Lerner reasoning re the Financial Fair Play rules .

[Stu]

Only if the youth team is able to provide players good enough for the prem. Fucking hell, are we turning into West Ham or something? I've got no problem with bringing through our own youth players, there's nothing better to see, but to try and establish a whole purchasing ethos around the assumption that the academy will produce prem quality players is madness. Utter madness. It's a huge gamble when looking at the need for competitiveness and I really hope that the board aren't thinking like this, even though it appears that this is the line they're looking at.

It's all based on assumption, but when it comes to the kids they can see what they can see what they've got and make an at least part educated judgement.  In summer 1995 Man Utd sold Kanchelskis, Hughes and Ince as they knew what they had coming through.  Not saying we've got the next Beckham and Scholes on our hands, but this may be their thinking.

My own opinion is that this needs to be done alongside player investement.  Just prior to that summer of 1995 Man Urd had bought Andy Cole for a then record fee - sound familiar??

So what? We're not in a similar position in any way to Man U were back then, it's not really a good comparison. Relying on unproven youngsters to compete in the prem is a shortcut to relegation. Yeah, it might save money in the short term, but long term it'd be a disaster. Particularly if we keep selling our best player every summer.

[Percy McCarthy]

What is the sanction against clubs not adhering to FFP? Banned from Europe? If so, so what? While those obsessed with CL trim their finances accordingly, others could carry on spending and concentrate on winning Leagues and domestic trophies. Suits me.

[Concrete John]

So what? We're not in a similar position in any way to Man U were back then, it's not really a good comparison. Relying on unproven youngsters to compete in the prem is a shortcut to relegation. Yeah, it might save money in the short term, but long term it'd be a disaster. Particularly if we keep selling our best player every summer.

I don't see it as a comparison as much as an example. 

I see the benefit from it being that if we have £30m to spend and 5 players needed, then having two kids coming through we can rely on means we can spend that £30m on only 3 players and therefore increase the overall quality.  It's not a case of using kids so not spending, it's using the kids AND spending. 

[Greg N'Ash]

What is the sanction against clubs not adhering to FFP? Banned from Europe? If so, so what? While those obsessed with CL trim their finances accordingly, others could carry on spending and concentrate on winning Leagues and domestic trophies. Suits me.

Depends if you've got an owner who's happy making a massive loss each year. People look at chelsea's and citeh's losses but without the CL money they'd be double that - not just the prize money but all the sponsers who'd pull out without CL exposure

[Stu]

So what? We're not in a similar position in any way to Man U were back then, it's not really a good comparison. Relying on unproven youngsters to compete in the prem is a shortcut to relegation. Yeah, it might save money in the short term, but long term it'd be a disaster. Particularly if we keep selling our best player every summer.

I don't see it as a comparison as much as an example. 

I see the benefit from it being that if we have £30m to spend and 5 players needed, then having two kids coming through we can rely on means we can spend that £30m on only 3 players and therefore increase the overall quality.  It's not a case of using kids so not spending, it's using the kids AND spending. 

An example that is pretty much a one off. The exception to the rule. Not only that, but football has been tipped in the balance towards the richer clubs since 1996.

And using youth players and spending is what most clubs do anyway if you think about it. This isn't some brilliant new idea from the Villa board, its been around for as long as football has. However, to base the future of the club on the assumption that the academy will produce prem level players is mental.

[Concrete John]

An example that is pretty much a one off. The exception to the rule. Not only that, but football has been tipped in the balance towards the richer clubs since 1996.

And using youth players and spending is what most clubs do anyway if you think about it. This isn't some brilliant new idea from the Villa board, its been around for as long as football has. However, to base the future of the club on the assumption that the academy will produce prem level players is mental.

I wouldn't call it a one off.  Liverpool had Owen, Carragher and Garrard coming though around the same time also.  And yes, all clubs try to do this, the difference is that we seem to have a pretty good crop right now.  As I said, it's not a case of relying on them and nothing else, just taking into account  their potential when drawing up financial plans and transfer targets.

[Chris Smith]

So what? We're not in a similar position in any way to Man U were back then, it's not really a good comparison. Relying on unproven youngsters to compete in the prem is a shortcut to relegation. Yeah, it might save money in the short term, but long term it'd be a disaster. Particularly if we keep selling our best player every summer.

I don't see it as a comparison as much as an example. 

I see the benefit from it being that if we have £30m to spend and 5 players needed, then having two kids coming through we can rely on means we can spend that £30m on only 3 players and therefore increase the overall quality.  It's not a case of using kids so not spending, it's using the kids AND spending. 

An example that is pretty much a one off. The exception to the rule. Not only that, but football has been tipped in the balance towards the richer clubs since 1996.

And using youth players and spending is what most clubs do anyway if you think about it. This isn't some brilliant new idea from the Villa board, its been around for as long as football has. However, to base the future of the club on the assumption that the academy will produce prem level players is mental.

Why is it mental? They almost all start out at an academy somewhere or other and ours as well as producing Gabby, Albrighton, Bannan, Clarke etc has also brought in cash for Cahill, Ridgwell, Gardner etc.

If it's your only strategy then you're in trouble but there is no suggestion that it is.

[Stu]

Why is it mental? They almost all start out at an academy somewhere or other and ours as well as producing Gabby, Albrighton, Bannan, Clarke etc has also brought in cash for Cahill, Ridgwell, Gardner etc.

If it's your only strategy then you're in trouble but there is no suggestion that it is.

I really hope it isn't, but I'm sure I read somewhere that this is the direction that Faulkner wanted to go.

The mental part is to assume players of the quality you mention will be churned out all the time. RL is going to have to spend money and that's all there is to it.

[Greg N'Ash]

I think chris is saying its part of the solution. Perhaps if we'd followed it earlier, we'd now have a young 15+m rated asset on the books instead of on boltons.

[Stu]

I think chris is saying its part of the solution. Perhaps if we'd followed it earlier, we'd now have a young 15+m rated asset on the books instead of on boltons.

Ha ha, don't mention that name

[Chris Smith]

I think chris is saying its part of the solution. Perhaps if we'd followed it earlier, we'd now have a young 15+m rated asset on the books instead of on boltons.

How many times do Cahill's quotes have to be trotted out (pun intended) before you accept that is was his decision to leave? That he wanted guaranteed first team football but we couldn't give it him because he wasn't good enough at the time.

[Greg N'Ash]

I think chris is saying its part of the solution. Perhaps if we'd followed it earlier, we'd now have a young 15+m rated asset on the books instead of on boltons.

How many times do Cahill's quotes have to be trotted out (pun intended) before you accept that is was his decision to leave? That he wanted guaranteed first team football but we couldn't give it him because he wasn't good enough at the time.

yeah because that's why he's quoted as saying his bolton form is down to wanting to prove MON wrong for getting rid of him. Not really in line with your assumptions, but anyway it wasn't meant as a dig. - I was just backing up your sound point, and i'm hurt you took it that way frankly *sniff*

[mazrimsbruv]

I'll be surprised if we won't be spending at least a bit more than we bring in on players sales overall. with maybe a big sale every season or so, to keep the accounts on track

The way I'm reading his language in interviews, alongside quotes from Alex Ferguson, I'm starting to think that our spending will be significantly lower than what we recoup in sales.

I know managers will never say "I've got shedloads to spend" but all this "tread carefully", "no pot of gold" stuff, smacks of sending a message to fans to lower their expectations.

As if they weren't already drastically lowered!

Way i see it Lerner has two choices.

1. He can carry on spending like mad, get us into a CL place, then try and stay there for 3 years with no spending and hoping our revenue increases.
2. He can cut down the size of the squad, get rid of the deadwood, spend on quality players rather than overpriced players and get in that way.  Its not easy and it will mean spending not much more than we have, and probably selling a "Young" every two years, but hey we've been doing that anyway

Now personally i don't think either of those options are attractive but that's more down to the corrupt little shit Platini than Lerner

Lerner has a 3rd Choice:

3. Decide that, whilst he still loves the club and won't get rid of the tattoo, he cannot now realistically take the club where the fans want it to go, UFFP being the last nail in that coffin. So, recoup his loans to the club through the sale of assets (players) and get the club debt-free within (say) 3 years and ready to be sold to somone who might have the means and crucially the desire that he no longer has. First step? Appoint a 'yes man', a manager who can't believe his luck to be managing a club like Villa, who'll work to a set (negative) transfer budget but who's used to scrapping it out and who must keep us in the Premier League (anywhere will do as far down as 17th position as this won't really affect the club's value).

It's a possible scenario, as his 5-year plan for CL football has come to nothing, he's had no luck with managers and now he's getting dog's abuse from the fans. Plus, he's the owner and, as he has just made abundantly clear, he can do what likes.   

Two flaws in that assumption. He risks getting relegated and losing even more money and if he wanted a manager to just keep us up then why pick the ginger ninja? He's failed at that job twice.

It's not an 'assumption' Greg, it's simply an alternative scenario to the ones you proposed. And your point about McLeish's relegation record doesn't discount my scenario. Just because you and I believe that relagation is real possibility under McLeish, doesn't mean Randy shares that view.

This scenario allows us to view the appointment in a different light. We're all scratching our heads wondering how Lerner can expect to Villa to challenge the top six with this man in charge, but we're assuming that's what Lerner's goal/expectation actually is, when that might not even be the case.

As I said i a previous post, his strategy might be to tread the fine line between Premiership survival and selling assets to pay down the Club's debt (to his holding company) until he's in a position to sell.

This summer's transfer dealings, in terms of net spend, will give us more of a clue but as I said, the early signs are not good.

[Concrete John]

This summer's transfer dealings, in terms of net spend, will give us more of a clue but as I said, the early signs are not good.

Fully agree with the 'wait and see' approach, but out of interest what signs have we seen thus far that indicate anything? 

[pauliewalnuts]

This summer's transfer dealings, in terms of net spend, will give us more of a clue but as I said, the early signs are not good.

Fully agree with the 'wait and see' approach, but out of interest what signs have we seen thus far that indicate anything? 

There have been quotes from McLeish which hint at limited money. Not to mention the ones from our recruitment consultant, Ferguson.

From our part it might all be a bit of a smokescreen for summer spending, but making what looks like a cheap managerial appointment in itself hints at something