VillaChris Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 We wouldn't but how much of a pay cut do you think he'd realistically take. If Derby come up I'm sure they'll offer him a nice juicy 40k a week deal so he wouldn't accept less here when he dosen't have as much chance as playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I would be quite devastated if our new billionaire Qatari owners announced their intentions to flaunt FFP rules by giving Darren Bent a new contract. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I don't think they will, but I can understand Bent wanting to get in on the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Do you not think it's more likely that Bent is talking about staying because the manager who didn't want him has been sacked, he has a good relationship with Sherwood, and he's also out of contract in the summer so i'm sure he's listening to all offers... Or it's because the Qatari's are taking over, Bent knows all about it, and is hoping they will give him one big final pay-day. Hmmmm.... Bent is on 60k a week here apparently. There's no way he'd get a new deal if Lerner was still counting the pennies next season as the opportunity to get someone earning 3m a year for doing naff all would be too good to miss. I get the feeling Lerner is sanctioning this knowing it will be someone else's problem in a few months time e.g. the wage bill. That's assuming we'd offer him a new 60k a week contract. Which we wouldn't. Anyway, this is going off topic a bit. I don't personally see Bent considering an option to stay at the club an indication that we're being taken over. It is what it says on the tin - his contract is up at the end of the season and he is looking at options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted April 3, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 3, 2015 Do you not think it's more likely that Bent is talking about staying because the manager who didn't want him has been sacked, he has a good relationship with Sherwood, and he's also out of contract in the summer so i'm sure he's listening to all offers... Or it's because the Qatari's are taking over, Bent knows all about it, and is hoping they will give him one big final pay-day. Hmmmm.... Bent is on 60k a week here apparently. There's no way he'd get a new deal if Lerner was still counting the pennies next season as the opportunity to get someone earning 3m a year for doing naff all would be too good to miss. I get the feeling Lerner is sanctioning this knowing it will be someone else's problem in a few months time e.g. the wage bill. That's assuming we'd offer him a new 60k a week contract. Which we wouldn't. Anyway, this is going off topic a bit. I don't personally see Bent considering an option to stay at the club an indication that we're being taken over. Absolutely this. Bent is no fool and is looking at his options. Alerting other teams that he may return to Villa is a sure-fire way to get potential interest given his time at the club so far. There is also the change in management team which in itself helps, but at the moment I can't see the change in management or the potential takeover of the club impacting upon his reasoning. He is just looking for the best deal he can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Do you not think it's more likely that Bent is talking about staying because the manager who didn't want him has been sacked, he has a good relationship with Sherwood, and he's also out of contract in the summer so i'm sure he's listening to all offers... Or it's because the Qatari's are taking over, Bent knows all about it, and is hoping they will give him one big final pay-day. Seeing as Sherwood said he's not look at players at other clubs as he's focus is on us staying up I'd say Bents saying there's other people interested to give himself a better hand when negotiating his contract. Under FFP we need a balanced wage bill that grows alongside revenue so no matter who buys us next year will be consolidation as the big TV deal doesn't kick in till the year after. Hmmmm.... Bent is on 60k a week here apparently. There's no way he'd get a new deal if Lerner was still counting the pennies next season as the opportunity to get someone earning 3m a year for doing naff all would be too good to miss. I get the feeling Lerner is sanctioning this knowing it will be someone else's problem in a few months time e.g. the wage bill. That's assuming we'd offer him a new 60k a week contract. Which we wouldn't. Anyway, this is going off topic a bit. I don't personally see Bent considering an option to stay at the club an indication that we're being taken over. It is what it says on the tin - his contract is up at the end of the season and he is looking at options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartyn88 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Have we been taken over yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 3, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 3, 2015 If I've understood correctly, a consortium wanted to take us over, but they were overtaken by the Qataris, who wanted to take us under their wing, but it looks like we'll end up with the undertaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Just out of interest where does the money paid from FFP fines go? Grass roots? Junkets? Eventually it gets to UEFIFA, then Splatter takes his cut and passes the rest on in brown paper bags Edited April 4, 2015 by Grasshopper 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 As I see it there is a way round FFP. We "just" need to beef up income from non football areas. E.g. start producing all match food and sell to other clubs as well. In short just expand the overall business to include other streams of revenue. I have not seen a ban on making money on other stuff than transfers and sponsors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 We're hardly going to get rich as a catering business, nor are our rivals likely to subsidise us. Maybe we should become a hedge fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 How about an advance on the new TV money, or just getting a loan to the same amount. Then putting all it on "ManU to beat Villa" today. that should rake a few million in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 One of the various issues with FFP and why it is so wrong is that clubs will increasingly have to sell their souls & history away to sponsorship to try and compete. If we want to raise our income we will have to sell naming rights to the ground, can't see anyone rushing to pay top $$ for the training ground like Manure. I can see club shirts becoming like F1 overalls blazoned with sponsors. Everyone thought the transfer windows wouldn't be around for long due to restriction of trade 19 years or so later still here. I fear the same for FFP The big clubs or who earn millions more than the rest won't want there monopoly challenged. The new owners are not going to be looking for a trophy asset they will be looking for making a profit on their investment why else would you spend £150 mill on a club you couldn't build to challenge the elite. It's going to be interesting to see who it's going to be giving the restrictions in place and I fear a consortium more than Lerner unless it's made up of AEG, Guggenheim, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 The worst thing about FFP is the way the rules will be bent by clubs that are desperately trying to get to the top and how that then sets a precedent for clubs that are already there Our new owner sponsors our stadium for £100m, arsenal are straight on the phone to emirates, our new owner sponsors our shirts for £50m, utd / Chelsea etc will get even more, when we officially sell our soul and get ourselves a Diesel engine partner (saw it at OT on tv couple of weeks ago) for £2m a year then utds Diesel engine partner will be worth £5m a year They'll always be 1 step ahead, FFP is putting more money in to football than ever before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Its simple, FFP could have been a good thing, it just it came much too late. Now the elite will always be the elite. It will take a miracle for us or any other midtable lower league team to actually be top 4 again, If we get near the elite, they will just buy our players and or, buy their success. With our turnover, even if it increases, we are too far far away to challege for top 4. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Surprised there are no stories this morning regarding this supposed takeover thought the Villa Park PR team would have fed the media something in the build up to the QPR game so I reckon there will be another none story either tomorrow or Tuesday to raise the fans in our MUST win game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 We got stories right after the Sunderland win, so I think there's some truth to what's being reported and not some tactic to dictate the fans emotions. On plane detail The Trees has said elsewhere that when Randy's jet arrived on Thursday, it came from California, which is supposedly unusual and when it went to Paris it never came back to Birmingham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 (edited) Not doubting there is something in it just commenting on how controlled the release of information is. A certain mr Ellison lives in California Also did you trees mean it didn't come back to Birmingham or it's still in Paris ? Edited April 5, 2015 by thabucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 I think The Trees meant that it hasn't come back to Birmingham, I don't think it's in Paris any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 5, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted April 5, 2015 Oh jesus Not Ellison again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts