Manchester City v Aston Villa Post-Match Thread

[Vanilla]

Fair enough summing up, but the overall tone of 'Yeah, thought so' reminds me of the 'What did you expect?' attitude of DOL.

I think we had our real first test of the season, and we came up wanting against of collection of showboaters. Yes we could have the attitude of well, it's a season of consolidation. But a season of consolidation should be followed by growth. I can't see that next season, only more experienced players leaving, replaced perhaps by journeymen.

I could be optimistic if we looked at the Newcastle model, who had a virtual slash and burn but have managed to slowly rebuild. The problem with that is though, they manage to bring in viable foreign players on a budget. If we are only going to concentrate on British or established Premier League players, then I can't see us achieving much. What could we have got by spending that £9 million for N'Zogbia on one or a couple of European prospects?

It's one thing to have that attitude after the game and another to have it before/during.  I think our attitude was fine and we had a go, but there's no disgrace in admitting afterwards that player for player they are a lot better than us.

As for the Newcastle model, yes there are some points we can take on from them, but I don't see how Makoun fits into that argument.  He had games and played relatively poorly to the point where the manager who brought him wasn't playing him.  If anything it's a sign we are looking for that 'low cost and comes good' foreigner, it's just that are first go hasn't worke out too well.  Time to judge that is probably next summer when the wagebill is further under control and AM has some more freedom to move in the market.

Do you really think the manager will have much scope for the transfers next season? Unless we sell, I can't really see where funds will be coming from. Selling 2 players, to buy 2 cheaper players on lower wages does not a squad make.

Makoun was brought into a struggling team, and wasn't really given the chance for half a season before he was moved on. Do you suggest that N'Zogbia be shipped out in January? By then he will have been here half a season. He has also been dropped by the manager who purchased him. Although he, unlike Makoun, has had experience of playing in the EPL.

[Concrete John]

Do you really think the manager will have much scope for the transfers next season? Unless we sell, I can't really see where funds will be coming from. Selling 2 players, to buy 2 cheaper players on lower wages does not a squad make.

Makoun was brought into a struggling team, and wasn't really given the chance for half a season before he was moved on. Do you suggest that N'Zogbia be shipped out in January? By then he will have been here half a season. He has also been dropped by the manager who purchased him. Although he, unlike Makoun, has had experience of playing in the EPL.

In a word - yes!

We've heard it a lot, and I for one believe it, that the issue is wages as opposed to fees.  By next summer we'll have Beye, Cuellar and Heskey off the bill, although in Heskey's case it may be a matter of staying on reduced wages.  That should allow him to get a few players in.

Makoun would still be here if Houllier was manager, so the same will apply with N'Zogbia.  I'd imagine Newcastle let a few players go with their managerial changes in the same way we've moved Makoun on. 

[exiled on the wirral!]

I went to the game on saturday, and our wretched performance was nothing to do with 1 team spending 400 million more than the other team. We as a team didnt do the basics right. We defended set pieces like a pub team, we had no shape, no width, we had Heskey playing, who didnt know whether he was playing upfront, midfield or right back. We have Delph who was running around like a headless chicken, and Pertov who in my opinion was finished 2 years ago. There was hardly any running off the ball, there was no passion no leadership and basically no ideas.

A lot of people are saying the game is finished now, with the likes of City and chelsea maybe it has, but that had nothing to do with  our performance on saturday. That was pureley down to lazy boneidle villa players led by a limited manager who doesnt seem to be able to motivate his team.

[pauliewalnuts]

Do you really think the manager will have much scope for the transfers next season? Unless we sell, I can't really see where funds will be coming from. Selling 2 players, to buy 2 cheaper players on lower wages does not a squad make.

Makoun was brought into a struggling team, and wasn't really given the chance for half a season before he was moved on. Do you suggest that N'Zogbia be shipped out in January? By then he will have been here half a season. He has also been dropped by the manager who purchased him. Although he, unlike Makoun, has had experience of playing in the EPL.

In a word - yes!

We've heard it a lot, and I for one believe it, that the issue is wages as opposed to fees.  By next summer we'll have Beye, Cuellar and Heskey off the bill, although in Heskey's case it may be a matter of staying on reduced wages.  That should allow him to get a few players in.

Makoun would still be here if Houllier was manager, so the same will apply with N'Zogbia.  I'd imagine Newcastle let a few players go with their managerial changes in the same way we've moved Makoun on. 

Why do people assume that wages and fees are in some way different?

They're two sides of the same coin.

Randy's desire is for the club to be self supporting, I don't see how transfer fees are going to be considered any different in that respect.

[Concrete John]

Why do people assume that wages and fees are in some way different?

They're two sides of the same coin.

Randy's desire is for the club to be self supporting, I don't see how transfer fees are going to be considered any different in that respect.

But surely if they are supposed to be self sustaining, then the recent fees we've recieved, which we could not soend due to wanting to control the wagebill, come into play once there is room?

[pauliewalnuts]

Why do people assume that wages and fees are in some way different?

They're two sides of the same coin.

Randy's desire is for the club to be self supporting, I don't see how transfer fees are going to be considered any different in that respect.

But surely if they are supposed to be self sustaining, then the recent fees we've recieved, which we could not soend due to wanting to control the wagebill, come into play once there is room?

What makes you think those fees aren't going to be used to reduce the amount the club had gone into the red on previous spending, though?

Even if we started the counter now, and were to be self sustaining, we'd have very little to spend on transfers.

Not a pop at you, John, but in general I think a lot of people are not listening to what the club are saying, and are convincing themselves that once the wages are down to a more acceptable level of turnover, we'll start spending big again, as if it is just the wages that need sorting.

We're either self sufficient or we're not, and I don't see how there's much room for major transfer spending under self sufficiency.

Paul Faulkner told the SCG meeting that the club has to "be able to survive Randy going under a bus". Having an unsustainable wage bill doesn't fit that measure, but then again, neither does owing tens of millions of pounds in transfer deficit

[Concrete John]

It's an interesting point, but as has been argued before, there is a difference between fees and wages in that one is a capital expenditure, so is seen as an asset on the balance sheet, and one simply goes out the door to be spent on Ferraris and lapdancers.

I'm guessing the proof will be in the pudding, but when clubs like Stoke can spend large-ish sums without a sugar daddy I think we can also.

[Vanilla]

It's an interesting point, but as has been argued before, there is a difference between fees and wages in that one is a capital expenditure, so is seen as an asset on the balance sheet, and one simply goes out the door to be spent on Ferraris and lapdancers.

I'm guessing the proof will be in the pudding, but when clubs like Stoke can spend large-ish sums without a sugar daddy I think we can also.

I don't think Stoke have had the large expenditure we have had. As such, they have accumulated cash over the past few seasons, and are able to splash a bit now. Villa put a lot of their money up front, expecting it to pay dividends with CL qualification etc. That didn't happen, and now our purse strings are tightened.

[Concrete John]

As per Paulie's post, this is supposing the counter is reset and we just need to fund ourselves from now on.  Randy may have pumped a lot of money in, but he's also considerably increased the value of his asset (the club) in the process, so that may not be too far from the truth of it.

If you're well run there's enough money in the game (as in from Sky) to be able to go out and buy players. 

[pauliewalnuts]

It's an interesting point, but as has been argued before, there is a difference between fees and wages in that one is a capital expenditure, so is seen as an asset on the balance sheet, and one simply goes out the door to be spent on Ferraris and lapdancers.

I'm guessing the proof will be in the pudding, but when clubs like Stoke can spend large-ish sums without a sugar daddy I think we can also.

Stoke have a sugar daddy who is probably richer than our sugar daddy and have only spend reasonable amounts in one window, though.

Regardless of players being seen as capital assets, if the club is self sufficient, it implies the money to buy them has to be generated by the club, rather than ploughed in by Randy.

I'd much prefer it didn't, but it is hard to see any other outcome, unfortunately.

[Vanilla]

Another issue is, how much capital has been set aside to rebuild the North Stand. Is that a worthwhile venture at this time? This also means the club misses out on income from the Olympics next year.

[Chris Smith]

Regardless of players being seen as capital assets, if the club is self sufficient, it implies the money to buy them has to be generated by the club, rather than ploughed in by Randy.

I'm not sure I agree with that, Paulie. Having a plan for if Randy falls under a bus implies that it will be different to what happens if he doesn't.

My guess, and that's all it can be, is that money will be still found to fund transfers within the current wage structure as players leave and growth, if there is any, will be funded by improved commercial activity (as per the letter to season ticket holders).

[Risso]

As per Paulie's post, this is supposing the counter is reset and we just need to fund ourselves from now on.  Randy may have pumped a lot of money in, but he's also considerably increased the value of his asset (the club) in the process, so that may not be too far from the truth of it.

He hasn't increased the value of the club though, far from it.  Yes, anybody buying the club would getting a more valuable squad of players, but there's also the rather large matter of an awful lot of debt that more than offsets that increase in value.  Purely from a net asset point of view, we're not actually worth as much as when Ellis sold us.

[Greg N'Ash]

The whole club being self-sustaining is pie in the sky anyway - we're not a club you can run on a shoestring. Ellis tried and we  were still making big losses in his last years and this all sounds scarily similar to the crap him and his pals were spouting back then. Only way we willl become self-sustaining is through increased revenue and the only way you get increased revenue is bigger crowds, more tv games, more prize money and more merchandise sold. None of those things are possible without success on the field and with the current squad - no chance.

[Concrete John]

As per Paulie's post, this is supposing the counter is reset and we just need to fund ourselves from now on.  Randy may have pumped a lot of money in, but he's also considerably increased the value of his asset (the club) in the process, so that may not be too far from the truth of it.

He hasn't increased the value of the club though, far from it.  Yes, anybody buying the club would getting a more valuable squad of players, but there's also the rather large matter of an awful lot of debt that more than offsets that increase in value.  Purely from a net asset point of view, we're not actually worth as much as when Ellis sold us.

Is that fact or opinion?  My guess is it would only become a fact if/when the club were to be sold.  I understand the argument that debt would offset some of the added value Randy has generated, but then you also have the more lucrative TV deals now in place, which should again add to the value.

As I said, it's pretty accademic unless Randy wishes to sell, but I'd be surprised if the club hadn't at least held it's value.