Lerner reasoning re the Financial Fair Play rules .

[olaftab]

Nice story but............

[olaftab]

Another thing that gets my goat about the way we discuss finance, is when we talk about Randy spending £200m. About half of that money is debt and the club is charged full commercial rates for the privilege. The last comparative figures I have are for 2008/9, there's very little altruistic about the interest Villa pay in comparison to other clubs with a similar ownership structure

Club, debt, annual interest.

Villa 72.3m 5.7m
West Ham 114.9 3.0m
Fulham 164m 1.0m
Sunderland 48.8m 0.7m
Chelsea £511.6m £0.7m
Wigan £54m £1.5m
Wolves £13m £0.0m
Blackburn £20m £0.8m
Hull £17m £0.4m

Clearly we borrowed cash on our MBNA credit card!

[olaftab]

Dave Woodhall also has a piece in the Times today - on the same page as the article above - in which he argues that AM's record doesn't qualify him for the Villa job.

Can someone  post Mr Woodhall's  article on here please?

[KevinGage]

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but seeing as RL's wealth is inherited and the money invested is from the Lerner trust, maybe that's why we pay more back than Sunderland do to Ellis Short, for example.

The interest may seem on the high side compared to other clubs, but would we have been better off without the money available between 2006/2010? Money that -even if it didn't achieve the main aim of top 4 and silverware- still made us competitive an re-established us as one of the better sides in the league?

[Villa'Zawg]

I'm sorry, just to make things clear. The figures I used are taken from the Deloitte Annual Football Money League report. It's a comparative analysis of the top 20 revenue generating clubs in Europe and is regarded as definitive by the football industry. The reports published in 2005 and 2011 are the 2 most recent that included Aston Villa.

[WarszaVillan]

The general is always underlining how he has broad shoulders although judging by his reactions to criticism they seem pretty thin to me. Rather than throwing out slogans in capital letters perhaps he should address the issues at hand.

Fetch the keepnet.

DOH

[Concrete John]

My point was if Lerner begins to claw back the loan money through player transfers. He could begin that process right now by selling both Young & Downing and bringing in replacements on a free and loan deals. For example signing Seb Laarson and bringing back NRC.

He could generate £20 to £25 million in this transfer window in order to start paying down the debt.

The thing about that though is the value of the playing squad id reflected in the value of the club.  So that £25-25m would come off the debt, but then also come off the club's value were he to sell up.   

But in accounting terms isn't their current value much lower than what we paid due to amortisation? So, if I have it right, Young's value is only a couple of million as a current asset, so a sale at £17M represents a £15M profit from this sale alone. Downing by the same token is currently a £6M asset which could generate a further £14M profit (say). In total £29M for £8M worth of assets.

I'm not being negative or scare-mongering here, I'm just thinking out loud whilst continuing to try and make sense of this managerial appointment which even the Media, with their creative talents, seem to be baffled by.

That may very well be the case, but especially in the Young situation taking what we can now as opposed to nothing in 12-months makes sound football sense aswell as business sense.  What I'd like to see is that money re-invested in the squad and Downing told he's not being sold this summer, so we may lose £5m+ if he does go next summer, but we should be able and willing to take that hit.

So what we'd be doing is protecting the club financially, which can be viewed as 'fattening the calf' or as just keeping the club sustainable, depending on your perspective.

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

[Villa'Zawg]

...
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

[Concrete John]

...
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.     

[Greg N'Ash]

...
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

While I quite like the idea of a 'Get Lerner' Campaign, you have no idea of what conditons the ginger ninja is being asked to work under.

[mazrimsbruv]

...
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

While I quite like the idea of a 'Get Lerner' Campaign, you have no idea of what conditons the ginger ninja is being asked to work under.

True, but his ruling out a move for Scott Dann, a player he rates highly and would obviously want to bring to Villa, might be a clue. Being out-muscled in the transfer market by Stoke City might be another.

I'm not part of a 'Get Lerner' Campaign but I am very much part of a 'Rose-Tinted Specs are Now Well & Truly Off - Now WTF is Lerner Up To?' Campaign.

[Concrete John]

True, but his ruling out a move for Scott Dann, a player he rates highly and would obviously want to bring to Villa, might be a clue. Being out-muscled in the transfer market by Stoke City might be another.

When did he do that?  I saw the press conference on the BBC i-player and when asked the question about Blues players in general he was very cagey and said he never talks about other clubs players, or some such question dodge.

[Greg N'Ash]

mebbe he thinks Dann is overpriced, or his priorities lie elsewhere.Who know's really..... The proof as they say will be in the pudding. Obviously with these new rules coming in, its totally pointless for Lerner to spend millions trying to get into the CL when the losses incured will disqualify us anyway, but 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

[mazrimsbruv]

True, but his ruling out a move for Scott Dann, a player he rates highly and would obviously want to bring to Villa, might be a clue. Being out-muscled in the transfer market by Stoke City might be another.

When did he do that?  I saw the press conference on the BBC i-player and when asked the question about Blues players in general he was very cagey and said he never talks about other clubs players, or some such question dodge.

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?

[pauliewalnuts]

True, but his ruling out a move for Scott Dann, a player he rates highly and would obviously want to bring to Villa, might be a clue. Being out-muscled in the transfer market by Stoke City might be another.

When did he do that?  I saw the press conference on the BBC i-player and when asked the question about Blues players in general he was very cagey and said he never talks about other clubs players, or some such question dodge.

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?

Funds are going to have to be available to a decent level, or we're going to be in some pretty deep trouble.

We need practically an entire defence for starters, so they're going to have to stump up a fair wedge to pay for that.

If it comes from selling Downing, then I think we've got a pretty clear idea of where they're going with their policy for the club.