Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: kippaxvilla2 on February 28, 2014, 07:15:35 PM
-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-publish-latest-financial-6759801
So after all the slash and burn we've still made a 42.6m loss before exceptional items. Loan waived again....fattening up for the kill?
-
We've also published them on the deadline for filing them.
-
We've also published them on the deadline for filing them.
Just like virtually every other business does.
-
Just saying like.
-
Just saying like.
Will you be saying anything about the £90 million loan conversion?
-
Wonder how much of the bomb squads wages we are still partly paying. Hutton and Given obviously and probably part of Bents. I heard something which must be untrue surely that we are still paying Ireland's wages until the end of the season or at least in part.
-
Did randy just waive 90M of his own money and turn it into club equity?? Fair play if so.
-
Also, this is only until 2013. The situation now is vastly different.
-
Just saying like.
Will you be saying anything about the £90 million loan conversion?
The 90m loan conversion is really good news. Just saying like.
-
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
-
I know you're not aiming that at me but I have never claimed that. Putting money into a football club is akin to paying for a vast wedding and getting divorced 6 months after.
-
Correct
-
I wonder if anyone, except the nineties directors who floated then sold their shares for massive profits (Doug, Martin Edwards, that horrible bunch of chancers at Sheffield Wednesday) ever have or will make money from owning a football club.
-
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
-
I wonder if anyone, except the nineties directors who floated then sold their shares for massive profits (Doug, Martin Edwards, that horrible bunch of chancers at Sheffield Wednesday) ever have or will make money from owning a football club.
I suspect the Arsenal lot would.
-
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
You can lead a horse to water.....but a pencil must be lead.
-
Ultimately the important bit as it relates to finances and our future ability to invest:
Robin Russell, chief financial officer, said: "The 2012-13 accounts effectively close a chapter on a period of heavy losses. As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA’s and the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch.”
-
Manure lot will eventually I guess. But they are exceptions.
-
We've also published them on the deadline for filing them.
Just like virtually every other business does.
Except the ones that have good news, it tends to be loss making companies that hold out until the last possible moment.
-
Ultimately the important bit as it relates to finances and our future ability to invest:
Robin Russell, chief financial officer, said: "The 2012-13 accounts effectively close a chapter on a period of heavy losses. As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA’s and the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch.”
Just looks like the sort of blurb you'd expect in a press release like this to me.
It doesn't really matter the important thing is in the figures, and it's notable mainly for the fact he's written off another 90m.
-
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
maybe they can also stop questioning his commitment whether he attends the games or not. It would be nice to see him there I grant you but at the same time he's hardly stop trying to make the club financially viable so he clearly has retained a significant interest. The last couple of years have not only been a nightmare but a massive lesson. One that had it not been addressed as it has been could have seen us in a much more dire situation.
On the playing side clearly we have flown and are still flying too close to the sun, but it is possible that over the horizon there is better times ahead with better players coming to the club.
-
Ultimately the important bit as it relates to finances and our future ability to invest:
Robin Russell, chief financial officer, said: "The 2012-13 accounts effectively close a chapter on a period of heavy losses. As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA’s and the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch.”
Just looks like the sort of blurb you'd expect in a press release like this to me.
It doesn't really matter the important thing is in the figures, and it's notable mainly for the fact he's written off another 90m.
yes, it is CFO talk and the proof will be in what the club proves in doing, but I think if I could take the liberty of reading between the lines, the worst is over, and the worst was quite shit.
-
I'm not sure id be quite so positive about it, to be honest, it's a financial interest, he has to care about that, but I still think his non attendance says a lot about his heart not being in it.
Strictly speaking, those accounts are for last year, so the worst would have been over then. Doesn't look that way at the moment.
I also think that, having struggled to get to this point, there won't be any more chasing the dream going on, in terms of fees and wages.
It is excellent news that he's written off the debt, and I hope the "he's making a big profit" brigade take note, but we've got to be realistic about where we are, and where we are going.
-
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
maybe they can also stop questioning his commitment whether he attends the games or not. It would be nice to see him there I grant you but at the same time he's hardly stop trying to make the club financially viable so he clearly has retained a significant interest. The last couple of years have not only been a nightmare but a massive lesson. One that had it not been addressed as it has been could have seen us in a much more dire situation.
On the playing side clearly we have flown and are still flying too close to the sun, but it is possible that over the horizon there is better times ahead with better players coming to the club.
Not sure you can call it commitment, he had no choice, if he stopped funding the club would go bust. Converting the loans to Equity is just recognising the club/business is unable to service these loans.
-
Can anyone explain how we still lost £42m? Where is it all going?
-
I'm not sure id be quite so positive about it, to be honest, it's a financial interest, he has to care about that, but I still think his non attendance says a lot about his heart not being in it.
Strictly speaking, those accounts are for last year, so the worst would have been over then. Doesn't look that way at the moment.
I also think that, having struggled to get to this point, there won't be any more chasing the dream going on, in terms of fees and wages.
It is excellent news that he's written off the debt, and I hope the "he's making a big profit" brigade take note, but we've got to be realistic about where we are, and where we are going.
the chasing the dream might not happen in quite so irresponsible a manner, but Everton and Spurs have done it through more astute scouting, management and spending. As long as we are not in the CL or we haven't been bought out by the next minted oil bloke we'll never compete at the very top end which essentially leaves everyone from about 5th place down to compete for those spots below the top 4. It's shit but that's the way it is. What we should be able to do if we do it right, is compete consistently in all competitions on a more sound financial footing. You don't have to be Chelsea to win cups as Wigan/Portsmouth/Swansea have shown.
-
Can anyone explain how we still lost £42m? Where is it all going?
These accounts would still include the very high salaries that MON left us with, the writing off of contracts and value of some players.
-
Well it will still include Ireland's, Bents, Huttons, Dunns, Givens salaries.
-
So, according to those figures we are on track then ?
Good.
-
So, according to those figures we are on track then ?
Good.
Reading between the lines, it was the last year of being up shit creek and this year we've got a paddle.
-
If the plan is to remain "Financially self sufficient" there is not a lot of room for major signings.
This is why Lambert feels so comfortable, he has kept his side of the bargain and run to a budget.
-
It also didn't include a profit on player sales this year, and will have the amortisation of higher valued players. But until more detail is available it's not clear. What does seem to be clear is that the previous year's accounts would have been a whole lot worse but for the player sales and the interest waiver.
-
I think ultimately Lerner is yes a businessman but a businessman with soft business skills. He is almost philanthropic rather than hard headed businessman.
I feel he has been very badly advised, lead in the wrong direction by appointments of poor leaders whom he placed a lot of trust in. The club is just crying out for someone of the nouse and stature of David Dein who knows the business inside out.
-
If the plan is to remain "Financially self sufficient" there is not a lot of room for major signings.
This is why Lambert feels so comfortable, he has kept his side of the bargain and run to a budget.
that's not true at all. Despite being in a much worse position than we are today the club made significant funds available to Lambert and McLeish. It's all about how the money is spent from this point on as opposed to just being about how much. You can have a net spend of 25m that is a complete waste, on 7 or 8 players or invested on 3 or 4 players that actually start to make us better. We've done the first two of those options, and I would hope that we will start to move towards option three.
-
I think ultimately Lerner is yes a businessman but a businessman with soft business skills. He is almost philanthropic rather than hard headed businessman.
I feel he has been very badly advised, lead in the wrong direction by appointments of poor leaders whom he placed a lot of trust in. The club is just crying out for someone of the nouse and stature of David Dein who knows the business inside out.
but even the David Dein's or Daniel Levy's of the world have overseen and agreed to sign players to huge transfer fees or wages that haven't worked out. Look at a lot of the current crop of Spurs players and 60m worth on two players that can't get a game.
-
So, according to those figures we are on track then ?
Good.
Reading between the lines, it was the last year of being up shit creek and this year we've got a paddle.
Cue this being the season we get relegated!
I've had a look at the article but it's all financial gobbledegook that goes over my head! Can anyone find what our actual wage bill total is now and what the percentage it is in terms of turnover now as those are the main ones that interest me and have obviously handicapped us in the last few seasons.
-
So, according to those figures we are on track then ?
Good.
Reading between the lines, it was the last year of being up shit creek and this year we've got a paddle.
Cue this being the season we get relegated!
I've had a look at the article but it's all financial gobbledegook that goes over my head! Can anyone find what our actual wage bill total is now and what the percentage it is in terms of turnover now as those are the main ones that interest me and have obviously handicapped us in the last few seasons.
we wont know that until we get this last years accounts a year from now.
-
It should still have reduced in the 2013 accounts. But not as much as it will in next years accounts. Sell Benteke after the World Cup and we'll be laughing by the time the 2015 accounts are published.
-
It should still have reduced in the 2013 accounts. But not as much as it will in next years accounts. Sell Benteke after the World Cup and we'll be laughing by the time the 2015 accounts are published.
Yes, we should be well set as a club to bounce back up from The Championship at the first attempt...
-
It's always amazed me when people doubt Randy's good will. His competence, sure. His long term plans, I can see the discussion. But whenever people say that he's just trying to make money out of the club I think they're just repeating a cliche about foreign owners which they've seen in the papers. Randy has never been less than exemplary off the pitch - it's on the pitch where his decisions have been disastrously odd.
-
It's always amazed me when people doubt Randy's good will. His competence, sure. His long term plans, I can see the discussion. But whenever people say that he's just trying to make money out of the club I think they're just repeating a cliche about foreign owners which they've seen in the papers. Randy has never been less than exemplary off the pitch - it's on the pitch where his decisions have been disastrously odd.
Correct.
-
It's always amazed me when people doubt Randy's good will. His competence, sure. His long term plans, I can see the discussion. But whenever people say that he's just trying to make money out of the club I think they're just repeating a cliche about foreign owners which they've seen in the papers. Randy has never been less than exemplary off the pitch - it's on the pitch where his decisions have been disastrously odd.
Indeed. He really does deserve a bit of good luck on the managerial front. Hopefully he'll see sense and choose well in the summer.
As for Paulie's concerns about Randy not being at games, I still believe it's for family reasons, specifically his younger son, rather than not wishing to travel so far to see firsthand the dross we turn out every week.
-
It's always amazed me when people doubt Randy's good will. His competence, sure. His long term plans, I can see the discussion. But whenever people say that he's just trying to make money out of the club I think they're just repeating a cliche about foreign owners which they've seen in the papers. Randy has never been less than exemplary off the pitch - it's on the pitch where his decisions have been disastrously odd.
Indeed. He really does deserve a bit of good luck on the managerial front. Hopefully he'll see sense and choose well in the summer.
As for Paulie's concerns about Randy not being at games, I still believe it's for family reasons, specifically his younger son, rather than not wishing to travel so far to see firsthand the dross we turn out every week.
He used to sit in the executive box behind me in the Trinity and he sometimes had his young son with him anyway. The kid was a Villa nut who used to go ballistic when we scored. Plus he's got a private jet for crying out loud.
-
So, according to those figures we are on track then ?
Good.
Reading between the lines, it was the last year of being up shit creek and this year we've got a paddle.
That's what i thought. A decent sized paddle as well.
-
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
Well I take it all back, Randy is not making a penny out of us. Still fucked us up though...
-
So, according to those figures we are on track then ?
Good.
Reading between the lines, it was the last year of being up shit creek and this year we've got a paddle.
That's what i thought. A decent sized paddle as well.
we might get an engine for it next year and maybe one in midfield for the team too
-
Owners who will make a lot of money from selling their club are Gold and Sullivan. The ink will not be dry on the olympic park lease before they start unpicking it and Upton Park starts to sprout - what was it that Dutch politician said about property development? "ticky tacky rabbit hutches built for midgets" - spec housing.
-
It's always amazed me when people doubt Randy's good will. His competence, sure. His long term plans, I can see the discussion. But whenever people say that he's just trying to make money out of the club I think they're just repeating a cliche about foreign owners which they've seen in the papers. Randy has never been less than exemplary off the pitch - it's on the pitch where his decisions have been disastrously odd.
Indeed. He really does deserve a bit of good luck on the managerial front. Hopefully he'll see sense and choose well in the summer.
As for Paulie's concerns about Randy not being at games, I still believe it's for family reasons, specifically his younger son, rather than not wishing to travel so far to see firsthand the dross we turn out every week.
He used to sit in the executive box behind me in the Trinity and he sometimes had his young son with him anyway. The kid was a Villa nut who used to go ballistic when we scored. Plus he's got a private jet for crying out loud.
Can i just say this please ? He also has other massive buisness interests in the USA that might just keep him away from every home game.
Just an observation that's all.
We would all like to see him at more games at Villa. Just because he is not there doesn't mean he does not give a toss.
He has given Lambert the game plan. If Lerner thinks it is not working then he will pull the trigger, no doubt. Look at the amount of coaches he went through at the Cleveland Browns. He is certainly not scared of getting rid of people who do not step up to the mark. Just a thought.
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
Right, here we go. :o 8) ??? ;D :o ;) :-X :-X :-X :-\ ::) :'(.
I hope that makes things clear for you.
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
I'm no accountant but I think it means what loans we owe him he has converted into shares in the club, in effect making the "value" of the club higher or diluting the value of his existing shareholding. In effect Randy owns 100% of the shares and he will value those at say £110million, when he converts the debt to equity he is in effect saying my 100% is worth £200m.
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
You own 100% of a company. You then loan it a ton of money to keep it afloat. The company owes you that money. You then decide to issue a shitload of extra shares in that company, and buy them yourself. Effectively you've bought your own debt back, leaving the company debt-free and you the poorer.
-
And he's done it on several occasions in the past, as well as waiving loan interest and making interest-free loans.
-
Well it will still include Ireland's, Bents, Huttons, Dunns, Givens salaries.
Bent, Given and Hutton are still with us though. Am I over worrying? I thought we'd be a lot closer to breaking even not £42m of losses. How significant are the losses?
-
Loans are classed as debt, which may carry interest which has to be paid / serviced, albeit starting with the financial year ending 05/09 Randy waived his entitlement to interest. Equity equates to an owners investment in the business, which may or may not entitle the owner(s) to a dividend in relation to their proportion of ownership, in this case very highly unlikely with continuing losses. The debt to equity swap means that the gearing, being ratio of debt to net tangible assets, has considerably improved, and the potential for future interest charge on the profit & loss account is vastly reduced, thus giving better potential for profits in future years, although it could be argued there will be no real effect in view of the previous interest waiving.
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
Right, here we go. :o 8) ??? ;D :o ;) :-X :-X :-X :-\ ::) :'(.
I hope that makes things clear for you.
You are a genius. You make it so simple for financial numpties like me to understand the business world.
-
Randy must be reeeaaaalllly pleased with Lambert spunking over £40 mill of his money on mostly shite playing staff then!!
-
Randy must be reeeaaaalllly pleased with Lambert spunking over £40 mill of his money on mostly shite playing staff then!!
Considering if we sold them all tomorrow we'd make a profit I doubt he's in tears.
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
You own 100% of a company. You then loan it a ton of money to keep it afloat. The company owes you that money. You then decide to issue a shitload of extra shares in that company, and buy them yourself. Effectively you've bought your own debt back, leaving the company debt-free and you the poorer.
So how does that affect the financial fair play rules?
-
Randy must be reeeaaaalllly pleased with Lambert spunking over £40 mill of his money on mostly shite playing staff then!!
Considering if we sold them all tomorrow we'd make a profit I doubt he's in tears.
No chance. Benteke apart, maybe Vlaar, the rest? Really? Kozak, Luna, KEA. Have you been drinking lol.
-
Randy must be reeeaaaalllly pleased with Lambert spunking over £40 mill of his money on mostly shite playing staff then!!
Considering if we sold them all tomorrow we'd make a profit I doubt he's in tears.
No chance. Benteke apart, maybe Vlaar, the rest? Really? Kozak, Luna, KEA. Have you been drinking lol.
Every chance.
Guzan, Bennett, Vlaar, Okore, Bacuna, El Ahmadi, Helenius, Steer, Luna, Westwood, Sylla, Benteke, Tonev, Kozak, Lowton.
You'd get 35m-40m for Benteke, Vlaar, Okore, Guzan and Kozak alone.
-
Converting debt to equity occurs when the lender converts a loan amount (or a loan amount represented by outstanding bonds) into equity shares. No cash exchange occurs in the debt-to-equity swap.
For example, if a corporation with an outstanding loan has interim financial difficulties, the lender may request a debt-to-equity swap. The corporation would give up a percentage of ownership in the business in order to exchange debt to equity shares. If the corporation owed $100 million, the company might agree to give the lender a 10 percent or greater ownership in the enterprise in exchange for the debt to equity conversion.
PS that was from a website not me.
Basically as someone said earlier, the loan wasnt serviceable so he has converted it.
-
Well it will still include Ireland's, Bents, Huttons, Dunns, Givens salaries.
Bent, Given and Hutton are still with us though. Am I over worrying? I thought we'd be a lot closer to breaking even not £42m of losses. How significant are the losses?
They are still significant but the plan to get us back into the black is well underway. The massive turd in the waterpipe could be relegation.
-
This is the best news out of the club since we announced the ground was carbon neutral
-
Anybody know if TV money is classed as turnover please?
-
Randy must be reeeaaaalllly pleased with Lambert spunking over £40 mill of his money on mostly shite playing staff then!!
Considering if we sold them all tomorrow we'd make a profit I doubt he's in tears.
No chance. Benteke apart, maybe Vlaar, the rest? Really? Kozak, Luna, KEA. Have you been drinking lol.
Every chance.
Guzan, Bennett, Vlaar, Okore, Bacuna, El Ahmadi, Helenius, Steer, Luna, Westwood, Sylla, Benteke, Tonev, Kozak, Lowton.
You'd get 35m-40m for Benteke, Vlaar, Okore, Guzan and Kozak alone.
Lambert didn't sign Guzan. Perhaps, you may be right, that's what makes this an interesting topic. My personal opinion is that we wouldn't get a lot for Bennett, KEA, Helenius, Steer, Sylla, Lowton. We'll see!!
-
Lambert didn't sign Guzan.
Who do you think did then?
-
Randy must be reeeaaaalllly pleased with Lambert spunking over £40 mill of his money on mostly shite playing staff then!!
Considering if we sold them all tomorrow we'd make a profit I doubt he's in tears.
No chance. Benteke apart, maybe Vlaar, the rest? Really? Kozak, Luna, KEA. Have you been drinking lol.
Every chance.
Guzan, Bennett, Vlaar, Okore, Bacuna, El Ahmadi, Helenius, Steer, Luna, Westwood, Sylla, Benteke, Tonev, Kozak, Lowton.
You'd get 35m-40m for Benteke, Vlaar, Okore, Guzan and Kozak alone.
Lambert didn't sign Guzan. Perhaps, you may be right, that's what makes this an interesting topic. My personal opinion is that we wouldn't get a lot for Bennett, KEA, Helenius, Steer, Sylla, Lowton. We'll see!!
Technically he did as he was a free agent but arguable I guess.
You might be right that we wouldn't get a lot for some of those, but it would be very difficult not to make some profit on them as we signed them for peanuts in the first place. As you say, an interesting topic.
-
Anybody know if TV money is classed as turnover please?
Yes, it is. It's classed as 'Media income' and last year it constituted £47m of our £80m total turnover.
-
Anybody know if TV money is classed as turnover please?
Yes, it is. It's classed as 'Media income' and last year it constituted £47m of our £80m total turnover.
Ta.
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
You own 100% of a company. You then loan it a ton of money to keep it afloat. The company owes you that money. You then decide to issue a shitload of extra shares in that company, and buy them yourself. Effectively you've bought your own debt back, leaving the company debt-free and you the poorer.
So how does that affect the financial fair play rules?
It doesn't because the Financial Fair Play Rules will be manipulated in favour of the big clubs.
-
It'll be interesting to see the accounts as I'm not sure I can work out Robin Russell's comment that as we near the end of this season we're financially self-sufficient.
However his comments do support what a lot of us have been saying, that by this summer the wage bill should be largely sorted and we may well see a very different transfer window.
-
Randy must be reeeaaaalllly pleased with Lambert spunking over £40 mill of his money on mostly shite playing staff then!!
Considering if we sold them all tomorrow we'd make a profit I doubt he's in tears.
No chance. Benteke apart, maybe Vlaar, the rest? Really? Kozak, Luna, KEA. Have you been drinking lol.
So actually there is every chance. Lol
-
Randy must be reeeaaaalllly pleased with Lambert spunking over £40 mill of his money on mostly shite playing staff then!!
Considering if we sold them all tomorrow we'd make a profit I doubt he's in tears.
No chance. Benteke apart, maybe Vlaar, the rest? Really? Kozak, Luna, KEA. Have you been drinking lol.
Every chance.
Guzan, Bennett, Vlaar, Okore, Bacuna, El Ahmadi, Helenius, Steer, Luna, Westwood, Sylla, Benteke, Tonev, Kozak, Lowton.
You'd get 35m-40m for Benteke, Vlaar, Okore, Guzan and Kozak alone.
Lambert didn't sign Guzan. Perhaps, you may be right, that's what makes this an interesting topic. My personal opinion is that we wouldn't get a lot for Bennett, KEA, Helenius, Steer, Sylla, Lowton. We'll see!!
can you not take that bollocks elsewhere and leave this thread to talk about the finances? There's good discussion and debate on here and there's loads of other places you could go to tell the world how shit everything is. FFS.
-
Can anyone explain how we still lost £42m? Where is it all going?
I am not a CFO but in the USA at least it is common for companies to take a loss on obviously bad acquisitions all at once so as to avoid dragging it out over several financial years such as goodwill impairment charges. It looks like Villa may have done something similar last year. Just decided to take a bunch of unpleasantness and eat it to avoid messing up the books in the future. That combined with Lerner's debt forgiveness is probably the reason the CFO is so upbeat.*
*my completely uneducated guess.
-
It'll be interesting to see the accounts as I'm not sure I can work out Robin Russell's comment that as we near the end of this season we're financially self-sufficient.
However his comments do support what a lot of us have been saying, that by this summer the wage bill should be largely sorted and we may well see a very different transfer window.
To counter that since it's taken a number of years to sort the wage bill, why would we through all that away and spend big in the summer? Short of a massive revenue stream coming in I can't see it.
-
It'll be interesting to see the accounts as I'm not sure I can work out Robin Russell's comment that as we near the end of this season we're financially self-sufficient.
However his comments do support what a lot of us have been saying, that by this summer the wage bill should be largely sorted and we may well see a very different transfer window.
To counter that since it's taken a number of years to sort the wage bill, why would we through all that away and spend big in the summer? Short of a massive revenue stream coming in I can't see it.
Isn't the new TV deal supposed to be a massive revenue stream?
-
Maybe, but I'd be surprised. It would seem to counter everything the club have done over the last few years. Why spend all this time sorting the wage bill and then make it huge again in one summer.
-
Maybe, but I'd be surprised. It would seem to counter everything the club have done over the last few years. Why spend all this time sorting the wage bill and then make it huge again in one summer.
If the wage bill is mostly where they want it to be why not buy a couple of the players we so desperately needed in the January transfer window?
-
The article doesn't mention it but I wonder what percentage of income was going out in wages during the time period the report covers.
-
Brilliant news regarding the debt, it was something I was getting pretty worried about as per the Kendrick thread a couple of days ago.
-
Maybe, but I'd be surprised. It would seem to counter everything the club have done over the last few years. Why spend all this time sorting the wage bill and then make it huge again in one summer.
I don't think we can do this anyway because of FFP?
Of course, it doesn't affect the clubs that have already bought their success and consequently have pretty secure revenue streams to count on.
-
The article doesn't mention it but I wonder what percentage of income was going out in wages during the time period the report covers.
From memory the 2012 accounts showed wages of £70m against revenue of £80m - ie 87/88%. If revenue is up to £83/84m and the £3m reduction in non-player amortisation all related to wages (which it may not do) the ratio would still be around 80% - ie too high.
But as others have said, these figures still include Bent, Given, Ireland, Hutton, etc so should fall further in the 2014 numbers.
-
Man City's revenue streams must be pretty high then. Somebody buying an executive box for half a billion I expect.
-
Man City make there revenue streams up by basically selling their own image rights, intellectual property etc to themselves for over inflated ammounts.
I believe it was something like £28m they sold their name to some company in America to set up an affiliate side over there and an around £10m to set up a ladies side. So there nearly half our revenue on 2 bogus deals.
-
Maybe, but I'd be surprised. It would seem to counter everything the club have done over the last few years. Why spend all this time sorting the wage bill and then make it huge again in one summer.
I don't think we can do this anyway because of FFP?
Of course, it doesn't affect the clubs that have already bought their success and consequently have pretty secure revenue streams to count on.
FFP shouldn't come in to it. You can make £100m of losses over a 3 year period without breaching FFP.
Over the past few years we've been reducing the base level of our wages. That's not the same as never paying players high wages again. Once the base is down to a sensible level, as Russell seems to be saying it now is, then we can spend higher wages on a small number of decent players and still be within the wage structure we seem to have set.
-
However his comments do support what a lot of us have been saying, that by this summer the wage bill should be largely sorted and we may well see a very different transfer window.
I wouldn't count on it, I can't see us getting out of one financial hole & then putting ourselves straight back into another. Any progress will be made in small steps & based on players being good value / earning the right to good contracts. I would also expect re-investment from player sales.
-
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
I have read it and stand corrected about how I felt about our finances. Randy has still managed to make a total bollox of things though. Before we get carried away with how fantastic he is let's remember where we are and what's happening on the pitch.
On a personal note the 'Don't they just. And maybe even read it.' Comment makes you look like a smug school boy sucking up to the teacher.
-
Randy's gesture of £90.1m is amazing and in my own little way I will give a bit back tomorrow by purchasing a programme and not just a balti pie but also a portion of hot chips.
-
Maybe, but I'd be surprised. It would seem to counter everything the club have done over the last few years. Why spend all this time sorting the wage bill and then make it huge again in one summer.
If the wage bill is mostly where they want it to be why not buy a couple of the players we so desperately needed in the January transfer window?
I doubt it was for want of trying. Deals were rumoured, one was made very public, but to buy anything you need to have a willing seller.
I think as most people had assumed, everything has been geared towards this summer being the key one. After that there will be no hiding place, it's time for board and manager to deliver and demonstrate (to fans) that the pain of the last two years was a price worth paying.
-
Randy's gesture of £90.1m is amazing and in my own little way I will give a bit back tomorrow by purchasing a programme and not just a balti pie but also a portion of hot chips.
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
I have read it and stand corrected about how I felt about our finances. Randy has still managed to make a total bollox of things though. Before we get carried away with how fantastic he is let's remember where we are and what's happening on the pitch.
On a personal note the 'Don't they just. And maybe even read it.' Comment makes you look like a smug school boy sucking up to the teacher.
I'd imagine it's the frustration of having idiot after idiot spouting horseshit about the chairman, when a cursory glance of the accounts tell a completely different story.
It can make you that way.
-
Maybe, but I'd be surprised. It would seem to counter everything the club have done over the last few years. Why spend all this time sorting the wage bill and then make it huge again in one summer.
If the wage bill is mostly where they want it to be why not buy a couple of the players we so desperately needed in the January transfer window?
I doubt it was for want of trying. Deals were rumoured, one was made very public, but to buy anything you need to have a willing seller.
I think as most people had assumed, everything has been geared towards this summer being the key one. After that there will be no hiding place, it's time for board and manager to deliver and demonstrate (to fans) that the pain of the last two years was a price worth paying.
Players are always available if you have the money. Lerner won't release significant funds, that's why we scratch around for bargain basement stuff like Hoolihan.
-
Randy's gesture of £90.1m is amazing and in my own little way I will give a bit back tomorrow by purchasing a programme and not just a balti pie but also a portion of hot chips.
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
I have read it and stand corrected about how I felt about our finances. Randy has still managed to make a total bollox of things though. Before we get carried away with how fantastic he is let's remember where we are and what's happening on the pitch.
On a personal note the 'Don't they just. And maybe even read it.' Comment makes you look like a smug school boy sucking up to the teacher.
I'd imagine it's the frustration of having idiot after idiot spouting horseshit about the chairman, when a cursory glance of the accounts tell a completely different story.
It can make you that way.
The accounts haven't been released yet.
-
Maybe, but I'd be surprised. It would seem to counter everything the club have done over the last few years. Why spend all this time sorting the wage bill and then make it huge again in one summer.
If the wage bill is mostly where they want it to be why not buy a couple of the players we so desperately needed in the January transfer window?
I doubt it was for want of trying. Deals were rumoured, one was made very public, but to buy anything you need to have a willing seller.
I've been saying this for a while. Some people just don't seem to understand how the transfer market works.
-
So, according to those figures we are on track then ?
Good.
Reading between the lines, it was the last year of being up shit creek and this year we've got a paddle.
That's what i thought. A decent sized paddle as well.
we might get an engine for it next year and maybe one in midfield for the team too
One just hopes the paddle is big enough to steer us away from the waterfall of relegation. It's all very laudable aiming to put the club on a sound and self sustainable financial footing, but going down would ruin all the good work and set us back years. And we've been sailing far too close to the wind on that issue for a few years now.
-
Maybe, but I'd be surprised. It would seem to counter everything the club have done over the last few years. Why spend all this time sorting the wage bill and then make it huge again in one summer.
If the wage bill is mostly where they want it to be why not buy a couple of the players we so desperately needed in the January transfer window?
I doubt it was for want of trying. Deals were rumoured, one was made very public, but to buy anything you need to have a willing seller.
I think as most people had assumed, everything has been geared towards this summer being the key one. After that there will be no hiding place, it's time for board and manager to deliver and demonstrate (to fans) that the pain of the last two years was a price worth paying.
Players are always available if you have the money. Lerner won't release significant funds, that's why we scratch around for bargain basement stuff like Hoolihan.
Players might be available if you chuck enough money at it but that's what we are trying to move away from, i.e. not paying inflated fees and unsustainable salaries. Otherwise, players and selling clubs are more likely to keep their options open until the summer.
-
Randy's gesture of £90.1m is amazing and in my own little way I will give a bit back tomorrow by purchasing a programme and not just a balti pie but also a portion of hot chips.
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
I have read it and stand corrected about how I felt about our finances. Randy has still managed to make a total bollox of things though. Before we get carried away with how fantastic he is let's remember where we are and what's happening on the pitch.
On a personal note the 'Don't they just. And maybe even read it.' Comment makes you look like a smug school boy sucking up to the teacher.
I'd imagine it's the frustration of having idiot after idiot spouting horseshit about the chairman, when a cursory glance of the accounts tell a completely different story.
It can make you that way.
So you think the club is being well run and only an idiot would question the finances?
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
-
The way I see it Lerner came in had a real go for 4 years and is now clearing up his own mess with his own money. Hard to criticise that to a degree. At least he hasn't straddled the club with loads of bank debt a la the Glazer model
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
I cringe when I think that we paid more for Stephen Warnock than we did for Benteke.
-
Curtis Davies for £10m must be hard to top
-
Randy's gesture of £90.1m is amazing and in my own little way I will give a bit back tomorrow by purchasing a programme and not just a balti pie but also a portion of hot chips.
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
I have read it and stand corrected about how I felt about our finances. Randy has still managed to make a total bollox of things though. Before we get carried away with how fantastic he is let's remember where we are and what's happening on the pitch.
On a personal note the 'Don't they just. And maybe even read it.' Comment makes you look like a smug school boy sucking up to the teacher.
I'd imagine it's the frustration of having idiot after idiot spouting horseshit about the chairman, when a cursory glance of the accounts tell a completely different story.
It can make you that way.
So you think the club is being well run and only an idiot would question the finances?
Only an idiot would ask the same question a dozen times after getting the same answer on every single occasion.
-
Curtis Davies for £10m must be hard to top
It was an insane amount of money, but I still think he's one player we should have kept hold of for a bit longer than we did.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
-
Curtis Davies for £10m must be hard to top
It was an insane amount of money, but I still think he's one player we should have kept hold of for a bit longer than we did.
I wouldn't mind him in the team now.
-
I think if there is a rethink on spending its from a perspective on value for money. So you balance the books and then, to quote Lambert, you go again. The problem is though, who is deciding how the money is spent and who is to say it will be spent wisely. Otherwise you just repeat all the errors all over again. I'm concerned that a man who has bought 3 left backs in a year and a half when money is so tight might not be the man to do it. Especially without somebody like Henke lining up the targets.
The alternative is that you just spend very little, in which case you risk bring in the top flight at all which makes absolutely no financial sense. So there has to be a plan to increase spending on the squad again. I just hope we get a chance to before we are relegated.
-
Curtis Davies for £10m must be hard to top
It was an insane amount of money, but I still think he's one player we should have kept hold of for a bit longer than we did.
While it didn't work out, you could argue that at the time of signing them it was no more of a risk than Young as they were both of a similar age. If anything it was less as Davies had played more top flight football.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
They didn't want to sell him to us. I've no idea how much we offered anyway and neither do you.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
So why not set your sights elsewhere? No plan B. Sums up Villa over the last 4 years.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
They didn't want to sell him to us. I've no idea how much we offered anyway and neither do you.
What's he worth, £1.5m max? Bargain basement stuff. That's why we're in the shit. We set our sights way too low.
-
The problem with Hoolahan wasn't that he wasn't good enough, which I agree with, it's that there seemed to be no alternatives. Which is disappointing to say the least. We simply had to get a playmaker and sometimes, with so much at stake, you can't afford to fail. And fail we did. It's just not worthy of a club this size.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
So why not set your sights elsewhere? No plan B. Sums up Villa over the last 4 years.
How do you know they didn't try to sign someone else?
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
So why not set your sights elsewhere? No plan B. Sums up Villa over the last 4 years.
Who's to say that we didn't try? January was a quiet window overall anyway.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
So why not set your sights elsewhere? No plan B. Sums up Villa over the last 4 years.
How do you know they didn't try to sign someone else?
Well if we did we didn't try hard enough.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
So why not set your sights elsewhere? No plan B. Sums up Villa over the last 4 years.
Who's to say that we didn't try? January was a quiet window overall anyway.
Never mind the other clubs, we were desperate for quality players. What did we get, a past it striker from the Championship. Thank you Randy!
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
So why not set your sights elsewhere? No plan B. Sums up Villa over the last 4 years.
How do you know they didn't try to sign someone else?
Well if we did we didn't try hard enough.
Maybe, or maybe the player wasn't available in January but will be in the summer. Would you want us to spend a few million on someone who will play a dozen games then not get a sniff next season, and would he want to join anyway?
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
There were particular circumstances there that meant that they just didn't want to sell to us. That was largely driven by the Lambert factor but I am sure they would not want to help out what they would see as a direct rival. So unless there was crazy money on the table, which would allow them to significantly strengthen, it wasn't going to happen.
-
I'm glad we didn't piss away money on another average player. Hoolahan wouldn't have change anything that's happened to us since January came to a close. Very average player indeed. That we didn't spend on a different target is frustrating, but again, we could have made a couple more Sylla-esque signings, but that would have done us no good at all either.
The summer is key. We're clearly on the right track financially. Still a way to go, but with the expected outgoings in the summer, I'd imagine that we'll be able to buy 3-4 better players who could make it, as opposed to 7-8 who are mostly not anywhere near good enough and probably never will be.
-
Never mind the other clubs, we were desperate for quality players. What did we get, a past it striker from the Championship. Thank you Randy!
What about Bertrand?
And I was about to make the same point as Dave, how do we know Lambert doesn't know the MF player(s) he wants, he may even have deals partially set up, but they won't be available until the summer. It is pointless spending £5m on a player just to drop him him on the bench in the summer. It would make the Hoolahan deal more logical as it would have been low cost and low risk as a short term fix.
-
Ok, let's ask another question. What if we get relegated because we didn't sign that one player we desperately needed?
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
So why not set your sights elsewhere? No plan B. Sums up Villa over the last 4 years.
How do you know they didn't try to sign someone else?
Well if we did we didn't try hard enough.
Maybe, or maybe the player wasn't available in January but will be in the summer. Would you want us to spend a few million on someone who will play a dozen games then not get a sniff next season, and would he want to join anyway?
I'd hate to think we'd be going in for Hoolihan in the summer. If that is the case then next season will be nothing more than the same as the last 4 seasons. There has to be some big decisions made at the end of the season to where this club is going.
-
Ok, let's ask another question. What if we get relegated because we didn't sign that one player we desperately needed?
That's the gamble I guess. I think we should have signed a good midfielder. If that's out of our price range right now, particularly in the inflated Jan window, then so be it.
We may well have the same problem in the summer, but we'll see what we'll see.
However, Hoolahan would have little or no bearing on our outcome this season IMO. I don't think he's anywhere near good enough to come in and have our midfield looking more efficient and retaining the ball better.
For me the major problem is still Lambert. The guy could make Messi look bad the way we set up and play at times.
-
Never mind the other clubs, we were desperate for quality players. What did we get, a past it striker from the Championship. Thank you Randy!
What about Bertrand?
And I was about to make the same point as Dave, how do we know Lambert doesn't know the MF player(s) he wants, he may even have deals partially set up, but they won't be available until the summer. It is pointless spending £5m on a player just to drop him him on the bench in the summer. It would make the Hoolahan deal more logical as it would have been low cost and low risk as a short term fix.
Yeah Bertrand is decent I'll give you that, but it's the midfield that really pissed me off. I've never seen a poor midfield at Villa in all my years, and what did they do about it? Absolutely nothing. It was criminal.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed aren't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed aren't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
-
I think our midfield is very poor as well, there's just not enough energy in there. I hope it's addressed in the summer and I wish we'd brought a couple of players in January who could have made a difference in there, but if who he wanted wasn't available then other than paying over the odds or bringing in a 3rd or 4th choice, there's not much you can do.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed aren't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
Just because people don't agree with you dosen't make them nodding dogs.
-
I think our midfield is very poor as well, there's just not enough energy in there. I hope it's addressed in the summer and I wish we'd brought a couple of players in January who could have made a difference in there, but if who he wanted wasn't available then other than paying over the odds or bringing in a 3rd or 4th choice, there's not much you can do.
I tell you what, if the standard of our number 1 choice is Wes Hoolahan then it's time to start worrying.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed aren't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
Just because people don't agree with you dosen't make them nodding dogs.
I've seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner. Did you pull them up for that as well?
-
I've seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner. Did you pull them up for that as well?
People were called idiots for saying stupid things, not for criticising Lerner.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed aren't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
What a ridiculous statement, as if somehow because you spend all of your time complaining on the Internet it makes a jot of difference.
It's perfectly normal that different people will have a different take on the situation and just because they don't chime with yours does not make them 'nodding dogs'.
-
I've seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner. Did you pull them up for that as well?
People were called idiots for saying stupid things, not for criticising Lerner.
Like daring to criticise? Whatever they said they still don't deserve to be called idiots.
-
I've seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner. Did you pull them up for that as well?
People were called idiots for saying stupid things, not for criticising Lerner.
Like daring to criticise? Whatever they said they still don't deserve to be called idiots.
No, like saying that Lerner is taking huge amount of money of the club.
Which in spite of whatever criticisms somebody might have, is demonstrably a stupid thing to say.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed aren't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
What a ridiculous statement, as if somehow because you spend all of your time complaining on the Internet it makes a jot of difference.
It's perfectly normal that different people will have a different take on the situation and just because they don't chime with yours does not make them 'nodding dogs'.
Typical Chris Smith post. You know one day you may question the club. One day...
-
I've seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner. Did you pull them up for that as well?
People were called idiots for saying stupid things, not for criticising Lerner.
Like daring to criticise? Whatever they said they still don't deserve to be called idiots.
No, like saying that Lerner is taking huge amount of money of the club.
Which in spite of whatever criticisms somebody might have, is demonstrably a stupid thing to say.
There are stupid things said all the time on here. I think posts that continually defend the chairman despite him turning us into perennial relegation battlers are stupid, but would I call the posters idiots? Nope.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed areni't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
Plenty thought we were nailed on. Go look at the threads from last year to refresh your memory. And just for once could you not insult people who have a different opinion to you.
-
There are stupid things said all the time on here. I think posts that continually defend the chairman despite him turning us into perennial relegation battlers are stupid, but would I call the posters idiots? Nope.
Well that's fine, I'm simply pointing out that where you say you've "seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner" you're wrong. Because you haven't.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed areni't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
Plenty thought we were nailed on. Go look at the threads from last year to refresh your memory. And just for once could you not insult people who have a different opinion to you.
Well what if they did? It was too close for comfort. Staying in the PL is nothing to celebrate, we should be looking at top 6 not perennial relegation battlers. If you're gonna gloat about you claiming we'd stay up when others said we'd go down then I should gloat about the time I said we'd be in a relegation battle before last season even kicked off due to the standard of players we were signing. I was ridiculed for it by the usual suspects and we all know how last season turned out.
You see we can all point at things to gloat about, you're not on you're own there peterwitheshin.
-
There are stupid things said all the time on here. I think posts that continually defend the chairman despite him turning us into perennial relegation battlers are stupid, but would I call the posters idiots? Nope.
Well that's fine, I'm simply pointing out that where you say you've "seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner" you're wrong. Because you haven't.
Split hairs all you like. People were called idiots bit the mods didn't have a problem with it.
-
There are stupid things said all the time on here. I think posts that continually defend the chairman despite him turning us into perennial relegation battlers are stupid, but would I call the posters idiots? Nope.
Well that's fine, I'm simply pointing out that where you say you've "seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner" you're wrong. Because you haven't.
Split hairs all you like. People were called idiots bit the mods didn't have a problem with it.
Nobody was directly called an idiot. In the same that you didn't directly call anybody a 'nodding dog'.
If you're going to get all flouncy about the standard of moderation, you might like to look at putting your own house in order first of all.
-
There are stupid things said all the time on here. I think posts that continually defend the chairman despite him turning us into perennial relegation battlers are stupid, but would I call the posters idiots? Nope.
Well that's fine, I'm simply pointing out that where you say you've "seen people called "idiots" on this thread for criticising Lerner" you're wrong. Because you haven't.
Split hairs all you like. People were called idiots bit the mods didn't have a problem with it.
Nobody was directly called an idiot. In the same that you didn't directly call anybody a 'nodding dog'.
If you're going to get all flouncy about the standard of moderation, you might like to look at putting your own house in order first of all.
Well someone had a problem with me saying "nodding dog", else we wouldn't be discussing it now.
And you're quite capable of flouncing yourself by the way.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed aren't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
What a ridiculous statement, as if somehow because you spend all of your time complaining on the Internet it makes a jot of difference.
It's perfectly normal that different people will have a different take on the situation and just because they don't chime with yours does not make them 'nodding dogs'.
Typical Chris Smith post. You know one day you may question the club. One day...
You have a tendency for personalising issues when your opinions are questioned.
I've questioned plenty but perhaps because I don't make the same post worded slightly differently several times a day you haven't noticed.
Anyway, back to the accounts, if the financial situation is improved and that allows for increased spending in the summer does that not go some way to justifying the cautious approach since Lambert was appointed?
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed aren't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
What a ridiculous statement, as if somehow because you spend all of your time complaining on the Internet it makes a jot of difference.
It's perfectly normal that different people will have a different take on the situation and just because they don't chime with yours does not make them 'nodding dogs'.
Typical Chris Smith post. You know one day you may question the club. One day...
You have a tendency for personalising issues when your opinions are questioned.
I've questioned plenty but perhaps because I don't make the same post worded slightly differently several times a day you haven't noticed.
Anyway, back to the accounts, if the financial situation is improved and that allows for increased spending in the summer does that not go some way to justifying the cautious approach since Lambert was appointed?
It doesn't matter who is in charge or where we are in the league, you'll never question the men in charge. You've been like it since day one, Chris.
As for the accounts - I really hope you're right, but if we go into the summer and find out that our number 1 midfield target is again Wes Hoolahan the shit will hit the fan.
-
Seriously, you're wrong. I thought the appointments of AM and GH were both mistakes and said so, however once the decision was made I gave them support and the opportunity to prove me wrong and was not sorry to see the back of either of them.
I agree entirely with your last remark, if we've gone through all the pain and don't see some tangible benefit then there will no excuse.
-
Seriously, you're wrong. I thought the appointments of AM and GH were both mistakes and said so, however once the decision was made I gave them support and the opportunity to prove me wrong and was not sorry to see the back of either of them.
I agree entirely with your last remark, if we've gone through all the pain and don't see some tangible benefit then there will no excuse.
Fair enough.
And I agree with you're second point 100%.
-
Help me out.. I've got an overdraft and a credit card so I'm no financial guru.. Why are we still so much in debt? I mean 6-8 mill I could understand, but our losses are ridiculous.
Paul Faulkner knew the problems but still signed off Given,Hutton, Nzogbia.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed areni't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
Plenty thought we were nailed on. Go look at the threads from last year to refresh your memory. And just for once could you not insult people who have a different opinion to you.
Well what if they did? It was too close for comfort. Staying in the PL is nothing to celebrate, we should be looking at top 6 not perennial relegation battlers. If you're gonna gloat about you claiming we'd stay up when others said we'd go down then I should gloat about the time I said we'd be in a relegation battle before last season even kicked off due to the standard of players we were signing. I was ridiculed for it by the usual suspects and we all know how last season turned out.
You see we can all point at things to gloat about, you're not on you're own there peterwitheshin.
And where in that post did I gloat? As usual as soon as someone disagrees with facts it's "so what" and more digs. Maybe that more than one person is pointing that out will help you realise that you rarely debate without doing it.
-
Then it could be a calculated risk that didn't pay off in in the worst possible way. But it's all guesswork. I remember last year we were nailed on for the drop because we didn't sign the players we desperately needed. It's guesswork because we have no idea of what the plans are, or indeed areni't. Or what RL or PL are planning. All we can do is guess.
Maybe my scenario above is correct and Lambert believes we have enough about us to stay up until then. Maybe we don't have a pot to piss in and Lambert has no one lined up, none of us know.
Who claimed we were nailed on to go down last season?
These relegation battles are too close for comfort, and 4 consecutive ones are beneath a club as great as Aston Villa. The most damning inditement is that some fans just plod along like nodding dogs and never question the chairman who has presided over our decline.
Plenty thought we were nailed on. Go look at the threads from last year to refresh your memory. And just for once could you not insult people who have a different opinion to you.
Well what if they did? It was too close for comfort. Staying in the PL is nothing to celebrate, we should be looking at top 6 not perennial relegation battlers. If you're gonna gloat about you claiming we'd stay up when others said we'd go down then I should gloat about the time I said we'd be in a relegation battle before last season even kicked off due to the standard of players we were signing. I was ridiculed for it by the usual suspects and we all know how last season turned out.
You see we can all point at things to gloat about, you're not on you're own there peterwitheshin.
And where in that post did I gloat? As usual as soon as someone disagrees with facts it's "so what" and more digs. Maybe that more than one person is pointing that out will help you realise that you rarely debate without doing it.
Saying we were "nailed on for relegation" is exactly what I meant about gloating. It was a fully loaded comment and well you know it.
-
I'm not sure id be quite so positive about it, to be honest, it's a financial interest, he has to care about that, but I still think his non attendance says a lot about his heart not being in it.
Strictly speaking, those accounts are for last year, so the worst would have been over then. Doesn't look that way at the moment.
I also think that, having struggled to get to this point, there won't be any more chasing the dream going on, in terms of fees and wages.
It is excellent news that he's written off the debt, and I hope the "he's making a big profit" brigade take note, but we've got to be realistic about where we are, and where we are going.
the chasing the dream might not happen in quite so irresponsible a manner, but Everton and Spurs have done it through more astute scouting, management and spending. As long as we are not in the CL or we haven't been bought out by the next minted oil bloke we'll never compete at the very top end which essentially leaves everyone from about 5th place down to compete for those spots below the top 4. It's shit but that's the way it is. What we should be able to do if we do it right, is compete consistently in all competitions on a more sound financial footing. You don't have to be Chelsea to win cups as Wigan/Portsmouth/Swansea have shown.
I don't think Portsmouth is a good example looking where they are now is it really, lets not go down that route.
-
Or maybe it was an observation used to answer Mazrim's question regarding taking the gamble of not signing a midfielder. While many thought we were nailed on to drop without signing players last season, Lambert obviously didn't and was proved correct. Maybe, just maybe, the same applies this season. But for some reason you take one part of a post, decide it means something different and run with it.
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
You own 100% of a company. You then loan it a ton of money to keep it afloat. The company owes you that money. You then decide to issue a shitload of extra shares in that company, and buy them yourself. Effectively you've bought your own debt back, leaving the company debt-free and you the poorer.
and in the process make said company more attractive to potential buyers. I'm sure quite recently one of the nationals quoted 'a source' close to Lerner who stated he is amenable to a sale but values the club at £200m based on Fulham's sale last summer. It figures I suppose. The long game on a sale is on....
-
Can some financial geek on here tell me what Loans converted to equity means please.
You own 100% of a company. You then loan it a ton of money to keep it afloat. The company owes you that money. You then decide to issue a shitload of extra shares in that company, and buy them yourself. Effectively you've bought your own debt back, leaving the company debt-free and you the poorer.
and in the process make said company more attractive to potential buyers. I'm sure quite recently one of the nationals quoted 'a source' close to Lerner who stated he is amenable to a sale but values the club at £200m based on Fulham's sale last summer. It figures I suppose. The long game on a sale is on....
If the debt meant you got less for the club then writing off debt is not quite so costly.
-
Randy's gesture of £90.1m is amazing and in my own little way I will give a bit back tomorrow by purchasing a programme and not just a balti pie but also a portion of hot chips.
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
I have read it and stand corrected about how I felt about our finances. Randy has still managed to make a total bollox of things though. Before we get carried away with how fantastic he is let's remember where we are and what's happening on the pitch.
On a personal note the 'Don't they just. And maybe even read it.' Comment makes you look like a smug school boy sucking up to the teacher.
I'd imagine it's the frustration of having idiot after idiot spouting horseshit about the chairman, when a cursory glance of the accounts tell a completely different story.
It can make you that way.
So you think the club is being well run and only an idiot would question the finances?
Only an idiot would ask the same question a dozen times after getting the same answer on every single occasion.
I am shocked at you Dave, it's totally unlike you to make a snide sarcastic comment about someone. I also think only an idiot would blindly accept what line he is being fed by the club.
Randy has made a complete and utter bollox of running Aston Villa and just because he has written off a lot of the debt he imported into a club he owns that doesn't all of a sudden make him the messiah.
-
The truth is pointed out and it's snide sarcasm. Dishing it out but can't take it again.
-
Randy's gesture of £90.1m is amazing and in my own little way I will give a bit back tomorrow by purchasing a programme and not just a balti pie but also a portion of hot chips.
One or two "Randy is making a fortune out of our club" folk need to bookmark this.
Don't they just. And maybe even read it.
I have read it and stand corrected about how I felt about our finances. Randy has still managed to make a total bollox of things though. Before we get carried away with how fantastic he is let's remember where we are and what's happening on the pitch.
On a personal note the 'Don't they just. And maybe even read it.' Comment makes you look like a smug school boy sucking up to the teacher.
I'd imagine it's the frustration of having idiot after idiot spouting horseshit about the chairman, when a cursory glance of the accounts tell a completely different story.
It can make you that way.
So you think the club is being well run and only an idiot would question the finances?
Only an idiot would ask the same question a dozen times after getting the same answer on every single occasion.
I am shocked at you Dave, it's totally unlike you to make a snide sarcastic comment about someone. I also think only an idiot would blindly accept what line he is being fed by the club.
Randy has made a complete and utter bollox of running Aston Villa and just because he has written off a lot of the debt he imported into a club he owns that doesn't all of a sudden make him the messiah.
By the way, are you calling me an idiot?
-
Yes.
-
The truth is pointed out and it's snide sarcasm. Dishing it out but can't take it again.
I think I am capable of taking anything you can type at me Dave, you just keep defending the running of the club for what ever reason. If Doug were the chairman and he had run up 200 million in debts, got us 4 points out of the relegation zone and playing shit football, had assembled a squad that would struggle in the Championship, had over seen some of the most embarrassing results in the clubs long history and was never here you would have been baying for blood.
Why is that?
-
Yes.
I am hurt, I might just go away and cry...
-
By the way, are you calling me an idiot?
If the cap fits.
-
Yes.
Be careful, PeterWitheshin will be on here any minute now asking you to cut out the personal insults.
-
Maybe if Doug had put in a quarter of a billion pounds, improved the off the field face of the club immeasurably and regarded supporters as something better than a necessary inconvenience I might have cut him a bit more slack.
-
By the way, are you calling me an idiot?
If the cap fits.
Put it on then...
-
Yes.
Be careful, PeterWitheshin will be on here any minute now asking you to cut out the personal insults.
It's ok, Dave is allowed to insult people. We are not, are we Dave? Am I allowed to say what I really think of you without getting banned?
-
Maybe if Doug had put in a quarter of a billion pounds, improved the off the field face of the club immeasurably and regarded supporters as something better than a necessary inconvenience I might have cut him a bit more slack.
He didn't have a quarter of a billion pounds though. I bet if he had though he wouldn't have made such a mess as Lerner has.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
-
I think I am capable of taking anything you can type at me Dave, you just keep defending the running of the club for what ever reason. If Doug were the chairman and he had run up 200 million in debts, got us 4 points out of the relegation zone and playing shit football, had assembled a squad that would struggle in the Championship, had over seen some of the most embarrassing results in the clubs long history and was never here you would have been baying for blood.
Why is that?
Can I turn this around?
Why do YOU think it is? You (and SH) keep bringing it up, so why do you think Dave just has to defend Lerner?
You can't seem to accept that it just happens to be his opinion so what other reasons do YOU think he has for his continual defence of the apparently indefensible?
-
I think I am capable of taking anything you can type at me Dave, you just keep defending the running of the club for what ever reason. If Doug were the chairman and he had run up 200 million in debts, got us 4 points out of the relegation zone and playing shit football, had assembled a squad that would struggle in the Championship, had over seen some of the most embarrassing results in the clubs long history and was never here you would have been baying for blood.
Why is that?
Can I turn this around?
Why do YOU think it is? You (and SH) keep bringing it up, so why do you think Dave just has to defend Lerner?
You can't seem to accept that it just happens to be his opinion so what other reasons do YOU think he has for his continual defence of the apparently indefensible?
No
-
By the way, are you calling me an idiot?
If the cap fits.
Put it on then...
Doesn't fit *shakes head slowly at the stupidity of the comment*
-
I think I am capable of taking anything you can type at me Dave, you just keep defending the running of the club for what ever reason. If Doug were the chairman and he had run up 200 million in debts, got us 4 points out of the relegation zone and playing shit football, had assembled a squad that would struggle in the Championship, had over seen some of the most embarrassing results in the clubs long history and was never here you would have been baying for blood.
Why is that?
Can I turn this around?
Why do YOU think it is? You (and SH) keep bringing it up, so why do you think Dave just has to defend Lerner?
You can't seem to accept that it just happens to be his opinion so what other reasons do YOU think he has for his continual defence of the apparently indefensible?
No
Thought not.
-
Maybe if Doug had put in a quarter of a billion pounds, improved the off the field face of the club immeasurably and regarded supporters as something better than a necessary inconvenience I might have cut him a bit more slack.
He didn't have a quarter of a billion pounds though. I bet if he had though he wouldn't have made such a mess as Lerner has.
I don't think there are many on here who are not financial expert business men who could have made a bigger cock up than Randy. How many of us would agreed to buy and agree the contracts of a lot of the shite we got lumbered with?
-
Yes.
Be careful, PeterWitheshin will be on here any minute now asking you to cut out the personal insults.
It's ok, Dave is allowed to insult people. We are not, are we Dave? Am I allowed to say what I really think of you without getting banned?
Please do. Then you can act the victim again.
-
I think I am capable of taking anything you can type at me Dave, you just keep defending the running of the club for what ever reason. If Doug were the chairman and he had run up 200 million in debts, got us 4 points out of the relegation zone and playing shit football, had assembled a squad that would struggle in the Championship, had over seen some of the most embarrassing results in the clubs long history and was never here you would have been baying for blood.
Why is that?
Can I turn this around?
Why do YOU think it is? You (and SH) keep bringing it up, so why do you think Dave just has to defend Lerner?
You can't seem to accept that it just happens to be his opinion so what other reasons do YOU think he has for his continual defence of the apparently indefensible?
No
Thought not.
It's nothing personal I just don't want to talk to you about it :)
-
Yes.
Be careful, PeterWitheshin will be on here any minute now asking you to cut out the personal insults.
It's ok, Dave is allowed to insult people. We are not, are we Dave? Am I allowed to say what I really think of you without getting banned?
Please do. Then you can act the victim again.
I am not acting the victim, how can me telling you what I think of you make me a victim?
-
Maybe if Doug had put in a quarter of a billion pounds, improved the off the field face of the club immeasurably and regarded supporters as something better than a necessary inconvenience I might have cut him a bit more slack.
He didn't have a quarter of a billion pounds though. I bet if he had though he wouldn't have made such a mess as Lerner has.
Except that on the one occasion we started spending big money, in the late nineties, we did end up in trouble.
-
Yes.
Be careful, PeterWitheshin will be on here any minute now asking you to cut out the personal insults.
It's ok, Dave is allowed to insult people. We are not, are we Dave? Am I allowed to say what I really think of you without getting banned?
Please do. Then you can act the victim again.
I am not acting the victim, how can me telling you what I think of you make me a victim?
Oh by the way, I think you are an alight bloke, an time I have met you you were fine. I wouldn't let your views and opinions of the club colour that view, even if you did call me an idiot.
-
I think I am capable of taking anything you can type at me Dave, you just keep defending the running of the club for what ever reason. If Doug were the chairman and he had run up 200 million in debts, got us 4 points out of the relegation zone and playing shit football, had assembled a squad that would struggle in the Championship, had over seen some of the most embarrassing results in the clubs long history and was never here you would have been baying for blood.
Why is that?
Can I turn this around?
Why do YOU think it is? You (and SH) keep bringing it up, so why do you think Dave just has to defend Lerner?
You can't seem to accept that it just happens to be his opinion so what other reasons do YOU think he has for his continual defence of the apparently indefensible?
No
Thought not.
Oh by the way, get off the bandwagon, unless you are trying to worm your way into being a mod...
-
Maybe if Doug had put in a quarter of a billion pounds, improved the off the field face of the club immeasurably and regarded supporters as something better than a necessary inconvenience I might have cut him a bit more slack.
He didn't have a quarter of a billion pounds though. I bet if he had though he wouldn't have made such a mess as Lerner has.
Except that on the one occasion we started spending big money, in the late nineties, we did end up in trouble.
What are you talking about, we spent big money through the 90s and built some quality teams.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
-
Maybe if Doug had put in a quarter of a billion pounds, improved the off the field face of the club immeasurably and regarded supporters as something better than a necessary inconvenience I might have cut him a bit more slack.
He didn't have a quarter of a billion pounds though. I bet if he had though he wouldn't have made such a mess as Lerner has.
Except that on the one occasion we started spending big money, in the late nineties, we did end up in trouble.
What are you talking about, we spent big money through the 90s and built some quality teams.
After years of not going the extra mile, we started spending big on Ginola, Balaban, Stone, Hadji, big wages for Kachloul. Mark Ansell said we were fucked if that had carried on.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
-
Maybe if Doug had put in a quarter of a billion pounds, improved the off the field face of the club immeasurably and regarded supporters as something better than a necessary inconvenience I might have cut him a bit more slack.
He didn't have a quarter of a billion pounds though. I bet if he had though he wouldn't have made such a mess as Lerner has.
Except that on the one occasion we started spending big money, in the late nineties, we did end up in trouble.
What are you talking about, we spent big money through the 90s and built some quality teams.
After years of not going the extra mile, we started spending big on Ginola, Balaban, Stone, Hadji, big wages for Kachloul. Mark Ansell said we were fucked if that had carried on.
That's a fair point. We still spent decent money in the early - mid 90s though, and we built some fine teams. We certainly didn't give up like Lerner has done now and turn us into perennial relegation battlers though.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
That sounds like a good game. I'll start another game called The Nodding Dog game where every time Lerner is criticised and the same old faces appear to defend him everyone else has to throw back a shot of poteen.
-
Different world. You could turn round quicker then.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
I think looking at the state the club is in and complaining about how it is being run Learner does deserve bashing every day.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
That sounds like a good game. I'll start another game called The Nodding Dog game where every time Lerner is criticised and the same old faces appear to defend him everyone else has to throw back a shot of poteen.
I would start defending him for a couple of shots of that stuff...
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
I think looking at the state the club is in and complaining about how it is being run Learner does deserve bashing every day.
Yes, but you seem to have trouble with people who don't want to harp on about it every day, that's the difference.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
That sounds like a good game. I'll start another game called The Nodding Dog game where every time Lerner is criticised and the same old faces appear to defend him everyone else has to throw back a shot of poteen.
Ahh, another nodding dog comment. Unnecessary but not surprising.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
That sounds like a good game. I'll start another game called The Nodding Dog game where every time Lerner is criticised and the same old faces appear to defend him everyone else has to throw back a shot of poteen.
I would start defending him for a couple of shots of that stuff...
I've got some. Lethal stuff.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
I think looking at the state the club is in and complaining about how it is being run Learner does deserve bashing every day.
Yes, but you seem to have trouble with people who don't want to harp on about it every day, that's the difference.
Ah another wannabe mod, unsurprising but not necessary... :)
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
That sounds like a good game. I'll start another game called The Nodding Dog game where every time Lerner is criticised and the same old faces appear to defend him everyone else has to throw back a shot of poteen.
I would start defending him for a couple of shots of that stuff...
I've got some. Lethal stuff.
Been ages since I have had some, never had a hangover on that stuff.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
That sounds like a good game. I'll start another game called The Nodding Dog game where every time Lerner is criticised and the same old faces appear to defend him everyone else has to throw back a shot of poteen.
Ahh, another nodding dog comment. Unnecessary but not surprising.
It's open season now. Dave called someone an idiot just a few minutes ago but you didn't have the guts to pull him up about it but you assume the moral high ground with me.
A bit of consistency and all that.
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
That sounds like a good game. I'll start another game called The Nodding Dog game where every time Lerner is criticised and the same old faces appear to defend him everyone else has to throw back a shot of poteen.
Ahh, another nodding dog comment. Unnecessary but not surprising.
It's open season now. Dave called someone an idiot just a few minutes ago but you didn't have the guts to pull him up about it but you assume the moral high ground with me.
A bit of consistency and all that.
Don't worry, they like to hunt in a pack.
-
Why is it some people on here seem to think that because you don't spend every hour of every day day on here bashing the club, it means that you're happy with the way it's run?
Who are these posters that spend every hour of every day on here bashing the club?
I was being pedantic, but as Lerner bashing goes, you every day is not far off.
I say we start a game called the Saunders Heroes drinking game. Every time he mentions Lerner, everyone else has to knock back a shot of Sambuca. A reckon we'll all be pissed by the final whistle.
That sounds like a good game. I'll start another game called The Nodding Dog game where every time Lerner is criticised and the same old faces appear to defend him everyone else has to throw back a shot of poteen.
I would start defending him for a couple of shots of that stuff...
I've got some. Lethal stuff.
Been ages since I have had some, never had a hangover on that stuff.
My family are from the west of Ireland. When we were kids and any of us had toothaches my mom would dab a bit on the guilty tooth and it would dull the pain.
She'd be locked up if she did it now. Mind you they'd have to dig her up first.
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
Just as I thought.
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
Just as I thought.
And you thought right.
I think i'll leave it there, i'm sure other posters don't want to read endless pages of squabbling.
-
As Lerner has written off £90M, does that mean the new asking price will be £290M?
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
Just as I thought.
And you thought right.
I think i'll leave it there, i'm sure other posters don't want to read endless pages of squabbling.
Yes, but just to recap - you have a problem with me saying "nodding dog" because it's personal but no problem whatsoever with Dave calling another poster an idiot.
Yeah let's leave it at that.
-
Its a draw at the minute lads.. Dave and his disciples 2 Fergal and His Heroes 2.. full time in about 10 minutes.
-
I think i'll leave it there, i'm sure other posters don't want to read endless pages of squabbling.
Very true.
-
Its a draw at the minute lads.. Dave and his disciples 2 Fergal and His Heroes 2.. full time in about 10 minutes.
Don't forget, it might go to penalties....
-
Its a draw at the minute lads.. Dave and his disciples 2 Fergal and His Heroes 2.. full time in about 10 minutes.
Don't forget, it might go to penalties....
I think there might be a red card before that
-
Oh by the way, get off the bandwagon, unless you are trying to worm your way into being a mod...
Sorry?
What bandwagon is this then.
I haven't even said I agree with Woodhall, just wondering why you and SH are continually recycling the same old bollocks aimed in his direction in post after post and thread after thread, it must be as plain as day what his views on the subject are by now so I don't understand your motives in calling him on it time and again.
Fucked if I'd want to be a Mod on here, I'd have culled half of you fuckers within minutes!
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
Just as I thought.
And you thought right.
I think i'll leave it there, i'm sure other posters don't want to read endless pages of squabbling.
Yes, but just to recap - you have a problem with me saying "nodding dog" because it's personal but no problem whatsoever with Dave calling another poster an idiot.
Yeah let's leave it at that.
Please do.
-
As Lerner has written off £90M, does that mean the new asking price will be £290M?
If he was to sell, I think the club would be valued somewhere between £200m and £300m. Which, in a way, is good as it will keep away buyers that have struggled to put together £60m or £70m to buy a club and then only have £20m to spend on players. The likes of which have seen their clubs slide into the Championship or are about to.
I keep on saying it but English football is in a mess. The competitiveness has gone out of the Premier League because of the Champions League and there are only a few clubs in with a shout. It is like being in a casino where the high rollers are on one table and where the stakes are high. You can only get on that table if you can match their money.
Supporters of clubs like Villa are getting fed up with the minimal chance of winning a cup and that's it, with no chance of top 4, let alone the Title. They are also becoming tired of constantly being told they could be in a relegation battle because they are below 8th or 9th in the table. There is now not much between any of the clubs below 9th.
To try and bring a bit of stability to the PL, I have been thinking that cutting the relegation places back to 2 might be a good idea. Even one of those being a play-off with a team from the Championship. The worry of relegation is having such a negative impact on the PL that it is causing the quality of football to drop dramatically. There is so much fear that young players are not given a chance to develop.
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
Just as I thought.
And you thought right.
I think i'll leave it there, i'm sure other posters don't want to read endless pages of squabbling.
Yes, but just to recap - you have a problem with me saying "nodding dog" because it's personal but no problem whatsoever with Dave calling another poster an idiot.
Yeah let's leave it at that.
Please do.
__________________________________________________________
This ^^^ is the line I suggest we all draw under it.
Please don't carry on with this, or it'll be time for the coshes and handcuffs to come out.
-
Randy has spent 200 million on getting us back to where we were when he bought us.
That can hardly be seen as good management.
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
Just as I thought.
And you thought right.
I think i'll leave it there, i'm sure other posters don't want to read endless pages of squabbling.
Yes, but just to recap - you have a problem with me saying "nodding dog" because it's personal but no problem whatsoever with Dave calling another poster an idiot.
Yeah let's leave it at that.
Please do.
__________________________________________________________
This ^^^ is the line I suggest we all draw under it.
Please don't carry on with this, or it'll be time for the coshes and handcuffs to come out.
That's your idea of foreplay? Blimey, where's the hooch...
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
Just as I thought.
And you thought right.
I think i'll leave it there, i'm sure other posters don't want to read endless pages of squabbling.
Yes, but just to recap - you have a problem with me saying "nodding dog" because it's personal but no problem whatsoever with Dave calling another poster an idiot.
Yeah let's leave it at that.
Please do.
__________________________________________________________
This ^^^ is the line I suggest we all draw under it.
Please don't carry on with this, or it'll be time for the coshes and handcuffs to come out.
That's your idea of foreplay? Blimey, where's the hooch...
That's not my foreplay.
That's me wiping my sloppy member on your curtains now I've just finished.
Anyway. As I said, that'll do, please.
-
I'll pull up who I like, not who you want me to.
Just as I thought.
And you thought right.
I think i'll leave it there, i'm sure other posters don't want to read endless pages of squabbling.
Yes, but just to recap - you have a problem with me saying "nodding dog" because it's personal but no problem whatsoever with Dave calling another poster an idiot.
Yeah let's leave it at that.
Please do.
__________________________________________________________
This ^^^ is the line I suggest we all draw under it.
Please don't carry on with this, or it'll be time for the coshes and handcuffs to come out.
That's your idea of foreplay? Blimey, where's the hooch...
That's not my foreplay.
That's me wiping my sloppy member on your curtains now I've just finished.
Anyway. As I said, that'll do, please.
That was a joke but consider it zipped boss. :)
-
We have to brace ourselves for drop in revenue next year due to having withdrawn from both cups in the early rounds.
-
We have to brace ourselves for drop in revenue next year due to having withdrawn from both cups in the early rounds.
I wonder how much difference, say, the LC SF run last year made. Money wise, I mean.
-
Calling the bloke who stood in the pouring rain selling H&V an idiot. Shoddy that, Ferg deserves far better.
-
We have to brace ourselves for drop in revenue next year due to having withdrawn from both cups in the early rounds.
I wonder how much difference, say, the LC SF run last year made. Money wise, I mean.
Didn't the huge increase in TV money kick in this season? If so it'll easily make up for the money lost from the cups. Not that I think it was much anyway.
-
How do you worm a mod?
-
We have to brace ourselves for drop in revenue next year due to having withdrawn from both cups in the early rounds.
I wonder how much difference, say, the LC SF run last year made. Money wise, I mean.
Didn't the huge increase in TV money kick in this season? If so it'll easily make up for the money lost from the cups. Not that I think it was much anyway.
I was just wondering in general, rather than in relation to anything else.
-
Calling the bloke who stood in the pouring rain selling H&V an idiot. Shoddy that, Ferg deserves far better.
Ian, leave it. I never made a personal attack on anyone I refuse to continue this.
-
How do you worm a mod?
Put pills in his pedigree chum I suppose.
-
Calling the bloke who stood in the pouring rain selling H&V an idiot. Shoddy that, Ferg deserves far better.
You make it sound like he was doing it for charity.
BTW you're in no position to resurface here and start telling us who deserves better and who doesn't.
Do you want to get into a discussion about how we treat fellow posters? I doubt it.
I know precisely what you deserve. If you are planning to stay here, then you need to drop this new act, or it'll end in tears, Ian. Really quickly, too.
-
How do you worm a mod?
Put pills in his pedigree chum I suppose.
Use something traditional like a rake or resort to water boarding.
-
We have to brace ourselves for drop in revenue next year due to having withdrawn from both cups in the early rounds.
I wonder how much difference, say, the LC SF run last year made. Money wise, I mean.
I mentioned it because cup run revenue last season was specifically mentioned in the report.
-
We have to brace ourselves for drop in revenue next year due to having withdrawn from both cups in the early rounds.
I wonder how much difference, say, the LC SF run last year made. Money wise, I mean.
I mentioned it because cup run revenue last season was specifically mentioned in the report.
I know, I was just thinking aloud, a propos of nothing really.
I remember (vaguely) reading how much teams earned from a Europa League run (the year of the Moscow incident) and it was surprisingly tiny.
-
We have to brace ourselves for drop in revenue next year due to having withdrawn from both cups in the early rounds.
I wonder how much difference, say, the LC SF run last year made. Money wise, I mean.
I mentioned it because cup run revenue last season was specifically mentioned in the report.
I know, I was just thinking aloud, a propos of nothing really.
I remember (vaguely) reading how much teams earned from a Europa League run (the year of the Moscow incident) and it was surprisingly tiny.
In terms of prize money, this is the FA Cup chart for this season - I can't find the League Cup one but I guess it would be less?
FA Cup
Extra Preliminary Round winners (185) £1,500
Preliminary Round winners (160) £1,925
First Round Qualifying winners (116) £3,000
Second Round Qualifying winners (80) £4,500
Third Round Qualifying winners (40) £7,500
Fourth Round Qualifying winners (32) £12,500
First Round Proper winners (40) £18,000
Second Round Proper winners (20) £27,000
Third Round Proper winners (32) £67,500
Fourth Round Proper winners (16) £90,000
Fifth Round Proper winners (8) £180,000
Sixth Round Proper winners (4) £360,000
Semi-Final winners (2) £900,000
Semi-Final losers (2) £450,000
Final runners-up (1) £900,000
Final winners (1) £1,800,000
-
I would guess TV is where the big money comes in.
-
I can't remember if any of our games before the semis were live. I don't think they were.
-
I'd hate to think we'd be going in for Hoolihan in the summer. If that is the case then next season will be nothing more than the same as the last 4 seasons.
Oh I dunno I'd like to think we would be challenging for promotion at this time next season.
-
Calling the bloke who stood in the pouring rain selling H&V an idiot. Shoddy that, Ferg deserves far better.
You make it sound like he was doing it for charity.
BTW you're in no position to resurface here and start telling us who deserves better and who doesn't.
Do you want to get into a discussion about how we treat fellow posters? I doubt it.
I know precisely what you deserve. If you are planning to stay here, then you need to drop this new act, or it'll end in tears, Ian. Really quickly, too.
Paulie the snide posts will start soon don't worry.
Essentially people who have claimed for a long time Lerner is simply taking money from the Villa are finding a different line to bash a bloke who has sunk more money that I can comprehend into a football club, which is essentially a hobby that yes a lot of people love but means very little to normal life, and even less with the wages and money involved.
Even in this period of "not caring", no longer giving a shit, or doing nothing, the club have what, a net spend of 30 plus million since Lambert took over? Which puts us about 6th or 7th in money spent?
Made bad decisions - for certain. Stopped caring - the money he is still putting in would suggest otherwise. He does not have the funds to keep haemorrhaging like the titanic. He is barely a billionaire in UK terms. 90 million is a hell of a lot of money to him. There are not a long line of others to come and spend trillions. We are lucky in many ways if he no longer cares like people like to speculate that he has continued to prop us up, other owners have simply pulled the plug an look at those clubs. Owning a football club is a sink hole for cash and totally thankless with the fans who will turn face faster than Dave picking up a dropped pound from a Villa fan, the bad man.
-
I suggest people read Simon Jordan's book about the purchase and operational running of Crystal Palace. Worth a read. Puts owning a football club, albeit a smaller one than Aston Villa, into perspective. I do not hold Randy responsible (other than the appointment of AM). Lambert is the man who selected the players to purchase and he alone, selects them to play.
-
I suggest people read Simon Jordan's book about the purchase and operational running of Crystal Palace. Worth a read. Puts owning a football club, albeit a smaller one than Aston Villa, into perspective.
I second that. Excellent book, very interesting and he really doesn't hold back his opinions!
-
I suggest people read Simon Jordan's book about the purchase and operational running of Crystal Palace. Worth a read. Puts owning a football club, albeit a smaller one than Aston Villa, into perspective. I do not hold Randy responsible (other than the appointment of AM). Lambert is the man who selected the players to purchase and he alone, selects them to play.
Who sets the wage budget? You don't honestly think our policy of buying cheap lower league players on low wages hasn't contributed to our decline?
-
I suggest people read Simon Jordan's book about the purchase and operational running of Crystal Palace. Worth a read. Puts owning a football club, albeit a smaller one than Aston Villa, into perspective. I do not hold Randy responsible (other than the appointment of AM). Lambert is the man who selected the players to purchase and he alone, selects them to play.
Who sets the wage budget? You don't honestly think our policy of by cheap lower league players on low wages hasn't contributed to our decline?
I wouldn't disagree that Randy has asked Lambert to get rid of the high earners, they are fairly crap and don't pull their weight. However, I wonder whether Lambert might have been better buying fewer players and paying them slightly more? I am not sure whether this would have worked? A tough argument and I do think that Randy has pulled the strings tighter, having given MON a free reign with transfer funds. However, he HAS backed Lambert with over 40mill in the transfer market. I would have thought that they might agree that fewer players will cost about the same in salary as buying loads of players?
-
I suggest people read Simon Jordan's book about the purchase and operational running of Crystal Palace. Worth a read. Puts owning a football club, albeit a smaller one than Aston Villa, into perspective. I do not hold Randy responsible (other than the appointment of AM). Lambert is the man who selected the players to purchase and he alone, selects them to play.
Who sets the wage budget? You don't honestly think our policy of by cheap lower league players on low wages hasn't contributed to our decline?
I wouldn't disagree that Randy has asked Lambert to get rid of the high earners, they are fairly crap and don't pull their weight. However, I wonder whether Lambert might have been better buying fewer players and paying them slightly more? I am not sure whether this would have worked? A tough argument and I do think that Randy has pulled the strings tighter, having given MON a free reign with transfer funds. However, he HAS backed Lambert with over 40mill in the transfer market. I would have thought that they might agree that fewer players will cost about the same in salary as buying loads of players?
It depends if Lerner has told Lambert that he can't sign a player who earns over a set amount per week. No decent PL standard footballer will sign for us if we don't pay the going rate. That's why we look at the lower leagues and that's why we're a perennial relegation battlers, in my opinion.
-
I suggest people read Simon Jordan's book about the purchase and operational running of Crystal Palace. Worth a read. Puts owning a football club, albeit a smaller one than Aston Villa, into perspective. I do not hold Randy responsible (other than the appointment of AM). Lambert is the man who selected the players to purchase and he alone, selects them to play.
Who sets the wage budget? You don't honestly think our policy of by cheap lower league players on low wages hasn't contributed to our decline?
I wouldn't disagree that Randy has asked Lambert to get rid of the high earners, they are fairly crap and don't pull their weight. However, I wonder whether Lambert might have been better buying fewer players and paying them slightly more? I am not sure whether this would have worked? A tough argument and I do think that Randy has pulled the strings tighter, having given MON a free reign with transfer funds. However, he HAS backed Lambert with over 40mill in the transfer market. I would have thought that they might agree that fewer players will cost about the same in salary as buying loads of players?
It depends if Lerner has told Lambert that he can't sign a player who earns over a set amount per week. No decent PL standard footballer will sign for us if we don't pay the going rate. That's why we look at the lower leagues and that's why we're a perennial relegation battlers, in my opinion.
If, and we don't absolutely know for sure, IF Randy has said that to Lambert, then, yes, fair enough, I would hold Randy somewhat responsible (alongside Lambert) and tell him that he deserves a club that is struggling every season as we need better players. I would also say that we have signed a fair few players from abroad who probably weren't earning a great deal for their clubs before coming to Villa. Hopefully, we can sign slightly better foreign players if the salary cap really exists. I have always said, if you buy enough championship players, you will become a championship side. We have a very, very poor side at the moment and fully deserve to be where we are. Equally, if the salary cap does exist, sacking Lambert would make no sense as any manager will have the same unworkable conditions.
-
I don't care what budget we're working on, how much money we have for players...there is no excuse for Tonev...none...not one...3-4 of the other signings have been very shoddy too.
Again, Randy's footballing naivity lets him down. No complaints on how much money he's put in over his near 8 years at the club. However on the pitch there's just no excuse for how poor we look at times and even with a tight budget, you cannot excuse the home form from McLeish-Lambert. If you don't spend the money you're given wisely, you'll have problems. On top of that if you can't organise the team properly, or get them playing with any cohesion and consistency, you'll suffer further.
We are a long way off the quality of team we could put out 5 years ago, certainly. But we've still got enough quality left, and Lamberts had more than enough money, that we should be around Newcastle and Southamptons position. We should be competing with them, not in the dross club. I'd trade Helenius, Sylla, Tonev, Luna, Bennett, and KEA for 2 half decent players.
-
At the end of the day if a £42.6m operating loss is considered to be on the right road, just how much shit were we in last year. And how did we end up being in that much shit - it has to be down to the 'kid in a sweet shop' scenario of the early years of his ownership. Trusting MO'N to make cash and player decisions was complete folly in hindsight and then, to compound it all, bringing players like Given in on 5 year contracts at the age of 35 is borderline criminal - but it is something I am sure would not have happened with a proper footballing brain on the Board.
-
There is a difference between, for example, spending £10m on a player we think is worth £10m and spending it on a player we value at £6m. As Chris says, over paying is what got us in the mess in the first place.
But we're talking about Wes Hoolihan here, and he was hardly going to break the bank even if we offered over the odds.
One minute you're calling him 'bargain basement stuff', now you saying we should have maybe paid over the odds.
He is bargain basement stuff! We were desperate for a midfielder and we couldn't even raise the funds to buy such a cheap player. It's pathetic.
Every indication was that we could pay for him but Norwich didn't want to sell him.
So why not set your sights elsewhere? No plan B. Sums up Villa over the last 4 years.
How do you know they didn't try to sign someone else?
you cannot prove a negative. Circumstantially, he was plan A,B,C and Z..
A poor state of affairs.
-
I don't care what budget we're working on, how much money we have for players...there is no excuse for Tonev...none...not one...3-4 of the other signings have been very shoddy too.
He was signed as a diuretic. At least I assume so, judging by the amount of pant-wetting he's caused on this site (I hope the poor sod never visits it). In all seriousness, he was recommended by Stan Petrov and he's a Bulgarian international. That's two "excuses" off the top of my head. He's played badly and not settled in as we hoped, that's all. He isn't the first foreign player to struggle like that and he won't be the last. No need to be so over-dramatic.
-
I don't care what budget we're working on, how much money we have for players...there is no excuse for Tonev...none...not one...3-4 of the other signings have been very shoddy too.
He was signed as a diuretic. At least I assume so, judging by the amount of pant-wetting he's caused on this site (I hope the poor sod never visits it). In all seriousness, he was recommended by Stan Petrov and he's a Bulgarian international. That's two "excuses" off the top of my head. He's played badly and not settled in as we hoped, that's all. He isn't the first foreign player to struggle like that and he won't be the last. No need to be so over-dramatic.
I'm just exaggerating to be honest. I don't think he'll ever make it at this level unfortunately. Very poor touch and very limited. That said, whether or not he gets recommended by Petrov or not, it's Lambert who has final say on a player. I wouldn't say he's been that well scouted, certainly as you'd have to recognise right off the bat that he's not quite skilfull or technically proficient for Prem football. He almost makes Brett Holman look like Zidane (okay I'm exaggerating again...well...a little).
-
I don't understand why people think the likes of Tonev (who admittedly has shown very little), or Helenius (who has barely had a chance) are the problem. They're not.
The problem isn't the players we did sign. It is the players we didn't sign.
Tonev may come good, I hope he does, but we shouldn't be relying on a bloke pulled from the Polish league (or was it the Bulgarian league, can't remember) to perform well immediately after being dropped into one of the toughest leagues in the world.
That's the problem, not Tonev himself.
Lest we forget, Petrov, who slowly but surely became a vital player for us, had two pretty unimpressive seasons to start with, and he'd moved from Celtic, not from a markedly different league.
-
I don't understand why people think the likes of Tonev (who admittedly has shown very little), or Helenius (who has barely had a chance) are the problem. They're not.
The problem isn't the players we did sign. It is the players we didn't sign.
Tonev may come good, I hope he does, but we shouldn't be relying on a bloke pulled from the Polish league (or was it the Bulgarian league, can't remember) to perform well immediately after being dropped into one of the toughest leagues in the world.
That's the problem, not Tonev himself.
Lest we forget, Petrov, who slowly but surely became a vital player for us, had two pretty unimpressive seasons to start with, and he'd moved from Celtic, not from a markedly different league.
I'm not saying it's Tonev who's the problem at all, but the likes of him and Helenius still cost money. Not much granted, but it's still a chunk of budget that's been spent on player who look a million miles off being ready now. Would buying one player instead of those two as an example, have got us someone closer to being able to step into a Premiership side? Difficult to say.
In the case of Stan, we could all see there was a talented player there and he achieved a lot for Celtic. Helenius I'd personally like to see a little more of. As for Tonev, I just don't see any signs there that he'll make it. That is based off 10 or so games, whatever it is, but he's looked more or less the same in every game. Not great at running with the ball at his feet, but okay if he knocks it past a full back and runs, poor decision making (that of course can improve), erratic delivery, poor touch. As an aside I thought Carruthers for example was more impressive in his brief cameos under Mcleish. Likewise I feel Albrighton is far more worthwhile at this level, given a choice between the two.
But that is part of our problem. Lambert has still had money to spend in his two seasons here. We just haven't bought enough players who were premier league ready. Again though, if our budget this summer is going to be similar to the last two summers, then he's got to buy better...if of course he's still here.
-
I don't understand why people think the likes of Tonev (who admittedly has shown very little), or Helenius (who has barely had a chance) are the problem. They're not.
The problem isn't the players we did sign. It is the players we didn't sign.
Tonev may come good, I hope he does, but we shouldn't be relying on a bloke pulled from the Polish league (or was it the Bulgarian league, can't remember) to perform well immediately after being dropped into one of the toughest leagues in the world.
That's the problem, not Tonev himself.
Lest we forget, Petrov, who slowly but surely became a vital player for us, had two pretty unimpressive seasons to start with, and he'd moved from Celtic, not from a markedly different league.
Spot on. Looking at our midfield, had we spent 5 million on Huddlestone and Livermore like Hull did last summer, I reckon we would be 10 points better off now they are that much better than our options and ability. It is not like the players are not out there, there is simply an unwillingness to buy the obvious that would improve the team.
-
I don't understand why people think the likes of Tonev (who admittedly has shown very little), or Helenius (who has barely had a chance) are the problem. They're not.
The problem isn't the players we did sign. It is the players we didn't sign.
Tonev may come good, I hope he does, but we shouldn't be relying on a bloke pulled from the Polish league (or was it the Bulgarian league, can't remember) to perform well immediately after being dropped into one of the toughest leagues in the world.
That's the problem, not Tonev himself.
Lest we forget, Petrov, who slowly but surely became a vital player for us, had two pretty unimpressive seasons to start with, and he'd moved from Celtic, not from a markedly different league.
Spot on. Looking at our midfield, had we spent 5 million on Huddlestone and Livermore like Hull did last summer, I reckon we would be 10 points better off now they are that much better than our options and ability. It is not like the players are not out there, there is simply an unwillingness to buy the obvious that would improve the team.
I think it's more to do with wages to be honest.
-
I was thinking that somehow we may manage to keep this thread free from "Lambert is shit" comments but obviously not!
-
I don't understand why people think the likes of Tonev (who admittedly has shown very little), or Helenius (who has barely had a chance) are the problem. They're not.
The problem isn't the players we did sign. It is the players we didn't sign.
Tonev may come good, I hope he does, but we shouldn't be relying on a bloke pulled from the Polish league (or was it the Bulgarian league, can't remember) to perform well immediately after being dropped into one of the toughest leagues in the world.
That's the problem, not Tonev himself.
Lest we forget, Petrov, who slowly but surely became a vital player for us, had two pretty unimpressive seasons to start with, and he'd moved from Celtic, not from a markedly different league.
Spot on. Looking at our midfield, had we spent 5 million on Huddlestone and Livermore like Hull did last summer, I reckon we would be 10 points better off now they are that much better than our options and ability. It is not like the players are not out there, there is simply an unwillingness to buy the obvious that would improve the team.
I think it's more to do with wages to be honest.
I disagree, I think its lambert who wants this young and hungry policy and who has been reluctant to buy experienced players - he is given a free reign on the football side and although we cannot pay top dollar wages I'm sure we could have got better quality in - lambert chooses the targets .
-
I don't understand why people think the likes of Tonev (who admittedly has shown very little), or Helenius (who has barely had a chance) are the problem. They're not.
The problem isn't the players we did sign. It is the players we didn't sign.
Tonev may come good, I hope he does, but we shouldn't be relying on a bloke pulled from the Polish league (or was it the Bulgarian league, can't remember) to perform well immediately after being dropped into one of the toughest leagues in the world.
That's the problem, not Tonev himself.
Lest we forget, Petrov, who slowly but surely became a vital player for us, had two pretty unimpressive seasons to start with, and he'd moved from Celtic, not from a markedly different league.
Spot on. Looking at our midfield, had we spent 5 million on Huddlestone and Livermore like Hull did last summer, I reckon we would be 10 points better off now they are that much better than our options and ability. It is not like the players are not out there, there is simply an unwillingness to buy the obvious that would improve the team.
I think it's more to do with wages to be honest.
I disagree, I think its lambert who wants this young and hungry policy and who has been reluctant to buy experienced players - he is given a free reign on the football side and although we cannot pay top dollar wages I'm sure we could have got better quality in - lambert chooses the targets .
I think it's even simpler than that. He brought Vlaar and KEA as his experienced players and seems to believe that the likes of Westwood will develop such that buying other experienced players is not necessary.
It's a shame about Huddlestone and the others signed last summer, because he's exactly the type of player we lack. Our reluctance to buy comes from Lambert's stubbornness rather than budget IMO.
-
Although Vlaar and kea were experienced they were not experienced in this league and it has taken time to settle in vlaars case - as for kea the less said the better :(
-
I think Lambert is stubborn, but that is neither here nor there. Good managers have to have a stubborn streak, there never was a great manager who did not have one. Likewise I don't think the modest budget is the problem I think it is the mind set of the approach to the transfer windows which has been at fault. As I have said on another thread the problem with trying to get low-priced, low-wages players is that you have to get so many of them to get a Benteke, Vlaar or Okore. When injury and loss of form hit the winning bets, the losing bets assume a disproportionate importance. The princess has to kiss a lot of frogs before she gets the happy ever after.
-
Although Vlaar and kea were experienced they were not experienced in this league and it has taken time to settle in vlaars case - as for kea the less said the better :(
I think KEA has been ok this season, well away from home anyway. Maybe not the quality we need in there but he's improved.
-
He doesn't half have a long way to go though Clamps.
-
Although Vlaar and kea were experienced they were not experienced in this league and it has taken time to settle in vlaars case - as for kea the less said the better :(
I think KEA has been ok this season, well away from home anyway. Maybe not the quality we need in there but he's improved.
He's total garbage. Let's not pretend otherwise.
-
He doesn't half have a long way to go though Clamps.
Maybe, but he does look a bit more confident away from home. Like I said, maybe not quite the quality we need in there but he's been no worse than Westwood and Sylla at times.
-
He doesn't half have a long way to go though Clamps.
Maybe, but he does look a bit more confident away from home. Like I said, maybe not quite the quality we need in there but he's been no worse than Westwood and Sylla at times.
Damned with faint praise.
-
With no intention to offend you Clamps the aspect of KEA's play which infuriates me is much like Barry Bannan's insofar as good coaching should have eradicated many of his failings. He won't put his foot in, he times runs just to avoid physical contact, he gets jockeyed into position behind his opponents, all glaringly obvious but never corrected. When he does that stupid business of trying to win the ball but allowing it to be shielded by the opponent I feel like running on the pitch and grabbing him and shouting at him "not from there you wally, go full frontal". Sid was the best tackler I have ever seen, they should make KEA have a few sessions with the great man.
-
With no intention to offend you Clamps the aspect of KEA's play which infuriates me is much like Barry Bannan's insofar as good coaching should have eradicated many of his failings. He won't put his foot in, he times runs just to avoid physical contact, he gets jockeyed into position behind his opponents, all glaringly obvious but never corrected. When he does that stupid business of trying to win the ball but allowing it to be shielded by the opponent I feel like running on the pitch and grabbing him and shouting at him "not from there you wally, go full frontal". Sid was the best tackler I have ever seen, they should make KEA have a few sessions with the great man.
No offence taken at all, you came back with a reasoned argument which is fine. I just don't think he's the dreadful player people make him out to be. His best attribute is closing people down which is what he does well away from home. He's got forward a lot more this year as well. I wouldn't play him at home though.
-
With no intention to offend you Clamps the aspect of KEA's play which infuriates me is much like Barry Bannan's insofar as good coaching should have eradicated many of his failings. He won't put his foot in, he times runs just to avoid physical contact, he gets jockeyed into position behind his opponents, all glaringly obvious but never corrected. When he does that stupid business of trying to win the ball but allowing it to be shielded by the opponent I feel like running on the pitch and grabbing him and shouting at him "not from there you wally, go full frontal". Sid was the best tackler I have ever seen, they should make KEA have a few sessions with the great man.
No offence taken at all, you came back with a reasoned argument which is fine. I just don't think he's the dreadful player people make him out to be. His best attribute is closing people down which is what he does well away from home. He's got forward a lot more this year as well. I wouldn't play him at home though.
We have a 20% win rate when KEA plays
not that the win rate of the other players would be much better
-
Like Bannan, KEA is far too week on the ball, easily held off and has no physical presence. It's like watching a first year trying to get ball off a fifth year.
He's laughably bad.
-
With no intention to offend you Clamps the aspect of KEA's play which infuriates me is much like Barry Bannan's insofar as good coaching should have eradicated many of his failings. He won't put his foot in, he times runs just to avoid physical contact, he gets jockeyed into position behind his opponents, all glaringly obvious but never corrected. When he does that stupid business of trying to win the ball but allowing it to be shielded by the opponent I feel like running on the pitch and grabbing him and shouting at him "not from there you wally, go full frontal". Sid was the best tackler I have ever seen, they should make KEA have a few sessions with the great man.
True. He really is an appalling footballer and one of his many minus points is the way he just runs alongside the opposition player with the ball when he has no intention whatsoever of trying to disposses him. It's just a token effort and every fan can see it from a mile off.
He is one of the main culprits in the worst midfield I've ever seen at Villa, and a damning inditement of Lambert's transfer policy.
-
I take your point LV about both Bannan and KEA being weak on the ball. Weakness on the ball is not a matter of physique but technique. The aforementioned Sid was nine stone soaking wet but he tackled like an electric eel. Wallop. Cop that.
-
With no intention to offend you Clamps the aspect of KEA's play which infuriates me is much like Barry Bannan's insofar as good coaching should have eradicated many of his failings. He won't put his foot in, he times runs just to avoid physical contact, he gets jockeyed into position behind his opponents, all glaringly obvious but never corrected. When he does that stupid business of trying to win the ball but allowing it to be shielded by the opponent I feel like running on the pitch and grabbing him and shouting at him "not from there you wally, go full frontal". Sid was the best tackler I have ever seen, they should make KEA have a few sessions with the great man.
No offence taken at all, you came back with a reasoned argument which is fine. I just don't think he's the dreadful player people make him out to be. His best attribute is closing people down which is what he does well away from home. He's got forward a lot more this year as well. I wouldn't play him at home though.
We have a 20% win rate when KEA plays
not that the win rate of the other players would be much better
I'm surprised that figure is as high as 20% for any of our players this last few seasons. I suppose last years purple patch from February has helped.
-
The accounts thread????
-
To be honest, if we got a new manager in, in the summer I'd guess that a vast majority of Lamberts signings wouldn't be fancied at all. The new man would start the process of rebuilding and gradually shipping out the likes of KEA etc. I think Lowton (at a push), Bacuna, Benteke, Ronny, Okore, Who luvs ya baby, Steer and Westwood would probably make the cut, but I wouldn't fancy any of the others too (long run).
I would also think some of our own home grown would, and probably should, be fancied over some of the cheaper imports we've bought. That said we'll probably say goodbye to Gardner and Albrighton this summer.
Of course given our financial situation I don't see Lambert getting sacked, certainly not if he keeps us up, even if by the skin of our teeth. Paying off another manager will only put a dent in next years accounts.
-
Who we buy and sell and the sense of the purchases or otherwise is, I feel central to the reason we have racked up the losses we have and a valid inclusion in the debate about how the hell did we lose such vast sums of money.
-
None of you were saying these things about KEA after the pre season friendly at Burton when he joined.
-
The accounts thread????
May as well have one thread to cover all topics.
Lovely weather for the time of year.
-
Does anyone know where I put my car keys?
-
True. He really is an appalling footballer and one of his many minus points is the way he just runs alongside the opposition player with the ball when he has no intention whatsoever of trying to disposses him. It's just a token effort and every fan can see it from a mile off.
He is one of the main culprits in the worst midfield I've ever seen at Villa, and a damning inditement of Lambert's transfer policy.
Why do I mentally read all of your posts in Capital Letters and with loads of exclamation marks?
-
I am cooking a chicken as I write. For it to be cooked do the juices need to run clear?
-
Although Vlaar and kea were experienced they were not experienced in this league and it has taken time to settle in vlaars case - as for kea the less said the better :(
I think KEA has been ok this season, well away from home anyway. Maybe not the quality we need in there but he's improved.
I wouldn't say he's been ok but he has improved from last season - on rare occasions he has performed well but shown no consistency to hold down a regular place .
I certainly agree that he has been better away from home where we are more likely to soak up pressure, at home he is far too negative .
-
The accounts thread????
May as well have one thread to cover all topics.
Lovely weather for the time of year.
It has started raining now and Yahoo weather forecast shows 80% chance of it continuing all afternoon. This will impact our future accounts and no one is talking about it.
-
Who are Villa auditors by the way?
-
It was Deloittes at one point. That's where Mr Ansell came from I think.
-
The accounts thread????
May as well have one thread to cover all topics.
Lovely weather for the time of year.
It has started raining now and Yahoo weather forecast shows 80% chance of it continuing all afternoon. This will impact our future accounts and no one is talking about it.
Come on affers, give us the temperature as well please :)
-
It was Deloittes at one point. That's where Mr Ansell came from I think.
Still is. Deloitte have a bit of a football specialism and audit loads of clubs.
-
Inside World Football (http://www.insideworldfootball.com/premier-league/14225-villa-post-51m-loss-but-close-a-chapter-on-excesses-of-past)
Villa post £51m loss but 'close a chapter' on excesses of past
Published on Tuesday, 04 March 2014 13:02
March 4 – The painful financial turnround of Aston Villa is still on-going though the club maintain that they are on the right track and have "closed a chapter" on a period of heavy losses and are now self sufficient and within UEFA's financial fair play regulations.
Villa's chief financial officer, Robin Russell, said: "The 2012-13 accounts effectively close a chapter on a period of heavy losses. As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA's and the Premier League's Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch."
The latest figures show a £51.8 million loss in the accounts for 2012-13 but Villa have reduced their operating losses by £9.5 million to £42.6 million. The loss after tax for the financial year increased by £34.1 million to £51.8 million - unlike the previous year Villa did not generate money from player sales.
Turnover for the year was up £3.3 million to £83.7 million, with the club saying this was due to an improved Premier League position, higher average league attendance and progression to the Capital One Cup semi-final.
Owner Randy Lerner waived £90.1 million of loans to reduce the debt load. The loans were converted to equity.
Operating expenses were reduced by £6.2 million, mainly through reducing the wage bill of the playing squad.
Villa said the accounts now more accurately reflect the value of the playing squad. The club and its manager have now worked through what looks to be the toughest part of its financial battle and, crucially, retained Premier League status while doing this.
-
Quick comment about the debt to equity conversion (apologies if it's already been covered).
On the plus side the club has £90m less debt - theta's good news - less debt needs servicing.
On the other hand it does't really make that much difference.
Any prospective investors/buyers would have to buy debt + equity so the net value to Lerner is the same. In other words he hasn't invested any new money into Villa he's just recognised he's not going to recoup the losses he and his management team have incurred over the past few years at any point in the near future. It's essentially an accountancy fix with potentially some 'financial fair play' benefits.
I think it is important to consider that Lerner may be an extremely generous benefactor who chooses to subsidise our entertainment, but it is far more likely that's he's merely an hopeless businessman living off inherited wealth.
-
Have the actual full accounts been released yet?
-
Quick comment about the debt to equity conversion (apologies if it's already been covered).
On the plus side the club has £90m less debt - theta's good news - less debt needs servicing.
On the other hand it does't really make that much difference.
Any prospective investors/buyers would have to buy debt + equity so the net value to Lerner is the same. In other words he hasn't invested any new money into Villa he's just recognised he's not going to recoup the losses he and his management team have incurred over the past few years at any point in the near future. It's essentially an accountancy fix with potentially some 'financial fair play' benefits.
I think it is important to consider that Lerner may be an extremely generous benefactor who chooses to subsidise our entertainment, but it is far more likely that's he's merely an hopeless businessman living off inherited wealth.
Thank you for the clarification.
-
Have the actual full accounts been released yet?
Not yet. It took the best part of a week for them to appear last year too.
-
...
I think it is important to consider that Lerner may be an extremely generous benefactor who chooses to subsidise our entertainment, but it is far more likely that's he's merely an hopeless businessman living off inherited wealth.
why "is it far more likely ..." Other than your own personal bias, what makes you say that?
-
Would you say that Paul Mellon or Paul Getty or Armand Hammer or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates are "hopeless businessmen" because they are open handed with inherited wealth?" (yes I know Bill Gates did not inherit his wealth but it is the same principle).
-
...
I think it is important to consider that Lerner may be an extremely generous benefactor who chooses to subsidise our entertainment, but it is far more likely that's he's merely an hopeless businessman living off inherited wealth.
why "is it far more likely ..." Other than your own personal bias, what makes you say that?
It is well documented that his wealth is inherited.
He has no significant business interests since the sale of MBNA.
His sports businesses have been largely unsuccessful - the Cleveland Browns have gone.
He has lost a small fortune so far with Villa.
We all have personal bias but I think there's more than a reasonable case for my opinion.
-
Would you say that Paul Mellon or Paul Getty or Armand Hammer or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates are "hopeless businessmen" because they are open handed with inherited wealth?" (yes I know Bill Gates did not inherit his wealth but it is the same principle).
Without doing the research I'd say all the people you quote have taken their inherited businesses and grown them significantly.
Lerner has either been eased out or sold on his interests. He is, I feel by nature, a philanthropist (Acorns, Clare College) and that's not a bad thing by any means. Again I sense he doesn't have the business acumen necessary to compete at the top level.
-
Perhaps he is a generous rich guy. There are far worse things to be. Like being a banged up money launderer.
-
Is Bill Gates interested in football?
-
Randy has put a lot of money into the Villa during his ownership, most of which he's unlikely to recover and yet he gets vilified on here.
-
Randy has put a lot of money into the Villa during his ownership, most of which he's unlikely to recover and yet he gets vilified on here.
He's not being vilified - far from it. He's a very generous philanthropist and I for one applaud that.
The point I'm trying to make is that is a lot of evidence that points to him being a poor businessman and that his decisions have adversely affected Villa's performance (financially and on the field).
I strongly believe he bought us as a business that would maybe entertain him and might be profitable. Therefore terms such as 'put a lot of money into the Villa' jar with me.
He has invested a lot of money in one of his businesses and through his decision making may lose some of that money. That's the nature of the game - Villa are not one of Lerner's intended philanthropic ventures.
-
Whatever or whoever gave him the impression that investing in a football club might be a profitable venture, knows nothing about modern football and I'd be hugely surprised if any professional advisors, which surely would have been used in any such transaction, suggested such a thing. There is such overwhelming contrary evidence available. not sure how you get from him being generous to villa and a poor businessman.
-
I might be imagining it but didn't he say when he bought us that if he wanted to make money he wouldn't have bought a football club?
-
As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA’s and the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch.”
Does anyone apart from us actually do this? You can't tell me Man City and Chavski do?
-
Randy has put a lot of money into the Villa during his ownership, most of which he's unlikely to recover and yet he gets vilified on here.
That's because he's turned us into perennial relegation battlers.
-
Randy has put a lot of money into the Villa during his ownership, most of which he's unlikely to recover and yet he gets vilified on here.
That's because he's turned us into perennial relegation battlers.
I cant speak for anyone else, but I really respect him for the amount of money he has put in. What I am far less impressed with is how he has run the club, in terms of protecting that investment.
It is way, way too simple to say he's vilified. Throwing money at something alone is not enough. I'd rather he'd spent half as much money and ensured that it had been spent more prudently.
-
As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA’s and the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch.”
Does anyone apart from us actually do this? You can't tell me Man City and Chavski do?
Manchester City sold their "intellectual property" to "various third parties" for £47m. That's exactly the sort of utter bollocks (see also the Etihad being the most expensive stadium naming exercise in world football) that makes FFP an absolute joke.
-
As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA’s and the Premier League’s Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch.”
Does anyone apart from us actually do this? You can't tell me Man City and Chavski do?
Manchester City sold their "intellectual property" to "various third parties" for £47m. That's exactly the sort of utter bollocks (see also the Etihad being the most expensive stadium naming exercise in world football) that makes FFP an absolute joke.
If you consider money from winning the Champions League, new partnership deals with Sauber, Delta and Audi, the new Premier League TV deal and big profits on the likes of Mata and De Bruyne I can't imagine Chelsea need to worry to much either.
-
Randy has put a lot of money into the Villa during his ownership, most of which he's unlikely to recover and yet he gets vilified on here.
That's because he's turned us into perennial relegation battlers.
I cant speak for anyone else, but I really respect him for the amount of money he has put in. What I am far less impressed with is how he has run the club, in terms of protecting that investment.
It is way, way too simple to say he's vilified. Throwing money at something alone is not enough. I'd rather he'd spent half as much money and ensured that it had been spent more prudently.
Correct - we hve turned into Coventry of the 80's and 90's but unlike them, who punched above their weight, we did so by giving money to a succession of managers who have not in the large part used it wisely.
Be it transfer fees, players bought, contract length, sell on value due to age / injury.
3 things stand out which has been symptomatic about the way the club has been run under Lerner.
O'Neills transfer and spending splurge, lack of sell on value of most of the players and walkout and subsequent compensation.
We paid, yes we actually PAID money, to our rivals to recruit their manager who had just relegated them.
£2m paid to Tottenham for a season (1-2 game) long loan for Jermaine Jenas. Pile of shite.
As for the accounts headline it makes for very depressing reading especially as we hear enough noise about how our income streams are very healthy.
I hope we can draw a line under this financial calamity once and for all
-
Whatever or whoever gave him the impression that investing in a football club might be a profitable venture, knows nothing about modern football and I'd be hugely surprised if any professional advisors, which surely would have been used in any such transaction, suggested such a thing. There is such overwhelming contrary evidence available. not sure how you get from him being generous to villa and a poor businessman.
There have been a clutch of Amercian investors in recent times. Maybe they all wanted to support their lifelong teams or bring a feel good factors to the people of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester?
As for your second point I don't think he has been generous to Villa. I think he has spent vast amounts on his business and got diabolical returns - that makes it quite easy to get to him being a poor business man.
-
Whatever or whoever gave him the impression that investing in a football club might be a profitable venture, knows nothing about modern football and I'd be hugely surprised if any professional advisors, which surely would have been used in any such transaction, suggested such a thing. There is such overwhelming contrary evidence available. not sure how you get from him being generous to villa and a poor businessman.
As for your second point I don't think he has been generous to Villa. I think he has spent vast amounts on his business and got diabolical returns - that makes it quite easy to get to him being a poor business man.
With respect, I've not read such rubbish in a long time.
-
Whatever or whoever gave him the impression that investing in a football club might be a profitable venture, knows nothing about modern football and I'd be hugely surprised if any professional advisors, which surely would have been used in any such transaction, suggested such a thing. There is such overwhelming contrary evidence available. not sure how you get from him being generous to villa and a poor businessman.
There have been a clutch of Amercian investors in recent times. Maybe they all wanted to support their lifelong teams or bring a feel good factors to the people of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester?
As for your second point I don't think he has been generous to Villa. I think he has spent vast amounts on his business and got diabolical returns - that makes it quite easy to get to him being a poor business man.
first of all you used the word "hopeless"; now it's just "poor".
To describe him as not having been generous to Villa undermines your argument and perhaps your credibility.
But each to his own, I suppose.
-
@ Clampy & Mister E
Nobody disagrees that Lerner has invested a vast amount into AVFC Ltd.
Now why did he do that? Was it because he wanted to be generous to some random football club? Was it because he likes us Villa supporters and wants to subsidise our enjoyment?
Of course not. He either made a vanity investment or he thought he could make a buck. Either way I wouldn't care he'd been successful - it would have been a win-win.
But he hasn't been successful. His returns have been abysmal. That makes him a poor businessman and more importantly a poor chairman/owner of AVFC in my eyes. I can't really see why anyone would find this contentious.
-
@ Clampy & Mister E
Nobody disagrees that Lerner has invested a vast amount into AVFC Ltd.
Now why did he do that? Was it because he wanted to be generous to some random football club? Was it because he likes us Villa supporters and wants to subsidise our enjoyment?
Of course not. He either made a vanity investment or he thought he could make a buck. Either way I wouldn't care he'd been successful - it would have been a win-win.
But he hasn't been successful. His returns have been abysmal. That makes him a poor businessman and more importantly a poor chairman/owner of AVFC in my eyes. I can't really see why anyone would find this contentious.
I don't think he looked at it from a purely business point of view at all. He didn't want to lose money, but I think his over-riding aim was something he could enjoy. Whether he still does or doesn't, I don't know and neither does anyone else. It may be that once his personal situation changes he will be here more often. We don't know. We also, in saying he's failed, forget the three top sixes which were unique in post-war history and in saying that the debt conversion is just a business move that helps him more than it does us ignore the fact that he can't claim interest on the £90 million.
-
I think this is called confirmation bias.
-
@ Clampy & Mister E
Nobody disagrees that Lerner has invested a vast amount into AVFC Ltd.
Now why did he do that? Was it because he wanted to be generous to some random football club? Was it because he likes us Villa supporters and wants to subsidise our enjoyment?
Of course not. He either made a vanity investment or he thought he could make a buck. Either way I wouldn't care he'd been successful - it would have been a win-win.
But he hasn't been successful. His returns have been abysmal. That makes him a poor businessman and more importantly a poor chairman/owner of AVFC in my eyes. I can't really see why anyone would find this contentious.
Or maybe he wanted to run a football club in England?
He chose to buy us. God yeah, he's made some bloody bad choices along the way and yes, it could be better at the moment but i'm grateful for the vast amount of money he's put in.
-
Will he be paid a dividend on the investment in the club of £90m?
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
-
@ Clampy & Mister E
Nobody disagrees that Lerner has invested a vast amount into AVFC Ltd.
Now why did he do that? Was it because he wanted to be generous to some random football club? Was it because he likes us Villa supporters and wants to subsidise our enjoyment?
Of course not. He either made a vanity investment or he thought he could make a buck. Either way I wouldn't care he'd been successful - it would have been a win-win.
But he hasn't been successful. His returns have been abysmal. That makes him a poor businessman and more importantly a poor chairman/owner of AVFC in my eyes. I can't really see why anyone would find this contentious.
I don't think he looked at it from a purely business point of view at all. He didn't want to lose money, but I think his over-riding aim was something he could enjoy. Whether he still does or doesn't, I don't know and neither does anyone else. It may be that once his personal situation changes he will be here more often. We don't know. We also, in saying he's failed, forget the three top sixes which were unique in post-war history and in saying that the debt conversion is just a business move that helps him more than it does us ignore the fact that he can't claim interest on the £90 million.
I agree with most of that.
The interest is a bit of red herring though. Claiming interest back to RAL acquisitions or whatever simply increases the losses. Ultimately that makes AVFC less profitable and less valuable. He can either have the interest or the equity value - it all amounts to the same thing in theory.
-
Will he be paid a dividend on the investment in the club of £90m?
The total dividend amount would be set and divided by the number of shares. If you own all the shares it makes no difference how many there are. The total amount remains the same.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
-
I think this is called confirmation bias.
I don't.
I have been very consistent in my criticism of Lerner and his management team (under a previous member name).
-
Will he be paid a dividend on the investment in the club of £90m?
No he won't. The losses built up in the club mean he's not legally allowed to pay a dividend.
The actual accounts are now out - I'm having a quick look through them on my lunch break and will summarise anything interesting.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.
But it is fair to say that for both Randy and Doug there managers did not spend the money as well as they could.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.
But it is fair to say that for both Randy and Doug there managers did not spend the money as well as they could.
It's an understatement of 'Carsen Yeung is a bit of a wide boy' proportions.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.
they gave the money in proportion to their shareholding
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.
they gave the money in proportion to their shareholding
Really? What money of his own did Doug ever give, and when?
-
Okay - random thoughts on the accounts:
- '£3.3m increase in turnover was driven largely by increased fees for players out on loan and improved on-pitch performance particularly towards the end of the season.' Specific factors included finishing one place higher in the Premier League, higher average attendances and reaching the semi-final of the League Cup.
- the directors report makes reference to the 'value driven approach to squad building' now employed.
- season ticket sales for 13/14 were up 8%.
- 'The directors believe that the combination of managerial continuity, increased revenues as a result of the new three year central television deal, higher attendances and tight control of players' wages should provide a very good platform for a sustainable future for the club in the Premier League.'
- 'The directors believe that the Group will be compliant with the Premier League's recently adopted Financial Regulation, both Short Term Cost Control and Profitability and Sustainability, 2013/14.'
- Operating loss before player transactions was £24m (2012: £33m)
- The club spent £20m in cash on day-to-day activities and £20m (net) on player trading. This was financed by Randy.
- Turnover has been split in to five categories, rather than the three of last year - £13m gate receipts, £46m broadcasting, £8.5m sponsorship, £16m commercial, £0.5m UEFA solidarity and prize money. Gate receipts were up £0.8m on last year. Broadcasting income was up £2.3m on last year. Sponsorship was up £0.4m on last year and Commercial income was pretty consistent.
- Wages actually rose to £72m from £70m giving a wage to turnover ratio of 86%.
- £2.2m was spent in termination costs - presuambly to TSM and Norwich;
- Salaries for the 3 directors (Randy, Faulkner and Russell) totalled £423k (2012: £425k). If you assume Randy got nothing, the accounts would suggest Faulkner got £251k.
- No interest was charged on Randy's loan.
- Add on payments in respect of players signed totalling £2m and which we'd previously expected to have to pay have been reversed in these accounts meaning we don't expect to have to pay them any more.
- Total amount due to Randy at 31 May 2013 was £179m but he transferred £90m of this to share capital in December meaning he'll only realistically get that back if he sells up.
- Potential add-on clauses on transfers could cost us £8.4m (2012: £5.2m). These haven't yet been recognised in the numbers.
- Since May 2013 we've spent a further £18.3m (net) on transfers.
I'm sure there's more in there but that'll have to do for now as I've ran out of time.
The accounts aren't terrible but aren't as good as I'd hoped either. My main concern with the numbers is the substantial loss before player transactions. That needs to be sorted or Randy will have to continue putting money in. The directors telling us that they're compliant with FFP doesn't really comfort me as I'm fairly sure you can lose £35m a year and still be FFP compliant which I'm sure isn't how Randy wants to run the club.
-
Interestingly, Doug made himself the first Chief Exec of a football club to be paid a salary and by the time he sold up to Randy in 2006 his salary was almost £300k of the club's, no, the fan's money.
Almost 10 years later, the current Chief Exec gets £50k less than that.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.
they gave the money in proportion to their shareholding
Really? What money of his own did Doug ever give, and when?
The use of funds affects the value of a business in terms of the profit (or loss) accruing from the use of those funds.
Shareholders gain or lose in proportion to their shareholding.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
It was still Randy giving his own money while Doug gave someone else's.
they gave the money in proportion to their shareholding
Really? What money of his own did Doug ever give, and when?
The use of funds affects the value of a business in terms of the profit (or loss) accruing from the use of those funds.
Shareholders gain or lose in proportion to their shareholding.
Could you answer the question please? What money of his own did Doug Ellis ever invest in Aston Villa?
-
Dave
I've already answered that. I'm not trying to imply that Doug made any kind of altruistic investment.
But the fact is that both gave money (not necessarily cash at the time) by virtue of the change in value of their shares.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
Of course, investing "on behalf of the shareholders" is slightly different when the only shareholder is yourself.
-
Hmmmm since then weve removed
Ireland
Bannan
Bent - on loan
lichaj
makoun
dunne
marshall
Holman
given - on loan
So possibly with the players we've added we may have knocked £10m off the wage bill since then.
Still don't expect us to recover until we can get Hutton, Given, Nzogbia, Bent and delfouneso off the bill. Probably another £10m there on players that add nothing.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
Of course, investing "on behalf of the shareholders" is slightly different when the only shareholder is yourself.
Only in terms of the stakes being higher.
-
Dave
I've already answered that. I'm not trying to imply that Doug made any kind of altruistic investment.
But the fact is that both gave money (not necessarily cash at the time) by virtue of the change in value of their shares.
He didn't give cash at any time. He bought his shareholding from the Bendalls and from that moment on did not put one penny into the club, while at the same time taking out what became as a healthy five figure annual sum, later became six figures and ended up as tens of millions. Set against that the value of his shares, which were only publicly traded from 1997 onwards and were until then worth what the buyer was prepared to pay regardless of the company's value, is irrelevant.
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
Of course, investing "on behalf of the shareholders" is slightly different when the only shareholder is yourself.
Only in terms of the stakes being higher.
I've got three letters for you:
NTL
-
I sometimes wonder if there's a (former) NTL employee still locked in a padded cell and shaking uncontrollably when the words "Aston Villla" are mentioned.
-
Ad@m - thanks for that summary.
It seems to me that one of the biggest issues we have is that our commercial revenue is stagnating.
Why, when the premier league appears to be a cash cow, are we unable to significantly increase our commercial income?
We seem far too reliant on TV money.
-
Dave
I've already answered that. I'm not trying to imply that Doug made any kind of altruistic investment.
But the fact is that both gave money (not necessarily cash at the time) by virtue of the change in value of their shares.
He didn't give cash at any time. He bought his shareholding from the Bendalls and from that moment on did not put one penny into the club, while at the same time taking out what became as a healthy five figure annual sum, later became six figures and ended up as tens of millions. Set against that the value of his shares, which were only publicly traded from 1997 onwards and were until then worth what the buyer was prepared to pay regardless of the company's value, is irrelevant.
I don't disagree, but that wasn't what you wanted me to justify.
As I have said I'm not trying to defend Doug but just trying to be consistent in that both Lerner and Doug were doing essentially the same thing.
They both invested significant sums of the club's money. Yes, Lerner was getting it from his own trust while Doug was getting it from NTL.
If the Lerner's gamble had come off the loan would have been repaid and/or the equity of the business would have increased. Ditto with Doug. But as shareholders they were both on the hook in proportion to the value of their shares.
How Doug came by his shares is an entirely different argument as was his salary as chief exec. but at the time of making the investment the shares had a real value which was at stake.
-
I sometimes wonder if there's a (former) NTL employee still locked in a padded cell and shaking uncontrollably when the words "Aston Villla" are mentioned.
Probably in the cell next to one who shakes at the word Newcastle? or Celtic even?
-
Ad@m - thanks for that summary.
It seems to me that one of the biggest issues we have is that our commercial revenue is stagnating.
Why, when the premier league appears to be a cash cow, are we unable to significantly increase our commercial income?
We seem far too reliant on TV money.
Also the area Mr Faulkner gets most praise for. "He doesn't know much about football, but he's done wonders for the commercial side of things" really?
-
Thanks, Adam.
I agree entirely about the accounts not being as good as I'd hoped or expected. The 86% of turnover on wages being the biggest shock. I really was expecting it to have fallen dramatically but I guess we were still paying huge wages to the 'unwanted' and have failed to bring in any fees for them. I'd also be concerned as to how we can increase our turnover other than through TV money.
I'd imagine we're still in for a few more tough years before we see better results.
-
I'm going to wait until Lerner sells up to judge how much he has or hasn't spent of his own money on villa. Could be masses, could be nothing ultimately.
-
Commercial income wont increase by much whilst we remain a desperately boring, uninspiring side to watch. No name players. Dull football. Hardly saleable is it.
-
Dave
I've already answered that. I'm not trying to imply that Doug made any kind of altruistic investment.
But the fact is that both gave money (not necessarily cash at the time) by virtue of the change in value of their shares.
He didn't give cash at any time. He bought his shareholding from the Bendalls and from that moment on did not put one penny into the club, while at the same time taking out what became as a healthy five figure annual sum, later became six figures and ended up as tens of millions. Set against that the value of his shares, which were only publicly traded from 1997 onwards and were until then worth what the buyer was prepared to pay regardless of the company's value, is irrelevant.
I don't disagree, but that wasn't what you wanted me to justify.
As I have said I'm not trying to defend Doug but just trying to be consistent in that both Lerner and Doug were doing essentially the same thing.
They both invested significant sums of the club's money. Yes, Lerner was getting it from his own trust while Doug was getting it from NTL.
If the Lerner's gamble had come off the loan would have been repaid and/or the equity of the business would have increased. Ditto with Doug. But as shareholders they were both on the hook in proportion to the value of their shares.
How Doug came by his shares is an entirely different argument as was his salary as chief exec. but at the time of making the investment the shares had a real value which was at stake.
They're not doing the same thing. Randy invests his own money, Doug invested other people's while at the same time taking out many times his original stake.
-
Okay - random thoughts on the accounts:
- '£3.3m increase in turnover was driven largely by increased fees for players out on loan and improved on-pitch performance particularly towards the end of the season.' Specific factors included finishing one place higher in the Premier League, higher average attendances and reaching the semi-final of the League Cup.
- the directors report makes reference to the 'value driven approach to squad building' now employed.
- season ticket sales for 13/14 were up 8%.
- 'The directors believe that the combination of managerial continuity, increased revenues as a result of the new three year central television deal, higher attendances and tight control of players' wages should provide a very good platform for a sustainable future for the club in the Premier League.'
- 'The directors believe that the Group will be compliant with the Premier League's recently adopted Financial Regulation, both Short Term Cost Control and Profitability and Sustainability, 2013/14.'
- Operating loss before player transactions was £24m (2012: £33m)
- The club spent £20m in cash on day-to-day activities and £20m (net) on player trading. This was financed by Randy.
- Turnover has been split in to five categories, rather than the three of last year - £13m gate receipts, £46m broadcasting, £8.5m sponsorship, £16m commercial, £0.5m UEFA solidarity and prize money. Gate receipts were up £0.8m on last year. Broadcasting income was up £2.3m on last year. Sponsorship was up £0.4m on last year and Commercial income was pretty consistent.
- Wages actually rose to £72m from £70m giving a wage to turnover ratio of 86%.
- £2.2m was spent in termination costs - presuambly to TSM and Norwich;
- Salaries for the 3 directors (Randy, Faulkner and Russell) totalled £423k (2012: £425k). If you assume Randy got nothing, the accounts would suggest Faulkner got £251k.
- No interest was charged on Randy's loan.
- Add on payments in respect of players signed totalling £2m and which we'd previously expected to have to pay have been reversed in these accounts meaning we don't expect to have to pay them any more.
- Total amount due to Randy at 31 May 2013 was £179m but he transferred £90m of this to share capital in December meaning he'll only realistically get that back if he sells up.
- Potential add-on clauses on transfers could cost us £8.4m (2012: £5.2m). These haven't yet been recognised in the numbers.
- Since May 2013 we've spent a further £18.3m (net) on transfers.
I'm sure there's more in there but that'll have to do for now as I've ran out of time.
The accounts aren't terrible but aren't as good as I'd hoped either. My main concern with the numbers is the substantial loss before player transactions. That needs to be sorted or Randy will have to continue putting money in. The directors telling us that they're compliant with FFP doesn't really comfort me as I'm fairly sure you can lose £35m a year and still be FFP compliant which I'm sure isn't how Randy wants to run the club.
Very interesting
Was there any mention of a strategy for the next 12 months?
-
Okay - random thoughts on the accounts:
- '£3.3m increase in turnover was driven largely by increased fees for players out on loan and improved on-pitch performance particularly towards the end of the season.' Specific factors included finishing one place higher in the Premier League, higher average attendances and reaching the semi-final of the League Cup.
- the directors report makes reference to the 'value driven approach to squad building' now employed.
- season ticket sales for 13/14 were up 8%.
- 'The directors believe that the combination of managerial continuity, increased revenues as a result of the new three year central television deal, higher attendances and tight control of players' wages should provide a very good platform for a sustainable future for the club in the Premier League.'
- 'The directors believe that the Group will be compliant with the Premier League's recently adopted Financial Regulation, both Short Term Cost Control and Profitability and Sustainability, 2013/14.'
- Operating loss before player transactions was £24m (2012: £33m)
- The club spent £20m in cash on day-to-day activities and £20m (net) on player trading. This was financed by Randy.
- Turnover has been split in to five categories, rather than the three of last year - £13m gate receipts, £46m broadcasting, £8.5m sponsorship, £16m commercial, £0.5m UEFA solidarity and prize money. Gate receipts were up £0.8m on last year. Broadcasting income was up £2.3m on last year. Sponsorship was up £0.4m on last year and Commercial income was pretty consistent.
- Wages actually rose to £72m from £70m giving a wage to turnover ratio of 86%.
- £2.2m was spent in termination costs - presuambly to TSM and Norwich;
- Salaries for the 3 directors (Randy, Faulkner and Russell) totalled £423k (2012: £425k). If you assume Randy got nothing, the accounts would suggest Faulkner got £251k.
- No interest was charged on Randy's loan.
- Add on payments in respect of players signed totalling £2m and which we'd previously expected to have to pay have been reversed in these accounts meaning we don't expect to have to pay them any more.
- Total amount due to Randy at 31 May 2013 was £179m but he transferred £90m of this to share capital in December meaning he'll only realistically get that back if he sells up.
- Potential add-on clauses on transfers could cost us £8.4m (2012: £5.2m). These haven't yet been recognised in the numbers.
- Since May 2013 we've spent a further £18.3m (net) on transfers.
I'm sure there's more in there but that'll have to do for now as I've ran out of time.
The accounts aren't terrible but aren't as good as I'd hoped either. My main concern with the numbers is the substantial loss before player transactions. That needs to be sorted or Randy will have to continue putting money in. The directors telling us that they're compliant with FFP doesn't really comfort me as I'm fairly sure you can lose £35m a year and still be FFP compliant which I'm sure isn't how Randy wants to run the club.
Very interesting
Was there any mention of a strategy for the next 12 months?
Yes a "value driven approach to squad building" in other words cheap and very average, or young and hungry if your name is Lambert
-
Still can't get over the 2.2M paid to Spurzz for Jenas :'(
-
I think Lerner gave all the money to MON who (in my opinion) did not spend it well. Bit like Doug gave money to JG and (in my opinion) it was not spent well.
I wonder if any owner (Chelsea/Man City aside) enjoy owning a football club?
At this point I feel duty-bound to point out that Randy gave his money to O'Neill. Doug gave the club's.
At the time they both gave the club's money to the respective managers.
They both 'invested' on behalf of the shareholders - who would share proportionately in the risk and gains.
Of course, investing "on behalf of the shareholders" is slightly different when the only shareholder is yourself.
Only in terms of the stakes being higher.
"Only"
-
Okay - random thoughts on the accounts:
- '£3.3m increase in turnover was driven largely by increased fees for players out on loan and improved on-pitch performance particularly towards the end of the season.' Specific factors included finishing one place higher in the Premier League, higher average attendances and reaching the semi-final of the League Cup.
- the directors report makes reference to the 'value driven approach to squad building' now employed.
- season ticket sales for 13/14 were up 8%.
- 'The directors believe that the combination of managerial continuity, increased revenues as a result of the new three year central television deal, higher attendances and tight control of players' wages should provide a very good platform for a sustainable future for the club in the Premier League.'
- 'The directors believe that the Group will be compliant with the Premier League's recently adopted Financial Regulation, both Short Term Cost Control and Profitability and Sustainability, 2013/14.'
- Operating loss before player transactions was £24m (2012: £33m)
- The club spent £20m in cash on day-to-day activities and £20m (net) on player trading. This was financed by Randy.
- Turnover has been split in to five categories, rather than the three of last year - £13m gate receipts, £46m broadcasting, £8.5m sponsorship, £16m commercial, £0.5m UEFA solidarity and prize money. Gate receipts were up £0.8m on last year. Broadcasting income was up £2.3m on last year. Sponsorship was up £0.4m on last year and Commercial income was pretty consistent.
- Wages actually rose to £72m from £70m giving a wage to turnover ratio of 86%.
- £2.2m was spent in termination costs - presuambly to TSM and Norwich;
- Salaries for the 3 directors (Randy, Faulkner and Russell) totalled £423k (2012: £425k). If you assume Randy got nothing, the accounts would suggest Faulkner got £251k.
- No interest was charged on Randy's loan.
- Add on payments in respect of players signed totalling £2m and which we'd previously expected to have to pay have been reversed in these accounts meaning we don't expect to have to pay them any more.
- Total amount due to Randy at 31 May 2013 was £179m but he transferred £90m of this to share capital in December meaning he'll only realistically get that back if he sells up.
- Potential add-on clauses on transfers could cost us £8.4m (2012: £5.2m). These haven't yet been recognised in the numbers.
- Since May 2013 we've spent a further £18.3m (net) on transfers.
I'm sure there's more in there but that'll have to do for now as I've ran out of time.
The accounts aren't terrible but aren't as good as I'd hoped either. My main concern with the numbers is the substantial loss before player transactions. That needs to be sorted or Randy will have to continue putting money in. The directors telling us that they're compliant with FFP doesn't really comfort me as I'm fairly sure you can lose £35m a year and still be FFP compliant which I'm sure isn't how Randy wants to run the club.
Very interesting
Was there any mention of a strategy for the next 12 months?
Yes a "value driven approach to squad building" in other words cheap and very average, or young and hungry if your name is Lambert
Exciting times ahead then.
And we'll be Financial Fair Play-compliant as well, you say? you can keep your European Cups
-
Still 80% + on wages. How on earth did it come to this?
These figures are worse than I thought.
The ironic thing that it is alledged MON walked out in part due to having to run a tighter ship. Yet Houllier & TSM were allowed to carry on the transfer and more pertiently wages splurge. Bent, Makoun, Given, CNZ, Hutton and save for Bent represent very poor / dire investments.
Under Lambert the transfer kitty has been fairly generous (40m+ with zero coming in though I suspect we have signed volume of quality due to the wage restraints.
I would like to compare our non TV income streams with Everton, Spuds, Newcastle over the last 5 years to see if we are punching our weight. Everton suffer fom having preactically zero corporate facilities.
-
MON keeps being mentioned. It is a long held belief of mine that whilst the players he purchased were his choices, and some of them poor choices (aging pro's generally with not much thought to development and potential sell on value), the contracts and transfer fees were never agreed by him. He told PF the players he wanted, and the agents liased with him.
I personally think the walk out of O'Neill came down to a discussion between O'Neill and Faulkner, the latter having to answer to Randy asking where his money had been spent. Faulkner telling O'Neill players needed to be sold before any more were purchased, nobody would want them because of the contracts they were on, which Faulkner agreed in the first place, and O'Neill felt his position was untenable. He couldn't improve the squad, until some dead weight was lifted from the wage bill, which has been awfully hard and long drawn out to achieve.
That said in that set of accounts, how many are there that were signed under his stewardship? Dunne? Delph?
-
You cannot absolve any manager of transfer fees of contacts.
A manager will be given a budget, so when negotiations commence and he is informed that player A will cost £X from his transfer budget and £Y from his wage budget, he will give the go ahead to proceed or move onto another target.
-
I would like to compare our non TV income streams with Everton, Spuds, Newcastle over the last 5 years to see if we are punching our weight. Everton suffer fom having preactically zero corporate facilities.
Everton (FY13) - Gate receipts £17.4m, Broadcasting £55.7m, Sponsorship, advertising and merchandising £7.6m, Catering £1.2m, Other commercial activities £4.4m, Total £86.4m
Wages £63m; Wage:Turnover ratio = 73%
Spurs (FY12) - Premier League gate receipts £21.4m, Cup competitions gate receipts and domestic prize money £6.2m, UEFA solidarity and prize money - £4.3m, Sponsorship and corporate hospitality £35.1m, Media and broadcasting £59.2m, Merchandising £9.2m, Other £8.6m, Total £144m.
Wages £90m; Wage:Turnover ratio = 63%
Newcastle (FY12) - Matchday £23.9m, Media £55.6m, Commercial £13.8m, Total £93m
Wages £64m; Wage:Turnover ratio = 69%
The comparisons don't look great...
-
Our gate receipts are hardly worth the bother - 13m?? Randy should let us all in for free :-)
-
I notice that QPR's losses in 2012/13 were worse than any other English club.
-
Harry Redknapp does like to bankrupt a club doesn't he?
-
Harry Redknapp does like to bankrupt a club doesn't he?
He's a traditionalist and likes to stick to what he's good at.
-
It's not really him though, is it? It's his dog.
-
No dog would be stupid enough to pay Chris Samba £100,000 a week.
-
Harry Redknapp does like to bankrupt a club doesn't he?
He wouldn't be able to if it weren't for foolish, reckless owners giving him the licence to spend unsustainably time and again let's not forget. It's amazing how often normal business sense seems to fly out the window when it comes to running a football club.
-
Okay - random thoughts on the accounts:
- '£3.3m increase in turnover was driven largely by increased fees for players out on loan and improved on-pitch performance particularly towards the end of the season.' Specific factors included finishing one place higher in the Premier League, higher average attendances and reaching the semi-final of the League Cup.
- the directors report makes reference to the 'value driven approach to squad building' now employed.
- season ticket sales for 13/14 were up 8%.
- 'The directors believe that the combination of managerial continuity, increased revenues as a result of the new three year central television deal, higher attendances and tight control of players' wages should provide a very good platform for a sustainable future for the club in the Premier League.'
- 'The directors believe that the Group will be compliant with the Premier League's recently adopted Financial Regulation, both Short Term Cost Control and Profitability and Sustainability, 2013/14.'
- Operating loss before player transactions was £24m (2012: £33m)
- The club spent £20m in cash on day-to-day activities and £20m (net) on player trading. This was financed by Randy.
- Turnover has been split in to five categories, rather than the three of last year - £13m gate receipts, £46m broadcasting, £8.5m sponsorship, £16m commercial, £0.5m UEFA solidarity and prize money. Gate receipts were up £0.8m on last year. Broadcasting income was up £2.3m on last year. Sponsorship was up £0.4m on last year and Commercial income was pretty consistent.
- Wages actually rose to £72m from £70m giving a wage to turnover ratio of 86%.
- £2.2m was spent in termination costs - presuambly to TSM and Norwich;
- Salaries for the 3 directors (Randy, Faulkner and Russell) totalled £423k (2012: £425k). If you assume Randy got nothing, the accounts would suggest Faulkner got £251k.
- No interest was charged on Randy's loan.
- Add on payments in respect of players signed totalling £2m and which we'd previously expected to have to pay have been reversed in these accounts meaning we don't expect to have to pay them any more.
- Total amount due to Randy at 31 May 2013 was £179m but he transferred £90m of this to share capital in December meaning he'll only realistically get that back if he sells up.
- Potential add-on clauses on transfers could cost us £8.4m (2012: £5.2m). These haven't yet been recognised in the numbers.
- Since May 2013 we've spent a further £18.3m (net) on transfers.
I'm sure there's more in there but that'll have to do for now as I've ran out of time.
The accounts aren't terrible but aren't as good as I'd hoped either. My main concern with the numbers is the substantial loss before player transactions. That needs to be sorted or Randy will have to continue putting money in. The directors telling us that they're compliant with FFP doesn't really comfort me as I'm fairly sure you can lose £35m a year and still be FFP compliant which I'm sure isn't how Randy wants to run the club.
Thanks. Are these comments based on the officially released accounts? If so, can you provide a link to them, please? Cheers.
-
Thanks. Are these comments based on the officially released accounts? If so, can you provide a link to them, please? Cheers.
Yes they are and no I can't I'm afraid.
You can get the accounts from Companies House (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo). They charge £1 per document for downloads so I shouldn't imagine they'd be best pleased me uploading them somewhere for others to download for free. If you click that link and search for Reform Acquisitions Limited, which is the UK holding company for the club, you can then download any document filed with Companies House, including the 2013 accounts.
-
Oh, go on...
-
Thanks, by the way.
-
I bet Carson Yeoung would let you see his.
-
I notice that QPR's losses in 2012/13 were worse than any other English club.
I read today that QPR spend more on wages than Borussia Dortmund do.
Mindboggling.
-
86% wages to turnover is not good at all given we've been costcuting for close to 4 years now. I accept these are from a year ago and we've moved on a few since but we'll still do well to get it below 80%. My personal target would be to get it below 70% but we'll probably get there around 2050 when we're in league one.
I think we can expect more cautious spending this summer, just hopes Lambert goes for say 3 players in the 6m range who don't drain us in wages rather than the usual 7-8 on a fiver a week.
-
I notice that QPR's losses in 2012/13 were worse than any other English club.
I read today that QPR spend more on wages than Borussia Dortmund do.
Mindboggling.
Well it's been worth it what with how managerial genius Arry, cruelly overlooked for the England job that was his by divine right, has got them 20 points clear at the top of the Championship and all that.
-
They are top, top losses but they're with another club so I really can't say anyfink.
-
Whose with another club? The losses at another club are bigger? Or QPR are with another club?
What is going on at ITN?
-
*winds up car window, drives away*
-
I wonder if anyone, except the nineties directors who floated then sold their shares for massive profits (Doug, Martin Edwards, that horrible bunch of chancers at Sheffield Wednesday) ever have or will make money from owning a football club.
Ken Bates, more than once ;D
-
Quick thoughts:
1. Previous mistakes well understood and still punishing us. Given retrenchment and ditching of high paid players, it could have been a lot worse than it has been. We could easily have gone down
2. Surely TV revenue this season will make a big impact on profitability
3. Concerned about how gabby and Delph will be treated when high cost contracts expire
4. Lots of lambert signings now worth more than we paid: Guzan 0, benteke 8, Lowton 1, Westwood 1.5, vlaar 3.5, bacuna 2. I expect the same to apply to Okore at 3.5
-
Quick thoughts:
1. Previous mistakes well understood and still punishing us. Given retrenchment and ditching of high paid players, it could have been a lot worse than it has been. We could easily have gone down
2. Surely TV revenue this season will make a big impact on profitability
3. Concerned about how gabby and Delph will be treated when high cost contracts expire
4. Lots of lambert signings now worth more than we paid: Guzan 0, benteke 8, Lowton 1, Westwood 1.5, vlaar 3.5, bacuna 2. I expect the same to apply to Okore at 3.5
My major concern is how we are stagnating on the nonTV revenue. Faulkner may have made some progress over the last few years in improving commercial income but let's be honest the main increases in our turnover and hence ability to pay decent wages has been through TV revenue. The fact we're not keeping up with Spurs, Newcastle and are only on a par with the likes of Everton and West Ham means we have to focus on Matchday revenues and commercial income to compete otherwise we'll just end up getting stuck with the rest of the division using the TV money as our main source of revenue and support. The problem is we need to sort out the mess on the playing side of the club first so that we actually have an attractive product to watch hence an ability to then push Matchday and commercial revenues. The fact we're not over the £100m revenue line yet should be seen as a major failure of the running of the club by Lerner/Faulkner.
-
I personally think the walk out of O'Neill came down to a discussion between O'Neill and Faulkner, the latter having to answer to Randy asking where his money had been spent. Faulkner telling O'Neill players needed to be sold before any more were purchased, nobody would want them because of the contracts they were on, which Faulkner agreed in the first place, and O'Neill felt his position was untenable. He couldn't improve the squad, until some dead weight was lifted from the wage bill, which has been awfully hard and long drawn out to achieve.
How many of the Harewood/Sidwell/Davies/Cuellar/Shorey/Young/Dunne/Beye etc. deals did Faulkner negotiate though? I thought he only became CEO relatively soon before O'Neill flounced out.
-
I personally think the walk out of O'Neill came down to a discussion between O'Neill and Faulkner, the latter having to answer to Randy asking where his money had been spent. Faulkner telling O'Neill players needed to be sold before any more were purchased, nobody would want them because of the contracts they were on, which Faulkner agreed in the first place, and O'Neill felt his position was untenable. He couldn't improve the squad, until some dead weight was lifted from the wage bill, which has been awfully hard and long drawn out to achieve.
How many of the Harewood/Sidwell/Davies/Cuellar/Shorey/Young/Dunne/Beye etc. deals did Faulkner negotiate though? I thought he only became CEO relatively soon before O'Neill flounced out.
I am no fan of Faulkner but don't think he was involved in any of those you quoted.
He was CEO when we signed Ireland on £60k+ per week, CNZ on £60k, Shay Given on similar amount, Makoun on c40k, Hutton £40k and Jenas for £2m for 1 year which turned out, to no-one's surprise, to be a lot less. Clearly he hadn't learned very much from O'Neill's mistakes.
Oh and post O'Neill he was involved in having to recruit no fewer than 3 permanent managers + staff in 21months which cost around about £125k per week during that period (some of which would have been ammortised).
Not very clever at all.
-
86% wages to turnover is not good at all given we've been costcuting for close to 4 years now. I accept these are from a year ago and we've moved on a few since but we'll still do well to get it below 80%. My personal target would be to get it below 70% but we'll probably get there around 2050 when we're in league one.
I think we can expect more cautious spending this summer, just hopes Lambert goes for say 3 players in the 6m range who don't drain us in wages rather than the usual 7-8 on a fiver a week.
Yeah that is a worry. Saying that, I guess Dunne, Ireland, Bent, Hutton, Given, N'Zogbia and Makoun were all still on the wage bill during that season and offering very little. Just a quick question - does that figure include off the field staff as well?
-
86% wages to turnover is not good at all given we've been costcuting for close to 4 years now. I accept these are from a year ago and we've moved on a few since but we'll still do well to get it below 80%. My personal target would be to get it below 70% but we'll probably get there around 2050 when we're in league one.
I think we can expect more cautious spending this summer, just hopes Lambert goes for say 3 players in the 6m range who don't drain us in wages rather than the usual 7-8 on a fiver a week.
Yeah that is a worry. Saying that, I guess Dunne, Ireland, Bent, Hutton, Given, N'Zogbia and Makoun were all still on the wage bill during that season and offering very little. Just a quick question - does that figure include off the field staff as well?
Yep - all wages.
-
I personally think the walk out of O'Neill came down to a discussion between O'Neill and Faulkner, the latter having to answer to Randy asking where his money had been spent. Faulkner telling O'Neill players needed to be sold before any more were purchased, nobody would want them because of the contracts they were on, which Faulkner agreed in the first place, and O'Neill felt his position was untenable. He couldn't improve the squad, until some dead weight was lifted from the wage bill, which has been awfully hard and long drawn out to achieve.
How many of the Harewood/Sidwell/Davies/Cuellar/Shorey/Young/Dunne/Beye etc. deals did Faulkner negotiate though? I thought he only became CEO relatively soon before O'Neill flounced out.
I am no fan of Faulkner but don't think he was involved in any of those you quoted.
He was CEO when we signed Ireland on £60k+ per week, CNZ on £60k, Shay Given on similar amount, Makoun on c40k, Hutton £40k and Jenas for £2m for 1 year which turned out, to no-one's surprise, to be a lot less. Clearly he hadn't learned very much from O'Neill's mistakes.
Oh and post O'Neill he was involved in having to recruit no fewer than 3 permanent managers + staff in 21months which cost around about £125k per week during that period (some of which would have been ammortised).
Not very clever at all.
That was when he became CEO, however he was operating in a role at the club for a long time prior to that. He spoke openly with someone I know about what his dutes at the club where when they met him during the pre season 08/09. He said he dealt with sorting out transfers, speaking with agents and the like.
I can't say categorically that Faulkner was agreeing the contracts (The bit in bold above should probably read ''O'Neill felt Faulkner had agreed in the first place'') this is just my take on what I have been told, and also, as has been pointed out in the second part. It's all very well saying O'Neill wasted vast sums of money on average ageing players on long contracts, but it still went on long after he'd gone. You'd have to say that something that wasn't right in the first place had remained in the years prior to Lambert taking over.
-
I personally think the walk out of O'Neill came down to a discussion between O'Neill and Faulkner, the latter having to answer to Randy asking where his money had been spent. Faulkner telling O'Neill players needed to be sold before any more were purchased, nobody would want them because of the contracts they were on, which Faulkner agreed in the first place, and O'Neill felt his position was untenable. He couldn't improve the squad, until some dead weight was lifted from the wage bill, which has been awfully hard and long drawn out to achieve.
How many of the Harewood/Sidwell/Davies/Cuellar/Shorey/Young/Dunne/Beye etc. deals did Faulkner negotiate though? I thought he only became CEO relatively soon before O'Neill flounced out.
I am no fan of Faulkner but don't think he was involved in any of those you quoted.
He was CEO when we signed Ireland on £60k+ per week, CNZ on £60k, Shay Given on similar amount, Makoun on c40k, Hutton £40k and Jenas for £2m for 1 year which turned out, to no-one's surprise, to be a lot less. Clearly he hadn't learned very much from O'Neill's mistakes.
Oh and post O'Neill he was involved in having to recruit no fewer than 3 permanent managers + staff in 21months which cost around about £125k per week during that period (some of which would have been ammortised).
Not very clever at all.
That was when he became CEO, however he was operating in a role at the club for a long time prior to that. He spoke openly with someone I know about what his dutes at the club where when they met him during the pre season 08/09. He said he dealt with sorting out transfers, speaking with agents and the like.
I can't say categorically that Faulkner was agreeing the contracts (The bit in bold above should probably read ''O'Neill felt Faulkner had agreed in the first place'') this is just my take on what I have been told, and also, as has been pointed out in the second part. It's all very well saying O'Neill wasted vast sums of money on average ageing players on long contracts, but it still went on long after he'd gone. You'd have to say that something that wasn't right in the first place had remained in the years prior to Lambert taking over.
There can be little doubt that a tribunal would not have paid O'Neill for walking out due to constructive dismissal. Sooner or later, the facts will be revealed.
-
In this day and age the commercial side has overtaken the playing side for many clubs. We're forced to being like any business run for money and prices do go up. It's a reality until the world changes we have to compete at the level we want to be getting as much money out of every avenue as well as can be done.
-
I personally think the walk out of O'Neill came down to a discussion between O'Neill and Faulkner, the latter having to answer to Randy asking where his money had been spent. Faulkner telling O'Neill players needed to be sold before any more were purchased, nobody would want them because of the contracts they were on, which Faulkner agreed in the first place, and O'Neill felt his position was untenable. He couldn't improve the squad, until some dead weight was lifted from the wage bill, which has been awfully hard and long drawn out to achieve.
How many of the Harewood/Sidwell/Davies/Cuellar/Shorey/Young/Dunne/Beye etc. deals did Faulkner negotiate though? I thought he only became CEO relatively soon before O'Neill flounced out.
I am no fan of Faulkner but don't think he was involved in any of those you quoted.
He was CEO when we signed Ireland on £60k+ per week, CNZ on £60k, Shay Given on similar amount, Makoun on c40k, Hutton £40k and Jenas for £2m for 1 year which turned out, to no-one's surprise, to be a lot less. Clearly he hadn't learned very much from O'Neill's mistakes.
Oh and post O'Neill he was involved in having to recruit no fewer than 3 permanent managers + staff in 21months which cost around about £125k per week during that period (some of which would have been ammortised).
Not very clever at all.
That was when he became CEO, however he was operating in a role at the club for a long time prior to that. He spoke openly with someone I know about what his dutes at the club where when they met him during the pre season 08/09. He said he dealt with sorting out transfers, speaking with agents and the like.
I can't say categorically that Faulkner was agreeing the contracts (The bit in bold above should probably read ''O'Neill felt Faulkner had agreed in the first place'') this is just my take on what I have been told, and also, as has been pointed out in the second part. It's all very well saying O'Neill wasted vast sums of money on average ageing players on long contracts, but it still went on long after he'd gone. You'd have to say that something that wasn't right in the first place had remained in the years prior to Lambert taking over.
There can be little doubt that a tribunal would not have paid O'Neill for walking out due to constructive dismissal. Sooner or later, the facts will be revealed.
What do you base your supposition on re tribunal?
As for facts, there is little doubt that the settlement includes a confidentiality, no blame clause.