No smoke without fire: Lerner will sell, if the right offer is made

[atomicjam]

Not my favourite place to get Villa news but this has a fair bit on tomorrows article:

http://astonvilla-views.com/2011/11/18/spend-what-you-can-afford-football-is-not-philanthropy-avfc/

[olaftab]

Initially  I would prefer his cousin Sheikh Hamad Ibn Tamir Oman Nazir Tabil Hamood Ebran Califa Ibrahim Tamzir Younous.

Nahaa...Sheikh Hamad ibn Tamir Oman is his half brother. You are confused with Sheikh Hamid bin Hahd who is his cousin.

[Simba]

Either way I can't see his name on the back of many replica shirts.

[gervilla]

http://www.expressandstar.com/uk/uk-sport/2011/11/19/lerner-committed-to-villa/

[TopDeck113]

No, he was a lot more genuine-fan-friendly than he was given credit for.

A mate of mine knows him well, grew up with him. Got us tickets in the posh seats and wined and dined avcouple of years ago and turned out he had about 30 guests from Birmingham for the night and looked after us well.

On the other side of the "hasn't forgot his roots" coin is the comment I have heard about him being ecstatic when they signed Barry, not so much because of the player they'd bought, but rather because of of the fact he'd shafted 'The Vile'.  On that basis he probably needed to lie down for a week after he got Milner.

[Mister E]

After that they will sell their surplus players (arguably) artificially increasing their turnover.  In a way their strategy is pretty cunning because it will be nigh on impossible for a club to buy their way into the top four once the rules exist.

Selling players doesn't increase turnover though.  The only way selling players would help would be by getting the players off the wage bill, or selling them at a profit to help their overall profitability.

The way I thought it worked was say Adebayor was sold after the rules kick in for say 10m then that would increase their turnover for that season meaning they can spend more in wages.  The fact he was purchased prior to the rules will not matter.  Is that not right then?

I agree it is a short term move but they'll have solidified their place in the chumps league by then and possibly gained a few extra fans.

No. As said above, the sold player comes off the 'intangible assets' register and any profit / loss on the sale is then booked to the p&l account. Additionally, obviously, the salary comes off the wages bill.

[ozzjim]

Does anyone really expect clubs like Man City to abide by the rules? Rich people always find ways around rules, and this will be no different.

[Louzie0]

There's an interview with Lerner about his commitment to Villa in tomorrow's Times apparently.

Given the 'pay-for view' and the difficulty I experienced downloading a link above, I thought I'd share a few extracts here.  Put up against the criticisms of Man City's approach and various others it does seem to be the case that a hardened sports journalist (and they're well'ard!) thinks we have a treasure!  I'm off to get my tattoo...

Matt Dickinson:

He is the same “custodian” (one of his favourite words) who bought a business to build rather than drain for profit. He talks, almost wistfully, about the FA’s old Rule 34, which restricted what any director could take out of a club and enshrined the role almost as a public service.
 
Almost quaintly in an age of profiteering from football, he quotes Frederick Rinder, the chairman from 1898 to 1925 who saw Villa as a flagship of the Midlands community: “Finance is important but we must never forget that we are not talking about a mere business.”

and

Randy Lerner pulls up his trouser leg. And there it is, the lion rampant from the Aston Villa badge in blue outline etched on the inside of his right ankle. If he were given to tacky gestures, or perhaps the owner of Newcastle United, Lerner might allow a photograph of his tattoo as a way of demonstrating to jittery Villa fans that his passion cannot just be washed away.
 
Reassurance is craved as rumours swirl that Lerner’s interest has waned or even that he might sell up. The speculation leaves him bemused.
 
Are you still committed? “Yes”.

Can you envisage selling? “No.” Not in any circumstances? “Not unless it’s something to do with the kids, news you could never expect.”
 
and


He cherishes Villa and insists that his passion has grown deeper since he bought the club in 2006, believing that they had potential to grow in England’s second city. (The idea that he fell in love with the 1982 European champions when he studied at Cambridge is a Wikipedia myth.) But he wants Villa to pay their way, which is why he spends most of his time on the “hidden parts that don’t get applause”, including plans for a new North Stand that could raise capacity to 50,000.
 
And why should it be any different than “organic growth” unless any Villa fans know a sheikh or oligarch willing to buy success at any cost? In these days when so many football owners are rightly treated with mistrust, isn’t there a lot to be said for good intentions and a man who can quote Fred Rinder?
 

[Risso]

Over an entire two pages of The Times, the actual bit where Lerner says something is about 4 lines.

[Greg N'Ash]

Talk is cheap. People would be more re-assured if we didn't currently have a smaller squad than before he took over.

[Louzie0]

Actually, I counted 45!  (But then I'm a bit literal.) And, as you say, a lot of reported conversation.
He does acknowledge that he's more of a 'doer' and describes himself as an 'undercommunicator' in his role as owner of the club.

Interesting emphasis on  'learning the lessons' from Leeds Utd, and comments about the last year from MON's walkout through the difficulties of last season to the present which I haven't read before. There's also a comment about needing to change the perception that more players have gone than arrived.  Good luck with that one!


 

[Iago]

Leeds United analogy used again. What excuse are we going to use when Leeds are back competing with us in the Premier League?

[Shrek]

Leeds United analogy used again. What excuse are we going to use when Leeds are back competing with us in the Premier League?

We will use the Leeds analogy.

[Dante Lavelli]

After that they will sell their surplus players (arguably) artificially increasing their turnover.  In a way their strategy is pretty cunning because it will be nigh on impossible for a club to buy their way into the top four once the rules exist.

Selling players doesn't increase turnover though.  The only way selling players would help would be by getting the players off the wage bill, or selling them at a profit to help their overall profitability.

The way I thought it worked was say Adebayor was sold after the rules kick in for say 10m then that would increase their turnover for that season meaning they can spend more in wages.  The fact he was purchased prior to the rules will not matter.  Is that not right then?

I agree it is a short term move but they'll have solidified their place in the chumps league by then and possibly gained a few extra fans.

No. As said above, the sold player comes off the 'intangible assets' register and any profit / loss on the sale is then booked to the p&l account. Additionally, obviously, the salary comes off the wages bill.

Apologies for taking this off topic, especially when Randy has muttered a few words, but I still don't understand this.  If for example Man City signed Messi for 100m then their 'intangible assets' would increase because
they have a new asset - a players.  if you ignore Messi's wages (as a life long City fan, he will play for free) then the p+l will remain unchanged, therefore under the FFP rules they could still break even despite spending 100m on one player?

[john2710]

Thing is we can't compete against the likes of Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool & Arsenal in terms of turnover nor against Man City due their owners wealth. The sight of 50,000 Chelsea shirts in Hong Kong tells me in the current climate we have a mountain to climb, especially if our attendances keep falling.

So do we compete by trying to buy (borrow) our way in; with no guarantee of success; do we build a sustainable club or do we hope for a new richer owner? One thing is certain whichever one some people will complain anyway. Eck was appointed, in my opinion, in an attempt to contain expectations, we will not be in a position to compete for the top 6 anytime soon.

Despite what some believe, we have no divine right to be in the top 6. History, tradition nor location is no longer a passage way to success (ref Chelsea & Man City). The only options are investing vast sums of money (which we don't generate & our owner doesn't have) or putting the foundations in place to gradually build success as a well run club. Our only current option is to go for the latter, fans look from week to week and season to season. The club needs to look more long term than that. When we have consistency & the structures are in place then success will follow.

When we are all long gone, Aston Villa will still be here.