The Takeover Thread - Recon Group - NOW WITH NEW POLL

[Ad@m]

And I'm also under the impression that those thinking we've spent £20million each year are miles off the true figure. Just because it says it on an obscure website doesn't make it true.

CEO and accounts say it's £43m. Not an obscure website.

For which accounting period, i.e. is that the figure as of now?

The 2013 accounts show we spent £27.6m on players in the 2012/13 season and £23.7m in 2011/12.  We also made £7.6m from selling players in 2012/13 and £39.8m from selling players in 2011/12.  So a net spend of £3.9m over the two seasons before this one. 

It's no wonder we're struggling.

[Rolta]

I know why he loaned Bertrand and I agree it was a good move. But the fact we needed him when Lambert had already signed 2 left backs, with other areas desperately needing attention, is the point.

It's not a point, not really. We had a problem at left back, so he got a better one. If you're buying an entire squad on such a budget it is inevitable not every transfer will work out. No matter what people think about who's to blame, I don't think there is a single Villa fan who want to continue only buying "young and hungry" talent from lower leagues/europe as that hasn't really worked out so far – although I think we would have been in a much better position than last season if we had had Benteke of last year instead of Benteke this year (often injured, and if not injured then off form) and Kozak and Okore fit when we needed them.

You seem very angry, and I can see why. It's not been a great period to support Villa, but the margin for error when buying players in the cheap market which we've used for the last couple of years and the danger of losing a couple of our better players can have the kinds of consequences we've seen over the last few months.

By the time we beat Chelsea there was little doubt we were heading in the right direction. We were tenth. Two games later and we had no Benteke having already lost his backup.

I just think the problems at Villa have been vast, and I think Lambert has at least financially been a benefit. I think a lot of the anger towards him is no better than making a scapegoat. I also echo other posters in that I think there is a good manager in there who came to a club already in decline, and the job has been a difficult one.

Plus, by financially better lets not forget about the wage bill. Because nobody can tell me the likes of Bowery, Helenius and Tonev are on comparable wages to Given, Hutton and N'Zogbia. Our wage bill was around £70million a few years back – which is in some ways more significant than the amount you spend on buying the players.

[pauliewalnuts]

And I'm also under the impression that those thinking we've spent £20million each year are miles off the true figure. Just because it says it on an obscure website doesn't make it true.

It's the figure Paul Faulkner quoted - 43m over two seasons - which adds a bit of credibility, mind.

[Mazrim]

It is a point. We needed money spending on the squad and buying three players for one position is the managers fault. How can that not be a point?

As for being angry. I doubt I'm alone there.

[Louzie0]

And I'm also under the impression that those thinking we've spent £20million each year are miles off the true figure. Just because it says it on an obscure website doesn't make it true.

CEO and accounts say it's £43m. Not an obscure website.

For which accounting period, i.e. is that the figure as of now?

The 2013 accounts show we spent £27.6m on players in the 2012/13 season and £23.7m in 2011/12.  We also made £7.6m from selling players in 2012/13 and £39.8m from selling players in 2011/12.  So a net spend of £3.9m over the two seasons before this one. 

It's no wonder we're struggling.

Is anybody else going, ' Ooooooooh, numbers...not a clue'?
Sorry Ad@m.

Gather it's not good news, though.

[sirlordbaltimore]

I'm pretty sure we've gone from losing £50million a year to apparently about breaking even.

I'm pretty sure the last set of accounts published showed a very different picture to the one you painted

[jembob]

I can appreciate that he has had to do some housekeeping with the squad which he inherited and has not had significant funding for improvements. His signings have been risky and only one has really worked.
In my view, the really unforgivable aspect of Lambert's time at VP has been the utterly shambolic team performances which only seem to have got worse throughout the season. As a player Lambert was top notch and it puzzles me why he has found it so difficult to get his team to do the most basic of things. Basic organisation would have made a huge difference in many games this season but instead we looked chaotic, clueless and lacking in motivation. This has been Lambert's main failure.

[tomd2103]

I know why he loaned Bertrand and I agree it was a good move. But the fact we needed him when Lambert had already signed 2 left backs, with other areas desperately needing attention, is the point.

It's not a point, not really. We had a problem at left back, so he got a better one.

It is a point because he'd already signed two players in that position, the most recent acquisition being worse than his original purchase.  It meant that we had to resort to the measure of bringing in a loan signing in that position when we desperately needed strengthening in other areas. 

[aj2k77]

Can I post a link to vital.villa giving a summary of the last set of accounts released?

[Steve67]

I know why he loaned Bertrand and I agree it was a good move. But the fact we needed him when Lambert had already signed 2 left backs, with other areas desperately needing attention, is the point.

It's not a point, not really. We had a problem at left back, so he got a better one. If you're buying an entire squad on such a budget it is inevitable not every transfer will work out. No matter what people think about who's to blame, I don't think there is a single Villa fan who want to continue only buying "young and hungry" talent from lower leagues/europe as that hasn't really worked out so far – although I think we would have been in a much better position than last season if we had had Benteke of last year instead of Benteke this year (often injured, and if not injured then off form) and Kozak and Okore fit when we needed them.

You seem very angry, and I can see why. It's not been a great period to support Villa, but the margin for error when buying players in the cheap market which we've used for the last couple of years and the danger of losing a couple of our better players can have the kinds of consequences we've seen over the last few months.

By the time we beat Chelsea there was little doubt we were heading in the right direction. We were tenth. Two games later and we had no Benteke having already lost his backup.

I just think the problems at Villa have been vast, and I think Lambert has at least financially been a benefit. I think a lot of the anger towards him is no better than making a scapegoat. I also echo other posters in that I think there is a good manager in there who came to a club already in decline, and the job has been a difficult one.

Plus, by financially better perhaps it is mostly about the wage bill.

The point being made is to make the right decisions in the first place. Lambert is now moaning about the lack of funds. So, why spend £7mill on a forward when other areas had not been addressed? Bringing in a third left back just tells us that his judgement is very poor. The money HAS been spent, by Lambert. Whilst he might have been to do the wages on the cheap, HE bought the dross we are now gonna struggle to get rid of when Lambert gets the push.

By the way, anyone abusing the man's daughter is way out of order.

[Legion]

Yes.

[aj2k77]

http://www.astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=7516668

This is a summary of the latest accounts. Doesn't include the extra £40m from the new Tv deal.

[Steve67]

I also meant to say, whilst Lambert has successfully brought down the wage bill, he has also successfully lowered the quality of the playing squad. How many of the current squad other than Benteke, will survive a cull? We are in a very dangerous position unless something drastically changes.  I appreciate that Randy wanted lower wages but surely the money could have been spent better.

[Rolta]

It is a point. We needed money spending on the squad and buying three players for one position is the managers fault. How can that not be a point?

As for being angry. I doubt I'm alone there.

If we spent £40million over 2 seasons, we've still signed 19 players in that time, and not all of them have been left backs – that's 16 non left backs we've signed! That's almost an average of £2million for every player, and those kinds of players are inevitably hit or miss.

We needed to build a squad. There is no way we were in the position yet to spend all our budget on one or two players – although, if you consider Kozak and Okore as two of the higher budget investments, along with Benteke, for some select players we have been willing to pay more. Shit for us that those three have been our most significant injuries. It's not like we've spent £20million on some proven player who turned out to be a dud. 

[not3bad]

Why is there an argument about Paul Lambert on the Takeover Thread? Isn't the Paul Lambert thread for that?  I want speculate about billionaires and ting on this thread.