New_Jersey_Villa

I'd say the relegation wage reduction clauses makes sound business sense. (don't get to say that very often around here) It's probably safe to assume that the player in question is part of the reason we got relegated in the first place, it's only right that they suffer the consequences.

4 minutes ago, lmarsha_926 said:

Played 18 league games for Villa yet to be on the winning team

Astonishing when you put it like that.

8 minutes ago, r1hvy said:

I would love to know what has been going on behind the scenes that has meant we've seen so litte of this lad :-/

Probably to not risk him aggravating the injuries he got earlier in the season. 

It seems to me that everyone is so jaded at this point, that replacing the tea lady would bring a wave of euphoria hoping we've finally turned the corner and are moving in the right direction. 

18 minutes ago, VillanousOne said:

the question no-one seems to be asking is if we can afford to keep the players we have, Premiership wages in the Championship doesn't work.

3 minutes ago, villafan306 said:

I'd hope we have relegation wage reductions in the contracts!

I can already predict the explosion on here if anyone of our current squad ask for a transfer when we go down because they are "Too Good" for the championship.

His another name on the list of players we have, that have the potential to gift the opposition a goal at any moment. His kicking mistakes blow my mind, why not just boot the ball out for a throw in if it's looking dicey?

On 1/4/2016 at 07:27, Stevo985 said:

He said on facebook his injury wasn't serious.

 

I agree about the rest. The thing I'd like to see him doing more of is making intelligent runs. He almost always comes short for the ball and then wants to run it past people himself. That's great when it works, but when teams get wise to this we've seen against several teams that they just close him down early and he doesn't have room to get going.

If he used his pace to make a run and run onto a ball he'd have space and momentum when he receives it and be basically unstoppable. Or when he does come short, drop it off to somebody and then run beyond the players who have closed him down. He has the pace to beat anyone in a foot race.

Good point about more forward runs. I was thinking the same myself while watching the game.

1 hour ago, lmarsha_926 said:

41 Championship goals between them last season we have that up front next season we will come back up

Possible, if we can get the lads to cross the ball more than twice a game.

4 minutes ago, samjp26 said:

Probably because he is a midfielder and not a defender, just a wild guess though I could be wrong.

Exactly.

1 hour ago, Marka Ragnos said:

Hey -- it's the other Villa fan in a hundred mile radius!  

I know. It's going to be harder. And there will be certain ... let us say, "temptations" ... that will seem alluring from here. What if my eyes begin to wander? Will my heart stay true? (Even THINKING this is a bad sign, I suspect.) An AVFC fan gets lonely here. I suspect the only solution will be a pilgrimage to VP next season, so that I can get my head sorted.

I went to Villa Park for the first time in 15 years for the Man City game, I still got goosebumps lol. I joined this board shortly there after, it really ignited my fire again.

The only other time I saw them live was when MoN was the manager and we played the Columbus Crew pre season, forget what the year was, but we had just signed Nigel Rio Coker.

4 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said:

I'm encouraged by what you say. It's the practicalities of supporting a championship club from abroad that most worry me. I honestly could care less about bragging rights, etc. Apart from a  handful of South Americans I'm friends with (they keep a distant eye on the Premier League in a way that's not unlike how some Britons keep an eye on, say, Serie A ), no one near where I live has heard of AVFC and that was never going to change anyway.  But now people will be even more puzzled when I wear my Villa stuff. "Uhhmmmmm, who's that, do they make those James Bond cars?"

Same boat as you mate. Having a subscription to NBC sports means I never miss a game right now. Very unlikely any network will carry Championship games.

If we'd spent more we might be no better off anyway. Considering some of the poor choices that were made on players with the money we did spend, who's to say that the players signed if extra money were made available would be any good either?

3 hours ago, ThisCouldBeRotterdam said:

Not sure if he has been mentioned yet, but would anyone say no to jordan rhodes? Proved at championship level, we know he works well with gestede and if we bid now he could settle for the rest of the season and possibly get us some goals. Ive seen him linked with middlesborough but surely we could be a better bet for him?

I'd say as he's called Jordan there is every chance. From our recent transfer history it seems the stats guys are recommending we sign all the Jordan's we can. Guess after the numbers were crunched they liked what they saw.

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

We only spend 52 milliion, because we sold Benteke...is more the point.  Who are we going to sell to raise that again?

There is another discussion about FFP, I'm not even sure we can spend much more without making sales.  Who is there to sell.

The money we've actually spent that wasn't raised through sales has been one of the lowest in the prem for some time*, kind of where we are in the league reflects that.  Actual investment of surplus isn't coming, I am pretty certain of that, many other clubs are making bigger "net spend"* than us and our budget is shoe string by comparison.


*Based on a table I'm sure I remember seeing where net spend compared with other teams was plotted, and shown ours to be low.

I recall seeing the table you are talking about. At least he allowed that money to be reinvested in the team though, as opposed to pocketing the cash. I guess the biggest irony is that if we'd spent no money at all this summer we'd still be in exactly the same position in the league as we are after spending 50 million. 50 mill doesn't get you what it used to I guess.

Just now, DJ_Villain said:

Was that a pun on the Colombian drug baron?

To be honest when I first read your reply I stopped at Oil rich Saudi. I would say, however that the way some folks hate Lerner they'd rather have a Colombian drug baron in charge.

Just now, DJ_Villain said:

 

Get an oil rich Saudi / Colombian drug baron in!

I like that thinking, do we have one lined up?

10 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Significant money for fees and wages? Always had the best intentions?

People still believe this type of stuff? I thought everyone had come round to the truth now. 

Respect your opinion mate I'm just calling it how I see it. I could be full of shit for all I know.

2 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

None of those players are earning what Benteke, Delph, Bent and Given were picking up.

Not sure, but didn't we end up with 10 new signings over the summer? individually I'm sure their wages are not close, collectively maybe?

58 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

We sold players for 45 million, 5 million net isnt authorizing significant funds for transfers imo especially when it was spread around and not replacing 3 of our so called top players from last year.

Lerner isn't the one who decided to spread the money around though. Sure he probably set the overall budget, but the transfer committee were the ones who decided who and what to spend it on. I'd imagine if they had wanted to they could have spent the 50 million on less players, but much better quality. 

11 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

We received about £45m in transfer fees. We lost about £350k a week alone  in Benteke, Delph, Vlaar, Cleverley,Bent and Given. That's about £16m a year.

Then you add on Sylla, Tonev, Luna, Bennett, Baker, Weimann, Lowton.

Where has this money gone?

I'd imagine to the wages for players we signed last summer.

Not to be obtuse, but the guy already wants out doesn't he? I'm all for people protesting to get their points heard, but perhaps a more productive statement would be "Hire a management team that is actually qualified and experienced in running an English Football Club and get rid of your American business school graduates who don't have a clue"

I could understand if there was a queue of potential buyers knocking on the door and Lerner was holding out for more money, but there isn't.

What's the plan after Lerner out?

1 minute ago, Neil said:

The point about Financial fair play isn't really around how well you do with what you spend, it's purely how much you've spent and how much you make...and how much more you're able to spend.  Clearly doing better will generate additional revenue and allow you to spend more, but my finger in the air guess is our wage bill compared to what we bring in probalby doesn't put our books in a good place for spending more.

My point was more to the fact that it isn't the constraints of FFP that we're in this mess, it's the fact that the money we spent that was within the boundaries on the FFP was used poorly. The original poster had asked if FFP was preventing Lerner from throwing more money around, I'm just saying that, that shouldn't even be an issue if we had invested the money already spent more wisely.

I'm all for Garde being patient and not signing players just for the sake of it. I just think that if nothing happens soon it will appear as though we've thrown the towel in and are not even going to try to survive, however unlikely that's going to be.

When you look at our wage and transfer spending we are around the middle of the table for amount spent. There are teams who spend far less than us on wages and transfers who are competing just fine.

While some will disagree, I'm not displeased with the amount we've spent, it's the players we spent the money on, that is the problem.

Anyone getting worried yet? It's Jan 5th and we still haven't seen anything close to being a done deal.