RAL Takeover 5 Years In

[pauliewalnuts]

So, for me, RAL haven’t been perfect but still very good. I would rather have them than the Arab(s) at Man City or even interfering Abramovich at Chelsea – and if UEFA ever get serious about their Financial Fair Play policy then we are in a better position than both of them.

That's the faintest "on the bright side" argument I've ever heard.

UEFAs fair play rules, in as much as they actually 'apply' to anyone given that they will be worked around easily, only apply to clubs taking part in Europen competition, which by the looks of it, isn't going to be us for a while.

Do you think people at Chelsea or Man City are currently thinking "I wish we were being more circumspect about this fair play thing, like Villa are"?

Of course they aren't. Right now, saying we will be in a better position than they will holds about as much relevance as saying Albion will, or Wigan will - ie none.

[NorthYvillan]

So, for me, RAL haven’t been perfect but still very good. I would rather have them than the Arab(s) at Man City or even interfering Abramovich at Chelsea – and if UEFA ever get serious about their Financial Fair Play policy then we are in a better position than both of them.

That's the faintest "on the bright side" argument I've ever heard.

UEFAs fair play rules, in as much as they actually 'apply' to anyone given that they will be worked around easily, only apply to clubs taking part in Europen competition, which by the looks of it, isn't going to be us for a while.

Do you think people at Chelsea or Man City are currently thinking "I wish we were being more circumspect about this fair play thing, like Villa are"?

Of course they aren't. Right now, saying we will be in a better position than they will holds about as much relevance as saying Albion will, or Wigan will - ie none.

We can't all live in cloud cuckoo land - but enjoy trying

[Risso]

The financial fair play rules has a massive get out clause that mean that the big clubs such as City and United will easily avoid falling foul of them.  Clubs will not be excluded from Europe is they make losses but those losses are generally improving, and if the losses are caused by players' wages who were contracted before the rules kicked in.  So all the European giants have had to do is spend loads on players and those wages will be excluded from the calculations.  Anybody who seriously thinks that Randy's cutbacks are anything to do with Europe is fooling themselves unfortunately.  It's just the 2011 version of Ellis "waiting for the bubble to burst".  Ain't going to happen, we've just missed the boat, again.

[NorthYvillan]

The financial fair play rules was a minor add on to my comments.
(PS Man Utd aren’t under any threat from UEFA’s FFP  - loop holes or not – because, unlike Chelsea and Man City their wage bill doesn’t exceed their income.)

Unfortunately too many people on this site believe that we somehow have almost a divine right to be at the top of the tree and in 4 weeks have forgotten all the good that has happened since Doug sold out.

The boat was missed in the seasons before Man City got big spending owners and Tottenham went on their spending spree - it has not been missed by the recent events, nor do these flag up a major change in direction from our owner. When the opportunity was there, too much money was p****d against the wall by MON on players who, if they were ever good enough (and that’s questionable for quite a few of them), were then kept on the books at, and because of, excessive salaries and then not played. Although Randy is rich by any standards, he's not in the same league as Abramovich and Man City's arabs and more than 1 Tottenham director is as rich as he is; if his pockets aren’t bottomless then that’s the way it is. Any idea that, for the time being, we are going to be able to compete financially without mortgaging the club in the way the Glazers did to Man Utd are living in cloud cuckoo land - and welcome to it.

We have to understand where our owner ranks in terms of disposable money. The way the club is going to have to go if the future isn't to be mortgaged, is more the Arsenal route - bringing through talent and dealing carefully and astutely in the transfer market, although I'm sure that RL will find money when required as he did with Darren Bent. This will take time rather than be the “quick fix” we all hoped for when MON and RL joined us in 2006.

For some this represents “settling for mid-table mediocrity”; for others it’s understanding and accepting reality in an era where money, and how much you can spend, rules the game

[NorthYvillan]

The financial fair play rules has a massive get out clause that mean that the big clubs such as City and United will easily avoid falling foul of them.  Clubs will not be excluded from Europe is they make losses but those losses are generally improving, and if the losses are caused by players' wages who were contracted before the rules kicked in.  So all the European giants have had to do is spend loads on players and those wages will be excluded from the calculations.  Anybody who seriously thinks that Randy's cutbacks are anything to do with Europe is fooling themselves unfortunately.  It's just the 2011 version of Ellis "waiting for the bubble to burst".  Ain't going to happen, we've just missed the boat, again.

The financial fair play rules was a minor add on to my comments.
(PS Man Utd aren’t under any threat from UEFA’s FFP  - loop holes or not – because, unlike Chelsea and Man City their wage bill doesn’t exceed their income.)

Unfortunately too many people on this site believe that we somehow have almost a divine right to be at the top of the tree and in 4 weeks have forgotten all the good that has happened since Doug sold out.

The boat was missed in the seasons before Man City got big spending owners and Tottenham went on their spending spree - it has not been missed by the recent events, nor do these flag up a major change in direction from our owner. When the opportunity was there, too much money was p****d against the wall by MON on players who, if they were ever good enough (and that’s questionable for quite a few of them), were then kept on the books at, and because of, excessive salaries and then not played. Although Randy is rich by any standards, he's not in the same league as Abramovich and Man City's arabs and more than 1 Tottenham director is as rich as he is; if his pockets aren’t bottomless then that’s the way it is. Any idea that, for the time being, we are going to be able to compete financially without mortgaging the club in the way the Glazers did to Man Utd are living in cloud cuckoo land - and welcome to it.

We have to understand where our owner ranks in terms of disposable money. The way the club is going to have to go if the future isn't to be mortgaged, is more the Arsenal route - bringing through talent and dealing carefully and astutely in the transfer market, although I'm sure that RL will find money when required as he did with Darren Bent. This will take time rather than be the “quick fix” we all hoped for when MON and RL joined us in 2006.

For some this represents “settling for mid-table mediocrity”; for others it’s understanding and accepting reality in an era where money, and how much you can spend, rules the game

[Mazrim]

An excellent post mate.

[Monty]

Absolutely correct NorthYvillan. However, my issue with the owner isn't the issue of spending, it's the suspicion drawn from two managerial appointments that he doesn't quite know what he's doing enough, or at best is surrounded by people he listens to who don't know what they're doing. The criteria for appointing a new manager reeked of a board of directors without a lot of nous.

[Mazrim]

Also a good point.

[Risso]

For some this represents “settling for mid-table mediocrity”; for others it’s understanding and accepting reality in an era where money, and how much you can spend, rules the game

It amounts to exactly the same thing though.

[Concrete John]

Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if these points have already been made.

If this thread was started a year ago and called "RAL Takeover - 4 years in", then what would we have been thinking?  That we had a brilliant chairman who was prepared to back his manager and had the best interests of the club at heart.  So, how much has changed in the last 12 months? 

IMO, not a lot.  We've had a period of upheaval with MON leaving and then Houllier, but in that time he's still managed to sanction a deal that smashed our transfer record.  His intent to get the wages under control would have been completely understood and the blame placed squarely at MON's door by the majority of fans. 

So is Randy the chairman he was between 2006-2010 or a cost cutting penny pincher?  Given the circumstances of the last 12-months and what he did before that, I think the very least he's earned is the benefit of the doubt.   

[kippaxvilla2]

The thread has been turned into a debate about money - my intention was to debate his overall 5 year tenure, I have given him credit where it's due.  The reason I picked on 5 years is twofold - one it is generall perceived as a useful time to assess someone's performance and two as I said previously this summer has seen the first real disconnect between board and fans.

[pauliewalnuts]

Absolutely correct NorthYvillan. However, my issue with the owner isn't the issue of spending, it's the suspicion drawn from two managerial appointments that he doesn't quite know what he's doing enough, or at best is surrounded by people he listens to who don't know what they're doing. The criteria for appointing a new manager reeked of a board of directors without a lot of nous.

Spot on, Monty.

[Villa'Zawg]

Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if these points have already been made.

If this thread was started a year ago and called "RAL Takeover - 4 years in", then what would we have been thinking?  That we had a brilliant chairman who was prepared to back his manager and had the best interests of the club at heart.  So, how much has changed in the last 12 months? 

IMO, not a lot.  We've had a period of upheaval with MON leaving and then Houllier, but in that time he's still managed to sanction a deal that smashed our transfer record.  His intent to get the wages under control would have been completely understood and the blame placed squarely at MON's door by the majority of fans. 

So is Randy the chairman he was between 2006-2010 or a cost cutting penny pincher?  Given the circumstances of the last 12-months and what he did before that, I think the very least he's earned is the benefit of the doubt.   

I was very happy 12 moths ago. I believed the board was serious about challenging for honours and was confident that they understood and were prepared for the level of investment needed to establish the club in the top six and push on for honours. I felt we were making very good progress and that the season that had just finished – 6th place, highest points total since the league was reduced to 20 teams, latter stages of Cups, equal lowest number of home defeats in a 100 years, fewer goals conceded than Arsenal and more than holding our own in the league against the Sky 4 teams – was the most productive and enjoyable season I had experienced for a very long time.

This progress was being achieved on what was a modest transfer outlay in PL terms and a wage bill that was at the bottom range for a top six PL team.

I had treated the vague comments about sell-to-buy as unsubstantiated rumour or deliberate obfuscation and I didn't pay them any real attention. That was until the Pelty outburst and the General's follow-up post 5 minutes later on the first day of pre-season training, where he confirmed that we needed to focus on reducing wages and needed to sell players. I admire the General’s capability as an accomplished correspondent, there was no doubt in my mind that he had said what he meant and meant what he said.

For someone like me who tries to have an understanding of PL finances and who had been supportive of the boards careful approach to investment (after an initial giddy expectation of David Villa type signings),  it appeared to be an astonishing volta-face. I still to this day cannot reconcile what they have done with everything that went on during the first four years.

I can cope well enough with the reduced ambition but I no longer trust the board. At no stage have they invested enough money in the squad to entitle us to expect any better than we have had.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

I still to this day cannot reconcile what they have done with everything that went on during the first four years.

I can cope well enough with the reduced ambition but I no longer trust the board. At no stage have they invested enough money in the squad to entitle us to expect any better than we have had.

Sums up my feelings perfectly.

[AV82EC]

Haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if these points have already been made.

If this thread was started a year ago and called "RAL Takeover - 4 years in", then what would we have been thinking?  That we had a brilliant chairman who was prepared to back his manager and had the best interests of the club at heart.  So, how much has changed in the last 12 months? 

IMO, not a lot.  We've had a period of upheaval with MON leaving and then Houllier, but in that time he's still managed to sanction a deal that smashed our transfer record.  His intent to get the wages under control would have been completely understood and the blame placed squarely at MON's door by the majority of fans. 

So is Randy the chairman he was between 2006-2010 or a cost cutting penny pincher?  Given the circumstances of the last 12-months and what he did before that, I think the very least he's earned is the benefit of the doubt.   

I was very happy 12 moths ago. I believed the board was serious about challenging for honours and was confident that they understood and were prepared for the level of investment needed to establish the club in the top six and push on for honours. I felt we were making very good progress and that the season that had just finished – 6th place, highest points total since the league was reduced to 20 teams, latter stages of Cups, equal lowest number of home defeats in a 100 years, fewer goals conceded than Arsenal and more than holding our own in the league against the Sky 4 teams – was the most productive and enjoyable season I had experienced for a very long time.

This progress was being achieved on what was a modest transfer outlay in PL terms and a wage bill that was at the bottom range for a top six PL team.

I had treated the vague comments about sell-to-buy as unsubstantiated rumour or deliberate obfuscation and I didn't pay them any real attention. That was until the Pelty outburst and the General's follow-up post 5 minutes later on the first day of pre-season training, where he confirmed that we needed to focus on reducing wages and needed to sell players. I admire the General’s capability as an accomplished correspondent, there was no doubt in my mind that he had said what he meant and meant what he said.

For someone like me who tries to have an understanding of PL finances and who had been supportive of the boards careful approach to investment (after an initial giddy expectation of David Villa type signings),  it appeared to be an astonishing volta-face. I still to this day cannot reconcile what they have done with everything that went on during the first four years.

I can cope well enough with the reduced ambition but I no longer trust the board. At no stage have they invested enough money in the squad to entitle us to expect any better than we have had.

I'd put one caveat on your excellent post Dawg.  How the money was spent, or should I say squandered, on the squad means they have some mitigation.  However, the level of oversight on MON in that period could best be described as arms length, and they deserve some criticism for that.

Overall, I'm happy with Randy and the board but as you say we desperately need some Football nous in there to assist the Football side of the club.