Alex McLeish confirmed as manager

[mazrimsbruv]

Lots of talk about treading carefully and keeping an eye on the future spending.  I wouldn't be expecting any exciting signings this summer.

Nobody had any notion that Bent would be signing either in January Risso. In fact Villa led the media a merry dance about sell to buy and similar bollocks. We can always revisit this in September, but Randy has always found funds for his manager. I see no reason that we cannot continue to spend responsibly. That includes buying proven talent that provides quick returns like a Darren Bent as the opportunity arises.

We've balanced the books on transfers since summer 2009 i.e. sell-to-buy.

have we actually set in place a policy that we can only buy if we sell or is that a really convenient media spin on things? Because if that was really the case, we'd have sold Ashley Young in January to fund Darren Bent. That would have been the embodiment of sell to buy. Spending responsibly is not the same as sell to buy.

You're now going to say that that the Bent money came from Milner, and I would argue that we would have spent that money in August had he had a commited manager. I still believe that Darren Bent would have been acquired because the opportunity arose, and it provided us with a player of proven quality and well worth the investment. MON's transfer dealings too often had players that weren't involved despite major outlays and had little or no return on that investment. The board are done with those days.

Yes your right, the Milner money paid for Darren Bent. You can keep thinking up hypothetical scenarios and I'll keep totting up the amount of money raised and spent in the transfer market.

Your argument, if I read it correctly, is a hypothesis too, as you seem to be saying that there was a policy shift in 2009. That since then Lerner has kept an eye on the transfer defecit and has sold players at the next opportunity to balance the books. This may be true but it's still a hypothesis. And an unlikely one since it would be difficult for Randy to convince our best players to leave if they didn't want to.

It might just as easily be true that our best players have been tapped up, or had their egos inflated by their agents and have instigated these transfers themselves and that Villa offered them bumper deals to stay, which they still refused.

If that's the case then your 'sell-to-buy' hypothesis goes out the window, and the fact that books balance at this particular point in time is mere coincidence.

[Toronto Villa]

Lots of talk about treading carefully and keeping an eye on the future spending.  I wouldn't be expecting any exciting signings this summer.

Nobody had any notion that Bent would be signing either in January Risso. In fact Villa led the media a merry dance about sell to buy and similar bollocks. We can always revisit this in September, but Randy has always found funds for his manager. I see no reason that we cannot continue to spend responsibly. That includes buying proven talent that provides quick returns like a Darren Bent as the opportunity arises.

We've balanced the books on transfers since summer 2009 i.e. sell-to-buy.

have we actually set in place a policy that we can only buy if we sell or is that a really convenient media spin on things? Because if that was really the case, we'd have sold Ashley Young in January to fund Darren Bent. That would have been the embodiment of sell to buy. Spending responsibly is not the same as sell to buy.

You're now going to say that that the Bent money came from Milner, and I would argue that we would have spent that money in August had he had a commited manager. I still believe that Darren Bent would have been acquired because the opportunity arose, and it provided us with a player of proven quality and well worth the investment. MON's transfer dealings too often had players that weren't involved despite major outlays and had little or no return on that investment. The board are done with those days.

Yes your right, the Milner money paid for Darren Bent. You can keep thinking up hypothetical scenarios and I'll keep totting up the amount of money raised and spent in the transfer market.

I think you remain the only person on here that is convinced that the club have a policy of the manager must sell players in order to buy them, and that the books are being balanced based on the club steadfastly adhering to those principles. I think there is a lot more to it than that, and that spending wastefully and irresponsibly is what is being curtailed.

[Edvard Remberg]

All clubs that think about finances are by those definition sell-to-buy clubs. So that leaves Chelsea and Man City (and the 2 spanish clubs).

Of course you don't let all players go on a free, and let the sulk the last year of the contracts. And when "silly" money comes into it - why say no. It can build a better foundation. To many FootballManagers on cheat codes here.

[hilts_coolerking]

I can't understand why some people get irate about wthe idea of a sell-to-buy policy.  If we had got ourselves into a situation where it was necessary then what's the problem?  I don't think it necessarily has to be a slight on the club if such a policy were in place and, given the excessive money spent on acquiring and paying some mediocre players under O'Neill, it wouldn't surprise me if there was.

[TheSandman]

It will all come out in the wash. They would be totally stupid if they did not give him adequate backing as he would be on to a hiding to nothing.

[citizenDJ]

I can't understand why some people get irate about wthe idea of a sell-to-buy policy.  If we had got ourselves into a situation where it was necessary then what's the problem?  I don't think it necessarily has to be a slight on the club if such a policy were in place and, given the excessive money spent on acquiring and paying some mediocre players under O'Neill, it wouldn't surprise me if there was.

In fact, looking at the wages/turnover wotsit, I'd say a more pragmatic outlook on expenditure is a bloody good idea.

[Chris Smith]

My guess is that we'll see decent money spent and appropriate wages paid to the top players but that we'll look to make up the squad with younger, less expensive lads. That seems perfectly sensible to me, whether it's enough to take us where we'd like to go is another matter.

[Villa'Zawg]

...
Your argument, if I read it correctly, is a hypothesis too, as you seem to be saying that there was a policy shift in 2009. That since then Lerner has kept an eye on the transfer defecit and has sold players at the next opportunity to balance the books. This may be true but it's still a hypothesis. And an unlikely one since it would be difficult for Randy to convince our best players to leave if they didn't want to.

It might just as easily be true that our best players have been tapped up, or had their egos inflated by their agents and have instigated these transfers themselves and that Villa offered them bumper deals to stay, which they still refused.

If that's the case then your 'sell-to-buy' hypothesis goes out the window, and the fact that books balance at this particular point in time is mere coincidence.

I don't think we're trying to actively sell players to reduce a deficit, I think we have stopped investing more money in the squad.

When asked if he was buying a striker during the Jan 2010  transfer window Martin O'Neill said "We are not looking at players at this minute because we have to sell. Do I have to sell to buy? We wouldn't be the only club in that position.'' Some time later Lerner was asked about it and said there is to an extent a sell-to-buy policy in every organisation.

The club made a big deal out of Alex Ferguson recommending McLeish and Ferguson couldn't have been clearer about why he thought McLeish was the right man for the job - "By the time Alex took over at Rangers they weren't spending the kind of money which they previously had, so he did a great job. In all his jobs he's had to deal with that kind of situation of making do with what you have and making the best of it, and that's a quality. Villa represent the same type of challenge."

If what you are saying is that sell-to-buy is not an openly stated policy then I agree. The fact remains that we have balanced the books in the transfer market since Summer 2009.

If we spend significantly more than we raise in sales during this window I'll happily agree that I was wrong in my interpretation (or maybe I'll argue that the policy has changed again ;-) ). In the meantime, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'll call it a sell-to-buy policy.

[Concrete John]

If we spend significantly more than we raise in sales during this window I'll happily agree that I was wrong in my interpretation (or maybe I'll argue that the policy has changed again ;-) ). In the meantime, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'll call it a sell-to-buy policy.

Out of interest, what would you class as 'significant'?

By my reckoning, this is what we've done since that quote from MON in Jan 2009, which ignores loans and the Ireland end of the Milner deal to keep life simple:-

In
Bent - £18m
Makoun - £8m
Total - £26m

Out
Gardner - £3.5m
Shorey - £1.5m
Milner - £18m
Sidwell - £0.25m
Davies - £2.5m
Total - £25.75m

So, it does balance, unless you take Bent at the £24m , which means it's a still modest £6.25m. 

So, would £20m+ net spending this summer convince you?   

[montague]

Sorry if its already been asked. I didnt expect Randy to be sitting next to AM atr the press conference today, although he probably should have been, but where was the CEO? It looked like AM was all on his tod apart from some PR suit. As it happened AM handled potentially difficult questions very well but you would have thought that the club should have come out and faced the press.

[Merv]

I can't understand why some people get irate about wthe idea of a sell-to-buy policy.  If we had got ourselves into a situation where it was necessary then what's the problem?  I don't think it necessarily has to be a slight on the club if such a policy were in place and, given the excessive money spent on acquiring and paying some mediocre players under O'Neill, it wouldn't surprise me if there was.

I've got no problem with what we're doing. To me, it makes perfect sense to review your squad, move on the players who are nowhere near the first team (and earning good money), release or sell those nearing the end of their contracts. With the 25-man squad limits, all clubs will be doing the same. Even City off-loaded players not in the picture last season; Chelsea reportedly offering Essien as part of the deal for Modric - they're making room in the squad for one player by releasing another.

[rutski]

My guess is that we'll see decent money spent and appropriate wages paid to the top players but that we'll look to make up the squad with younger, less expensive lads. That seems perfectly sensible to me, whether it's enough to take us where we'd like to go is another matter.

i fully expect the club to back mcleish big time. whether the phrase enough to take us to where we want to go to is appropriate is another matter?
i want us to be top of the league but with a club who are about 7-8th in every department of wages, transfers, attendances, prices of tickets and merchandising revenue, i think we return round about the right order.

[Villa'Zawg]

If we spend significantly more than we raise in sales during this window I'll happily agree that I was wrong in my interpretation (or maybe I'll argue that the policy has changed again ;-) ). In the meantime, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'll call it a sell-to-buy policy.

Out of interest, what would you class as 'significant'?

By my reckoning, this is what we've done since that quote from MON in Jan 2009, which ignores loans and the Ireland end of the Milner deal to keep life simple:-

In
Bent - £18m
Makoun - £8m
Total - £26m

Out
Gardner - £3.5m
Shorey - £1.5m
Milner - £18m
Sidwell - £0.25m
Davies - £2.5m
Total - £25.75m

So, it does balance, unless you take Bent at the £24m , which means it's a still modest £6.25m. 

So, would £20m+ net spending this summer convince you?   

The average net spend in the four years prior to last summer was £20m per year, so anything approaching that in net spend terms would convince me I was wrong.

[spangley1812]

Sorry if its already been asked. I didnt expect Randy to be sitting next to AM atr the press conference today, although he probably should have been, but where was the CEO? It looked like AM was all on his tod apart from some PR suit. As it happened AM handled potentially difficult questions very well but you would have thought that the club should have come out and faced the press.

Im pretty sure that I read on here somewhere that Mr Faulkner got married on Sat just gone so he is on his honeymoon

[Rip Van We Go Again]

If we spend significantly more than we raise in sales during this window I'll happily agree that I was wrong in my interpretation (or maybe I'll argue that the policy has changed again ;-) ). In the meantime, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'll call it a sell-to-buy policy.

Out of interest, what would you class as 'significant'?

By my reckoning, this is what we've done since that quote from MON in Jan 2009, which ignores loans and the Ireland end of the Milner deal to keep life simple:-

In
Bent - £18m
Makoun - £8m
Total - £26m

Out
Gardner - £3.5m
Shorey - £1.5m
Milner - £18m
Sidwell - £0.25m
Davies - £2.5m
Total - £25.75m

So, it does balance, unless you take Bent at the £24m , which means it's a still modest £6.25m. 

So, would £20m+ net spending this summer convince you?   

The average net spend in the four years prior to last summer was £20m per year, so anything approaching that in net spend terms would convince me I was wrong.

Aye.
The Times totted it up and they had net spend since Mr Lerner Sir took charge - £78m.