Lerner reasoning re the Financial Fair Play rules .

[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!

[Concrete John]

McLeish apparently told Talk Shite Radio: 'It’s unlikely I’ll go back to Birmingham to sign players'

My read on this is that funds are not available which ties in with him saying elsewhere that there's nothing wrong with the centre-halfs we've already got (!). Do you really believe that if he had funds available, he wouldn't go in for Scott Dann?

I haven't heard that interview, but I understood it to be equally ambiguous on the subject?

Evenif this is the case, there are a number of scenarios that don't involve a lack of funds:-
1.  Maybe he knows that Dann to Liverpool is a done deal?
2.  He thinks £12m is overpriced and can get better value elsewhere?
3.  Collins and Dunne were as good as anything around in 09/10, so maybe he intends to work with them and save the cash to spend elsewhere?
4.  Maybe things are so bad between the two clubs he thinks they'll try to sting us so won't get involved?

You can't judge a transfer budget based on going for one player.  Under MON we spent a load of cash without going for the logical target of Darren Bent, for example.

[Greg N'Ash]

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

[ktvillan]

Looking at the Paul Tomkins blog,  the inclusion of the financing costs in the breakeven result will affect clubs like Man Yoo who were "bought" through their owners raising debt against the assets they were buying.  Their interest payments are fairly hefty to say the least.  I'd have thought Real Madrid woudlneed to siginficantly reduce their debts as well althoguht they seem to get bailed out by the authorities whenever the shit hits the fan.  But I'm not sure how that affects clubs like City and Chelsea whose owners have put money in and maybe don't get interest or expect a return.  Surely their financing costs are going to be much lower, giving them a much healthier break even result.   In any case it irrelevant because anything that might adversley affect Madrid, Man Yoo and the like will be ignored by them and UEFA won't have the balls to stand up to them.

[Concrete John]

In any case it irrelevant because anything that might adversley affect Madrid, Man Yoo and the like will be ignored by them and UEFA won't have the balls to stand up to them.

Pretty much sums up the overall impact these rules will have!

[Greg N'Ash]

that contract clause is a doozy. basically any players signed before 2010 won't have thier wages taken into account which will give the likes of Citeh and chelsea some breathing space, but overall unless you sign for a big club with massive turnover in the CL, the days of players getting massive contracts will be over. Again it will favour the elite, as if we have a player on 50k a week and man U can offer him 100k, we won't be able to at least offer him a massively improved contract without flogging someone.  As in the Barry case, it doesn't mean they'll stay anyway but at least before we had the option to offer him more money

[Chris Smith]

In any case it irrelevant because anything that might adversley affect Madrid, Man Yoo and the like will be ignored by them and UEFA won't have the balls to stand up to them.

Pretty much sums up the overall impact these rules will have!

That's the problem, UEFA feels it needs those clubs more than they need UEFA.

[Greg N'Ash]

This was thought up by the big clubs. and put forward by their stooge platini. It will happen. Guaranteed. And if Citeh and Chelsea can't match the criteria they will be excluded. Thing is with their turnover its still going to be unlikely clubs below them will take thier place even with their reduced spending power and a lower wage bill in force

[Concrete John]

Again it will favour the elite, as if we have a player on 50k a week and man U can offer him 100k, we won't be able to at least offer him a massively improved contract without flogging someone.  As in the Barry case, it doesn't mean they'll stay anyway but at least before we had the option to offer him more money

I think the theory here, or call it a convenient excuse if you will, is that they want to prevent the club paying the £50k a week from going to £100k, unless they can afford it, and possibly going bust as a result.

[Greg N'Ash]

Again it will favour the elite, as if we have a player on 50k a week and man U can offer him 100k, we won't be able to at least offer him a massively improved contract without flogging someone.  As in the Barry case, it doesn't mean they'll stay anyway but at least before we had the option to offer him more money

I think the theory here, or call it a convenient excuse if you will, is that they want to prevent the club paying the £50k a week from going to £100k, unless they can afford it, and possibly going bust as a result.

well thats the theory except its massively flawed. As i said earlier in the thread its the equavilent of someone who's on 2grand a month, maxed up to his eyeballs in debt but having £50 left at the end of the year, being thought of as better off than someone who is in the red each year but has a million pounds in another bank account. If this was all about financial stability they could have forced clubs competing in the CL to put up a financial guarantee that they could complete their fixtures.

[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.   

[Stu]

...
As for Mcleish - I don't find it baffling.  He was simply the best manager they could get!     

.. who is willing to work under their conditions

Off course.

What those conditions are, however, remains to be seen.

I think it's right we give our youth a shot to avoid another Bolton Defender scenario.  I think it's right that the club wants to get the wagebill under control and shift out the higher earning wastes of space.  But I don't think we'll be doing those two things to the detriment of continued player investment.  In fact I think the money that doing these things will save will allow us to be more competitive in the transfer market.

But I said this all remains to be seen.     

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.

[Greg N'Ash]

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.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

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.   

Sounds a most likely scenario to me.

[Concrete John]

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??