romavillan Posted April 19, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted April 19, 2014 Xena-Not saying you're hypocritical BUT think about it realistically, if we're going to accept hand outs, where do we draw the line? What is an acceptable figure to accept before "the heart & soul" is ripped out of our club? Money talks all the way through the PL & beyond. We wanted Bent, we got him, we wanted Lambert, we got him-All clubs do this & always have done £20 million will allow us to bully teams like Stoke & Hull for their players. £250 will allow us to bully teams like Everton & Newcastle for their players. Me personally would prefer to be taking players from Newcastle & Everton than I would from Stoke & Hull. The heart and soul of football was ripped out circa 1992, pretty much the only way to get anywhere nowadays is to spend, spend, spend. Couldn't be arsed really how much we spent if it meant we started challenging near the top again, if you can't beat them, join 'em. Personally, if we get new owners, I'd like to see us continue with our current "policy" (Young and "Hungry") but with higher fees and wages to attract better players. Whilst I agree to some extent, it's actually been like that forever. When we were the most successful club going, when there was no pro contracts we used to create non existent factory jobs for the best players, with nice salaries and they would train full time instead. We weren't the only ones but apparently that's how it used to work. I hope this rumous is true, I hope we stay up and I hope the new owners DON'T abandon the idea of developing a team with a core of players produced from our own acadamey as a model for success. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Liverpool wages: Gerrard £140k Suarez £110k Johnson £90k Agger £90k Skrtel £75k Henderson £70k Sturridge £65k Downing & Cole were on £80k a week each ffs I'd call that obscene money. 4 players salaries alone amount to more than Lerner puts into Villa each season. We're light years away from the top 4 & that's an example of wages that were agreed before Liverpool were actually in the top 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 19, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 19, 2014 OBE You are being pedantic. OK replace £20mil a season with £50mil a season. Happy now? I have always maintained elsewhere on this site its not only transfer fees, it is the wage structure we have that limits us to unknowns from Europe. People keep on harping about signing "2 quality players" instead of 6 average ones. Show me where you can get these type of players from who will sign for £15k a week. Stoke pay more than we do & have recently signed Ireland who we didn't want. Its not as easy as some people think to just sign a couple of quality players when the chairman is looking to sell the club. Pedantic? Probably - but £30m is a whole lot of pedantic I agree completely on the wages problem and our most important signings this summer already play for the club - buying Bertrand and resigning Delph and Gabby will cost us the thick end of £30m on its own - that's just to keep the team we've got now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments. Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register. The thing is though, Liverpool have spent/are spending an obscene amount of money compared to us and indeed most clubs. I appreciate your point but to compete you DO need a lot of money. Good management merely mitigates HOW obscene your spending needs to be. Compared to the likes of us, yes. Obviously big investment would be needed here but it doesn't have to be of Chelsea/City proportions. Sturridge and Coutinho are now two of the best players in the league and cost about £20m combined. Such signings are out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shammynoor Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Its great to have a bit of positive news for once! However as a villa fan the many recent kicks in the teeth have made me somewhat pessimistic in my outlook.. See Belhanda thread for how this might end! There are a few useful things that might inform this debate.. Does anybody know or have any credible information/sources on how much can any football team in the premier league expect to earn back from their investment. It seems there are 2 forms of buyer. 1. Those who wish to make a sensible high stake investment. 2. Mega rich buyer who wants a toy ( eg Man City). There is no intention to earn the money back but they want trophies. Most buyers will be in category 1. These investors will made a judgement call. If it is possible to earn back £250 Million a few years down the line by winning titles/cups/CL etc then they will possibly gamble and invest that type of money. If it is not credible to get those kind of returns then huge amounts of money will not be poured into Villa unless the buyer is in category 2. Dont forget that much of the income of huge clubs is global branding - this cant necessarily be bought overnight. Bottom line: What is a credible return on investment? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 OBE You are being pedantic. OK replace £20mil a season with £50mil a season. Happy now? I have always maintained elsewhere on this site its not only transfer fees, it is the wage structure we have that limits us to unknowns from Europe. People keep on harping about signing "2 quality players" instead of 6 average ones. Show me where you can get these type of players from who will sign for £15k a week. Stoke pay more than we do & have recently signed Ireland who we didn't want. Its not as easy as some people think to just sign a couple of quality players when the chairman is looking to sell the club. Pedantic? Probably - but £30m is a whole lot of pedantic I agree completely on the wages problem and our most important signings this summer already play for the club - buying Bertrand and resigning Delph and Gabby will cost us the thick end of £30m on its own - that's just to keep the team we've got now. Lerner has been putting in a lot more than 20m a year just to cover our losses. This summer will be the first he won't have to put cash in yet we can spend 20m as per usual. Of course to do this in the future without additional revenue coming in means the wage bill can't rise much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments. Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register. I would say £15m for Joe Allen £11m for that geezer who hardly ever plays + £120k pw for Gerrard is obscene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 How has Lerner put more than £20mil a year in? Do we accept the figure that he is owed is the £250mil widely reported? If so, if you take the £120mil he paid for the club away, this leaves ££130mil which works out at around £16mil a season. Don't forget, Lerner pocketed quite a few quid from the Young & Downing sales as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One For The Road Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments. Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register. The thing is though, Liverpool have spent/are spending an obscene amount of money compared to us and indeed most clubs. I appreciate your point but to compete you DO need a lot of money. Good management merely mitigates HOW obscene your spending needs to be. Compared to the likes of us, yes. Obviously big investment would be needed here but it doesn't have to be of Chelsea/City proportions. Sturridge and Coutinho are now two of the best players in the league and cost about £20m combined. Such signings are out there. But it's more about wages than transfers in Liverpool's case. I agree that they have spent less on transfers than Chelsea and Man City but who can compete with the kind of money Liverpool are offering to the aforementioned players? Edit: Not that I'm privy to the financials of Liverpool Football Club but I think it's safe to assume that those players are on considerably more money than most clubs could even think about paying. Edited April 19, 2014 by One For The Road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGregor1888 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments. Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register. Suarez's wages are obscene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted April 19, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 19, 2014 Don't forget, Lerner pocketed quite a few quid from the Young & Downing sales as well. He didn't pocket any of it - it went back into the club - where it disappeared into our wage bill and our debt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments. Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register. I would say £15m for Joe Allen £11m for that geezer who hardly ever plays + £120k pw for Gerrard is obscene. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 OBE The money in question went towards paying back loans made by Lerner to the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 How has Lerner put more than £20mil a year in? Do we accept the figure that he is owed is the £250mil widely reported? If so, if you take the £120mil he paid for the club away, this leaves ££130mil which works out at around £16mil a season. Don't forget, Lerner pocketed quite a few quid from the Young & Downing sales as well. He didn't buy the club for 120m it was half of that. He then has lost/spent 250 apparently and those figures have come from the accounts. So what I originally said is correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Liverpool wages: Gerrard £140kSuarez £110kJohnson £90kAgger £90kSkrtel £75kHenderson £70kSturridge £65k Downing & Cole were on £80k a week each ffs I'd call that obscene money. 4 players salaries alone amount to more than Lerner puts into Villa each season. We're light years away from the top 4 & that's an example of wages that were agreed before Liverpool were actually in the top 4.Suarez is on over 200k a week since his new deal.That would probably pay half our teams wages for the game against Fulham. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments. Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register. The thing is though, Liverpool have spent/are spending an obscene amount of money compared to us and indeed most clubs. I appreciate your point but to compete you DO need a lot of money. Good management merely mitigates HOW obscene your spending needs to be. Compared to the likes of us, yes. Obviously big investment would be needed here but it doesn't have to be of Chelsea/City proportions. Sturridge and Coutinho are now two of the best players in the league and cost about £20m combined. Such signings are out there. But it's more about wages than transfers in Liverpool's case. I agree that they have spent less on transfers than Chelsea and Man City but who can compete with the kind of money Liverpool are offering to the aforementioned players? Edit: Not that I'm privy to the financials of Liverpool Football Club but I think it's safe to assume that those players are on considerably more money than most clubs could even think about paying. Ok, to clarify then, the new owner would need to invest big but not to Chelsea/City levels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments. Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register. I'd call £150m+, and whatever wages they pay (I'd imagine an average of ~50k p/w?), to build a squad, an obscene amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One For The Road Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) As the likes of Liverpool, Atleti, Dortmund etc. have shown, you don't need obscene levels of spending to be successful anyway. Just good management and smart investments. Yeah, Saurez, Sturridge, coutinho Mignolet all came for next to next nothing - Ive heard that Gerrard and Suurez are 10k per week - what is it that compels people to say things which blatantly aren't true about Liverpool ? They haven't spent Chelsea/City amounts of money is the point. 'Obscene' being the key word you obviously failed to register. The thing is though, Liverpool have spent/are spending an obscene amount of money compared to us and indeed most clubs. I appreciate your point but to compete you DO need a lot of money. Good management merely mitigates HOW obscene your spending needs to be. Compared to the likes of us, yes. Obviously big investment would be needed here but it doesn't have to be of Chelsea/City proportions. Sturridge and Coutinho are now two of the best players in the league and cost about £20m combined. Such signings are out there. But it's more about wages than transfers in Liverpool's case. I agree that they have spent less on transfers than Chelsea and Man City but who can compete with the kind of money Liverpool are offering to the aforementioned players? Edit: Not that I'm privy to the financials of Liverpool Football Club but I think it's safe to assume that those players are on considerably more money than most clubs could even think about paying. Ok, to clarify then, the new owner would need to invest big but not to Chelsea/City levels I disagree. Liverpool had the foundations of a good side and they added to it. We are just utter shit. It will take a hell of a lot more money to get us to compete than it did Liverpool. We need a whole new squad. Moreover, it would take a seriously good offer for any top player to come to us given our recent history. In fact, we may need to be the BIGGEST spenders in the league just to get going. (Hopes potential new owners are reading) Edited April 19, 2014 by One For The Road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No, that's where I would disagree. If you are talking about instantaneous success then fair enough but we can continually evolve over a certain timeframe if we are well-run and invest wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One For The Road Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 No, that's where I would disagree. If you are talking about instantaneous success then fair enough but we can continually evolve over a certain timeframe if we are well-run and invest wisely. To be honest, I'd just settle for "well-run". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts