Questions for Mr. Lerner Sir

[Phil from the upper holte]

I was listening to Albion and man ure yesterday and Young was most definately up to his old going down too easy tricks

[Merv]

That's a very good opening post. But we can ask - or shout - all the questions we like; I think the club have hands over their ears now. That's why the communication via the General has more or less ceased - he knows we're no longer buying what he says, we know we can't really expect him to tell us what's really happening with the club. I don't think we've actually spent a single £1 net in the transfer market for two years. I'm just hoping at some point we're back on an even keel, but I don't know when that will be.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'd have thought the tv revenue must drop at some point soon.

Surely Sky have no competition by now, and they'd effectively be the only bidders?

Unless, of course, they're bidding against the threat of the bigger clubs doing their own individual deals.

[Concrete John]

Unless, of course, they're bidding against the threat of the bigger clubs doing their own individual deals.

Although that may be the case, I think the fact also exists that the PL know what they're worth to Sky in terms of subscriptions, so should they try to drop the price a game of brinksmanship would develop.  But they're too copsy in bed together for that.  At best/worst all I can see is the rate at which the money increases being slowed down.

[Villa'Zawg]

In their report published in June. Can't post a link but it was widely reported in the media at the time.

Ah right. They were talking about lower league TV deals not Premier League.

All of the serious analysis suggests there is plenty of scope for more growth in TV revenue. The anticipated growth in overseas markets more than makes up for any potential slower growth in domestic markets.

[UsualSuspect]

I'd have thought the tv revenue must drop at some point soon.

Surely Sky have no competition by now, and they'd effectively be the only bidders?

Unless, of course, they're bidding against the threat of the bigger clubs doing their own individual deals.

I've often thought that

take sky out of the equation and would their be any other competitive bids?

I think the reason why the Glasers got into man Ure was due to the fact that I think clubs can sell their games over the internet which will be massive

[robbyfvillain]

In their report published in June. Can't post a link but it was widely reported in the media at the time.

I think this is what you are referring to Chris

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/annual-review-of-football-finance-2011/6b5666645ae60310VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm

The 25% reduction though refers to Championship clubs. I think we all hope that won't apply to us.

[Chris Smith]

In their report published in June. Can't post a link but it was widely reported in the media at the time.

Ah right. They were talking about lower league TV deals not Premier League.

All of the serious analysis suggests there is plenty of scope for more growth in TV revenue. The anticipated growth in overseas markets more than makes up for any potential slower growth in domestic markets.

Sorry, my mistake. The substantial point of keeping wages as a proportion of revenue still applies though.

[Chris Smith]

Substantive not substantial, bastard phone.

[Villa'Zawg]

In their report published in June. Can't post a link but it was widely reported in the media at the time.

Ah right. They were talking about lower league TV deals not Premier League.

All of the serious analysis suggests there is plenty of scope for more growth in TV revenue. The anticipated growth in overseas markets more than makes up for any potential slower growth in domestic markets.

Sorry, my mistake. The substantial point of keeping wages as a proportion of revenue still applies though.

What proportion should you budget for though?

[TheSandman]

Why are we worried about regulations it is unlikely we will need to comply by?

[pelty]

Another point Pelty, at the point that you dont trust the Manager it is time to get rid, so why did he give MON more money to waste?

It is not so much about mistrust - I chose my words poorly because, I agree, you get rid of people you do not trust. For the year or so prior to MON leaving, there were repeated attempts to get him to sort the wage bill out a bit with assurances made that this would be done. It came to a head last August when RL held the line on opening the coffers *until* the wage bill was sorted. Transfer money is NOT the issue; it is all about getting the club's finances sustainable. He is unwilling to lose 20 million a year, simple as. I happen to agree with those who say that stricter controls should have been placed on MON, but I think paulie had it right that there was reliance on the reputation of MON *and* that his ability to get the club in striking distance of the CL was tantalizing enough to take risks in the hopes that it would pay off. That did not work, so there is a desire, I think, to adopt another approach that does not see him pissing money down the drain. The long-term goal remains to compete for CL spots (and do not moan at me about the realism, or lack thereof, of this in the current structure, as I have nothing to do with it), but clearly it will be done with a combination of youth and experience. My $.02.

[Risso]

Is there a reason you are posting this and not the General?  Has he retired from the fans' forums for good?

[pelty]

If we're losing £20m this year then things are clearly worse than we have been led to believe.

What happened to the list of players houlier was going to buy and the general talking about backing Mcleish which quite clearly was never going to happen. You have to admit this is misleading at best.

As far as blame who would you say is responsible for the finances of the club. Surely somebody would have been making forward projections of costs and how that looks against current revenues before making any purchases. At the end of the day surely the buck stops with Randy.

 

I agree to a degree; mistakes were made and the buck does stop with Randy, but that is also a gross simplification of a rather complex issue. Still, you are right on the whole (in my opinion, of course).

As for the general's comments, they were made under the assumption that certain obligations were going to be met that have not yet been met. He should have been more circumspect in this instance. That said, at the time given what he knew, there was reason to state them. I know this is cryptic, but I really have nothing more to say about it.

[pelty]

Is there a reason you are posting this and not the General?  Has he retired from the fans' forums for good?

Am I not allowed to speak, Risso, and add a perspective? I do not know that he has retired for good, but he is far busier these days given his new position. People can chastise him for this, but the facts are the facts.