew.
We're certainly not alone, with the 25 man squad system, it seems the priority of a lot of clubs is to move the deadwood on and then bring in replacements. Spurs are finding it hard to move on the likes of Bentley, Hutton, Kranjcar, Jenas etc for the same reason.
At least we're under no illusions but it will be interesting what Mcleish can get out of what is a hugely depleted squad from last year.
-
Read it when I got home last night. No great surprises and fair enough in some respects but what I do hate to see/read is this apparent celebration of mediocrity - that's not what Aston Villa is all about.
Modern football is rubbish.
-
I just don't see the point of the letter.It's almost as if the chairman and CEO are looking for us to feel sorry for them.
-
I just don't see the point of the letter.It's almost as if the chairman and CEO are looking for us to feel sorry for them.
With supporters criticising RL for not keeping us in the picture via the media the board might have felt the need to address the fans through a more personal medium.
The letter is nothing we didn't know already. Like many clubs we are cutting our cloth to suit and so we should for the long term stability of the club.
-
Don't get me wrong if we haven't got the money I am ok with that.
I think it's about time they told the General to stop saying the money is there when it isn't.
-
1) Yes they tried but equally they failed.
2) When he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy it will have been his own money. While he charges the club interest then he is, on behalf of the club borrowing the money and spending (wasting) it. Not my idea of good management.
3) Don't care whether Randy says anything or not but the silence at critical times over the last few years is deafening. Look at the way we handled the appointment of both Houllier, who was announced but couldn't start till (well nobody knew at the time) , and McLeish, well the less said about that the better.
4) I have never heard of any business above one or two man bands which doesn't have a strategy. What the hell is any board there for if not to define and constantly evaluate the strategy. Strategies change - there is nothing wrong with that and ours has clearly changed. Yet we get a letter which states their ambitions have not changed. The General has constantly stated exactly the same. Who believes them?
5) We may well know why the CEO's left but if the board is so weak as to not stand up to the manager then I would certainly class that as poor management.
Entirely correct on all five points.
-
I really don't know what to make of the letter. It might be just me but I also found it read quite badly due to the over use of the comma.
-
I think McLeish has made our situation pretty clear in his latest press conference - at least we know where Villa stand now. I prefer to hear that kind of honest appraisal of the situation than the summer of ambiguous 'manager will be backed' and 'we're aiming for 4th.... ooops, did I type 4th? My finger must have slipped, I meant 5th... to 9th' comments that we've been treated to.
No players in, until players out. And that applies to free transfers too. Just need to accept it.
-
I think McLeish has made our situation pretty clear in his latest press conference - at least we know where Villa stand now. I prefer to hear that kind of honest appraisal of the situation than the summer of ambiguous 'manager will be backed' and 'we're aiming for 4th.... ooops, did I type 4th? My finger must have slipped, I meant 5th... to 9th' comments that we've been treated to.
No players in, until players out. And that applies to free transfers too. Just need to accept it.
Yes, the General has been trotting out a right load of old shite. I guess that's why he was too embarrassed to carry on posting on here.
-
1) Yes they tried but equally they failed.
2) When he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy it will have been his own money. While he charges the club interest then he is, on behalf of the club borrowing the money and spending (wasting) it. Not my idea of good management.
3) Don't care whether Randy says anything or not but the silence at critical times over the last few years is deafening. Look at the way we handled the appointment of both Houllier, who was announced but couldn't start till (well nobody knew at the time) , and McLeish, well the less said about that the better.
4) I have never heard of any business above one or two man bands which doesn't have a strategy. What the hell is any board there for if not to define and constantly evaluate the strategy. Strategies change - there is nothing wrong with that and ours has clearly changed. Yet we get a letter which states their ambitions have not changed. The General has constantly stated exactly the same. Who believes them?
5) We may well know why the CEO's left but if the board is so weak as to not stand up to the manager then I would certainly class that as poor management.
Entirely correct on all five points.
Actually it's not correct on all five points ....
1. RL has competed in the transfer market; he's paid the "going rate" on wages and he originally put his faith in a well-respected football man, MON. He found approximately 18 months' ago that the approach they'd set out on was not working and has attempted to rein the excess. Not unreasonable for the bloke who owns the club!
2. Wrong. He is simply acknowledging that he is loaning the club a large sum of money, for which he rightly expects some return. But there's also the need to show (in advance of the FFP) that he has not simply gifted the money to the club: by taking an interest charge he is establishing the commercial framework by which a third party would judge the club under the terms of the FFP. Abramoviich has done similarly at Chelski.
3. His PR has not been great but - as Dave said above - it's certainly better than under Good Ol' Doug. And at least we have had access in the past to CK, even if latterly he seems to have gone off piste.
4. Since I haven't seen the full text of the letter - I have had to let my ST lapse this season - I can't comment, but I too have concerns about their approach, even though much of what they have done operationally in their first five years has been very good.
5. Re senior personnel, I seem to remember everyone being quite excited here when RL first introduced his management team. Steve Stride aside, he seemed to have picked a decent management team. I cannot really comment on Paul Faulkner - I haven't met him - but he does seem to be struggling to make a positive impact.
I think it's fine to question the owner about stuff, but I do think some recognition of his ownership - and the good things that have happened / the bad things that have been avoided - should be given. I know I fought for the removal of Ellis for many years and do not regret his passing one iota; nor do I regret his choice of new owner in RL, even if the cold reality of competing in the EPL only now seems to have dawned on our American friend.
-
The assertion that Randy Lerner's investment in the team has been in any way excessive or extravagant is complete and utter bollocks.
He invested an average of £20m a season for four seasons. He then stopped investing and has now reversed. To put that in perspective, £20m net spend is the same amount of money that McLeish spent at Blues during his final two seasons.
Net spend for the last five years:
# 2006 - 2011 Purchased Gross --- Sold --- Nett --- Per Season
1 Manchester City --- £455,670,000 --- £75,550,000 --- £380,120,000 --- £76,024,000
2 Chelsea --- £199,500,000 --- £101,800,000 --- £97,700,000 --- £19,540,000
3 Tottenham --- £230,300,000 --- £135,100,000 --- £95,200,000 --- £19,040,000
4 Aston Villa --- £145,350,000 --- £67,650,000 --- £77,700,000 --- £15,540,000
5 Sunderland --- £122,850,000 --- £65,725,000 --- £57,125,000 --- £11,425,000
6 Liverpool --- £253,240,000 --- £205,280,000 --- £47,960,000 --- £9,592,000
...
We went for broke and the chance has gone. Time to reign it in.
Can I ask how you collated these figures. I began looking at them by checking the Chelsea and Spurs figures and can't reconcile them to your figures.
Here's what Transfer Markt shows for the Spurs balance sheet 2006/20011.
2010/2011 2.582.800 £ 37 22.968.000 £ 41 -20.385.200 £
2009/2010 27.984.000 £ 37 35.464.000 £ 38 -7.480.000 £
2008/2009 74.844.000 £ 40 125.400.000 £ 40 -50.556.000 £
2007/2008 20.130.000 £ 24 83.732.000 £ 27 -63.602.000 £
2006/2007 34.012.000 £ 23 53.680.000 £ 25 -19.668.000 £
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/tottenham-hotspur/transferbilanz/verein_148.html
-
1) Yes they tried but equally they failed.
2) When he writes off the loans then fair play to the guy it will have been his own money. While he charges the club interest then he is, on behalf of the club borrowing the money and spending (wasting) it. Not my idea of good management.
3) Don't care whether Randy says anything or not but the silence at critical times over the last few years is deafening. Look at the way we handled the appointment of both Houllier, who was announced but couldn't start till (well nobody knew at the time) , and McLeish, well the less said about that the better.
4) I have never heard of any business above one or two man bands which doesn't have a strategy. What the hell is any board there for if not to define and constantly evaluate the strategy. Strategies change - there is nothing wrong with that and ours has clearly changed. Yet we get a letter which states their ambitions have not changed. The General has constantly stated exactly the same. Who believes them?
5) We may well know why the CEO's left but if the board is so weak as to not stand up to the manager then I would certainly class that as poor management.
1) No they didn't fail. They increased revenue, then a number of factors meant it didn't grow as much as they liked. We've also, incidentally, just had our biggest-ever sponsorship deal but that one tends to be overlooked in the "Randy Is Useless" diatribes.
2) Yet again, he should spend his money and never want it back. Why?
3) This is the crux of a lot of the criticism. Villa didn't appoint the manager critics wanted, so everything they do by default is wrong.
4) You complain that they don't have a strategy, then say their strategy is wrong. What's it to be?
5) They did stand up to him once their ideas differed. Look what happened then.
-
1. Non TV commercial revenue has been flat for a while.
2. Fine, if that's what he wants, but he doesn't get to keep the "most supportive chairman" crown.
3. No. He was getting lots of criticism before he appointed the manager, and over the course of last year.
4. They seem to have a strategy, but it's all about Deloitte rankings rather than PL ones.
5. Fair enough, but then again, they were the ones who let him accrue so much power in the first place.
For what it's worth, I reckon he's looking at Everton as a model. That's fine but Everton are lucky to have such a good manager at that level, and to have held on to him for so long. The flip side of that is that Everton hardly ever sign players these days and Kenwright doesn't put money in (in his case because he doesn't have it).
The McLeish appointment to me looks like he's thought "I can't get Moyes because he won't come, so I'll try to create my own". That to me sounds almost as fanciful as General Krulak telling VT that he thiniks we can finished fourth - then getting lots of stick and saying "sorry, typo, meant 5th" - as if it is the difference between 5th and 4th that people were raising eyebrows about.
I've defended the board massively in the past, I've never been one of the serial moaners where they're concerned, but to me they look out and touch and as if they're floating around not knowing what they're doing, and they have for a while.
-
In Doug's final year our revenue was £49m and wages were £38.3m . So £10.7m left over after paying salary costs.
With revenue having risen to £90m primarily on the back of TV and ticket price increases, why shouldn't we be able to pay at least £70m in wages?
-
It's not like MON had to hide what was paying the players,he did it with the full backing of the board.It was left far too late before they tried to stop him spunking more of Randys money.
-
1. Non TV commercial revenue has been flat for a while.
2. Fine, if that's what he wants, but he doesn't get to keep the "most supportive chairman" crown.
3. No. He was getting lots of criticism before he appointed the manager, and over the course of last year.
4. They seem to have a strategy, but it's all about Deloitte rankings rather than PL ones.
5. Fair enough, but then again, they were the ones who let him accrue so much power in the first place.
1) Try selling Villa outside the West Midlands. It's not easy.
2) He doesn't have to, but neither does he deserve the demonisation he's been getting lately.
3) As I said.
4) I don't know of any club who admits what their strategy is, and if they have one - which would be difficult in football.
5) Without it he might not have taken the job, but it is Randy's single biggest fault.
-
In Doug's final year our revenue was £49m and wages were £38.3m . So £10.7m left over after paying salary costs.
With revenue having risen to £90m primarily on the back of TV and ticket price increases, why shouldn't we be able to pay at least £70m in wages?
...because there is now a substantial level of debt on the balance sheet which needs servicing, and if we tie players onto 3/4/5 year contracts which cumulatively total circa £70M p.a. then what happens if income declines through a combination of reduction in attendances and reduced commercial income; both are feasible in view of the present continuing difficult economic climate. Oh, and don't forget you will probably want a net spend on transfers from the difference between income and expenditure, also.
-
1. Non TV commercial revenue has been flat for a while.
2. Fine, if that's what he wants, but he doesn't get to keep the "most supportive chairman" crown.
3. No. He was getting lots of criticism before he appointed the manager, and over the course of last year.
4. They seem to have a strategy, but it's all about Deloitte rankings rather than PL ones.
5. Fair enough, but then again, they were the ones who let him accrue so much power in the first place.
1) Try selling Villa outside the West Midlands. It's not easy.
2) He doesn't have to, but neither does he deserve the demonisation he's been getting lately.
3) As I said.
4) I don't know of any club who admits what their strategy is, and if they have one - which would be difficult in football.
5) Without it he might not have taken the job, but it is Randy's single biggest fault.
1) The only way to significantly improve commercial revenue is through improved performances on the pitch. They knew that and knew it would require investment to achieve. This was the reason that Villa was valued so low at takeover.
2) There is a big difference between spending and investing. We've seen with the sales of Milner, Young and Downing that money spent on players was not spending, it was invesment.
3) It isn't correct to insist that supporter's main issue is McLeish's link to Blues. I don't know anyone who really gives a f**k
4) Every club has a strategy. Many of them declare it with clarity. Ours was to qualify for CL and win trophies, it is now to be one of the top 20 revenue earning clubs in Europe.
5) It is illogical and trite to repeatedly insist that we overspent on transfer fees/wages in relation to a club with a strategy to qualify for CL and win trophies.
-
Ours was to qualify for CL and win trophies, it is now to be one of the top 20 revenue earning clubs in Euro
Those are targets, not strategies.
However, as you said the only way to improve revenue is by success on the pitch so the two go hand in hand.
-
Lerner's one strategy was let O'Neill do whatever he wanted, including seemingly, agreeing transfer fees and salaries. What sort of owner acts surprised when he sees the wage bill at the end of the year? Dreadful, dreadful mismanagement, and a piss poor way to run any sort of business.
-
Lerner's one strategy was let O'Neill do whatever he wanted, including seemingly, agreeing transfer fees and salaries. What sort of owner acts surprised when he sees the wage bill at the end of the year? Dreadful, dreadful mismanagement, and a piss poor way to run any sort of business.
If his investment had given him a couple more wins then qualifying for the CL would have justified it and he wouldn't be getting any of this stick. We tried one approach, it almost paid dividend and now we're trying something else
-
Lerner's one strategy was let O'Neill do whatever he wanted, including seemingly, agreeing transfer fees and salaries. What sort of owner acts surprised when he sees the wage bill at the end of the year? Dreadful, dreadful mismanagement, and a piss poor way to run any sort of business.
If his investment had given him a couple more wins then qualifying for the CL would have justified it and he wouldn't be getting any of this stick. We tried one approach, it almost paid dividend and now we're trying something else
How would it have justified it? In all liklihood we'd have crashed out of the Champions League at the first hurdle and still had a massive wage bill. We're not "trying something else" in the sense that appointing a crap manager, selling our best players and not replacing them is a great new strategy, in the same way that Leeds nearly going bust and spending the last few years in the lower leagues is them "trying something else".
Lerner lost control of his business because he doesn't know what he's doing, and the only way to try and restore a bit of order is now to stop spending and liquidate some assets.
-
The crucial question for me is: where are Villa going? For the first time in five years, I couldn't tell you.
-
Ours was to qualify for CL and win trophies, it is now to be one of the top 20 revenue earning clubs in Euro
Those are targets, not strategies.
However, as you said the only way to improve revenue is by success on the pitch so the two go hand in hand.
OK you're right of course. That was the aim not the strategy. The strategy in support of achieving that aim would presumably have included investing money on buying players and the corresponding increase in wages towards the levels of a top 6 team?
So on that basis, why do so many people insist that spending an average of £20m per season on transfer fees for four years and wages at the bottom range for a top 6 team were examples of profligacy?
-
It frustrates me but we should be rid of the overpaid crap this time next year. By which time we'll have had a couple of years of not spending big, which should enable us to have another crack at the top 4 again.
That's the way I see it anyway. We just can't afford to bring in players to replace the likes of Heskey, Dunne, Beye, Warnock and Ireland as they'll just be sitting in the stands picking up their astronimical wages.
And as there's no takers it's a stand off where we'll just have to wait until they're on frees/someone wants them.
I don't see that, sadly. I did (I had already written off this window) up until this statement came out but with the focus upon sustainability within the statement I feel that the time of Lerner splashing the cash has well and truly gone. If you think about the wage situation we have already waved goodbye to a large number of players who were earning a decent whack and have had a lot coming in in terms of fees.
Christ I hope you're wrong. I'm just crossing my fingers it's a destroy and rebuild job and once the manager has a clean canvass funds will be available.
If it's not and we have to rely on working within our own limits ala Arsenal then I'd hope Randy would be looking to sell, because I really can't see anyway our commercial revenue will increase without further investment.
-
Lerner's one strategy was let O'Neill do whatever he wanted, including seemingly, agreeing transfer fees and salaries. What sort of owner acts surprised when he sees the wage bill at the end of the year? Dreadful, dreadful mismanagement, and a piss poor way to run any sort of business.
If his investment had given him a couple more wins then qualifying for the CL would have justified it and he wouldn't be getting any of this stick. We tried one approach, it almost paid dividend and now we're trying something else
How would it have justified it? In all liklihood we'd have crashed out of the Champions League at the first hurdle and still had a massive wage bill. We're not "trying something else" in the sense that appointing a crap manager, selling our best players and not replacing them is a great new strategy, in the same way that Leeds nearly going bust and spending the last few years in the lower leagues is them "trying something else".
Lerner lost control of his business because he doesn't know what he's doing, and the only way to try and restore a bit of order is now to stop spending and liquidate some assets.
That's one extreme interpretation but there are other ways of looking at it.
He hasn't stopped spending, he's reduced it.
The approach now, according to the letter, is to increase revenue in order to support the playing side. Of course that might all be a bluff and you're right but for now I'll trust that is what they intend.
-
Your right Chris revenues have to
increase.Are we being softened up for something.
Stadium branding perhaps?
-
That's one extreme interpretation but there are other ways of looking at it.
He hasn't stopped spending, he's reduced it.
The approach now, according to the letter, is to increase revenue in order to support the playing side. Of course that might all be a bluff and you're right but for now I'll trust that is what they intend.
He's been trying to do that for 5 years and has failed. Now with a weaker squad do you really feel confident he can achieve a better result. He still has no football knowledge on the board so he is equally not learning from past mistakes.
I admire your trust but with the club now loaded with a huge debt it now has to finance and a management team lacking the skill base required to run a football club I am finding it very hard to trust them.
-
That's one extreme interpretation but there are other ways of looking at it.
He hasn't stopped spending, he's reduced it.
The approach now, according to the letter, is to increase revenue in order to support the playing side. Of course that might all be a bluff and you're right but for now I'll trust that is what they intend.
He's been trying to do that for 5 years and has failed. Now with a weaker squad do you really feel confident he can achieve a better result. He still has no football knowledge on the board so he is equally not learning from past mistakes.
I admire your trust but with the club now loaded with a huge debt it now has to finance and a management team lacking the skill base required to run a football club I am finding it very hard to trust them.
Why do you think they need a football man on the board to raise commercial revenue? It's untrue to suggest that they haven't increased it in 5 years and they've also just signed our best ever sponsorship deal which is yet to be recognised in any published accounts.
-
Your right Chris revenues have to
increase.Are we being softened up for something.
Stadium branding perhaps?
why would we need to be softened up for that? If Villa Park became Nike Park with a big swoosh across the Doug, it likely would not appeal to the purists. But it would still be called Villa park to all of us, and if it brought in X million a year that helped us grow, it wouldn't be a bad thing. I'd like Villa Park to be called Villa Park until I die, but if it got called something else to help us keep up with the Jones's, I'd likely gnash my teeth for a little bit, then shrug my shoulders but move on pretty quickly. I think most people would.
-
Your right Chris revenues have to
increase.Are we being softened up for something.
Stadium branding perhaps?
why would we need to be softened up for that? If Villa Park became Nike Park with a big swoosh across the Doug, it likely would not appeal to the purists. But it would still be called Villa park to all of us, and if it brought in X million a year that helped us grow, it wouldn't be a bad thing. I'd like Villa Park to be called Villa Park until I die, but if it got called something else to help us keep up with the Jones's, I'd likely gnash my teeth for a little bit, then shrug my shoulders but move on pretty quickly. I think most people would.
That's why it either won't happen, or if it does, won't raise much revenue anyway.
Stadium naming doesn't work so well with stadia that have names burned into the conscious over a century.
-
Your right Chris revenues have to
increase.Are we being softened up for something.
Stadium branding perhaps?
why would we need to be softened up for that? If Villa Park became Nike Park with a big swoosh across the Doug, it likely would not appeal to the purists. But it would still be called Villa park to all of us, and if it brought in X million a year that helped us grow, it wouldn't be a bad thing. I'd like Villa Park to be called Villa Park until I die, but if it got called something else to help us keep up with the Jones's, I'd likely gnash my teeth for a little bit, then shrug my shoulders but move on pretty quickly. I think most people would.
That's why it either won't happen, or if it does, won't raise much revenue anyway.
Stadium naming doesn't work so well with stadia that have names burned into the conscious over a century.
yeh, maybe. But if the Nike Stadium is put on everything the club produces and is merchandised as such, TV refers to it with the correct name, a newer generation of fan begins to adopt the name. Us old farts will call it what we want. My wife works for a company over here called Sun Life Financial. They recently took over the naming of Miami Dolphins stadium and have done a lot advertising to support the team to help grow their brand in the US. I have no idea if the fans call it that, and I appreciate that US sports is more used to it than us football fans, but like many commercial ventures, football fans are only a piece of it, seemingly a smaller and smaller piece.
-
We clearly need to do something to improve the books. I don't think that selling your best players, releasing others and reinvesting a fraction of the return is a good way to go. It's far too fast, and is shocking leadership from the board. We badly need some investment, because we are travelling backwards at an alarming rate.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
No not quite. Randy doesn't have the funds to keep ploughing money in to shore up the losses we have been making. Nor does he seem to have the magical idea (not that there necessarily is one anyway) of doubling our revenues to make us compettive and self sufficient.
So if we still want as fans to aspire to winning things the only way possible these days is to have a rich benefactor. I doubt any of us expected to be in this position when we were taken over by a Billionaire but unfortunately Randy isn't a multi-billionaire. I don't doubt he would like to keep spending but he isn't in a position to do so and therefore if he wants to leave us with a lsting legacy he will go and find someone who ahs his same best intentions but with a far bigger bank balance to play with.
-
When Lerner took over, we were told that this was going to be an exciting new era, where our profile would be raised worldwide as we did exciting deal with the likes of Nike, and how they'd use all their business skills that Doug didn't possess to make us a force in European and domestic football.
Well, the marketing of the club has probably been THE worst aspect of Lerner's tenure. It's so bad it doesn't even deserve to be called amateurish.
-
That's one extreme interpretation but there are other ways of looking at it.
He hasn't stopped spending, he's reduced it.
The approach now, according to the letter, is to increase revenue in order to support the playing side. Of course that might all be a bluff and you're right but for now I'll trust that is what they intend.
He's been trying to do that for 5 years and has failed. Now with a weaker squad do you really feel confident he can achieve a better result. He still has no football knowledge on the board so he is equally not learning from past mistakes.
I admire your trust but with the club now loaded with a huge debt it now has to finance and a management team lacking the skill base required to run a football club I am finding it very hard to trust them.
Why do you think they need a football man on the board to raise commercial revenue? It's untrue to suggest that they haven't increased it in 5 years and they've also just signed our best ever sponsorship deal which is yet to be recognised in any published accounts.
I don't and I didn't say a football man would make a difference to the commercial activities, but I do think a football man on the board would help enormously in all sorts of areas. I was using the lack of a football man on board as evidence that they do not learn from their mistakes. Another view could be that you and they feel a football man would not make any difference and hence there is nothing to learn from.
You are correct to say that in 5 years they have not increased commercial revenues. The £3.5m it has increased by in five years is not really going to make a huge difference.
I have no idea of the value of the new sponsorship because as you say it has not yet been published. Lets hope it is truly enormous.
-
When Lerner took over, we were told that this was going to be an exciting new era, where our profile would be raised worldwide as we did exciting deal with the likes of Nike, and how they'd use all their business skills that Doug didn't possess to make us a force in European and domestic football.
Well, the marketing of the club has probably been THE worst aspect of Lerner's tenure. It's so bad it doesn't even deserve to be called amateurish.
In the court judgement on the Lerner $40m case, the judge said that an inappropriate email that Lerner had sent was "indicative of the frat house attitude that permeated the staff of the Lerner Fund..."
-
When Lerner took over, we were told that this was going to be an exciting new era, where our profile would be raised worldwide as we did exciting deal with the likes of Nike, and how they'd use all their business skills that Doug didn't possess to make us a force in European and domestic football.
Well, the marketing of the club has probably been THE worst aspect of Lerner's tenure. It's so bad it doesn't even deserve to be called amateurish.
In the court judgement on the Lerner $40m case, the judge said that an inappropriate email that Lerner had sent was "indicative of the frat house attitude that permeated the staff of the Lerner Fund..."
That case has some very interesting quotes:
"Throughout this litigation, Michele Paige has insisted that the Lerner Fund sought
to withdraw its capital from the Hedge Fund not because the Fund had poor prospects,
but because the Lerner Fund was under severe economic stress as a result of the collapse
in the value of the Lerner Fund’s stake in Bank of America. According to Michele Paige,
this was confided in her by Bolandian and Rabinowitz at another in-person meeting in the
spring of 2009 at the Lerner Fund’s offices. During that meeting — the date of which
Michele Paige could not specify — she claims that Bolandian and Rabinowitz revealed to
her the dire liquidity needs of the Lerner Fund and the fact that the Lerner Fund might
need access to the capital it had invested in her Hedge Fund at a moment’s notice."
-
When Lerner took over, we were told that this was going to be an exciting new era, where our profile would be raised worldwide as we did exciting deal with the likes of Nike, and how they'd use all their business skills that Doug didn't possess to make us a force in European and domestic football.
Well, the marketing of the club has probably been THE worst aspect of Lerner's tenure. It's so bad it doesn't even deserve to be called amateurish.
In the court judgement on the Lerner $40m case, the judge said that an inappropriate email that Lerner had sent was "indicative of the frat house attitude that permeated the staff of the Lerner Fund..."
do you have a link to the lerner case please villadawg as ive not heard about it before?
-
That letter sounds like the kind of bullshit that I get fed every day at work
-
When Lerner took over, we were told that this was going to be an exciting new era, where our profile would be raised worldwide as we did exciting deal with the likes of Nike, and how they'd use all their business skills that Doug didn't possess to make us a force in European and domestic football.
Well, the marketing of the club has probably been THE worst aspect of Lerner's tenure. It's so bad it doesn't even deserve to be called amateurish.
In the court judgement on the Lerner $40m case, the judge said that an inappropriate email that Lerner had sent was "indicative of the frat house attitude that permeated the staff of the Lerner Fund..."
do you have a link to the lerner case please villadawg as ive not heard about it before?
Delaware Litigation - Clicky (http://www.delawarelitigation.com/2011/08/articles/chancery-court-updates/delaware-court-of-chancery-orders-hedge-fund-to-return-lerners-seed-money-99-of-fund/)
The links to the judgement are embedded within the article
-
When Lerner took over, we were told that this was going to be an exciting new era, where our profile would be raised worldwide as we did exciting deal with the likes of Nike, and how they'd use all their business skills that Doug didn't possess to make us a force in European and domestic football.
Well, the marketing of the club has probably been THE worst aspect of Lerner's tenure. It's so bad it doesn't even deserve to be called amateurish.
I can't defend Lerner for his PR. He's done a lot of very good things for the fans, the club and it is his money at the end of the day. But we've been poor in broadening the brand as was suggested when he first came here. The biggest issue I have had with the efforts is that they've been so conservative and inconsistent. I suppose it didn't help that MON had a phobia about buying from abroad to go along with that. Aston Villa has only co much equity outside of the Midlands, so selling us abroad with our brand new Steve Sidwell or Emile Heskey signing to Japanese or American fans was never going to be easy.
I don't think it's been terrible, but it could and should have been a lot better.
-
Lerner's one strategy was let O'Neill do whatever he wanted, including seemingly, agreeing transfer fees and salaries. What sort of owner acts surprised when he sees the wage bill at the end of the year? Dreadful, dreadful mismanagement, and a piss poor way to run any sort of business.
If his investment had given him a couple more wins then qualifying for the CL would have justified it and he wouldn't be getting any of this stick. We tried one approach, it almost paid dividend and now we're trying something else
As I mentioned the other day, if our home form hadn't been so poor, we'd have qualified for the CL three years running.
-
We're never going to sell ourselves to any great degree outside of our natural constituency until we win things and play in the Champions League. To be honest, I'm not too bothered about being the latest craze in downtown Kowloon but we should be cleaning up in the Midlands.
-
When Lerner took over, we were told that this was going to be an exciting new era, where our profile would be raised worldwide as we did exciting deal with the likes of Nike, and how they'd use all their business skills that Doug didn't possess to make us a force in European and domestic football.
Well, the marketing of the club has probably been THE worst aspect of Lerner's tenure. It's so bad it doesn't even deserve to be called amateurish.
In the court judgement on the Lerner $40m case, the judge said that an inappropriate email that Lerner had sent was "indicative of the frat house attitude that permeated the staff of the Lerner Fund..."
That case has some very interesting quotes:
"Throughout this litigation, Michele Paige has insisted that the Lerner Fund sought
to withdraw its capital from the Hedge Fund not because the Fund had poor prospects,
but because the Lerner Fund was under severe economic stress as a result of the collapse
in the value of the Lerner Fund’s stake in Bank of America. According to Michele Paige,
this was confided in her by Bolandian and Rabinowitz at another in-person meeting in the
spring of 2009 at the Lerner Fund’s offices. During that meeting — the date of which
Michele Paige could not specify — she claims that Bolandian and Rabinowitz revealed to
her the dire liquidity needs of the Lerner Fund and the fact that the Lerner Fund might
need access to the capital it had invested in her Hedge Fund at a moment’s notice."
I wonder if that is down to Randy sticking in there with Bank of America until they start showing a decent share price again? It would explain a lot and realistically, you couldn't blame him. Why should he dump his shares, they're certain to climb up again, especially if they spin-off Merrill Lynch. Not a nice place to be but hardly the end of the world.
-
We're never going to sell ourselves to any great degree outside of our natural constituency until we win things and play in the Champions League. To be honest, I'm not too bothered about being the latest craze in downtown Kowloon but we should be cleaning up in the Midlands.
I agree, but you can still look further afield than we did to attract players and do it that way in addition to your other goals. I think the club missed opportunities to expand in the first fives years because of the manager they employed. I know Mcleish isn't Mourinho, but at least he might still cast an eye to the continent or South America once he's cleared up a few things.
-
We're never going to sell ourselves to any great degree outside of our natural constituency until we win things and play in the Champions League. To be honest, I'm not too bothered about being the latest craze in downtown Kowloon but we should be cleaning up in the Midlands.
The fans will come when there's something worth watching. It's been a very long time since there was.
-
thanks villadawg- very interesting reading.
-
We're never going to sell ourselves to any great degree outside of our natural constituency until we win things and play in the Champions League. To be honest, I'm not too bothered about being the latest craze in downtown Kowloon but we should be cleaning up in the Midlands.
We're the only Midlands club that has been in the Premier League for the entirety of its existence, and it's an important period because during that time the money involved has increased at a huge rate. Despite that, we're now starting to view the likes of West Brom and Stoke as our immediate competitors, and that's sad. As per Lerner's letter, we're in the top 20 clubs in Europe in terms of income, but I'd argue we've by far the lowest profile of any of those clubs, and without checking, I imagine we're the only one never to have qualified for the Champions League.
-
We're never going to sell ourselves to any great degree outside of our natural constituency until we win things and play in the Champions League. To be honest, I'm not too bothered about being the latest craze in downtown Kowloon but we should be cleaning up in the Midlands.
The fans will come when there's something worth watching. It's been a very long time since there was.
i agree, fans in the main couldnt care too much about the facilities , posh seating and nice food -the main reason is to see a decent and winning villa team and id happily stand in the rain and get soaked as long as i saw that in the old days -winning football is the name of the game .
-
We're never going to sell ourselves to any great degree outside of our natural constituency until we win things and play in the Champions League. To be honest, I'm not too bothered about being the latest craze in downtown Kowloon but we should be cleaning up in the Midlands.
The fans will come when there's something worth watching. It's been a very long time since there was.
I agree but I was talking more about the fans who rarely go to games, we still want them buying shirts etc and there are huge swathes of the midlands where we should be working harder. Sell another 100,000 shirts, for example, and that's another bargaining tool with sponsors and kit manufacturers.
-
we feel that in Alex McLeish we have found a ... uniquely god fit for our club. Randy Lerner... Paul Faulkner
Blimey! They must rate him: they've deified him already!!
-
The Lerners got something like $2.5billion in Bank of America shares and $300million in cash, for their share of MBNA.
If that's true and the above figures are correct, then that $2.5bn is now worth about $400m, or about £250m. Add in his recent dicorce, and I think you can start to see why the investment in Aston Villa isn't looking like such a good idea any more.
Not necessarily. The shares were worth $40.56 at the beginning of 2008, not sure what the price was when Lerner sold MBNA in 2006.
-
The main thing I note is that when we saw Learner and co take control we were told of a 5 year plan. The objective was to be challenging the CL places. There was no mention of this in the letter which tells me they've given up and it's just about balancing the books now.
-
Wasn't the 5 year plan just another guff that someone dropped though? They never recognised it whenever anyone brought it up as far as I can recall.
-
The main thing I note is that when we saw Learner and co take control we were told of a 5 year plan. The objective was to be challenging the CL places. There was no mention of this in the letter which tells me they've given up ....
I suspect it's less about giving up and more about taking a different approach to deal with the current circumstances. With Beye, Heskey and other high earners in their last year being shown the door anytime from January, I expect a slow return to squad-building from that time.
I'd agree with previous posts that the club appears to have lost the initiative and we've become an also-ran club. That's worrying.
-
It is no different to the ambitions under Doug.
I am sorry but Randy needs to focus on finding us a new owner with the requisite funds to make us competitive
Thanks Randy. We thought you were great when you were spending loads, but now you aren't fuck off.
No not quite. Randy doesn't have the funds to keep ploughing money in to shore up the losses we have been making. Nor does he seem to have the magical idea (not that there necessarily is one anyway) of doubling our revenues to make us compettive and self sufficient.
So if we still want as fans to aspire to winning things the only way possible these days is to have a rich benefactor. I doubt any of us expected to be in this position when we were taken over by a Billionaire but unfortunately Randy isn't a multi-billionaire. I don't doubt he would like to keep spending but he isn't in a position to do so and therefore if he wants to leave us with a lsting legacy he will go and find someone who ahs his same best intentions but with a far bigger bank balance to play with.
A philanthrophic multi-billionaire who wants a football club to play with? I would say that's hardly likely.
-
I'm not bothered about the philanthropic bit, I'd settle for one who knows how to run a football club, or would at least get people in who do. Unlike Lerner and his well meaning but ultimately out-of-their-depth chums Faulkner and Krulak.
-
Wasn't the 5 year plan just another guff that someone dropped though? They never recognised it whenever anyone brought it up as far as I can recall.
Perhaps it was but the challenging for CL was definitely on their agenda and that appears to have gone up in smoke.
-
Wasn't the 5 year plan just another guff that someone dropped though? They never recognised it whenever anyone brought it up as far as I can recall.
Perhaps it was but the challenging for CL was definitely on their agenda and that appears to have gone up in smoke.
I doubt it was ever written down, but Fitzgerald and then Krulak alluded to it a few times. Whether it existed either as a concrete plan or just a vague hope, the truth is that it's gone either way, to be replaced by nothing more aspirational than improving the wage situation.
-
the truth is that it's gone either way, to be replaced by nothing more aspirational than improving the wage situation.
True, but other clubs are in the same place. The difference being that MON brought in a bunch of highly-paid duds so we have had to take the medicine earlier than some of the other clubs.
It's temporary.
I do agree that, after all of this, the Board's credibility is severely dented.
-
Wasn't the 5 year plan just another guff that someone dropped though? They never recognised it whenever anyone brought it up as far as I can recall.
Perhaps it was but the challenging for CL was definitely on their agenda and that appears to have gone up in smoke.
I doubt it was ever written down, but Fitzgerald and then Krulak alluded to it a few times. Whether it existed either as a concrete plan or just a vague hope, the truth is that it's gone either way, to be replaced by nothing more aspirational than improving the wage situation.
No, replaced by being in the top 20 by revenue in Europe, which as VZ has told us goes hand in hand with being successful on the pitch.
-
Wasn't the 5 year plan just another guff that someone dropped though? They never recognised it whenever anyone brought it up as far as I can recall.
Perhaps it was but the challenging for CL was definitely on their agenda and that appears to have gone up in smoke.
I doubt it was ever written down, but Fitzgerald and then Krulak alluded to it a few times. Whether it existed either as a concrete plan or just a vague hope, the truth is that it's gone either way, to be replaced by nothing more aspirational than improving the wage situation.
No, replaced by being in the top 20 by revenue in Europe, which as VZ has told us goes hand in hand with being successful on the pitch.
No it doesn't. The Premier League clubs have a €billion head start over the next richest league, Serie A, purely from the size of the Sky deal. We've finished behind Everton for most of the last few years, yet they're always behind us in terms of income. We should be concentrating on being successful, then the income will largely take care of itself, not the other way round.
-
We have the potential to be a massive club, but unfortunately there always seems to be a barrier we cannot pass through.
As for the upcoming season, I just hope Randy's prudence does not leave us in trouble.
-
Wasn't the 5 year plan just another guff that someone dropped though? They never recognised it whenever anyone brought it up as far as I can recall.
Perhaps it was but the challenging for CL was definitely on their agenda and that appears to have gone up in smoke.
I doubt it was ever written down, but Fitzgerald and then Krulak alluded to it a few times. Whether it existed either as a concrete plan or just a vague hope, the truth is that it's gone either way, to be replaced by nothing more aspirational than improving the wage situation.
No, replaced by being in the top 20 by revenue in Europe, which as VZ has told us goes hand in hand with being successful on the pitch.
No it doesn't. The Premier League clubs have a €billion head start over the next richest league, Serie A, purely from the size of the Sky deal. We've finished behind Everton for most of the last few years, yet they're always behind us in terms of income. We should be concentrating on being successful, then the income will largely take care of itself, not the other way round.
So how do you suggest we fund "being successful"?
-
Sorry Risso, but can you just explain to me, a non-accountant, how his wealth has gone down by so much.
2.5billion down to 400million seems a dramatic drop.
-
No it doesn't. The Premier League clubs have a €billion head start over the next richest league, Serie A, purely from the size of the Sky deal. We've finished behind Everton for most of the last few years, yet they're always behind us in terms of income. We should be concentrating on being successful, then the income will largely take care of itself, not the other way round.
You're right in principle but it's what we've been trying to do since the money-pit kicked off in 1991; we've not yet found the secret of: investment - footballing success - ££££ - more footballing success.
It has to be a combination of youth-academy success and judicious signings.
So nothing simple, then.
-
Sorry Risso, but can you just explain to me, a non-accountant, how his wealth has gone down by so much.
2.5billion down to 400million seems a dramatic drop.
It's paper riches. Using a very simple example, if you have 1,000,000 shares in a company that are worth £1 each at 31 December, then you are effectively worth £1m at that date. If you sold the shares you'd obviously have a million quid cash. If 6 months later the price of those shares drops to 10p, then you're only worth £100K, and if you sold those shares that's how much cash you'd have. Most million/billionaires don't have that much cash just sat in bank accounts, it'll mostly be tied up in various investments and funds, and so as prices go up and down, so does the value of their investments. It looks like Lerner had a lot of his money in banking shares, which obviously took a battering during the credit crisis.
-
Am I right in thinking that he could have sold his shares before their price crashed?
Or do we know that there were terms and conditions which prevented him selling his shares.
I'd guess that he would have diversified his investments (in a football club maybe) rather than leaving it all in The American Bank so whilst it's probably safe to say his wealth is less than before it's probably not the worse case scenario of "only" being £400m.
Risso - you know about this sort if stuff. Is this correct or am I being overly optimistic?
-
Frustrating that if we would have signed Bent 12 months earlier we would have made the champions league, no doubt about it.
The only way for success in this league is to spend big. We gave it a go under O'neil and were only a couple of defeats away from the 4th place. The chance has gone, if we are to do it again we may have to build a team around our young stars Delboy, Albrighton, Clark etc but come May we may struggle to keep them as the "Big" sides come calling.
What does it matter any way? We struggle all season to make it into europe and then play weakened sides in the competition.
All we are now is an average side who can hope for a good cup run! Top half finish at best. Up the Villa!
-
Sorry Risso, but can you just explain to me, a non-accountant, how his wealth has gone down by so much.
2.5billion down to 400million seems a dramatic drop.
It's paper riches. Using a very simple example, if you have 1,000,000 shares in a company that are worth £1 each at 31 December, then you are effectively worth £1m at that date. If you sold the shares you'd obviously have a million quid cash. If 6 months later the price of those shares drops to 10p, then you're only worth £100K, and if you sold those shares that's how much cash you'd have. Most million/billionaires don't have that much cash just sat in bank accounts, it'll mostly be tied up in various investments and funds, and so as prices go up and down, so does the value of their investments. It looks like Lerner had a lot of his money in banking shares, which obviously took a battering during the credit crisis.
Equally, though, being in banking he may well see his investment rise again to similar historical levels ... although it may take a while.
-
I understand entirely if he wants to cut his investment and recoup some of his money.
My issue is that he's doing it in far, far too draconian a manner.
When I first heard that we were linked with AM as manager, I thought "nah, that'll never happen" - not because he was their manager, but because it smacked of zero ambition. It happened. When we sold Young, I was utterly convinced there was no way we'd sell Downing in the same summer. It happened.
It really has been a rude awakening. Do we really need to move someone on to fund bringing Hitzlsperger in on loan?
I understand the thinking of those who reckon we're in pretty good shape, but that to me looks like it is largely influenced by the fact that this is where we are, so we're going to have to like it.
At the end of last season, had someone told us "you're going to appoint McLeish, you're going to sell Young and Downing for almost 40m and spend only 13 of it, 3.5 of which is to replace Friedel who has gone, and you're going to release a load of other players, including NRC, the only DM we have, who is not going to be replaced", and there will be no further additions - what would have been the reaction?
I reckon it'd be utter disbelief, followed by consensus that we'd not be nearly strong enough.
I really can not believe it has come to this. Crossing our fingers for Dunne and Collins to not be like they were last season, crossing our fingers that the kids come good, crossing our fingers we don't get a run of injuries, hoping that the shit-before-he-was-dropped Warnock is reliable, and putting hope in the clearly hatstand Stephen Ireland.
It's a very, very risky strategy indeed.
-
Best wishes to you, Paulie, and everyone else for this season! Let's hope we can enjoy it.
-
I understand entirely if he wants to cut his investment and recoup some of his money.
My issue is that he's doing it in far, far too draconian a manner.
When I first heard that we were linked with AM as manager, I thought "nah, that'll never happen" - not because he was their manager, but because it smacked of zero ambition. It happened. When we sold Young, I was utterly convinced there was no way we'd sell Downing in the same summer. It happened.
It really has been a rude awakening. Do we really need to move someone on to fund bringing Hitzlsperger in on loan?
I understand the thinking of those who reckon we're in pretty good shape, but that to me looks like it is largely influenced by the fact that this is where we are, so we're going to have to like it.
At the end of last season, had someone told us "you're going to appoint McLeish, you're going to sell Young and Downing for almost 40m and spend only 13 of it, 3.5 of which is to replace Friedel who has gone, and you're going to release a load of other players, including NRC, the only DM we have, who is not going to be replaced", and there will be no further additions - what would have been the reaction?
I reckon it'd be utter disbelief, followed by consensus that we'd not be nearly strong enough.
I really can not believe it has come to this. Crossing our fingers for Dunne and Collins to not be like they were last season, crossing our fingers that the kids come good, crossing our fingers we don't get a run of injuries, hoping that the shit-before-he-was-dropped Warnock is reliable, and putting hope in the clearly hatstand Stephen Ireland.
It's a very, very risky strategy indeed.
Great post
-
Do we really need to move someone on to fund bringing Hitzlsperger in on loan?
This is what worries me, it dose'nt seem to add up. Chris said earlier that maybe the wage level we're at now suits us and it's what we can work with. It may well be workable on a financial scale but on the field it's a hell of a risk and that's where it matters.
I don't think any of us are expecting the club to splash out silly money on a 30 year old Scott Parker, but when we're at a stage where after letting 8 players go, we have to let yet another go to finance a free transfer, then the finances must be in a bit of a state.
Let's not forget, we're not just down on numbers, we've lost very very good players. I just hope we don't get an injury list like we did last season.
-
6 weeks ago I was convinced that given 4-5 signings McLeish could do a good job with it and the board had never let us down previously and would give him the right support to do so, even if it meant less spend next summer as we needed the player in certain positions (replacing the talismanic Ashley Young for one). I was still optimistic. Now, I am fast falling into the same mindset as Paulie. Worried. And I hope IF we start poorly, then the cash is found for 2-3 players even on loan.
-
Clampy, an injury list like last season and we are doomed. The experience of Young and Downing carried us through that period.
-
Injuries are like shagging slags without a condom and catching an STD...its inevitable.
My prediction of 12th is looking optimistic.
-
Am I right in thinking that he could have sold his shares before their price crashed?
Or do we know that there were terms and conditions which prevented him selling his shares.
I'd guess that he would have diversified his investments (in a football club maybe) rather than leaving it all in The American Bank so whilst it's probably safe to say his wealth is less than before it's probably not the worse case scenario of "only" being £400m.
Risso - you know about this sort if stuff. Is this correct or am I being overly optimistic?
In cases where you sell a company in return for cash and/or shares in the purchasing company it is common for there to be a covenant that will prevent you selling some, any or all of those shares for a certain period of time to prevent the value of those shares dipping as a large tranche is dumped on the market. These covenants are usually very confidential in case the knowledge affects share dealings.
So, it's possible Randy was forced to keep some of those shares and that they've been hit badly by the banking crash. My guess would be that a proportion would have been available to sell and only a fool wouldn't cash in on a part of that investment if only to diversify your portfolio away from such an imbalance. Might account for the Paige claim that Randy was illiquid.
BTW, I don't remember Randy ever being touted as anything more that a sterling billionaire ($1.5m). Only!
-
Apologies for not being Risso
-
Apologies for not being Risso
One's more than enough surely?
-
Thanks for the response. I hope randy finds a few spare million or ten down the back of the sofa as a decent DM would make a helluva difference to our squad.
-
6 weeks ago I was convinced that given 4-5 signings McLeish could do a good job with it and the board had never let us down previously and would give him the right support to do so, even if it meant less spend next summer as we needed the player in certain positions (replacing the talismanic Ashley Young for one). I was still optimistic. Now, I am fast falling into the same mindset as Paulie. Worried. And I hope IF we start poorly, then the cash is found for 2-3 players even on loan.
That's my take on things as well. I really did thing that there was no way that they would make such a poorly received appointment without intending to back him heavily. The fact is that we had a poor season last year and I don't actually think that was all Houllier's fault. Now we are being asked to expect something other than a poor season with a weaker squad shorn of some of it's more talented players. I was expecting Ireland, Dunne and Warnock to be wild cards which might prove successful but rather it seems we are depending on them.
-
6 weeks ago I was convinced that given 4-5 signings McLeish could do a good job with it and the board had never let us down previously and would give him the right support to do so, even if it meant less spend next summer as we needed the player in certain positions (replacing the talismanic Ashley Young for one). I was still optimistic. Now, I am fast falling into the same mindset as Paulie. Worried. And I hope IF we start poorly, then the cash is found for 2-3 players even on loan.
That's my take on things as well. I really did thing that there was no way that they would make such a poorly received appointment without intending to back him heavily. The fact is that we had a poor season last year and I don't actually think that was all Houllier's fault. Now we are being asked to expect something other than a poor season with a weaker squad shorn of some of it's more talented players. I was expecting Ireland, Dunne and Warnock to be wild cards which might prove successful but rather it seems we are depending on them.
Can't argue with that.
-
Has no-one considered the squad, as it stands now, is at the level our current manager wants it to be.
Therefore he hasn't asked for additional funds and would rather see how we get on with what we have, rather than spending his clearly defined budget on either stop gaps or in areas that aren't required, (which we won't know until the season kicks off in earnest).
I'd leave judgement until the next transfer window, as our league placing, injuries and player performance will determine the next stage of investment.
Risky, foolish or quietly confident - all depends on your view of the manager and his ability to assess what the squad is like.
-
Only an idiot would think that our squad doesn't need further strengthening, and I don't think that McLeish is an idiot. He's made it clear he has to work with what he's got. Despite the rubbish that Krulak came out with about Randy backing the manager, McLeish had better backing from his owner at the Blues.
-
Nobody could possibly challenge the view that it is now clearer than ever - and to some of us it was clear from the start of the prevarication over the appointment of a replacement for Houllier - that McLeish was appointed to try to achieve Premiership survival with a very makeshift squad which had been stripped for two successive seasons of its best players.
I think 13th is about the best we can hope for but if we get unlucky and Darren Bent picks up a serious injury we will be fighting relegation all the way. I really hope that five o clock tonight will deliver our first win of the season and that the dark clouds which hang over Villa Park start to be blown away but our squad problems are so fundamental and so deep rooted I shall remain pessimistic until the players we need start to be brought to the club.
-
Only an idiot would think that our squad doesn't need further strengthening, and I don't think that McLeish is an idiot. He's made it clear he has to work with what he's got. Despite the rubbish that Krulak came out with about Randy backing the manager, McLeish had better backing from his owner at the Blues.
It's very clear that you believe everyone currently employed in a senior position, at our club, is an idiot.
I don't happen to agree.
-
Nobody could possibly challenge the view that it is now clearer than ever - and to some of us it was clear from the start of the prevarication over the appointment of a replacement for Houllier - that McLeish was appointed to try to achieve Premiership survival with a very makeshift squad which had been stripped for two successive seasons of its best players.
I think 13th is about the best we can hope for but if we get unlucky and Darren Bent picks up a serious injury we will be fighting relegation all the way. I really hope that five o clock tonight will deliver our first win of the season and that the dark clouds which hang over Villa Park start to be blown away but our squad problems are so fundamental and so deep rooted I shall remain pessimistic until the players we need start to be brought to the club.
With the greatest respect to all viewpoints................the only dark clouds are in the minds of some of our supporters, I don't believe we will be in any relegation battle and I don't believe we have cut our cloth just for premiership survival.
But then, that's my opinion.
-
Only an idiot would think that our squad doesn't need further strengthening, and I don't think that McLeish is an idiot. He's made it clear he has to work with what he's got. Despite the rubbish that Krulak came out with about Randy backing the manager, McLeish had better backing from his owner at the Blues.
It's very clear that you believe everyone currently employed in a senior position, at our club, is an idiot.
I don't happen to agree.
I clearly said "I don't think McLeish is an idiot". However I think you need to read his comment from yesterday, when he clearly said that he would like to bring in a midfield enforcer, and that he wants to bring more players in but can't because of the conditions he's working under. Not by any means, the words of a man who thinks that what he has is good enough.
-
Only an idiot would think that our squad doesn't need further strengthening, and I don't think that McLeish is an idiot. He's made it clear he has to work with what he's got. Despite the rubbish that Krulak came out with about Randy backing the manager, McLeish had better backing from his owner at the Blues.
It's very clear that you believe everyone currently employed in a senior position, at our club, is an idiot.
I don't happen to agree.
I clearly said "I don't think McLeish is an idiot". However I think you need to read his comment from yesterday, when he clearly said that he would like to bring in a midfield enforcer, and that he wants to bring more players in but can't because of the conditions he's working under. Not by any means, the words of a man who thinks that what he has is good enough.
Agreed and it's shocking given the rubbish that was spouted about supporting the manager.
-
Okay Neil, fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. If I am wrong and Barry Bannan becomes the new Des Bremner and Stephen Ireland plays to his full potential and all the other assumptions the optimists are making are fulfilled I shall come on these pages and say I was wrong and apologise. If we spend a season struggling and scrapping for points I would like to think you and all the others who see no clouds over Villa Park only clouds in the minds of long time fans like me will do the same.
-
Don't hold your breath Brian.
-
I am not. I see dead people.
-
I clearly said "I don't think McLeish is an idiot". However I think you need to read his comment from yesterday, when he clearly said that he would like to bring in a midfield enforcer, and that he wants to bring more players in but can't because of the conditions he's working under. Not by any means, the words of a man who thinks that what he has is good enough.
Fair enough
-
Okay Neil, fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. If I am wrong and Barry Bannan becomes the new Des Bremner and Stephen Ireland plays to his full potential and all the other assumptions the optimists are making are fulfilled I shall come on these pages and say I was wrong and apologise. If we spend a season struggling and scrapping for points I would like to think you and all the others who see no clouds over Villa Park only clouds in the minds of long time fans like me will do the same.
I will indeed admit I was wrong, should it all go tits up. I am also a long term supporter (since 1973) and seen a lot worse than now. I just don't feel negative about this season and have an inkling things will be a lot better than anticipated.
-
Don't hold your breath Brian.
I admit when I'm wrong and when mistakes are made..............but then again, you where probably referring to everything working out well at the Villa.
Either way, in the first instance you are wrong and in the second instance I hope you are wrong.
-
You are indeed a long term supporter Neil. First game in 1973 makes this your 38th season. 1973 was my 28th season and war time games were very few and far between.
I take it personally when the doubts I have about Villa's future are dismissed as clouds in my head.
There is one very big black cloud hanging over Villa Park and that is the appointment of a doubly failed Small Heath manager and, having appointed someone a very large number of us would have preferred not to have as our manager and the effort made to appoint somebody with more talent and a better record, to deny that manager the funds needed to address very serious shortcomings in our squad makes that cloud more menacing every day. That is not a brain malfunction by me, it is the reality of the situation.
The reason I said to Risso that I see dead people is that the line from the film refers to people the boy sees who are dead but don't know it. Denial.
-
Brian, I doff my hat to you sir. That's one hell of an innings.
I can see where you're coming from, no disrespect was intended - but I still hope you're wrong (as do we all, yourself included I'm sure, hope for).
As someone else said, McLeish is the first manager to bring the unwashed a proper trophy, that must count for something.
I just don't feel this appointment is wrong, don't know why, but am quietly confidant..............well 'quietly' until I started posting!
-
Lerner has gone as far as he can I'm afraid. This cut-back is a joke - the club needs serious investment to move forward. We're falling backwards - fast. Has he looked at a partner to invest in the club I wonder? Clearly with the bank crisis and running The Cleveland Browns plus AVFC is stretching him too far. He's playing a risky game by relying on youth and just a few injuries. If you'd said to me 5 years ago that we would have to move a player out to free up wages for Hitz (he'll cost nothing on a free) then I'd have said you're mad!
-
Lerner has gone as far as he can I'm afraid. This cut-back is a joke - the club needs serious investment to move forward. We're falling backwards - fast. Has he looked at a partner to invest in the club I wonder? Clearly with the bank crisis and running The Cleveland Browns plus AVFC is stretching him too far. He's playing a risky game by relying on youth and just a few injuries. If you'd said to me 5 years ago that we would have to move a player out to free up wages for Hitz (he'll cost nothing on a free) then I'd have said you're mad!
yep. Seems we've swapped one chairman who couldn't compete with the big guys to another one who's been outgunned. i said when Lerner arrived that a dictator rarely chooses the complete opposite of himself as his sucessor and so its proved. This is like Gregory era and the aftermath all over again...Once the intial windfall money was blown we're left to pick up the pieces. Trouble is we've missed the boat now, so we're stuck with him.
-
That is a very plausible case Greg but my only doubt is that if the owners of Liverpool and Manchester United continue to pour american money into those clubs why should Randy be worse effected by the US banking and credit crisis. Liverpool are throwing money around like a drunken sailor and much as I have serious misgivings about our future Liverpool's is just as uninspiring.
As for the Glazers the good ship Man Ure floats on an ocean of bank borrowing and I hate to think what will happen to the spanish and italian teams if Spain and Italy get sucked into the sovereign debt crisis.
So perhaps Randy is not chickening out, perhaps he is just being very cautious. If the Republicans can find a credible candidate to put up against Obama next year and the Tea Party starts to dominate the US economy just about anything could happen to money and debt world wide.
-
If you'd said to me 5 years ago that we would have to move a player out to free up wages for Hitz (he'll cost nothing on a free) then I'd have said you're mad!
It's exactly what you'd expect if Ellis was still in charge.
-
When you cut away to the crux of the argument what people like Greg, Brian and Risso appear to be saying is that Lerner is rubbish because he won't throw unlimited amounts of his own money into the club.
Apologies if I've missed it but I haven't read an argument for how we fund the wage bill, which appears to be the major issue here. Indeed I'm fairly sure that when MON was Public Enemy Number One they thought that we were paying too much.
The recent letter that season ticket holders received set out their aim to improve revenue which (if successful) should see an improvement in the future. What are the alternatives?
-
When you cut away to the crux of the argument what people like Greg, Brian and Risso appear to be saying is that Lerner is rubbish because he won't throw unlimited amounts of his own money into the club.
Apologies if I've missed it but I haven't read an argument for how we fund the wage bill, which appears to be the major issue here. Indeed I'm fairly sure that when MON was Public Enemy Number One they thought that we were paying too much.
The recent letter that season ticket holders received set out their aim to improve revenue which (if successful) should see an improvement in the future. What are the alternatives?
The crux of the argument is that Lerner has wasted the money he has thrown.
The truth of the matter is that money rules the Premier League and to get to the higher eschelons you are going to have to spend an awful lot of money. This is either going to be self generated or come from a sugar daddy.
As Lerner was not in the Abramovich league when he arrived and was never going to throw the sort of money that Chelsea have done, therfore he had no alternative but to generate it from within.
The problem is he hasn't been able to do that but has spent as if he has.
We are now in the situation where we are loaded with debt and will be saddled with the repayments of this whilst now trying to self generate the income.
The self generating route was always going to be a long and slow route with no guarantee of success but at least we had no debt when Lerner joined.
Now however the odds are even further stacked against us.
I don't think Lerner should be beyond critisism just because he used his own sources of finance as opposed to a bank. Until he writes off the debt then he has simply borrowed against the Villas future earnings.
-
Could anyone post a copy of the letter here or point me to where it has already been done.
-
I can't swear to this, but I think a lot of the money injected into the club by Randy after the take-over has been in exchange for new shares in the club and not for debt. That would mean that, as Randy ultimately owns all the shares in the club all he's doing is diluting his own stake.
-
When you cut away to the crux of the argument what people like Greg, Brian and Risso appear to be saying is that Lerner is rubbish because he won't throw unlimited amounts of his own money into the club.
Apologies if I've missed it but I haven't read an argument for how we fund the wage bill, which appears to be the major issue here. Indeed I'm fairly sure that when MON was Public Enemy Number One they thought that we were paying too much.
The recent letter that season ticket holders received set out their aim to improve revenue which (if successful) should see an improvement in the future. What are the alternatives?
The crux of the argument is that Lerner has wasted the money he has thrown.
The truth of the matter is that money rules the Premier League and to get to the higher eschelons you are going to have to spend an awful lot of money. This is either going to be self generated or come from a sugar daddy.
As Lerner was not in the Abramovich league when he arrived and was never going to throw the sort of money that Chelsea have done, therfore he had no alternative but to generate it from within.
The problem is he hasn't been able to do that but has spent as if he has.
We are now in the situation where we are loaded with debt and will be saddled with the repayments of this whilst now trying to self generate the income.
The self generating route was always going to be a long and slow route with no guarantee of success but at least we had no debt when Lerner joined.
Now however the odds are even further stacked against us.
I don't think Lerner should be beyond critisism just because he used his own sources of finance as opposed to a bank. Until he writes off the debt then he has simply borrowed against the Villas future earnings.
I'm probably being far too simplistic with this, but my take is that he spent heavily to give us every chance to qualify for the Champion's League. I think that he, like many of us, thought that in MON we had the right man, a 'footballing man', to spend that money, to build a squad and achieve that.
As it turned out, MON wasn't able to achieve that. Lerner made the money available at a time when reaching the Champion's League seemed to be more achievable than usual. We missed it, the window of opportunity has closed, and now he has not much choice but to reign things in again.
If we had managed it, just once, then our incoming funds would have risen significantly, and we could have built from there (although, at the moment Spurs don't seem to have benefited too much from last years experience).
So, Lerner gambled, we loved him for it. It didn't work out, he's cutting back to make the club sustainable, we're a bit less fond of that. For me, it seems reasonable although not very sexy.
Now, whether he or his team are capable of increasing revenue in other ways, or if it even is possible, is another matter...
-
I can't swear to this, but I think a lot of the money injected into the club by Randy after the take-over has been in exchange for new shares in the club and not for debt. That would mean that, as Randy ultimately owns all the shares in the club all he's doing is diluting his own stake.
I believe the accounts at 31 May 2010 show 110m of debt
-
When you cut away to the crux of the argument what people like Greg, Brian and Risso appear to be saying is that Lerner is rubbish because he won't throw unlimited amounts of his own money into the club.
Apologies if I've missed it but I haven't read an argument for how we fund the wage bill, which appears to be the major issue here. Indeed I'm fairly sure that when MON was Public Enemy Number One they thought that we were paying too much.
The recent letter that season ticket holders received set out their aim to improve revenue which (if successful) should see an improvement in the future. What are the alternatives?
The crux of the argument is that Lerner has wasted the money he has thrown.
The truth of the matter is that money rules the Premier League and to get to the higher eschelons you are going to have to spend an awful lot of money. This is either going to be self generated or come from a sugar daddy.
As Lerner was not in the Abramovich league when he arrived and was never going to throw the sort of money that Chelsea have done, therfore he had no alternative but to generate it from within.
The problem is he hasn't been able to do that but has spentcoccydynia as if he has.
We are now in the situation where we are loaded with debt and will be saddled with the repayments of this whilst now trying to self generate the income.
The self generating route was always going to be a long and slow route with no guarantee of success but at least we had no debt when Lerner joined.
Now however the odds are even further stacked against us.
I don't think Lerner should be beyond critisism just because he used his own sources of finance as opposed to a bank. Until he writes off the debt then he has simply borrowed against the Villas future earnings.
ll you've done is repeat the same criticism you've made previously. It's not about being beyond criticism, but if that is to be in any way constructive there has to be an alternative. They've offered the improve the revenue approach, what would yours be?
-
When you cut away to the crux of the argument what people like Greg, Brian and Risso appear to be saying is that Lerner is rubbish because he won't throw unlimited amounts of his own money into the club.
Apologies if I've missed it but I haven't read an argument for how we fund the wage bill, which appears to be the major issue here. Indeed I'm fairly sure that when MON was Public Enemy Number One they thought that we were paying too much.
The recent letter that season ticket holders received set out their aim to improve revenue which (if successful) should see an improvement in the future. What are the alternatives?
Too right i was calling for a reduction from MON's squad size but its been done. I was fully behind Lerner reducing non-playing staff from the squad of last summer but when is it going to end?
This is off the top of my head so i may have missed someone out but since last summer we've lost
Friedal
Davies
Sidwell
NRC
Milner
Young
Downing
Walker
Carew
Pires
Osbourne
Salifou
Even if that lot were on a measly 20k a week thats still the best part of 250k a week gone
Add to the bill we've got
Ireland
Given
N'Zogbia
Makoun
Now thats a pretty drastic reduction to my mind in wages even with the new arrivals unless Makoun and co are on a 100k a week.
We now have a smaller squad than in the pre-lerner DOL days with the youngsters on very little made to bolster out the numbers to make it look respectable. Again, I have no problems with Lerner not putting any of his own money in if things are tight but i think having a budget where we look like finishing the transfer window with a 20m profit on top of all the wages cuts is taking the piss. Lerner has to decide pretty soon if he's big enough to own Aston Villa because he's not doing us any favours at the moment. He wanted the prestige of owning one of the world's oldest football clubs in the biggest league in the world and you have to pay for it.
-
I can't swear to this, but I think a lot of the money injected into the club by Randy after the take-over has been in exchange for new shares in the club and not for debt. That would mean that, as Randy ultimately owns all the shares in the club all he's doing is diluting his own stake.
I believe the accounts at 31 May 2010 show 110m of debt
Daily Telegraph link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/7379245/Aston-Villa-Champions-League-challenge-has-cost-owner-Randy-Lerner-82.5m.html)
The article is referring to the 2009 accounts, but it's half and half loans/shares from that period, with the loans being interest free.
The new investment takes Lerner's total investment to £179 million since he bought the club in 2006, with £95 million in equity and a further £84 million in loans. The investment comes on top of the £62 million he paid for the club.
Lerner put £70 million into the club during the 2008-09 season, with a further £12.5 million at the start of this campaign. According to the accounts Lerner's loans to the club are unsecured and interest free, and repayable between 2016 and 2019.
The 2010 accounts show interest on loans (presumably from the original ones from the Lerner Trust) standing at £5m, which is hardly exorbitant nor crippling.
-
Now thats a pretty drastic reduction to my mind in wages even with the new arrivals unless Makoun and co are on a 100k a week.
It's been reduced to a sustainable level based on current revenue. If the spend, spend, spend brigade get their way then it won't be. Do you think you have the right to demand Lerner puts more money in when you're not prepared to do the same?
As I said, some suggestions as to how we afford it would be welcome.
-
Now thats a pretty drastic reduction to my mind in wages even with the new arrivals unless Makoun and co are on a 100k a week.
It's been reduced to a sustainable level based on current revenue. If the spend, spend, spend brigade get their way then it won't be. Do you think you have the right to demand Lerner puts more money in when you're not prepared to do the same?
As I said, some suggestions as to how we afford it would be welcome.
Hang on last summer you were telling us there was loads of money and we didn't need to worry. All through MON's time that was your mantra. In fact you were the head of the spend, spend spend mob. As i said, if Lerner has come into football to make a profit then really he picked the wrong club, and should maybe bugger off to Wigan or the like. You don't buy a rolls-royce if you're after fuel ecomony
-
Now thats a pretty drastic reduction to my mind in wages even with the new arrivals unless Makoun and co are on a 100k a week.
It's been reduced to a sustainable level based on current revenue. If the spend, spend, spend brigade get their way then it won't be. Do you think you have the right to demand Lerner puts more money in when you're not prepared to do the same?
As I said, some suggestions as to how we afford it would be welcome.
Hang on last summer you were telling us there was loads of money and we didn't need to worry. All through MON's time that was your mantra. In fact you were the head of the spend, spend spend mob. As i said, if Lerner has come into football to make a profit then really he picked the wrong club, and should maybe bugger off to Wigan or the like. You don't buy a rolls-royce if you're after fuel ecomony
No, I wasn't. I said that the window should be judged on merit and was critical of them signing Ireland when we had no manager. They then signed Bent in January as they'd been able to shift a few out.
My point is that we now know what their plans are from now. There's little point harking back and saying we should have done this or that as it can't be changed. We are where we are now and if you are going to spend your time moaning about their strategy then it's only to be expected that you'll be asked for your alternative.
-
You have to know what he's aiming for to offer an alternative. If he's looking to cut probably 350k a year in wages and make a transfer profit of 20m every season then i'd say he should sell -up. Bottom line is Ellis' last season when there was no money for transfers and things were kept extremely tight we still posted a lost i think of 9m for 6 months. Not many big clubs do post a profit, probably only the mancs - you don't buy a club like Villa to make a profit unless your a fuckwit.
-
Now thats a pretty drastic reduction to my mind in wages even with the new arrivals unless Makoun and co are on a 100k a week.
Do you think you have the right to demand Lerner puts more money in when you're not prepared to do the same?
Quite.
-
You have to know what he's aiming for to offer an alternative. If he's looking to cut probably 350k a year in wages and make a transfer profit of 20m every season then i'd say he should sell -up. Bottom line is Ellis' last season when there was no money for transfers and things were kept extremely tight we still posted a lost i think of 9m for 6 months. Not many big clubs do post a profit, probably only the mancs - you don't buy a club like Villa to make a profit unless your a fuckwit.
It's in the letter that prompted this thread. Increase revenue to put us in the top 20 in Europe and use that to fund the footballing side on a sustainable level. Nothing about profit, that's your invention.
Of course that takes time, as stated above it's not sexy and will not satisfy the impatient but MIGHT deliver in the future. I'm not saying that I know it will work, how could I, but it seems to me a better option than just saying Randy has to spend more.
-
You have to know what he's aiming for to offer an alternative. If he's looking to cut probably 350k a year in wages and make a transfer profit of 20m every season then i'd say he should sell -up. Bottom line is Ellis' last season when there was no money for transfers and things were kept extremely tight we still posted a lost i think of 9m for 6 months. Not many big clubs do post a profit, probably only the mancs - you don't buy a club like Villa to make a profit unless your a fuckwit.
It's in the letter that prompted this thread. Increase revenue to put us in the top 20 in Europe and use that to fund the footballing side on a sustainable level. Nothing about profit, that's your invention.
Of course that takes time, as stated above it's not sexy and will not satisfy the impatient but MIGHT deliver in the future. I'm not saying that I know it will work, how could I, but it seems to me a better option than just saying Randy has to spend more.
chris, you can't increase revenue without expenditure. you have to have a product thats competitive. I may be wrong but if i was a sponser or sky or a season ticket holder, selling 37m worth of assets does not make your more competitive in their eyes. I really really don't expect Lerner to live with 80m losses each year but i expect him to swallow losses on a regular basis. Again why buy us otherwise? Again i wouldn't buy a car if i couldn't live with the running costs and running a rolls-royce on a shoestring does not work.
-
chris, you can't increase revenue without expenditure.
Of course you can - putting up prices being the most obvious way.
The investment in the ground as been made, it's a question now of maximising income from hospitality and corporate facilities. Selling more merchandise, improving commercial partnerships etc. Of course if the team does well that becomes easier but there are ways of generating income that are not driven by what happens on the pitch.
-
I can't swear to this, but I think a lot of the money injected into the club by Randy after the take-over has been in exchange for new shares in the club and not for debt. That would mean that, as Randy ultimately owns all the shares in the club all he's doing is diluting his own stake.
I believe the accounts at 31 May 2010 show 110m of debt
Daily Telegraph link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/7379245/Aston-Villa-Champions-League-challenge-has-cost-owner-Randy-Lerner-82.5m.html)
The article is referring to the 2009 accounts, but it's half and half loans/shares from that period, with the loans being interest free.
The new investment takes Lerner's total investment to £179 million since he bought the club in 2006, with £95 million in equity and a further £84 million in loans. The investment comes on top of the £62 million he paid for the club.
Lerner put £70 million into the club during the 2008-09 season, with a further £12.5 million at the start of this campaign. According to the accounts Lerner's loans to the club are unsecured and interest free, and repayable between 2016 and 2019.
The 2010 accounts show interest on loans (presumably from the original ones from the Lerner Trust) standing at £5m, which is hardly exorbitant nor crippling.
The rate is LIBOR + 2% and whilst LIBOR is so low it is not crippling but if it rises from .5% to 5% it will be more concerning.
The real problem though is repaying the loans.
-
That is a very plausible case Greg but my only doubt is that if the owners of Liverpool and Manchester United continue to pour american money into those clubs why should Randy be worse effected by the US banking and credit crisis.
Because I understand that the Lerner family fortune was heavily tied into Bank of America shares, which have been one of the worst affected, falling from something like $45 to $6.
-
Now thats a pretty drastic reduction to my mind in wages even with the new arrivals unless Makoun and co are on a 100k a week.
It's been reduced to a sustainable level based on current revenue. If the spend, spend, spend brigade get their way then it won't be. Do you think you have the right to demand Lerner puts more money in when you're not prepared to do the same?
As I said, some suggestions as to how we afford it would be welcome.
Chris.
When Ellis was at the helm, he refused us to loan Eric Bakke for any longer due to the fact that his wages were 'unsustainable to the club' at the time.
Now we hear that we can't sign Hitz (although admittedly he's shit) due to our wage bill.
I know at the time you were seething about Herbert's stance, what's the difference now?
-
Now thats a pretty drastic reduction to my mind in wages even with the new arrivals unless Makoun and co are on a 100k a week.
It's been reduced to a sustainable level based on current revenue. If the spend, spend, spend brigade get their way then it won't be. Do you think you have the right to demand Lerner puts more money in when you're not prepared to do the same?
As I said, some suggestions as to how we afford it would be welcome.
Chris.
When Ellis was at the helm, he refused us to loan Eric Bakke for any longer due to the fact that his wages were 'unsustainable to the club' at the time.
Now we hear that we can't sign Hitz (although admittedly he's shit) due to our wage bill.
I know at the time you were seething about Herbert's stance, what's the difference now?
Firstly, from a team point of view we're in a much better position, we were struggling that season and he refused to extend the loan. Secondly, the club have tried to explain their position, soothing Ellis never did to the "man in the terraces". Thirdly, we were a PLC. It's clear, in hindsight, that Doug was clearing the decks ahead of selling the club and, probably, trying to force OLeary into resigning but we didn't know that at the time so it seemed perverse.
As I keep asking, if somebody can come up with an alternative to how we fund the wage bill I'm happy to listen but at the moment there's nothing beyond Lerner should put in more of his own money. Our revenue is way behind the top sides.
-
Chris I do not advocate a policy of spend spend spend. On this thread at about 6.30 this morning I replied to a comment by Greg comparing Lerner's stance to that of other american owners and concluded that our owner is being cautious.
Where I do agree with Greg is that this policy is as fraught with danger as reckless spending. If by tightening the purse strings you slide out of the top flight the financial damage is just as great as carrying the debt of over borrowing.
A stockbroker or a bookmaker can hedge. A Premiership club owner cannot. We saw last season that two wins from our last two games propelled us up the table and made our April nightmares seem like sweet dreams. I also agree with Greg when he says if you buy a Premiership football club you cannot manage it like you have bought sixty million quids worth of farmland or forest. You don't participate in Formula 1 to sell cars you don't buy football clubs to put in your pension pot.
I have no quarrel with what Lerner is doing I just want it to be known for the risk it entails for our club and not morphed into a version of the good fan gets behind the owner/manager right or wrong rationale.
-
When you cut away to the crux of the argument what people like Greg, Brian and Risso appear to be saying is that Lerner is rubbish because he won't throw unlimited amounts of his own money into the club.
Apologies if I've missed it but I haven't read an argument for how we fund the wage bill, which appears to be the major issue here. Indeed I'm fairly sure that when MON was Public Enemy Number One they thought that we were paying too much.
The recent letter that season ticket holders received set out their aim to improve revenue which (if successful) should see an improvement in the future. What are the alternatives?
The crux of the argument is that Lerner has wasted the money he has thrown.
The truth of the matter is that money rules the Premier League and to get to the higher eschelons you are going to have to spend an awful lot of money. This is either going to be self generated or come from a sugar daddy.
As Lerner was not in the Abramovich league when he arrived and was never going to throw the sort of money that Chelsea have done, therfore he had no alternative but to generate it from within.
The problem is he hasn't been able to do that but has spentcoccydynia as if he has.
We are now in the situation where we are loaded with debt and will be saddled with the repayments of this whilst now trying to self generate the income.
The self generating route was always going to be a long and slow route with no guarantee of success but at least we had no debt when Lerner joined.
Now however the odds are even further stacked against us.
I don't think Lerner should be beyond critisism just because he used his own sources of finance as opposed to a bank. Until he writes off the debt then he has simply borrowed against the Villas future earnings.
ll you've done is repeat the same criticism you've made previously. It's not about being beyond criticism, but if that is to be in any way constructive there has to be an alternative. They've offered the improve the revenue approach, what would yours be?
The increasing revenue is and always was the only approach without a suggar daddy. In order to have any chance of succeeding over the long term we need an experienced team in charge. That is precisely the problem with the current management is that their experience is for running a credit card company.
How many times have we all said play a right back at right back, well it's the same for the board and senior management. Randy needs to surround himself with top class managers who know the ins and outs of the football game.
Who understand how important getting shirts on sale on time are. Who have experienced negotiations with local businesses and preferably have many personal contacts etc etc.
We need to grow our fanbase and this will be difficult and take time.
There is no one easy answer to all of this, and it will not be achieved overnight but if the bungling continues I fear for our club.
-
Could anyone post a copy of the letter here or point me to where it has already been done.
Contents below.
Googled a line, in case anyone thinks I'm sad enough to type it all up ;)
As we approach the 2011-12 season, we wanted to express our thanks for your support. The last year was fraught with the unexpected, and was certainly frustrating and at times even disappointing. Throughout this past year, however, and now looking forward to the new season, you have continued your support and commitment to the club, and for that we are very appreciative.
The managerial changes that commenced last August, still less than a year ago, were unexpected, unsettling and certainly took their toll. Despite this, the team came through, finishing with good wins against Arsenal and Liverpool to secure a 9th place finish as we headed into the short summer break.
Looking ahead to this season, we feel that in Alex McLeish we have found a very special football man to manage Villa. Being deeply conscious of the controversy that would at first come along with selecting him as manager, we still felt that his broader and career-long reputation for hard work, leadership and professional enthusiasm, together with his willingness to work with the club, made him a worthy and in fact uniquely god fit for our club. To this end, we wish him every success in his new role and hope others do the same as there is no doubt that the great support of our fans will make a massive difference to the team, whether at Villa Park or away.
As regards our personal ambitions for the Club they remain as they've been from the beginning: to manage the club for growth. More precisely, our focus is to manage the investments we've made at Villa Park to promote strong financial performance in terms of our commercial activities in order that the Clubs revenue can grow and contribute accordingly to player, manager and other football related wages and costs. This approach is at the core of our broader strategy yo create an enduring business model that is stable and yet has the potential to grow, as we feel that the club revenue and player wages are the key to consistent competitiveness. In connection with this strategy, we have targeted being at or within range of a top 20 ranking among clubs in Europe by revenue, which was achieved in the last Deloitte Football report
So again, let us express our appreciation for your support as we look forward with hope and pride to the upcoming season
Yours sincerely
Randy Lerner... Paul Faulkner
-
You have to know what he's aiming for to offer an alternative. If he's looking to cut probably 350k a year in wages and make a transfer profit of 20m every season then i'd say he should sell -up. Bottom line is Ellis' last season when there was no money for transfers and things were kept extremely tight we still posted a lost i think of 9m for 6 months. Not many big clubs do post a profit, probably only the mancs - you don't buy a club like Villa to make a profit unless your a fuckwit.
It's in the letter that prompted this thread. Increase revenue to put us in the top 20 in Europe and use that to fund the footballing side on a sustainable level. Nothing about profit, that's your invention.
Of course that takes time, as stated above it's not sexy and will not satisfy the impatient but MIGHT deliver in the future. I'm not saying that I know it will work, how could I, but it seems to me a better option than just saying Randy has to spend more.
It doesn't take any time at all for us to increase revenue to the level that puts us "at or within range of a top 20 ranking among clubs in Europe by revenue". As the letter points out"which was achieved in the last [2011] Deloitte Football report".
You're right about one thing though, it isn't sexy.
-
You have to know what he's aiming for to offer an alternative. If he's looking to cut probably 350k a year in wages and make a transfer profit of 20m every season then i'd say he should sell -up. Bottom line is Ellis' last season when there was no money for transfers and things were kept extremely tight we still posted a lost i think of 9m for 6 months. Not many big clubs do post a profit, probably only the mancs - you don't buy a club like Villa to make a profit unless your a fuckwit.
It's in the letter that prompted this thread. Increase revenue to put us in the top 20 in Europe and use that to fund the footballing side on a sustainable level. Nothing about profit, that's your invention.
Of course that takes time, as stated above it's not sexy and will not satisfy the impatient but MIGHT deliver in the future. I'm not saying that I know it will work, how could I, but it seems to me a better option than just saying Randy has to spend more.
It doesn't take any time at all for us to increase revenue to the level that puts us "at or within range of a top 20 ranking among clubs in Europe by revenue". As the letter points out"which was achieved in the last [2011] Deloitte Football report".
You're right about one thing though, it isn't sexy.
Keeping us there might take a little more effort. Anyway, what's the alternative?
-
It's a strange letter, because it's more of a vague business statement than the usual mix of blind optimism couched with platitudes that season ticket holders might expect to receive before the start of the season. "Randy Lerner's Enduring Business Model" isn't much of a terrace song though.
Alex McLeish has to be a "very special football" man indeed to help bring about the "growth" with clearly a limited budget. He's been chosen because he's used to managing on an even tighter budget down the road.
Managing expectation is another thing, and it would clearly be madness to even think of trying to compete financially with the top three and even Arsenal or Liverpool. It's when cautious spending is met with management deficiencies (Houllier's FA Cup boob etc) that it's high-risk, like last season when we flirted with the relegation places for too long.
There's a good article in the new H&V about what McLeish should be looking to aim for and avoid. Certainly a couple of good Cup runs might be the best we can hope for, even with a prudent approach.
-
Where was the post that someone put on here from VT that broke down our wage and revenue?
I saw it this morning but can't find it now.
-
You have to know what he's aiming for to offer an alternative. If he's looking to cut probably 350k a year in wages and make a transfer profit of 20m every season then i'd say he should sell -up. Bottom line is Ellis' last season when there was no money for transfers and things were kept extremely tight we still posted a lost i think of 9m for 6 months. Not many big clubs do post a profit, probably only the mancs - you don't buy a club like Villa to make a profit unless your a fuckwit.
It's in the letter that prompted this thread. Increase revenue to put us in the top 20 in Europe and use that to fund the footballing side on a sustainable level. Nothing about profit, that's your invention.
Of course that takes time, as stated above it's not sexy and will not satisfy the impatient but MIGHT deliver in the future. I'm not saying that I know it will work, how could I, but it seems to me a better option than just saying Randy has to spend more.
It doesn't take any time at all for us to increase revenue to the level that puts us "at or within range of a top 20 ranking among clubs in Europe by revenue". As the letter points out"which was achieved in the last [2011] Deloitte Football report".
You're right about one thing though, it isn't sexy.
Keeping us there might take a little more effort. Anyway, what's the alternative?
Investment in the playing squad.
-
You have to know what he's aiming for to offer an alternative. If he's looking to cut probably 350k a year in wages and make a transfer profit of 20m every season then i'd say he should sell -up. Bottom line is Ellis' last season when there was no money for transfers and things were kept extremely tight we still posted a lost i think of 9m for 6 months. Not many big clubs do post a profit, probably only the mancs - you don't buy a club like Villa to make a profit unless your a fuckwit.
It's in the letter that prompted this thread. Increase revenue to put us in the top 20 in Europe and use that to fund the footballing side on a sustainable level. Nothing about profit, that's your invention.
Of course that takes time, as stated above it's not sexy and will not satisfy the impatient but MIGHT deliver in the future. I'm not saying that I know it will work, how could I, but it seems to me a better option than just saying Randy has to spend more.
It doesn't take any time at all for us to increase revenue to the level that puts us "at or within range of a top 20 ranking among clubs in Europe by revenue". As the letter points out"which was achieved in the last [2011] Deloitte Football report".
You're right about one thing though, it isn't sexy.
Keeping us there might take a little more effort. Anyway, what's the alternative?
Investment in the playing squad.
So we're back to demanding Randy spends more.
-
There is an abstract form of investment in the playing squad which costs very little and can save dozens of millions of pounds. I refer to the investment of confidence and patience in home grown or cheaply bought players. How much has it cost the club to dispose of Peter Whittingham, Craig Gardner, Gary Cahill and Darius Vassell for peanuts.
There are two sides to running a successful business - buy as cheaply as you can, sell for as much as you can. I think this was what robbyfvillain was referring to when he urged the club to gather experienced hard headed football men at board level. Wheeling and dealing makes money and saves money.
-
You have to know what he's aiming for to offer an alternative. If he's looking to cut probably 350k a year in wages and make a transfer profit of 20m every season then i'd say he should sell -up. Bottom line is Ellis' last season when there was no money for transfers and things were kept extremely tight we still posted a lost i think of 9m for 6 months. Not many big clubs do post a profit, probably only the mancs - you don't buy a club like Villa to make a profit unless your a fuckwit.
It's in the letter that prompted this thread. Increase revenue to put us in the top 20 in Europe and use that to fund the footballing side on a sustainable level. Nothing about profit, that's your invention.
Of course that takes time, as stated above it's not sexy and will not satisfy the impatient but MIGHT deliver in the future. I'm not saying that I know it will work, how could I, but it seems to me a better option than just saying Randy has to spend more.
It doesn't take any time at all for us to increase revenue to the level that puts us "at or within range of a top 20 ranking among clubs in Europe by revenue". As the letter points out"which was achieved in the last [2011] Deloitte Football report".
You're right about one thing though, it isn't sexy.
Keeping us there might take a little more effort. Anyway, what's the alternative?
Investment in the playing squad.
So we're back to demanding Randy spends more.
No, I said investment in the playing squad. I'm sure Randy could find someone to invest if he wanted to relinquish some of his shareholding, just as Doug did at the end of the 90s.
-
He could find someone to fund additional wages based on current revenue?
-
Where was the post that someone put on here from VT that broke down our wage and revenue?
I saw it this morning but can't find it now.
Transfer thread.
-
Cheers
-
There is an abstract form of investment in the playing squad which costs very little and can save dozens of millions of pounds. I refer to the investment of confidence and patience in home grown or cheaply bought players. How much has it cost the club to dispose of Peter Whittingham, Craig Gardner, Gary Cahill and Darius Vassell for peanuts.
There are two sides to running a successful business - buy as cheaply as you can, sell for as much as you can. I think this was what robbyfvillain was referring to when he urged the club to gather experienced hard headed football men at board level. Wheeling and dealing makes money and saves money.
Precisely. We can't match the top 4/5 on a financial basis so we have to be smarter behind the scenes and that will require experience in the football business which we just don't have.
At the moment we cant match the top teams on the field, or in the transfer market and it appears we're not close at the financial management of the club either. Until the financial and business management improves there will be no improvement on the field.
-
Udinese achieved CL football with a buy low, sell high policy. They have benefited from an excellent scouting network that has unearthed some class players. It's tough but it can be done.
-
He could find someone to fund additional wages based on current revenue?
There's an awful lot of nonsense talked about our wage bill. The gap between revenue and wages in Doug's final year was £10.7m. How big does that gap need to be now?
-
He could find someone to fund additional wages based on current revenue?
There's an awful lot of nonsense talked about our wage bill. The gap between revenue and wages in Doug's final year was £10.7m. How big does that gap need to be now?
rolls eyes
-
Udinese achieved CL football with a buy low, sell high policy. They have benefited from an excellent scouting network that has unearthed some class players. It's tough but it can be done.
That is probably what we should and need to do and what was the biggest and most disappointing failure of O'Neill's tenure.
-
He could find someone to fund additional wages based on current revenue?
There's an awful lot of nonsense talked about our wage bill. The gap between revenue and wages in Doug's final year was £10.7m. How big does that gap need to be now?
I'm no expert but surely the size of "the gap" is where we generate funds for growth, in Doug's day it went in dividends. I've seen the Dragon's Den and a pitch that offers 88% of turnover in wages and no plan for increasing revenue beyond what they ask for on the day has little chance of attracting investment.
-
I am scared to death by the extent to which we have slammed on the brakes - our Osbournesque economies will end in tears - but I really can't take anyone seriously if they think 88 percent of turnover going on wages is sensible or sustainable.
Disagreeing with the way we're going about tackling the problem is one thing, pretending it isn't a problem is another one entirely.
Villadawg - honest question (and it's one I wouldn't really know how to answer myself, to be honest), but what if Randy simply hasn't got the money to fund things in a more extravagant way?
Not "should he spend more" or "are we spending a lot", but "the money isn't there"?
-
isn't that the point though...it isn't a business, and none of the dragon den lot would invest in a football club.. If you're a swindon say then of course you have to keep things on a business setting but when you're supposedly a rich mans toy like half the clubs in the prem then no-one is trying to make a profit. I'm pretty sure Randy didn't think he was going to get rich by buying Villa. If he did then we are in trouble.
-
A football club can only increase revenue significantly by success on the pitch, more attendacies, more pies, more souvineers, more advertising and sponsorship. Most sponsorship deals are based on the succes in cup and league positions.
-
I am scared to death by the extent to which we have slammed on the brakes - our Osbournesque economies will end in tears - but I really can't take anyone seriously if they think 88 percent of turnover going on wages is sensible or sustainable.
Disagreeing with the way we're going about tackling the problem is one thing, pretending it isn't a problem is another one entirely.
Villadawg - honest question (and it's one I wouldn't really know how to answer myself, to be honest), but what if Randy simply hasn't got the money to fund things in a more extravagant way?
Not "should he spend more" or "are we spending a lot", but "the money isn't there"?
Randy should sell to a better business man. His one strategy - letting O'Neill run around like a kid in a sweet shop - hasn't worked, and now he's bereft of funds and ideas.
-
I am scared to death by the extent to which we have slammed on the brakes - our Osbournesque economies will end in tears - but I really can't take anyone seriously if they think 88 percent of turnover going on wages is sensible or sustainable.
Disagreeing with the way we're going about tackling the problem is one thing, pretending it isn't a problem is another one entirely.
Villadawg - honest question (and it's one I wouldn't really know how to answer myself, to be honest), but what if Randy simply hasn't got the money to fund things in a more extravagant way?
Not "should he spend more" or "are we spending a lot", but "the money isn't there"?
Randy should sell to a better business man. His one strategy - letting O'Neill run around like a kid in a sweet shop - hasn't worked, and now he's bereft of funds and ideas.
You have a point re the shit management, but "should sell to a better businessman" does not equal "there's a better businessman waiting to buy us".
What if there are no takers?
-
Then we're stuck with a crap owner unfortunately.
-
I am scared to death by the extent to which we have slammed on the brakes - our Osbournesque economies will end in tears - but I really can't take anyone seriously if they think 88 percent of turnover going on wages is sensible or sustainable.
Disagreeing with the way we're going about tackling the problem is one thing, pretending it isn't a problem is another one entirely.
Villadawg - honest question (and it's one I wouldn't really know how to answer myself, to be honest), but what if Randy simply hasn't got the money to fund things in a more extravagant way?
Not "should he spend more" or "are we spending a lot", but "the money isn't there"?
Randy should sell to a better business man. His one strategy - letting O'Neill run around like a kid in a sweet shop - hasn't worked, and now he's bereft of funds and ideas.
Probably my view too. Sorry but a big premiership club is not for someone on his uppers as we saw with Ellis
-
I am scared to death by the extent to which we have slammed on the brakes - our Osbournesque economies will end in tears - but I really can't take anyone seriously if they think 88 percent of turnover going on wages is sensible or sustainable.
Disagreeing with the way we're going about tackling the problem is one thing, pretending it isn't a problem is another one entirely.
Villadawg - honest question (and it's one I wouldn't really know how to answer myself, to be honest), but what if Randy simply hasn't got the money to fund things in a more extravagant way?
Not "should he spend more" or "are we spending a lot", but "the money isn't there"?
Randy should sell to a better business man. His one strategy - letting O'Neill run around like a kid in a sweet shop - hasn't worked, and now he's bereft of funds and ideas.
Probably my view too. Sorry but a big premiership club is not for someone on his uppers as we saw with Ellis
But what if nobody else wants to buy it.
What then?
-
why would any one want to buy us?
-
Everton continue to stand that theory on its head. They are potless and the club has been for sale for ever. The difference with them and us is that their lack of money has forged an indomitable spirit in the squad. You will not see Jagielka or Cahill or Baines posing in a nightclub with the players of a club tapping him up and then claiming it was a fake photo. If Everton can do it. We can do it. Randy Lerner cannot possibly be as skint as Bill Kenwright (allegedly).
-
He could find someone to fund additional wages based on current revenue?
There's an awful lot of nonsense talked about our wage bill. The gap between revenue and wages in Doug's final year was £10.7m. How big does that gap need to be now?
I'm no expert but surely the size of "the gap" is where we generate funds for growth, in Doug's day it went in dividends. I've seen the Dragon's Den and a pitch that offers 88% of turnover in wages and no plan for increasing revenue beyond what they ask for on the day has little chance of attracting investment.
I'm not advocating ongoing wages of 88% but if you could do all the other things you needed to do in that 12% gap or you could envisage increased revenue at a better margin, that that could be perfectly acceptable from a business perspective..
If we're to have a discussion on an acceptable revenue/wages ratio then it's worth considering what gross margin is needed. I think it is an important question.
A discussion that consists solely of "wages are too high", is of no use to anyone. Particularly when you consider that our wage levels are in no way excessive for the upper reaches of the PL.
-
why would any one want to buy us?
A good club in the most watched league in the world with a great stadium and a good fanbase?
Who indeed?
I'm not saying they would be queueing up but it's not inconceivable that we could be pretty much ideal for the next billionaire who fancies a pop at real-life Football Manager is it?
-
I'm not advocating ongoing wages of 88% but if you could do all the other things you needed to do in that 12% gap or you could envisage increased revenue at a better margin, that that could be perfectly acceptable from a business perspective..
Hmmm. We lost about £30m on turnover of £90m 2009/10, if I remember correctly. To break even we need to hack a hell of a lot more out of the wage bill than Heskey and Beye (or even 12%), or sell more shirts/seats, or sell more players. Or Randy has to fund the shortfall.
All but the last option seen either unlikely or extremely unpalatable/disastrous. So the question would seem to lurch round to how much is Randy prepared to pony up each year just to be average let alone competitive?
-
It was Randy who sanctioned the spending of high wages for crap players. I honestly believe that he's blown his wad so to speak.
-
Then we're stuck with a crap owner unfortunately.
You appear to see everything in black and white terms, Risso.
I think much of what Lerner has done has been very good. I think his mistake was that he expected to increase revenue more quickly than he did. It's an error that we all made, we assumed that Doug was holding us back and that as soon as he left in would be wine and roses all the way. Who knows, if it hadn't been for the global recession and Man City distorting the market it might have worked.
So, now we are we are. To me, whoever is in charge the plan that they've set out seems to me to be the most viable; increase revenue, invest wisely in players, develop our own talent and seek to grow at a sustainable level. That doesn't seem "crap" to me.
-
Then we're stuck with a crap owner unfortunately.
You appear to see everything in black and white terms, Risso.
I think much of what Lerner has done has been very good. I think his mistake was that he expected to increase revenue more quickly than he did. It's an error that we all made, we assumed that Doug was holding us back and that as soon as he left in would be wine and roses all the way. Who knows, if it hadn't been for the global recession and Man City distorting the market it might have worked.
So, now we are we are. To me, whoever is in charge the plan that they've set out seems to me to be the most viable; increase revenue, invest wisely in players, develop our own talent and seek to grow at a sustainable level. That doesn't seem "crap" to me.
You keep talking as if it's a deliberate strategy Chris. It isn't, it's simple retrenchment because Randy doesn't have the cash or the business nous to compete now that his first five years have amounted to nothing.
-
I am scared to death by the extent to which we have slammed on the brakes - our Osbournesque economies will end in tears - but I really can't take anyone seriously if they think 88 percent of turnover going on wages is sensible or sustainable.
Disagreeing with the way we're going about tackling the problem is one thing, pretending it isn't a problem is another one entirely.
Villadawg - honest question (and it's one I wouldn't really know how to answer myself, to be honest), but what if Randy simply hasn't got the money to fund things in a more extravagant way?
Not "should he spend more" or "are we spending a lot", but "the money isn't there"?
Randy should sell to a better business man. His one strategy - letting O'Neill run around like a kid in a sweet shop - hasn't worked, and now he's bereft of funds and ideas.
Probably my view too. Sorry but a big premiership club is not for someone on his uppers as we saw with Ellis
But what if nobody else wants to buy it.
What then?
clubs are still being bought with QPR likely to be the next one. The big obstacle last time was Ellis not wanting to sell because he liked the prestige and publiclty too much. He'd still be here now if finances hadn't changed with Sky making it impossible to continue without dipping his hand into his own money- a big no-no for him. Football clubs, especially at our size are a rich man's business and if its true Lerner's financial shares have dropped like a stone, then i'm guessing he'd consider selling to prop up his other interests
-
For every Abu Dhabi Investment group there are two Carson Yeungs.
-
Everton continue to stand that theory on its head. They are potless and the club has been for sale for ever. The difference with them and us is that their lack of money has forged an indomitable spirit in the squad. You will not see Jagielka or Cahill or Baines posing in a nightclub with the players of a club tapping him up and then claiming it was a fake photo. If Everton can do it. We can do it. Randy Lerner cannot possibly be as skint as Bill Kenwright (allegedly).
yep Everton do work on a tight budget but they usually re-invest a signifcant part of the money they make on selling players. I have no problem with us cutting the wages back or selling to buy BUT we're not doing that. We're selling and pocketing the majority of the transfers fee for god knows what- I suspect we'll see another of these Lerner "Management fee's" popping up in the next accounts
-
I am scared to death by the extent to which we have slammed on the brakes - our Osbournesque economies will end in tears - but I really can't take anyone seriously if they think 88 percent of turnover going on wages is sensible or sustainable.
Disagreeing with the way we're going about tackling the problem is one thing, pretending it isn't a problem is another one entirely.
Villadawg - honest question (and it's one I wouldn't really know how to answer myself, to be honest), but what if Randy simply hasn't got the money to fund things in a more extravagant way?
Not "should he spend more" or "are we spending a lot", but "the money isn't there"?
Randy should sell to a better business man. His one strategy - letting O'Neill run around like a kid in a sweet shop - hasn't worked, and now he's bereft of funds and ideas.
Probably my view too. Sorry but a big premiership club is not for someone on his uppers as we saw with Ellis
But what if nobody else wants to buy it.
What then?
clubs are still being bought with QPR likely to be the next one. The big obstacle last time was Ellis not wanting to sell because he liked the prestige and publiclty too much. He'd still be here now if finances hadn't changed with Sky making it impossible to continue without dipping his hand into his own money- a big no-no for him. Football clubs, especially at our size are a rich man's business and if its true Lerner's financial shares have dropped like a stone, then i'm guessing he'd consider selling to prop up his other interests
If we say $3bn is the minimum then there are about 380 possible purchasers according to Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires#p_38_s_arank_-1__-1 (http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires#p_38_s_arank_-1__-1)
-
Not sure 3 billion is the minimum. I just think Lerner no longer has 1billion or anything like that in real money.
-
Not sure 3 billion is the minimum. I just think Lerner no longer has 1billion or anything like that in real money.
So your plan is still "Randy should spend more". I'll ask again, how can you feel comfortable asking him to put in more of his money when you won't spend a penny of your own?
It's ironic that we send so much of our time whinging about how money is ruining football yet when our own club talk about a sustainable operating model we cry foul and call for more spending regardless.
-
Everton may have reinvested money from the sale of players Greg but they have not invested it in new or better players. Didn't somebody post that it is two years since they bought a player?
-
Then we're stuck with a crap owner unfortunately.
You appear to see everything in black and white terms, Risso.
I think much of what Lerner has done has been very good. I think his mistake was that he expected to increase revenue more quickly than he did. It's an error that we all made, we assumed that Doug was holding us back and that as soon as he left in would be wine and roses all the way. Who knows, if it hadn't been for the global recession and Man City distorting the market it might have worked.
So, now we are we are. To me, whoever is in charge the plan that they've set out seems to me to be the most viable; increase revenue, invest wisely in players, develop our own talent and seek to grow at a sustainable level. That doesn't seem "crap" to me.
Revenue increased from £49m to £90m over the space of four years, I don't think you can hope to grow revenue more quickly than that and that was before we even reached the stage of winning cups and playing in the CL.
-
Not sure 3 billion is the minimum. I just think Lerner no longer has 1billion or anything like that in real money.
So your plan is still "Randy should spend more". I'll ask again, how can you feel comfortable asking him to put in more of his money when you won't spend a penny of your own?
It's ironic that we send so much of our time whinging about how money is ruining football yet when our own club talk about a sustainable operating model we cry foul and call for more spending regardless.
no chris my point is if Randy has lost something like 500+m in the last 12 months in share value then carrying losses of 40m a year is probably no longer something you can ignore or want to ignore if it means you'll be brassic in 5 years. Without success its very hard to get a sustainable business model and you don't get success by selling your best players every year and not replacing them.
My plan is he should bow out if he can't afford to carry on with the business model he originally envisaged.
-
Everton may have reinvested money from the sale of players Greg but they have not invested it in new or better players. Didn't somebody post that it is two years since they bought a player?
I thinks thats true but then they haven't sold a big name in the same period either. I have no problem with that way of doing things if money is tight. I could live with a sell to buy policy- but we're not. We're selling and pocketing the majority of the money.
-
The Lerner plan which was based on the MON plan failed. It now looks like a spectacular failure.
RL thought that he could be successfull as an absantee Landlord.
Well history has proved that he couldnt, now the club are indebted to him for millions and he appears to be in some financial difficulty.
-
Everton may have reinvested money from the sale of players Greg but they have not invested it in new or better players. Didn't somebody post that it is two years since they bought a player?
I thinks thats true but then they haven't sold a big name in the same period either. I have no problem with that way of doing things if money is tight. I could live with a sell to buy policy- but we're not. We're selling and pocketing the majority of the money.
They sold Piennar in January.
-
Everton may have reinvested money from the sale of players Greg but they have not invested it in new or better players. Didn't somebody post that it is two years since they bought a player?
I thinks thats true but then they haven't sold a big name in the same period either. I have no problem with that way of doing things if money is tight. I could live with a sell to buy policy- but we're not. We're selling and pocketing the majority of the money.
They sold Piennar in January.
For 3m because he out of contract.. Its not like he went for 20m and the club have kept it all
-
Not sure 3 billion is the minimum. I just think Lerner no longer has 1billion or anything like that in real money.
So your plan is still "Randy should spend more". I'll ask again, how can you feel comfortable asking him to put in more of his money when you won't spend a penny of your own?
It's ironic that we send so much of our time whinging about how money is ruining football yet when our own club talk about a sustainable operating model we cry foul and call for more spending regardless.
It isn't a model, it's just cutting costs. The General has been banging on all summer about Lerner backing McLeish, and it just hasn't happened. If we're going for a more "sustainable model", then why spend such a huge amount on Darren Bent if it wasn't a panic buy (which I firmly believe it was). What's the point in buying an expensive player on huge wages like Bent, then sell your better players 6 months after and not replace them? There's no rhyme or reason to how Lerner operates, he really hasn't a clue. It'd help if he employed people with a bit more ability than the hapless Faulkner.
-
Everton may have reinvested money from the sale of players Greg but they have not invested it in new or better players. Didn't somebody post that it is two years since they bought a player?
I thinks thats true but then they haven't sold a big name in the same period either. I have no problem with that way of doing things if money is tight. I could live with a sell to buy policy- but we're not. We're selling and pocketing the majority of the money.
They sold Piennar in January.
For 3m because he out of contract.. Its not like he went for 20m and the club have kept it all
So losing one of your best players and only getting £3m for him is something we should aspire to?
-
Everton may have reinvested money from the sale of players Greg but they have not invested it in new or better players. Didn't somebody post that it is two years since they bought a player?
I thinks thats true but then they haven't sold a big name in the same period either. I have no problem with that way of doing things if money is tight. I could live with a sell to buy policy- but we're not. We're selling and pocketing the majority of the money.
They sold Piennar in January.
For 3m because he out of contract.. Its not like he went for 20m and the club have kept it all
So losing one of your best players and only getting £3m for him is something we should aspire to?
and how is that worse than getting 35m for 2 players and getting less than 15m of it to spend? or in other words 20m of it being mysteriously siphoned off. At least Everton got the use of Pienaar in his last season
-
The Lerner plan which was based on the MON plan failed. It now looks like a spectacular failure.
RL thought that he could be successfull as an absantee Landlord.
Well history has proved that he couldnt, now the club are indebted to him for millions and he appears to be in some financial difficulty.
Surely it is the abandonment of the strategy that has been a spectacular failure.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
Your head must be spinning like Randy Lerner trying to make sense of a set of accounts. A page back you were claiming we're cutting back on spending to try and operate on a more sustainable basis, now you're arguing the exact opposite.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
Of course, but from the tone of your posts you'd think we weren't spending anything.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
Of course, but from the tone of your posts you'd think we weren't spending anything.
we're spending but its easily covered by sales. Ireland and Bent are covered by milner and davies. so that possibly leaves makoun to be added to the expenditure this summer. Still the best part of 15m pocketed by the club
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
Of course, but from the tone of your posts you'd think we weren't spending anything.
we're spending but its easily covered by sales. Ireland and Bent are covered by milner and davies. so that possibly leaves makoun to be added to the expenditure this summer. Still the best part of 15m pocketed by the club
£15 mill owed and now paid to RL ?
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
Your head must be spinning like Randy Lerner trying to make sense of a set of accounts. A page back you were claiming we're cutting back on spending to try and operate on a more sustainable basis, now you're arguing the exact opposite.
Not at all, the previous discussion was about wages agains revenue. Now Greg seems to be trying to make out that we haven't re-invested any of the transfer money, when it's clearly not true.
-
The Lerner plan which was based on the MON plan failed. It now looks like a spectacular failure.
RL thought that he could be successfull as an absantee Landlord.
Well history has proved that he couldnt, now the club are indebted to him for millions and he appears to be in some financial difficulty.
Surely it is the abandonment of the strategy that has been a spectacular failure.
well if the investment was unlimited then you have the monkeys with typewriters scenario, eventually the MONkeys come up with the complete works of Shakespeare and MON would have won the CL, sadly the investment wasnt unlimited
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
Of course, but from the tone of your posts you'd think we weren't spending anything.
we're spending but its easily covered by sales. Ireland and Bent are covered by milner and davies. so that possibly leaves makoun to be added to the expenditure this summer. Still the best part of 15m pocketed by the club
£15 mill owed and now paid to RL ?
You may say that. I couldn't possibly comment :0)
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
Your head must be spinning like Randy Lerner trying to make sense of a set of accounts. A page back you were claiming we're cutting back on spending to try and operate on a more sustainable basis, now you're arguing the exact opposite.
Not at all, the previous discussion was about wages agains revenue. Now Greg seems to be trying to make out that we haven't re-invested any of the transfer money, when it's clearly not true.
I said we hadn't invested the majority this summer and we haven't. You decided to bring last season into it but even then there's a sizeable amount not accounted for in player investment.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
Of course, but from the tone of your posts you'd think we weren't spending anything.
we're spending but its easily covered by sales. Ireland and Bent are covered by milner and davies. so that possibly leaves makoun to be added to the expenditure this summer. Still the best part of 15m pocketed by the club
£15 mill owed and now paid to RL ?
You may say that. I couldn't possibly comment :0)
It still comes down to wages, Greg. Sign more payers and it goes up again. That's what McLeish means when he talks about trading.
-
Again, how much have we saved in wages? 12 players i made it earlier have departed. None of the 4 new arrivals are on more than the departures so in real terms thats 8 players gone, so even giving a ludicrously low average of 20k a week that makes nearly 9m saved in wages per year. its far more than that as we all know but added to the transfer windfall at a very conservative estimate they've clawed in 23m in wages and fees since this time last year. No austerity eh?
-
Again, how much have we saved in wages? 12 players i made it earlier have departed. None of the 4 new arrivals are on more than the departures so in real terms thats 8 players gone, so even giving a ludicrously low average of 20k a week that makes nearly 9m saved in wages per year. its far more than that as we all know but added to the transfer windfall at a very conservative estimate they've clawed in 23m in wages and fees since this time last year. No austerity eh?
We're just losing less money than before. We're not making any money on anything and our wage bill is still stupidly high looking at our squad.
-
Again, how much have we saved in wages? 12 players i made it earlier have departed. None of the 4 new arrivals are on more than the departures so in real terms thats 8 players gone, so even giving a ludicrously low average of 20k a week that makes nearly 9m saved in wages per year. its far more than that as we all know but added to the transfer windfall at a very conservative estimate they've clawed in 23m in wages and fees since this time last year. No austerity eh?
We're just losing less money than before. We're not making any money on anything and our wage bill is still stupidly high looking at our squad.
I know but you can't run Aston Villa on a profit and expect to stay in the premier. Doug couldn't do it so why would Lerner think he could? the best he can hope for is probably 10m loss per year and even that would probably take another 5 or 6 big earners leaving. Its impossible.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
And, if we're including transfers up to CNZ, we've also sold Downing and Young for another 37m.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
And, if we're including transfers up to CNZ, we've also sold Downing and Young for another 37m.
yes i have mentioned that since last summer we're about 15m in profit even including all houllier's buys and Ireland. No doubt he'll want to go from the summer before next :0)
-
Again, how much have we saved in wages? 12 players i made it earlier have departed. None of the 4 new arrivals are on more than the departures so in real terms thats 8 players gone, so even giving a ludicrously low average of 20k a week that makes nearly 9m saved in wages per year. its far more than that as we all know but added to the transfer windfall at a very conservative estimate they've clawed in 23m in wages and fees since this time last year. No austerity eh?
We won't know the correct amounts until we see the accounts, it's pointless you guessing at figures. However, we were told a year ago that it needed to be done and the figures seem to support it. They've done that and given us an outline of what happens next. I've still yet to see a convincing argument for an alternative approach.
-
Again, how much have we saved in wages? 12 players i made it earlier have departed. None of the 4 new arrivals are on more than the departures so in real terms thats 8 players gone, so even giving a ludicrously low average of 20k a week that makes nearly 9m saved in wages per year. its far more than that as we all know but added to the transfer windfall at a very conservative estimate they've clawed in 23m in wages and fees since this time last year. No austerity eh?
We won't know the correct amounts until we see the accounts, it's pointless you guessing at figures. However, we were told a year ago that it needed to be done and the figures seem to support it. They've done that and given us an outline of what happens next. I've still yet to see a convincing argument for an alternative approach.
ah come on. my guess at 20k a week for the likes of sidewell, NRC, walker Freidal etc.. is seriously underestimating the wages saved. Most of them were on double at least. Even with a few on lower than 20k a week, the real average must be at least over 30k. probably in the region of 15m in wages saved all told rather than 9m
-
Everton continue to stand that theory on its head. They are potless and the club has been for sale for ever. The difference with them and us is that their lack of money has forged an indomitable spirit in the squad. You will not see Jagielka or Cahill or Baines posing in a nightclub with the players of a club tapping him up and then claiming it was a fake photo. If Everton can do it. We can do it. Randy Lerner cannot possibly be as skint as Bill Kenwright (allegedly).
And why do ypou think that is not what he is trying to do. Would you not agree that his choice of manager is suggestive of such a strategy?
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
And, if we're including transfers up to CNZ, we've also sold Downing and Young for another 37m.
yes i have mentioned that since last summer we're about 15m in profit even including all houllier's buys and Ireland. No doubt he'll want to go from the summer before next :0)
The summer before next is now.
Yes, we've made a profit on transfers in the last 12 months but that's a consequence of cutting the wage bill something you were in favour of when it suited your anti MON stance.
-
Everton continue to stand that theory on its head. They are potless and the club has been for sale for ever. The difference with them and us is that their lack of money has forged an indomitable spirit in the squad. You will not see Jagielka or Cahill or Baines posing in a nightclub with the players of a club tapping him up and then claiming it was a fake photo. If Everton can do it. We can do it. Randy Lerner cannot possibly be as skint as Bill Kenwright (allegedly).
And why do ypou think that is not what he is trying to do. Would you not agree that his choice of manager is suggestive of such a strategy?
Not sure I see the relevance of AM to that approach, to be honest.
I'm going to give AM every chance to succeed, I'm not one of those people just waiting for an excuse to get on his back, he has to have a chance.
Having said that, though, I suspect one of the major reasons he got the job was because he was one of the few people willing to work within the given parameters - ie no money to spend.
I feel sorry for the guy. He knew the parameters and took the job, yes, but he's onto a loser from the off. A far weaker squad than the one which spent almost the entirety of last season hovering above the relegation zone.
-
In the past 12 months we've bought Ireland, Bent, Makoun, Given and N'Zogbia. That's the best part of £50m spent there, to claim some sort of austerity programme is ludicrous.
and sold Milner. but then you knew that.
And, if we're including transfers up to CNZ, we've also sold Downing and Young for another 37m.
yes i have mentioned that since last summer we're about 15m in profit even including all houllier's buys and Ireland. No doubt he'll want to go from the summer before next :0)
The summer before next is now.
Yes, we've made a profit on transfers in the last 12 months but that's a consequence of cutting the wage bill something you were in favour of when it suited your anti MON stance.
well here's a question for you chris. And its not a trick one. If we've saved 15m off the wage bill in the last year through losing 8 players then how much are we looking to get it down to realistically before we get to spend all the money we make on selling players? Same again? And who are the 8 players from the squad you'd want to jettison because the 15m thats gone walkabout is roughly another 8 players wages.
I really don't know what sort of bottom line in wages spending Lerner is looking at but i fear its not finished yet.
-
I don't see it like that, Greg. I am assuming that the wage bill is now where they want it in relation to turnover. If we buy a player for £50m or sign one on a free it will put it up again. As players are sold or come to the end of their contract it frees their wages for new players.
-
I wonder how loud the whoops of delight in the boardroom will be in 12 months time when we shed Heskey and Beye.
-
I don't see it like that, Greg. I am assuming that the wage bill is now where they want it in relation to turnover. If we buy a player for £50m or sign one on a free it will put it up again. As players are sold or come to the end of their contract it frees their wages for new players.
well i hope your right but i wouldn't be surprised if the non-spent transfer profit is going towards covering the wages.
-
I wonder how loud the whoops of delight in the boardroom will be in 12 months time when we shed Heskey and Beye.
forget the board, even i've got a bottle of scotch stashed for Beye's departure. As for Ivanhoe, AM will probably give him another 12 months
*runs off*
-
I hate to acknowledge it Greg but the one year extension to Roller Skates' contract could be triggered by relegation. He would be regarded as perfect Championship material.
As for Beye my only regret is that he is living testimony that the worst players get the best songs. Not only is "Habib Habib Habib Beye" sung to the tune of "Happy Happy Happy Days" a neat song in its own right it is the original Fonz theme tune so we could have been trail blazers yet again by singing to two players with one song. Sigh.
I am considering writing a novel about a man who wins 200 million on the euro lottery and buys a football club just to be able to get the crowd to sing properly and in tune.
-
I hate to acknowledge it Greg but the one year extension to Roller Skates' contract could be triggered by relegation. He would be regarded as perfect Championship material.
As for Beye my only regret is that he is living testimony that the worst players get the best songs. Not only is "Habib Habib Habib Beye" sung to the tune of "Happy Happy Happy Days" a neat song in its own right it is the original Fonz theme tune so we could have been trail blazers yet again by singing to two players with one song. Sigh.
I am considering writing a novel about a man who wins 200 million on the euro lottery and buys a football club just to be able to get the crowd to sing properly and in tune.
heheheh. I'd go for it but turn it into a musical - could be the next mamma mia.
To me the whole Lerner thing is starting to resemble a tragedy for us and him. Rich businessmen normally have a reputation of being careful with money but at some point he took his eye off the ball or maybe got caught up in the excitement. If he's been badly hammered by the world's financial problems then his recent actions would fit in with that, but with the best will in the world Aston Villa is unlikely to start posting profits in the near future, more likely it will be losses in the 10-20m region even with the annual selling of star players. If he can't stomach that then he may have to cut his losses and sell up although anyone would be loath to write off that amount of money.. I don't like to think too hard about what a sensible manager could have done with the funds he provided for MON so i'm guessing Lerner's probably in therapy or on Lithium
-
Greg, not sure why you keep talking about profit. There has been no talk about that from the board but rather operating at a level where income supports costs, i.e. breaking even.
-
Greg, not sure why you keep talking about profit. There has been no talk about that from the board but rather operating at a level where income supports costs, i.e. breaking even.
yeah, and again that isn't going to happen anytime soon Chris, not unless revenue goes through the roof which is unlikely given the financial conditions and the lack of success. Best he can hope for is to flog a player every summer and keep the losses in the 10-20m mark.
-
Breaking even needs to be more than just an aspiration under the new FFP rules.
-
As I said on the other thread, nobody else is rushing to comply with such indecent haste.
-
There is no requirement for breaking even in the current FFP rules. Forget them, they are not in any way an issue for Villa as things stand.
-
There is no requirement for breaking even in the current FFP rules. Forget them, they are not in any way an issue for Villa as things stand.
Yes there is if you want to play in Europe. With players being given 4 and 5 year contracts you have consider it from now.
-
There is no requirement for breaking even in the current FFP rules. Forget them, they are not in any way an issue for Villa as things stand.
Yes there is if you want to play in Europe. With players being given 4 and 5 year contracts you have consider it from now.
As I've posted, there are very generous exemptions for the next 7 years. Also, Any players under contract as at 30 June 2010 DO NOT count towards any deficit. The rules also state that any deficits will be regarded on a case by case basis, with various reasons for being "treated more favourably". In short, these rules are a load of shite, they're not going to stop us playing in Europe, and have nothing to do with our current position. Anybody believeing otherwise is deluding themselves.
Bad news on the horizon though:
"As part of its considerations,
the Club Financial Control Panel may also request a licensee’s longer term business plan (for reporting periods covering T+2 and T+3) in order to better understand the strategy of the club." Strategy? Uh oh.
-
So, are you saying that because there is some initial leeway we should ignore it? On a more general point isn't living within your means desirable regardless of regulations?
-
Where was the popular sentiment for living within our means when we were spending big?
Or under Doug, for that matter.
I understand if that's the way it has to be, but I can't believe anyone would choose that course.
-
So, are you saying that because there is some initial leeway we should ignore it? On a more general point isn't living within your means desirable regardless of regulations?
If Lerner had managed to increase our income by anything other than the Sky money which lands in our lap regardless, then maybe. But whatever, this current period is nothing to with the FFP rules, nothing whatsoever. In any case, the chances of Alex McLeish qualifying regularly for Europe via league placings was doubtful enough. Alex McLeish qualifying for Europe after selling his best players then NOT being backed is unlikley in the extreme.
When Lerner arrived he was supposed to be a brilliant businessman who was going to cure us of the cornershop mentality. It's clear now that he's absolutely nothing of the sort. If he sticks around, we might as well get used to underwhelming mediocrity.
-
So, are you saying that because there is some initial leeway we should ignore it? On a more general point isn't living within your means desirable regardless of regulations?
If Lerner had managed to increase our income by anything other than the Sky money which lands in our lap regardless, then maybe. But whatever, this current period is nothing to with the FFP rules, nothing whatsoever. In any case, the chances of Alex McLeish qualifying regularly for Europe via league placings was doubtful enough. Alex McLeish qualifying for Europe after selling his best players then NOT being backed is unlikley in the extreme.
When Lerner arrived he was supposed to be a brilliant businessman who was going to cure us of the cornershop mentality. It's clear now that he's absolutely nothing of the sort. If he sticks around, we might as well get used to underwhelming mediocrity.
We've also doubled the take on ticket prices, we each spend an average of about £300 more per season than we did before Randy took over.
-
I ea told on here yesterday that the increase in revenue was about as good as could be expected. Now o am told that it was rubbish. Can one of you provide the figures so that I can see for myself.
-
The scary thing is that despite the best part of £150 million invested we are really no further forward now in terms of success on the pitch, profile, sponsorship deals, new facilities etc...
-
Whatever the increase in revenue, I'm pretty convinced it wasn't as much as Randy expected when buying the club in 2006. I think our spending was in line with what he expected and now that's not materialised, he's bringing the spending into line with what we've actually got coming in. I think the idea was always to ease us towards self sufficiencey, but that 'ease' has become more severe due to not hitting their own targets.
Whether you blame them for getting the forcats wrong in the first place or praise them for exercising more prudence now is up to you.
-
The scary thing is that despite the best part of £150 million invested we are really no further forward now in terms of success on the pitch, profile, sponsorship deals, new facilities etc...
I'd argue that the facilities are better, particularly Bodymoor Heath. As for the rest, it's hard to get ahead when those around you are also spending that level of money.
-
The last two sets of accounts have shown that the increase in income from matchday receipts and commercial income of about £4m a year in total have been almost exactly offset by the interest charge on the loans from Lerner.
-
The scary thing is that despite the best part of £150 million invested we are really no further forward now in terms of success on the pitch, profile, sponsorship deals, new facilities etc...
You keep saying that about sponsorship deals, but we have one of the largest deals in the league with one of the biggest companies to sponsor a PL side. Lots of people seem upset that we are not sponsored by Apple or HTC or someone they've heard of, but who gives a shit if they pay the money?
As for new facilities - what about the state of the art training centre?
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things to moan about at the moment, but I find it hard to take people seriously when they just throw together a list which seems to consist of "everything".
-
The last two sets of accounts have shown that the increase in income from matchday receipts and commercial income of about £4m a year in total have been almost exactly offset by the interest charge on the loans from Lerner.
We would have paid interest in any event. And probably more depending on terms.
-
The last two sets of accounts have shown that the increase in income from matchday receipts and commercial income of about £4m a year in total have been almost exactly offset by the interest charge on the loans from Lerner.
We would have paid interest in any event. And probably more depending on terms.
Perhaps, but my point was that for two years at least, any increase in income that wasn't as a result of TV income was swallowed up by interest charges. To improve commercial income by a mere £4m over 5 years is piss poor, especially considering the "management charge" paid.
-
The Acorns sponsorship deal will have skewed the commercial income but I don't think anyone would argue that was anything but a good thing.
-
The Acorns sponsorship deal will have skewed the commercial income but I don't think anyone would argue that was anything but a good thing.
A very good point.
Maybe the best comparison is our commercial revenue at the end of 05/06 to what it is/will be for this season?