Pez1974

Perhaps the loan paperwork was easier to complete than the outright purchase paperwork, and with it being left until so late, this was the only real option?

Is there not a rule saying that a player can only play for 2 clubs in any season? If so, he has played for the Mancs, so if he comes to us until January, his only options are to stay here or go back there. This all points to a loan before buying in January IMO

How are we quids in? We have got back less than paid plus we have paid his wages the last few yrs... Wish him well, was never good enough and was never going to be, but that's not his fault. At least he gave his all when on the pitch If we sign 10 players on the cheap and one or two work out then we would be in profit. Ideally like a Gareth Barry. It depends though doesn't it...yes if we sell for a very high fee, yes we may make profit. But if the two who work out are only sold for a few million then after wages etc, It is unlikely that we would be making a profit from them. Don't forget once they start doing well for us, we increase their wages so the profit is always lowered. Barry was here for a long time and probably on a high wage so it is unlikely that in the end we made much profit on him. Or perhaps we don't sell them and we have players with a value of £m's in the first team (like Barry) who cost very little. Rather than paying the £m's for them, and still having to pay their wages. Quids in. Who was 'better' for the club - Bowery or Balaban? (sorry - a rather frivilous question, but it is somewhat relevant - perhaps who was least worse for the club?) And I never suggested Bowery was one of the sucessfull ones! This model worked quite well for Spurs for a few years - Kyle Walker; MacNauhton; Dawson; Andy Reid; that Bale fella; Lennon; Huddleston; Bentalab; Zeki Fryers; Danny Rose; Chris Gunter; K-P Boateng - off the top of my head! Not all have worked brilliantly (and I am not suggesting the next Bale will be found this way), but they have a lot of good players in their squad who cost them relatively little to acquire. The opposite of what MON tried to do here!

An official Rotherham tweet says they have broken their transfer record for him According to Wiki, their previous record was £160k (for Lee Frecklington?) So it looks like we picked up a young player with potential for what, about £500k. And we have sold him on without making too much of a loss. If we do 10 of these, and only 1 or 2 work out, we are quids in. So for me, a nice attempt, and he never let us down. Good luck fella.

We must assume that people aren't that stupid, no matter how their actions look: Lambert will only walk if he has another job lined up (Celtic rumours abound) or he see's total decimation next season and isn't prepared to let his reputation suffer further. Wrapped up in this is the Karsa/culvershouse issue perhaps? Randy wants out, but for a fee. He must know that entering the season without a manager and a weak team will only drive the price down. Conversely, a quick sale could result in a higher price as the new owner can start afresh in time for the new season. Telling the world you want to sell something is a calculated action - it could lead to an auction, driving the price up; or it could be a sign of desparation, driving the price down. It is my opinion, that on the balance of probabilities, the rumours of a relatively quick sale are more likely to be true than the more pessimistic ones, as it would justify Randy's actions from his perspective. I suspect that Lambert knows a lot more than us, and may know that a new owner will want him out and he will only get 1 years wages. If he is to walk, it is therefore more likely that he thinks he can get another job pretty much straight away with a longer deal. Faulkner is just a club employee, so will do as he is told. I am not ITK, but assuming everyone involved will act with a degree of common sense - these are my guesses!

With only a year left on his contract, him now being 30 and having really stagnated over the past 3 years, I do think we can get rid this summer. I agree that no-one will pay him his current wages, but there are probably teams prepared to pay him, say, £40k per week, or £6m over 3 years given that he would probably be a free transfer. Clubs don't look at weekly wages anymore; they look at costs over a contract and in these circumstances, Bent will do a good job for someone. Just my opinion!

Sid memories. In his second spell when we destroyed Everton at Villa Park (6-2 in 1989); he scored a much underrated beauty of a first goal, going through and curling is around the 'wrong side' of the keeper with the outside of his right foot. **** amazing skill, and he could probably do that 99 times out of 100. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2pXNEzT3xA - 11:18 (might have bigged it up a bit too much!) And when we battered Barca in 1983 (who were a bunch dirty words removed then) and Sid scored the penalty rebound and was then hoofed into the net by the keeper (and MacNaught's reaction). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSrIsO-vSv4 - 4:40. This was my first ever game - just wow! And the leg break - just ow!

Some of the noises coming out of Bodymoor Heath overnight are making me more sympathtic to Lambert, if true. IF Lambert is behind the decision to suspend/sack these 2; and if Lambert has been unhappy for a while and has wanted them out for a while, employment law may have tied his hands somewhat.... You cannot suspend or sack people simply because you aren't happy with them. Similarly, you cannot sacy them because you think they aren't doing a good enough job. You have to gather evidence, consult with them, set them improvement targets, etc. This takes time and would have to be asessed over set periods, and if you don't get this right, you leave yourself open to compensation claims far beyond what their contracts would allow. We could be taking serious money here. You also cannot take duties off them without due process, or you end up in the same situation. If you think someone isn't doing a good enough job, you would need to provide them with suitable assistance and/or training. Getting beaten by Palace and Fulham wouldn't be sufficient grounds in law, because you can't sack someone because someone else can do their job better. All the above protects us in our daily jobs, and applies equally to any employment - so would to Culverhouse and Karsa. As I said at the start, IF this scenario is broadly right, Lambert would have some sympathy from me. BUT, at the end of the day, he is the manger and his job (surely must be) to take overall responsibility, and he should have been dealing with this long before it became so toxic. Perhaps because these 2 have been with him for so long, he was too naive and had a blind spot to them. No excuse though, but not a sackable offence on him either I'm afraid!

Given the apparent need for PR, I think that the fact Faulkner has made the statement is more revealing that the actual words used. As Nabby has pointed out, the quote from after the Bolton game is pretty similar, and many think that was the point of no return for MacLeish. Perhaps we are at the same point for Lambert now? For me, as much as I am deeply troubled by our current position, we have to survive this season - whatever it takes. Not for Lerner, Faulkner, or Lambert - for us. And let's be honest, as much as we want the club to say "recent performances have ben shite; everyone needs to get a **** grip and play like Aston Villa means the world to them like the supporters expect" - it will never happen. I think the "that is hard to take" is as brutal as it will get.

Good or very good?

The club needs a footballing philosopy before appointing a new manager - otherwise we will go through more mega-cost cycles, like when we moved from the MON "winger" era, to the McLeish "8 defenders on the pitch" era, via the Houllier "not sure what to write here" era. Get the philosophy of the club sorted, then put in place a football management structure (throughout the entire club) built around this, getting in the right man for the job. For example, many 'managers' now are really first team coaches, and need/want a "Director of Football" dealing with certain things for them. Others will not entertain such a thought. What is the style of football the club want - we now have no wingers (except Marc), so bringing in a manager who always plays with wingers will result in us needing to ship out a number of surplus players, and bringing in these wingers and other players to compliment them. [i am not saying we shouldn't do this, but would the club think of this issue - you'd **** hope so!] Personally, I really wanted Lambert in, and have supported and defended him - until the Stoke game. The huge gulf in performance levels from the same players who always get picked when available is too much to bear. Add that to the amount of 'squad' players without the necessary game time or experience when needed (presumably because he doesn't trust them) and the lack of a Plan B - he has to go. And it is exactly the same reasons why I personally thought MON had to go during his final season.

Not sure if right forum, or needs a topic of its own, but........ I see that Ian Taylor has 'passed' the on board course meaning he is qualified to be a Director. I have no idea what that means, as anyone (unless disqualified) can be a director of a company, but it does come with responsibilities. I was wondering if Randy should consider Tayls for a role on our board? He has football knowledge, but of the right sort? I doubt PL would see him as a threat to his position, but would a manager welcome an alternate voice? Personally I would love Graham Taylor on our board, as I think he has exactly the right knowledge the boards needs. But I think I would welcome Ian's involvement as his love for our club is beyond question.

Really starting to question the manager now....... We pretty much play the same team each week, yet the gulf in the standard of performances is massive. This has to be down to the manager and his coaches. The players seem utterly confused about their roles unless it is to try and defend and then break quickly. This has to be down to the manager and his coaches. Poisitionally, the players get too easily dragged to where they shouldn't be. Although the quality of the players remains a question, ultimately, this has to be down to the manager and his coaches. Some of the changes being made seem very odd to me, and although the manager is clearly in a better position than I to judge, I am now starting to doubt the man. Too many in the squad are simply not good enough. The manager has spent a lot of money, and although he needed to overhaul the squad, too much money has been spent on players not up to it. I fear for next season.

I really have no idea why we wouldn't keep hold of Marc. Surely he can't be on that much money, and the fact he is out of contract should help, as moving clubs isn't going to boost his wages either I can't imagine. However, although he isn't the greatest player, he is good enough for the Prem IMO and seems happy to be around the squad at the moment, and is probably out best attacking option off the bench. As as a few have said, he gives us a Plan B - and hopefully Tonev will step up after the traditional "difficult first season" and gives us a left wing option and a real Plan B. Plus, if we sign him up for 2 or 3 years, we could probably shift him for a million or 2 (shit, we got money for Bannan!), so the deal could be about cost neutral even if it fails! Ditto Gradner. Sack this Grealish lad tho' - unless he chooses England!

Lambert would be mad to drop Bennett - it would destroy the confidence of a player we own, in favour of a player we don't! And it would send out a poor message to the squad, that no matter how well you do, Lambert has his favourites and they are preferred. I would be fairly indifferent if Albrighton came in for either Gabby or Andi, as both have been off the boil. However, we have to get at Stoke's full backs, as when I have watched them this season, they have been the weak links in their defence. As for the performance, if their is a significant drop from last weekend, we have major problems. The challenge for the players is, if you want to play in front of 40k+ screaming fans each week, play like you did against Chelski, WBA and Narwich each week.

That goal was hard to score for so many reasons. His athletic ability to get his body shape right, after a burst from midfield, after 80 minutes when the ball is behind you, is amazing. If you look at the HD video, he is basically airborne until a nanosecond before he makes contact with the ball and plants his right foot perfectly to give him the balance not to fall on his arse, trip up his own feet, or kick the ball the opposite way. And that takes no account of the pressure of the situation (on TV; vs Chelski; team desparate for the points; home crowd; etc). Yep, most of us have tried tricks when playing, and with enough attempts, will have done something that looks great (I have scored from the halfway line - when I couldn't run anymore; I have scored an overhead kick - when we were winning by loads and starting to showboat). Fab had one shot to score in a massive game, and he **** nailed it. And how Carrick, Cleverly, and even Lampard and Wilshere on current form, get in ahead of him is a mystery to me.

WIth our goal difference, I think 3 or 4 more points will see us just fine - and we will get that becuase our defence is so much tighter than last year. However - just a warning - the problem with playing teams below us is that if we lose - they win (well duh!!!). So they are 3 points closer. Do that too often, and we could get dragged back in. I just don't believe we will. With regards the financial ties - I think they are real, but also across many facets of the club. He needs to bring total wages down, which means players have to leave, and in many cases replaced. So those coming in must earn less, so they must be operating at a 'lower' level than the Premier League. I suspect there isn't £10m's to spend, but even if there was, the impact on wages would be horrific, so it wouldn't happen. We have found out that our youth team from the past 5 years isn't bringing in many genuine first teamers as many had hoped, but can produce a few squad players (both here and those we have moved on). As a result, we need to buy more players. And we know we haven't scoured other teams to pick up their best young players in recent years (Delph aside, but his fee hardly reflects what I mean), like we have in the past with Ehiogu and Barry, and even Weiman, so we aren't bolstering the youth team that way, meaning we are buying these players when they are older, and more expensive. But, over the past couple of years, we seem to have started to sort this out. The result of this, over the next couple of years will be less need for the Luna's and Sylla's and more focus on the genuine first team starter type purchases. I hope!

Obviously, I have no idea why he didn't celebrate wildly when he scored - but his not playing, and the January transfer saga, are two possible reasons. However, as others have said, he didn't 'not celebrate', but it was subdued. At the very least, it highlighted his position to whoever was watching, and frankly made Hughton look like a right dick for not playing him more. Down you go!

Holt coming in has given us a bit of experience. The alternative was no-one. It has also enabled Bowery to go out on loan and get a few games - either so that we can flog him or improve him. I think the moaners are comparing him to signing Benteke #2, which was never going to happen.

As I posted above, the article says: So, the most that could have been written off (with regards to 'bomb squad' w/off) is £8.3 million, surely? I'm also not sure about your idea of capitalizing the players' wages. That was my thought, Snowychap. The specific reference to accelerated amortisation is for £8.3m so is more likely to be for contracts that have been terminated early (e.g.does Ireland come into this category?) To a non-accountant, It sounds like sharp practice to accelerate the amortisation of contracts we still hold. The real problem here is we are floating up into accountancy fantasy-land, speculating increasingly freely about information no-one has actually seen. Don't think it's sharp practice. If a company has an asset it no longer uses, or plans to use, it should write it off as it is 'impaired'. Ah **** it, I'm off to the pub! When the accounts are filed, I see if I can be bothered to spend a quid to get a copy and will maybe add something if it is worthwhile. At least VT members will have something to cure insomnia!

I am an accountant, so here's my take: The £90m write off from Randy is not exactly that, as he has taken shares. But given that he already owned 100% of the club, that is merely cosmetic so it is, in effect, a write off of the debt owed to him. The word 'amortisation' is simply depreciation of an intangible asset, which it's appears that players registrations no are (in other words, they are not physical, like the ground or BMH). It's an accountancy thing, and effectively means the same thing. Please don't confuse cash and profit, they are very different things. Profitable businesses go bust all the time because they run out of cash. It is clear this year that the value of certain players has been written off - Bent? Hutton? Zog? Given? Others that have already left? What I believe will have happened is that when we bought them, all of the costs of their contract, including wages and bonuses and signing on fees and agent fees will have been put on the balance sheet and 'amortised' over the length of their contracts. So for example, if Bent cost a possible £24m plus say, £20m in wages over 4 years, then we would have charged to profit £11m a year for 4 years. I hope that makes sense! So, if we have written off the remaining balance of all the bomb squad in the last years accounts, then 18 months of Bent and Hutton, 30 months of Given and Zog, etc would have been charged to profit. Add Delfounseo, Ireland, Warnock, and others, it is quite easy to see that perhaps £40m or even more could have been written off last year, hence the loss. But once that's done, it's done, so there is nothing else to come out is year. What I would really like to see is the cash position, because that would be far more telling, because the cash movement in the year would be a better indicator of trading the year that profit. Can I stress that I don't have a detailed knowledge of the books of AVFC because, as a privately owned company, you can only get limited information, but in over 20 years experience in this rather tedious game, it all appears to make sense to me! UTV!

Baffling We have progressed over last season taken as a whole, but this is mainly down to the defence. We are certainly regressed in attack, whilst the midfielder issues have not moved a jot. How the team that finished last season have become the dullards we now see is beyond me. With 2 exceptions (Vlaar, Delph) the squad has underperformed this season. And so has the management.

All the (very) funnies aside, I also think this is great as young fans get hugely excited about stuff like this. My daughter 'played' football with Ashley Young a couple of years ago, as his son went to the same nursery, and he had a kick about with the kids one afternoon. Obviously, she looked at him quite harshly at one point and he went flying, but otherwise good. It wasn't anything major, but it made the kids day, and all the lads are now Villa fans (my daughter couldn't give a shit as Princess Fuckknows doesn't play for us.)

I really hope not. There is clearly a very capable footballer there - someone who does not panic on the ball, and can put in a great cross. If our coaching staff cannot help him develop his defensive side, I am not sure we should be paying them! And I thought this was Lambert's 'thing' getting players with the right attributes but in need of some specific coaching needs, which we can do.