Summer transfer rumours, speculation and out-and-out b*ll*cks.

[eamonn]

Owen Coyle has said that they've not received any offers for him. That to me says they're either over pricing him, or other managers are just not convinced.

Anyone see his pearler of a goal yesterday? Not quite as good as his Van Basten Blose bicycle but nonetheless impressive.

[fredm]

[Since Randy & MON joined Villa, this is the increase in our wages:
06/07 - £23m
07/08 - £50m
08/09 - £50m
09/10 - £80m
10/11 - £80m (estimated)
11/12 - £75m (estimated) +£5m manager payoffs.



The only other way to overcome the wage problem is to increase our revenue from £90m. The £90m was in a season when we finished 6th, went to Wembley twice, and briefly entered Europe.

In 10/11, we gained FxPro as a sponsor for £6m, but lost around £6m from finishing 9th and no cup runs. So revenue will probably be £90m again.

In this coming season (11/12), sponsorship has increased by an additional £2m, so if we assume we finish 9th again, we may have a revenue of £92m. I don't believe the Sky television contract has changed from last year to this year.

As a comparision to the revenue from teams we would like to be competing against in the long-term (09/10 figures):
Man Utd - £286m
Arsenal - £283m (excluding non-football income)
Chelsea - £213m
Liverpool - £185m
Man City - £125m
Spurs - £119m
Villa - £90m

We are a long long way behind at the moment!

On a final note, if we continue with revenue around £90m and wages around £75m, once you take into account overheads & general running costs, we will have to sell players each year just to break-even.



EDIT: as pointed out by others - there have been pay-offs to MON, Houllier & Bham City totalling £5m(ish). So our wages will be higher for 10/11 and 11/12 than stated above.


Last edited by ender4 on Jul 27, 2011 - 02:26 PM; edited 3 times in total 

[/quote]

So we need to increase our income substantially o be able to compete at the level all would like to.

Increase ticket prices?  How would people feel about that?
Get more people through the turnstiles (at current prices) - why aren't we sold out every week?

If this was to happen then there may not be the need to have cut backs.

[TheSandman]

I think we can afford to buy Johnson for say 14 millions, get  Hitz on  a free transfer and buy a good midfield general for about 8 millions (or pick one up free) and increase wages bill by say 100 grand a week then see Heskey, Cuellar and Beye leave and save about 50 grand a week next season.

Then we can buy a central defender next season. I don't buy it that we are very broke and poor.

Meanwhile on planet earth...

The question I have is how are we going to increase revenue. We have a slightly better sponsorship deal but with the cuts to the first team we are going to struggle to better last season and following a poor season and summer trading period we will sell less season tickets. I wouldn't be surprised if revenue fell this season. My question is thus: Once we have cut our wagebill to the desired level we will probably have lost some first team players whom we will need to replace. I also don't see where the room for top signings will come from in the the future.

[Dante Lavelli]

That article really brings home how much we rely on Randy personally providing money in order for us to buy players. Pretty much, our current opperations produce a transfer budget of a big fat zero.

The other feasible strategy is to buy youngsters (or undervalued players) and look to sell them on at a profit (Porto/udinese style) ie to increase turnover.

Plan C - increase revenue. I don't think any new TV deal will make too much difference as all clubs will get the same incesse so there could be a corresponding increase in wages/fees.

Can anyone see any obvious flaws in the guys analysis?

[barrysleftfoot]

  1st choice CH at the time when Cahill left was Laursen, and Cahill was'nt/is'nt as good as Laursen.

  I hope he moves on anyway, we get a percentage of any profit.

  Regarding transfers, it would'nt surprise me if Randy relents and we buy 1 more player, with possibly at least 1 loan player.Theres not a great deal of buying atm, and tbh we have enough youngsters to have a good look at.

[shaldonvilla]

Does this make the selling of villa parks name inevitable ?

[Dante Lavelli]

I also don't see where the room for top signings will come from in the the future.

I was just thinking the same. It depends on what type of investment the player is. As long as the asset is likely to appreciate then think we will still see signings. So more signings like Young/Milner/Delph and Davies (they don't all work out...) as once sold they increase turnover. They are also added to the balance sheet so increase the value of the club (I think).

Another question I had was what is the justification of this target 66%. I think it's a number Deloitte have suggested as an appropriate level for wages but short term I'd imagine it would be okay to be over especially with a Randy Lerner type figure in the background with the ability to bail the club out in the event of relegation.

[luke25]

Does this make the selling of villa parks name inevitable ?

Its something I personally would'nt have a problem with if it generates us a significant amount of cash, although I fully understand why alot of fans are strongly against it, although no matter what the grounds called it'll always be Villa Park to us.

[Brian Taylor]

Airlines are good for the money. We could be the new Ryanair Stadium?
They'd probably charge for the toilets though!

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Johnson and Hitz would do. And the club should allow McLeish to do it.

A big no to Hitz.
We need a midfield leader, he's anything but.

[pauliewalnuts]

I bet the pay offs to MON, Houllier and to Smsll Heath cost at least double the 5m alluded to above.

[Toronto Villa]

Owen Coyle has said that they've not received any offers for him. That to me says they're either over pricing him, or other managers are just not convinced.

Anyone see his pearler of a goal yesterday? Not quite as good as his Van Basten Blose bicycle but nonetheless impressive.

Cahill's value isn't purely in his defending, which I think is good, not great. The fact that he pops up with a number of goals, and some very creative indeed makes him appear better as a player than he actually is. I think football scouts evaluate him on being a defender first, and if he pops up with the odd goal even better. His transfer value is inflated also because of his nationality. I'm surprised Arsenal would want him because Vermaelen is every bit as good, and pretty much the same type of player. For me, he's a poor man's Martin Laursen; not as a good a defender, not nearly as brave, and not as good attacking wise, but he can do all three of these adequately.

[andyh]

[Since Randy & MON joined Villa, this is the increase in our wages:
06/07 - £23m
07/08 - £50m
08/09 - £50m
09/10 - £80m
10/11 - £80m (estimated)
11/12 - £75m (estimated) +£5m manager payoffs.



The only other way to overcome the wage problem is to increase our revenue from £90m. The £90m was in a season when we finished 6th, went to Wembley twice, and briefly entered Europe.

In 10/11, we gained FxPro as a sponsor for £6m, but lost around £6m from finishing 9th and no cup runs. So revenue will probably be £90m again.

In this coming season (11/12), sponsorship has increased by an additional £2m, so if we assume we finish 9th again, we may have a revenue of £92m. I don't believe the Sky television contract has changed from last year to this year.

As a comparision to the revenue from teams we would like to be competing against in the long-term (09/10 figures):
Man Utd - £286m
Arsenal - £283m (excluding non-football income)
Chelsea - £213m
Liverpool - £185m
Man City - £125m
Spurs - £119m
Villa - £90m

We are a long long way behind at the moment!

On a final note, if we continue with revenue around £90m and wages around £75m, once you take into account overheads & general running costs, we will have to sell players each year just to break-even.



EDIT: as pointed out by others - there have been pay-offs to MON, Houllier & Bham City totalling £5m(ish). So our wages will be higher for 10/11 and 11/12 than stated above.


Last edited by ender4 on Jul 27, 2011 - 02:26 PM; edited 3 times in total 

So we need to increase our income substantially o be able to compete at the level all would like to.

Increase ticket prices?  How would people feel about that?
Get more people through the turnstiles (at current prices) - why aren't we sold out every week?

If this was to happen then there may not be the need to have cut backs.

[/quote]

A very good point and one that is rarely picked up.
In times of financial constraint, cutting back is not necessarily the best or only option.

Rather than punish the playing side of the club (our core business) why isn't Lerner putting far,far more effort into increasing revenue.
He could start by putting into place a dynamic (club) management team whose sole purpose is to raise the revenue of the club.
This would be inplace of the one man band which is Faulkner and hangers on from a bygone era.

Does RL actually have the business accumen to run a club (with the right support) in the way it needs to be run in todays climate, or does he rely on his inherited wealth ?

[hawkeye]

The old Board Room discussion, we need to increase revenue, how do we do that? well we increase sales/ how do we do that?we either find new customers or sell more to existing ones, great thats sorted.
Next item n the agenda  our vending machine coffee cups keep leaking

[andyh]

The old Board Room discussion, we need to increase revenue, how do we do that? well we increase sales/ how do we do that?we either find new customers or sell more to existing ones, great thats sorted.
Next item n the agenda  our vending machine coffee cups keep leaking

Or, you approach it professionally and look at all the avenues for expoiting your resources.
Step 1 would be to put a management team inplace who can do that.
Cutting back is not the answer.