thetrees Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I've seen that point made before and its stupid. We didn't know what was happening in terms of finances and how it would effect the future of the club. Now all the info is out then yes its clear he was idiotic allowing spending to spiral out of control. Some did, and it was questioned at the time. Interesting that those who feel qualified to condemn with hindsight actually wouldn't, by their own admission, have any clue as to how to manage the financial end of any football club. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I've seen that point made before and its stupid. We didn't know what was happening in terms of finances and how it would effect the future of the club. Now all the info is out then yes its clear he was idiotic allowing spending to spiral out of control. Some did, and it was questioned at the time. Interesting that those who feel qualified to condemn with hindsight actually wouldn't, by their own admission, have any clue as to how to manage the financial end of any football club. The financial picture and future wasn't clear at that point was it? You expect the fans to know all the ins and outs of our finances? I'll tell you one thing I wouldn't try to sort finances out by hiring two awful managers and giving out more ludicrous contracts. For someone who claims not to defend him you put across some really weak arguments to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 1, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2014 I've seen that point made before and its stupid. We didn't know what was happening in terms of finances and how it would effect the future of the club. Now all the info is out then yes its clear he was idiotic allowing spending to spiral out of control. The key to the "idiocy/not idiocy (delete as fits your view)" is surely the affordability to the individual. While he was backing MO'N and Houllier with large sums, certainly MO'N, he consciously felt he could afford it - like Man CIty now (only not to the same extent, obviously). - it was their plan - spend heavily up front, with the aim being to recoup the money from better income and success. It's the same plan Liverpool's last owners, and to an extent their current one have. The key thing is the execution of a plan like that. MO'N and Kenny Dalglish failed - paying over the odds for British players (largely). They paid in their different ways with their jobs. They didn'tget the league placings the outlay was expected/hoped would achieve. I wouldn't call it idiocy, myself, just a risky plan. Like Isaid if you can afford to spend the money, then fair enough. Randy's own circs changed dramatically, as did the world financial landscape. That was I suppose bad luck, not something that could be reasonably forseen. So not idiocy. Just the rough end of a gamble. Where I have more criticism is in the funding of it - if it was all personal money, then fine. What I don't like is the loan part. If an owner stops putting his own money in, then that's OK by me. We have no right at all to ask that they do, but loans are different. Write themoff, fine, all is good.But gamble borrowed money and then demand it paid back is footballing-wise immoral - gambling the future of the club, basically. To be fair to Randy, to date he's written off a fair old chunk of loan and interest, but if he stops doing so, then I'd be very unhappy with him. But we're not there yet. I think Trees comment is something that is valid. As fans we are happy when the club spends money and gives us players to watch, and unhappy when the club doesn't. We often don't look any more deeply than that - it's just "get the chequebook out" and "sign him up" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I've seen that point made before and its stupid. We didn't know what was happening in terms of finances and how it would effect the future of the club. Now all the info is out then yes its clear he was idiotic allowing spending to spiral out of control. Some did, and it was questioned at the time. Interesting that those who feel qualified to condemn with hindsight actually wouldn't, by their own admission, have any clue as to how to manage the financial end of any football club. The financial picture and future wasn't clear at that point was it? You expect the fans to know all the ins and outs of our finances? I'll tell you one thing I wouldn't try to sort finances out by hiring two awful managers and giving out more ludicrous contracts. For someone who claims not to defend him you put across some really weak arguments to do it. As I stated, there were some who were concerned about the state of the club early in the tenure of Mr.Lerner and O'Neill, but we were all guilty of being intoxicated with the feeling of being able to compete for major signings. My 'weak arguments' are at least arguments, in the face of some who just keep droning on abput how bad the owner is, with neither constructive criticism, nor constructive ideas of how things should be done differently. As far as I am concerned Mr. Lerner is culpable for our situation, but not solely culpable, and in certain cases is guilty of naivety and being an owner far too willing to back his managers. When you are older you may find it in your heart to forgive people their errors-we are none of us perfect, and you may also gain the realisation that if you are stuck with an immovable object, it is better to try to see the future with said object, make do, so to speak. Anyway, he is playing a blinder so far this afternoon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 As fans we are happy when the club spends money and gives us players to watch, and unhappy when the club doesn't. We were happy because we trusted the owner and the talk of a plan. Why wouldn't we? Lerner had given no reason not to trust him. I don't think its just lack of spending thats made fans unhappy. His managerial appointments have done nothing to help him. Our wage bill was too high, yet we continued to give ridiculous contracts out to players signed by poor managers that he'd hired. That's idiotic to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 1, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2014 I agree that appointing that scottish manager from wherever it was made a massive sea change in people's views of Randy. The others, Houllier didn't work, but the circs surrounding it - the timing of the vacancy, the illness and so on - I think people were generally forgiving, or understanding of that. Lambert - most people wanted him, so, no, I disagree that his appointments (plural) count against him. 2 pluses, a massive minus and a unlucky one, in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Yeah didn't mean to class Lambert in with the other 2. But my point was that we accepted finances were in a mess yet continued to give out ridiculous contracts. I think giving a 35 year old keeper a 5 year deal when finances were so bad is idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Yeah didn't mean to class Lambert in with the other 2. But my point was that we accepted finances were in a mess yet continued to give out ridiculous contracts. I think giving a 35 year old keeper a 5 year deal when finances were so bad is idiotic. That is a point that I don't think anyone would disagree with you on. Being 'honourable' and signing Stephen Ireland, after the manager who wanted him had departed, is also another huge example of bad management from the top. But then signing Bent, with the huge cost to bear, probably saved our PL status. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Maybe if he hadn't made such a poor managerial appointment we wouldn't have had to spend £20 million on one player to keep us up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I believe Darren Bent was signed for the long term. DB would have been a key player if GH had remained at the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Maybe if he hadn't made such a poor managerial appointment we wouldn't have had to spend £20 million on one player to keep us up. More hindsight from you BJ10. McLeish was a poor managerial appointment on all levels, Houllier was not. Most people agreed at the time, and most level thinkers would still agree, that Houllier was a decent appointment. The owner did his homework, consulted 'football people', who came up with someone of vast experience who was one of the top five successful managers of the PL era. The owner then personally worked hard to get his man. Unfortunately the character of the man decided to have a love in with his former club, and his health issues caught up with him, which computed into bad luck for Randy Lerner and Aston Villa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 More hindsight from you BJ10. Said I didn't rate him or think it was a good appointment when it happened so bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 More hindsight from you BJ10. Said I didn't rate him or think it was a good appointment when it happened so bullshit. Sorry, you stated that it was a 'poor managerial appointment', so I responded with a rational view. Just because you didn't rate him, doesn't make him a poor appointment. I have never rated Martin O'Neill, but I thought that his was a good appointment for the club at the time. Unfortunately it lasted longer than the 18 months shelf-life that I expected of him and that I hoped that he would stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 He was out of the game for years and had serious health problems in the past. I think that made it a poor appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldendays Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I'll just leave this here.. I did a credit check on the Villa last month and the wage bill currently stands at £51m pa. which is a in the bottom 10 of clubs in the division. Although it isn't quoted I believe the debt at the club to be currently at £122m. Both of these are manageable when you consider annual turn over and TV bonuses. Lerner takes his 5% cream of the top and to be fair the club is mid table (To be expected all things considered) I can't see any changes this month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I'll just leave this here.. I did a credit check on the Villa last month and the wage bill currently stands at £51m pa. which is a in the bottom 10 of clubs in the division. Although it isn't quoted I believe the debt at the club to be currently at £122m. Both of these are manageable when you consider annual turn over and TV bonuses. Lerner takes his 5% cream of the top and to be fair the club is mid table (To be expected all things considered) I can't see any changes this month Explain the bolded part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldendays Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I'm led to believe his holding company (Reform Acquisitions) get a 5% return on all debt - effectively Randolphs Wages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I'll just leave this here.. I did a credit check on the Villa last month and the wage bill currently stands at £51m pa. which is a in the bottom 10 of clubs in the division. Although it isn't quoted I believe the debt at the club to be currently at £122m. Both of these are manageable when you consider annual turn over and TV bonuses. Lerner takes his 5% cream of the top and to be fair the club is mid table (To be expected all things considered) I can't see any changes this month If you check the last accounts (ye May 2012) of Reform Acquisitions Ltd, into which everything is consolidated, then the wage bill, including directors, was £70m (£69.6m excl directors) Share capital has risen to £133m (2008:£60.5m) I am not an accountant, so I cannot see the '5% cream', but I assume that is of turnover. I guess that if you take into account the interest payments of just shy of £7m, then that is nearer 9% 'cream' But then who else would be mad enough to lend a football club hundreds of millions!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 If our wage bill is 51m then we're paying about 25m out that's not going in player wages. That's a concern imo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldendays Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I'm not an accountant either - the info came via our CFO (i work for a large'ish business in London) who got the club scored as though we were going to begin trading with them But if you have investible liquid assets (you know if you sold your stock in a huge bank say) a 5-9% return across as many years as you like with a pretty much guaranteed recovery (plus loads more no doubt) should you decide you wanted out. Add to that a globally recognisable brand whose physical infrastructure is not in need of any investment and whose playing staff are doing ok. A strangely sound bit of business, no? why would he invest more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts