Popular Post Stevo985 Posted December 2, 2015 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, HeyAnty said: I have very little grasp of finaces just because i questioned the accounts released and dont believe we are making a lose for past two years? Then you personally insult me. Where has all the vast tv money and sponsorship money gone the past two years? Dont say wages cause youre wrong. Also, you guys seem to know more about finances by the sounds of it, so explain to me why Lerner turned his money owed to shares because i yet to believe a plausible explanation! As has been mentioned, the accounts are published. They are audited accounts. Lerner can't just hide money. I said you APPEAR to have very little grasp of finances. That's not an insult, it's an observation made by your last few posts in here which suggest it. For example, you seem to cite Lerner converting the money owed to him into shares as a negative, when in fact it's a positive. He converted £90m owed to him into share capital. That meant that effectively the club paid off the £90m owed to Lerner by issuing him shares. But seeing as he already owns all the shares, all it basically did was wipe out the debt. In laymans terms, of what we owe Lerner, we now owe him £90m less at no cost to the club. And yes, wages take up a huge part of what we make in TV money and sponsorship. At one point our wages were 80% of turnover. That means before anything else is taken out, 80% of what we take in disappears on paying the players. You say "don't say wages because youre wrong". Why am I wrong? In the last published accounts, our turnover was £116.9 million, but our expenses were £121.7m. Of those expenses, wages accounted for £69m. That's 60% of our income gone on wages before anything else is paid for. Again, and I can't emphasise this enough, the accounts are out there. They are proper, published, audited accounts. It has all the information in there that you are speculating about. They can't just be cooked to suit Lerner laundering a load of money into his pocket. That would be accounting fraud and can carry a prison sentence. Lerner can be accused of a lot of things. But taking money out of the club for his own personal gain is absolutely not one of them Edited December 2, 2015 by Stevo985 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Thank you for having the patience to type that out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) As posts above show the main expenditure in football is wages. And there has been a overall failing of the club to replace good quality players with similar players which has led to our current demise. We have failed to try and keep up with the big boys in the Premier League since 2010. And there is no going back from this.We have missed this boat. City are now worth £2 billion, Arsenal, United and Liverpool have always been bigger than us, Chelsea have a sugar daddy willing to spend £500 million on a new stadium, Spurs will move soon, and West Ham have been given a free 54,000 stadium. Meanwhile under Lerner we have gone backwards. I doubt the North Stand rebuild will ever happen. The alternative to this was to try and have a decent structure, identify players with potential, and sell them on to reinvest in the squad. Like Southampton, Everton, Swansea or a Stoke. We have also failed in this with too many different chief execs, and too many different managers with different football philosophies. And our owner has got less and less interested when more and more money has poured into the game. Under Lerner we have not grown into a superclub which some of us hoped might have happen. But more damingly after the years of creaking leadership under Elllis, we have not become a nimble well organised top flight club either. Lerner is probably a decent guy who did once care about Villa. But footballing economics and bad management has led us to being in possible the worst position the club has ever been in. Or at least since the late 1960's. We are screwed. Edited December 2, 2015 by The Fun Factory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 11 hours ago, Zatman said: In the last 3 windows combined we spent about 15 million more than them Your telling me west brom spent less than 6m net this summer? I find that hard to believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: Your telling me west brom spent less than 6m net this summer? I find that hard to believe Their net spend was £28m this summer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 ours was less than that, wasnt ours 10m net? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 This Manchester City deal is good for them but is a bad one for the rest of the league. They were given a new stadium in the same way West Ham are getting one and their owner is willing to pump money into them at will (so much for FFP working other than to keep the rest of the clubs from reaching the super rich clubs). The rest of the league just cannot compete with the likes of Chelsea and the Manchester clubs or even with Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool on a regular basis. Our current custodian had a go at spending to make us a top 4 club under MON but we fell just short. MON then left when the plug was pulled on the transfer kitty and we have stagnated since then up to the point where we now look relegation straight in the face. When the EC winners got together at Villa Park in 2007 one of those players stood up and said it was great that we were having a go but he was worried it was too late to break into the then top 4. A year later Manchester City was bought and they blew us out of the water by spending previously unheard of money on building a new team. Our custodian could not compete with that level of spending and appreciated that the odds of us getting into that top 4 had gone from slim to none overnight. He has since spent less than the bare minimum that was needed on our football club because he has lost interest in his play thing and has seen his pot of money reduce primarily due to personal reasons. He has made it clear that he wants rid of his toy but buyers are aware of that and the slump that we have gone through in recent years so have been unwilling to meet his asking price which will have to drop even further should the unthinkable happen this season. He has lost money on his gamble that he will never recover but I think he is reluctant to accept that fact when it comes to cashing in his chips. His under investment over recent years and the way this club has been run has also cost the club and the fans of the club he is the current custodian of big time. He has failed in his duty of care to our football club and we are now paying the price for that. £30m as a minimum spend in the next window might be a gamble that will come to nothing but it might be one worth taking to protect his investment, to give us some hope of survival in the top flight and to maintain the value of our club at something approaching the figure he wants for it. But he has shown no wish to dig deep of late to try to ensure that we stay up or avoid our now annual relegation fights. Why would he spend more money on something he no longer cares for and on a club he never comes to see play at Villa Park? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 4 hours ago, Demitri_C said: ours was less than that, wasnt ours 10m net? I think it was about £8m, I'm fairly certain it was under £10m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted December 2, 2015 Just now, KHV said: I think it was about £8m, I'm fairly certain it was under £10m I think it was £8m. I still think looking at net spend in isolation is misleading though. Not over a period of time. So Lerner's average of £6m per year is pretty poor. But taking one window and looking at it in isolation is misleading when we got 40 odd million through player sales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: I think it was £8m. I still think looking at net spend in isolation is misleading though. Not over a period of time. So Lerner's average of £6m per year is pretty poor. But taking one window and looking at it in isolation is misleading when we got 40 odd million through player sales True, problem this summer was not the net spend it was the number and the quality ( or lack of ) the personnel we recruited. We took a huge huge gamble and it appears to have gone tits up. 11 signings who were mostly unheard off was ballsy and risky and probably not the best plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted December 2, 2015 Agreed. I still think most of the players we bought are good players. But given the time they took/are taking to settle and the fact there are so many of them is a recipe for disaster when our squad was already at such a low point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 20 hours ago, TRO said: Leicester ? closely, but not exclusively, we with Ron Saunders Correlation is the statistical relationship between two variables. League position correlates very closely with wages and with turnover, so the more you spend on wages the higher up the league you are likely to finish. This doesnt mean that a team with high wages will always beat one with low wages or that teams can't do better or worse than there wage bill dictates. It's possible to do better than expected, like Leicester, particularly for a short period of time. It becomes more unlikely as time goes on, so Leicester are likely to drop back as the season progresses and are unlikely to sustain their performance over the medium term This relationship is very strong in the Premiership, not so much in the Championship and I doubt it was as significant back in the 80s http://ibmathsresources.com/2014/05/04/correlation-between-premier-league-wages-and-league-position/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ingram85 Posted December 2, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2015 Words cannot express how much **** contempt I have for Lerner. Wish he would drop his price and just **** off! He has killed this club through naivety, tightness, disinterest, stupidity and most of all being an absolutely awful businessman. He should be ashamed of himself. Word removed. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) It just goes to show how football has changed.....we used to talk about a first touch, now it's when are the latest accounts coming out. i do think sometimes we concern ourselves with things that should not really concern us. Edited December 2, 2015 by TRO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 According to Talk Sport, Villa were 12th highest summer spenders over the last five years. Link: http://tinyurl.com/okc652x According to the Guardian, Villa had the 9th biggest turnover in 2013-2014 Link: http://tinyurl.com/zwqscxh According to Transfer League Villa spent £52.5m this summer Link: http://tinyurl.com/oadjqtc The conclusion is that Villa have spent more than enough money but spent it catastrophically badly this summer. Conclusion: blame the people who spent that £52.5m, who we are told did not include the previous manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Any conclusion that doesn't result in Randy Lerner being to blame is incredibly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcTheObsession Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 1 minute ago, DCJonah said: Any conclusion that doesn't result in Randy Lerner being to blame is incredibly wrong. True, as he was the one who decided to place a load of people in positions higher than they'd ever been in before, forming this 'transfer committee' which has about as much football nous as Lerner and my left bollock. He tasked them with the responsibility of spending over 50 million, leaving us where we are. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 3, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted December 3, 2015 46 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: According to Talk Sport, Villa were 12th highest summer spenders over the last five years. Link: http://tinyurl.com/okc652x According to the Guardian, Villa had the 9th biggest turnover in 2013-2014 Link: http://tinyurl.com/zwqscxh According to Transfer League Villa spent £52.5m this summer Link: http://tinyurl.com/oadjqtc The conclusion is that Villa have spent more than enough money but spent it catastrophically badly this summer. Conclusion: blame the people who spent that £52.5m, who we are told did not include the previous manager. It did include the previous manager. He is part of the committee, and said himself that he had final say over who was and wasn't bought. He can share the blame, but he certainly isn't absolved from any. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 53 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: According to Talk Sport, Villa were 12th highest summer spenders over the last five years. Link: http://tinyurl.com/okc652x According to the Guardian, Villa had the 9th biggest turnover in 2013-2014 Link: http://tinyurl.com/zwqscxh According to Transfer League Villa spent £52.5m this summer Link: http://tinyurl.com/oadjqtc The conclusion is that Villa have spent more than enough money but spent it catastrophically badly this summer. Conclusion: blame the people who spent that £52.5m, who we are told did not include the previous manager. You've chosen a real mixed bag of statistics there and then used them to fit your pre-existing view. Cognative bias at it's best I hate to get into the dreaded net spend debate again but there is a difference between spending £50m strengthening a squad and spending £50m replacing departing players. A more telling figure is the £6m a year net spend over the past five years which doesnt point to a club who should be pulling up trees. The other debate is whether the £50m was badly spent or whether the players purchased were badly managed - Sherwood has a responsibility in both areas. particularly in how the new arrivials were integrated and managed. We will have a much better view of this once we see what Garde does with the same resources The turnover figure is the most interesting - turnover normally correlates with wages and that in turn correlates with league position. By rights we should expect to be comfortably mid-table but i suspect that instead of spending our money on wages much of it over the past few years has been spent on propping up losses stretching back to the MON era Earlier someone said that Lerner has killed this club through naivety, tightness, disinterest, stupidity and most of all being an absolutely awful businessman. I disgree that he has been tight - far from it, he has pumped £100s of millions in the club that he will probably never see again. Naive, yes. Disinterested, yes, Awful Business sense, yes. Tight, no not for me 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 10 minutes ago, VillaCas said: You've chosen a real mixed bag of statistics there and then used them to fit your pre-existing view. Cognative bias at it's best Unfortunately you are totally wrong. My pre-existing view was that Villa were victims of Lerner's refusal to spend enough. I think the statistics suggest that I had a false impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts