Transfer Speculation / Gossip

[pauliewalnuts]

No, he won't get all his money back, there's no chance of that.

It's not about what he paid for the club, it's about the money he's wasted in the meantime (largely due to his own incompetence).

I still don't get this. Has he actually just handed over his own cash to the club then? My understanding was that all of the cash he'd but into the club was in the form of loans.

Loans which he has written off.

[dave.woodhall]

It's not so much "not spending further vast sums", it looks very much like "spending considerably less than the TV money alone"

We don't exist in isolation, other clubs will be spending a great chunk of their TV money, yet we look increasingly like we are going to spend hardly any of it - despite the squad having been proven to be woefully inadequate last season.

I totally understand he's lost interest - a lot of us spotted that before we got the final "Shummanite" confirmation - the problem is, he's lost interest to the point that he's only prepared to do the absolute bare minimum to keep us in the league.

It is basically back where we were with Doug in 2006, except in 2006 it was more about "we haven't got the money" whereas now it is about "we don't want to spend the money".

The TV money isn't going to be the great lottery win it might appear; for a start every expense involved with running a football club will go up as a result. Let's see how many other clubs blow massive chunks of it before we begin to compare us so unfavourably.

Well, we haven't blown any chunks of it yet, so I'm not expecting much on that front.

Honest question, is there anyone here who, had they been told at the end of last season, that by this point in the summer, we'd have signed Joe Cole, Senderos and Kieran Richardson, would have either believed it or been happy with it?

I see articles like those "10m including wages" thing, and I think, no, that can't be true.

And then we go and make signings like this and I think, you know, actually it looks like they could quite easily be true.

There has never been more money floating around PL football, and we've chosen that point to spend as little as possible.

He's a nice bloke, I think he had good intentions, but the rapidity with which he has lost interest in the club reflects dreadfully on him, I'm afraid. We made excuses for him when he'd go entire seasons without showing up - he's got a son in school, he's getting divorced, all that - but ultimately, it turns out he's lost all interest in the club.

I can't see how we can put a positive spin on that.

Nobody's saying it's ideal, or trying to put a positive anything on it. Yes he has probably lost interest, but that's not the argument. It would be wonderful if we could find £30 million or whatever, but if it isn't there - and the TV money will in all probability reduce losses at most clubs rather than be available for investment - it can't be spent.

[hilts_coolerking]

And I fail to see what's unreasonable about expecting a football club to survive without having to go cap in hand to the Bank of Owner every year, racking up bigger and bigger debts in the process until you end up like Rangers or Portsmouth. It's his money, to spend how he sees fit. It might not seem fair to you, but life's a bitch.

It's almost as if you don't want him to spend money or don't see any reason for him to do so or don't believe he can.

Presumably the irony of you criticising on another thread "Tarquin and Algernon" paying for expensive season tickets and never going to games when we have a hugely privileged multi-millionaire treating the club like last year's Christmas present (and never going to games) is lost on you.

As they're two completely separate topics then yes, the irony which only exists in your mind is obviously lost on me. While you're explaining it you can also tell me where I've said anything like you claim in that first sentence.

You don't see the irony in making sneering remarks about wealthy fans not going to games and then defending a multi-millionaire's right to keep his hands in his pockets while showing absolutely zero interest in the club? Seriously?

Read that first sentence back and you'll see I wrote 'It's almost as if...'  That's the impression you give with what you write.

[hilts_coolerking]

Nobody's saying it's ideal, or trying to put a positive anything on it. Yes he has probably lost interest, but that's not the argument. It would be wonderful if we could find £30 million or whatever, but if it isn't there - and the TV money will in all probability reduce losses at most clubs rather than be available for investment - it can't be spent.

It is there, he just doesn't want to spend it.

[Salsa Party Animal]

I can't understand why Randy Lerner think he is poor, I mean he sold Cleveland Browns for 1 billion dollars to Jimmy Haslam. So there should be enough money to reinvest if he spend say 100 millions dollars.

[RussellC]

No, he won't get all his money back, there's no chance of that.

It's not about what he paid for the club, it's about the money he's wasted in the meantime (largely due to his own incompetence).

I still don't get this. Has he actually just handed over his own cash to the club then? My understanding was that all of the cash he'd but into the club was in the form of loans.

Loans which he has written off.

But perhaps incorporated into the asking price of the club? I don't know, I just find if hard to believe that he'll be walking away out of pocket in any way.

[hilts_coolerking]

I am sure it will end up in higher wages for a lot of players, but that certainly won't account for all the TV money. It certainly won't for the sort of players we're signing.

We've got a squad in dreadful need of significant improvement, one which scraped survival last season, and thus far we're signing utter dross, the sort of signings we'd have laughed at if Albion had made them, and meanwhile two of our three best players from last season are about to enter the final year of their contract.

Oh, and we've got a manager who has the confidence of absolutely nobody, a chairman who seems to think engaging with his responsibility means making a couple of baffling statements,  the CEO has just fecked off and is being replaced by someone who probably couldn't draw a picture of a football, and we're being hawked around for sale in the desparate hope someone might save us.

These are circumstances we'd have absolutely slaughtered Ellis for.

Ellis had a lot of flaws - a lot of them - and did things I won't forgive him for, but look at him, attending matches when he's judging 150 years old. Lerner will have forgotten us the day after he moves us on.

I genuinely look back and can not believe we've wound up in this mess.

'Tis but a flesh wound.

[pauliewalnuts]

I don't think anyone is asking for £30m, but some money for half decent players might be an idea? And as for it not being there, we'll pick up at least £65m from television rights alone next season, yet we're still prepared to have a fourth season of risking our top flight status by not spending?

As for TV money reducing losses rather than being spendable - last year, they told us triumphantly that we were self sustaining and breaking even - so how does that fit in with coining in so much money on TV rights and not actually spending anything?

[PeterWithesShin]

I don't think anyone is asking for £30m, but some money for half decent players might be an idea? And as for it not being there, we'll pick up at least £65m from television rights alone next season, yet we're still prepared to have a fourth season of risking our top flight status by not spending?

As for TV money reducing losses rather than being spendable - last year, they told us triumphantly that we were self sustaining and breaking even - so how does that fit in with coining in so much money on TV rights and not actually spending anything?

Most of it has gone on replacing everything Grant Holt sat on and broke*



*Obligatory Fat Grant joke

[RussellC]

As I said at the time, taking Lescott on a free at £45k and paying £2m for Hoolahan on £30k should have been well within our reach and I steadfastly refuse to believe that we didn't sign them because either we didn't want them or they didn't want to come.

[pauliewalnuts]

I don't think anyone is asking for £30m, but some money for half decent players might be an idea? And as for it not being there, we'll pick up at least £65m from television rights alone next season, yet we're still prepared to have a fourth season of risking our top flight status by not spending?

As for TV money reducing losses rather than being spendable - last year, they told us triumphantly that we were self sustaining and breaking even - so how does that fit in with coining in so much money on TV rights and not actually spending anything?

Most of it has gone on replacing everything Grant Holt sat on and broke*



*Obligatory Fat Grant joke

Ha ha, and settling his unpaid tab at Big John's

[dave.woodhall]

And I fail to see what's unreasonable about expecting a football club to survive without having to go cap in hand to the Bank of Owner every year, racking up bigger and bigger debts in the process until you end up like Rangers or Portsmouth. It's his money, to spend how he sees fit. It might not seem fair to you, but life's a bitch.

It's almost as if you don't want him to spend money or don't see any reason for him to do so or don't believe he can.

Presumably the irony of you criticising on another thread "Tarquin and Algernon" paying for expensive season tickets and never going to games when we have a hugely privileged multi-millionaire treating the club like last year's Christmas present (and never going to games) is lost on you.

As they're two completely separate topics then yes, the irony which only exists in your mind is obviously lost on me. While you're explaining it you can also tell me where I've said anything like you claim in that first sentence.

You don't see the irony in making sneering remarks about wealthy fans not going to games and then defending a multi-millionaire's right to keep his hands in his pockets while showing absolutely zero interest in the club? Seriously?

Read that first sentence back and you'll see I wrote 'It's almost as if...'  That's the impression you give with what you write.

No I don't understand the irony in "sneering" (a tediously unoriginal insult, but I expect no less) about people who regard football as one of several expensive leisure interests and can afford to treat it as such, and saying that the Villa shouldn't expect to rely on regular handouts from the club's owner, regardless of how many games he attends. I read that sentence again. You were wrong.

[ciggiesnbeer]

I don't think anyone is asking for £30m, but some money for half decent players might be an idea? And as for it not being there, we'll pick up at least £65m from television rights alone next season, yet we're still prepared to have a fourth season of risking our top flight status by not spending?

As for TV money reducing losses rather than being spendable - last year, they told us triumphantly that we were self sustaining and breaking even - so how does that fit in with coining in so much money on TV rights and not actually spending anything?

We can hope, that because the window is not yet over we have some good news coming before it closes. I hold out the hope that Randy is not a stupid man and will not roll the dice with our survival and his asset's value with even worse odds than last season.

Otherwise, yeah. Grim times for us.

[PeterWithesShin]

And don't forget all the balls lost when Tonev take shooting practice. Them balls ain't no 99p placcy effort from the local garage*




*Obligatory Tonev can't hit a barn door joke

[hilts_coolerking]

No I don't understand the irony in "sneering" (a tediously unoriginal insult, but I expect no less) about people who regard football as one of several expensive leisure interests and can afford to treat it as such, and saying that the Villa shouldn't expect to rely on regular handouts from the club's owner, regardless of how many games he attends. I read that sentence again. You were wrong.

That is exactly what Lerner's attitude to this club has been.  Can you not see that?