The Takeover Thread - Recon Group - NOW WITH NEW POLL

[Brend'Watkins]

It's saying what we already knew though - FFP protects the positions of clubs who have been able to build a revenue stream through spending huge amounts of money without having to worry about the losses they've incurred. The rest can't do that now; the ladder has been pulled up.

It's only pulled up as far as European competition is concerned.  I could live with Villa being league champions 10 years in a row without success in Europe.

[paul_e]

There's a lot more to it than that though, the loans to share equity switch supposedly put us in the black, so we were breaking even with a £20m annual spend and our current wage levels.  The new TV deal saw us get £25m more, split that into 10-15m for wages and the rest for transfers and we're straight away at the point of spending £30m and adding £300k a week to wage bill without incurring any debt.  You can then take on up to £105m of additional 'debt' over 3 years.  Add to that the fact that we've not really gone after sponsorship for stands, etc there's a decent untapped market, and of course improved performance will bring it's own rewards. 

All in I reckon we could spend £200m over 3 years and add 400-500k to the wage bill and still be well inside the FFP restrictions as they stand.  I don't think anyone would buy in expecting to spend significantly more than that.

It's also worth remembering that costs for ground and facility improvements don't count so we could plow a lot extra into those areas which, with a successful team, would lead to increased revenue and add to the work done with the academy so far.

The situation isn't anything like as limited as the Newcastle article is making out.

[pauliewalnuts]

Official Everton site taking the piss out of one of the self proclaimed ITK kings.

[cdbearsfan]

It's saying what we already knew though - FFP protects the positions of clubs who have been able to build a revenue stream through spending huge amounts of money without having to worry about the losses they've incurred. The rest can't do that now; the ladder has been pulled up.

It's only pulled up as far as European competition is concerned.  I could live with Villa being league champions 10 years in a row without success in Europe.

Not true. Financial Fair Play is going to be applied in the Premier League too.

It does suggest that an owner could put £105 million in up until 2016 but after that we'd need to be, effectively, self-funding. So get into the Champions League by then, to collect the associated riches on offer, or give up on ever playing in it.

[nodge]

If Lambert comes back and resigns or leaves by mutual consent then the takeover is probably well on the way.  I think Randy doesn't really want to sack him and will probably give him a get out by paying him off and telling him the new people don't want him and he can walk with his CV intact.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's saying what we already knew though - FFP protects the positions of clubs who have been able to build a revenue stream through spending huge amounts of money without having to worry about the losses they've incurred. The rest can't do that now; the ladder has been pulled up.

It's only pulled up as far as European competition is concerned.  I could live with Villa being league champions 10 years in a row without success in Europe.

Not true. Financial Fair Play is going to be applied in the Premier League too.

It does suggest that an owner could put £105 million in up until 2016 but after that we'd need to be, effectively, self-funding. So get into the Champions League by then, to collect the associated riches on offer, or give up on ever playing in it.

Isn't the PL version all about wages, though? I seem to remember reading something about it along the lines that the rules will impact wage bills only, and even then, it only applies to how they spend revenue from the television deal, they can spend money they raise elsewhere as they like.

EDIT

not quite:

[paul_e]

If Lambert comes back and resigns or leaves by mutual consent then the takeover is probably well on the way.  I think Randy doesn't really want to sack him and will probably give him a get out by paying him off and telling him the new people don't want him and he can walk with his CV intact.

The alternative interpretation is that if he's 'let go' before a new owner it's because the process will be a long while and, whilst Lerner knows we need to make some signings, he know that the fans and the 'bidders' have no faith in Lambert to do that.  Both are reasonably plausible.  I know a lot of people are convinced he won't sack him as he's been supportive but he was supportive of McLeish and even let him make a signing for the 12/13 season, that didn't stop him sacking him when it was clear that there was no way it was going to work.

[pauliewalnuts]

re the above, can anyone really, genuinely imagine a situation where the PL deducted points from Manchester City for breaking these rules? Really?

[cdbearsfan]

Yes. The product is being affected by not allowing Manchester United to win the league this year. They'll try to penalise Man City while allowing Man Utd to continue to be paid for by massive loans which they have no hope of paying off any time soon.

[Brend'Watkins]

re the above, can anyone really, genuinely imagine a situation where the PL deducted points from Manchester City for breaking these rules? Really?

Exactly, the PL is all about money.  Scudamore would welcome another club hoovering up more of the best players to further promote it.

[paul_e]

re the above, can anyone really, genuinely imagine a situation where the PL deducted points from Manchester City for breaking these rules? Really?

As I said above, it's pretty hard to break the rules anyway, with commercial developments and equity you could quite easily spend massively for 2 years by using sponsorship to up wages and equity to fund the transfer fees.

I genuinely don't see a net spend of £100m and a 500k/pw wage hike being beyond a club in an isolated summer.  Spent well that money could easily put you up with the teams in 4-8.  Man City, Chelsea and Man U are out of reach at the minute but a well planned push for a summer followed by sensible trading in the next couple of windows could get you competing with the likes of Arsenal, Spurs and Everton.

[LondonBoy]

Lads,

Heard the buyer is on his way over in the next few weeks which is promising.

Heard he wants a big marque signing to show rest league what we are all about.

[cdbearsfan]

Lads,

Heard the buyer is on his way over in the next few weeks which is promising.

Heard he wants a big marque signing to show rest league what we are all about.

Great news!

We'd better move quickly though... Grant Holt won't stay unsigned for long.

[pauliewalnuts]

re the above, can anyone really, genuinely imagine a situation where the PL deducted points from Manchester City for breaking these rules? Really?

Exactly, the PL is all about money.  Scudamore would welcome another club hoovering up more of the best players to further promote it.

Basically, looking at the rules re how much you can raise your wage bill by, if you've already got a mental wage bill - like Man City - you're in a much better situation as you have so much flexibility there already.

If you've recently reduced your wage bill considerably, it could actually work against you if you get bought out by an idiot with too much money and spare time.

OMG RANDY WTF HAVE YOU DONE?

GIVE BENT A HUGE PAY RISE, QUICK!

[nodge]

If Lambert comes back and resigns or leaves by mutual consent then the takeover is probably well on the way.  I think Randy doesn't really want to sack him and will probably give him a get out by paying him off and telling him the new people don't want him and he can walk with his CV intact.

The alternative interpretation is that if he's 'let go' before a new owner it's because the process will be a long while and, whilst Lerner knows we need to make some signings, he know that the fans and the 'bidders' have no faith in Lambert to do that.  Both are reasonably plausible.  I know a lot of people are convinced he won't sack him as he's been supportive but he was supportive of McLeish and even let him make a signing for the 12/13 season, that didn't stop him sacking him when it was clear that there was no way it was going to work.

Could be, I don't remember him saying nice things about TSM after the season had ended though and he was gone within a couple of days wasn't he?  I think he genuinely likes Lambert and probably feels guilty about how he's managed him.