Richard Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Twist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) the probability that Fox and Sherwood get axed? That wouldn't be a bad thing in my eyes. Money is what we need, and lots of it. Otherwise it's just going to be a constant fight to try to stay up. Edited June 3, 2015 by villa89 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 the probability that Fox and Sherwood get axed? That wouldn't be a bad thing in my eyes. Money is what we need, and lots of it We need lots of money so we get rid of a guy with a proven track record of making football clubs lots of money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Without knowing who the hypothetical new owners are and what they're like I couldn't possibly give an answer. you could, and your post suggests you'd reluctantly pick lerner its a totally anonymous poll bro i won't tell I could, but I won't. Personally I'd like to see new owners and Sherwood and Fox stay. Edited June 4, 2015 by Mantis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted June 4, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 4, 2015 I'd have to say new ownership is probably required to get us to where we want to be. The current owner needs to radically change tack if he's going to convince anyone he has the ambition to get us up the table rather than scraping by at the bottom end of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) If randy puts money up for the summer..... Enough for us to properly invest in the squad then I have no problem with him staying. It's the danger of us getting into August without any major signings that I'm worried about. If you're committed to selling something you won't really want to throw money at it before getting rid. On the other hand if we don't sell, and he doesn't invest.... Surely he'll get less interest/ money for s championship club? I see his problem tbh, but he's running out of time either way Edited June 4, 2015 by Duck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) We need lots of money so we get rid of a guy with a proven track record of making football clubs lots of money? How much money has he made for clubs? It's easy to say he made Arsenal a lot of money but they are in the Champions League every season for the last 16 (?) years. He might be a good CEO or whatever his title is but the bottom line is that the only way we'll ever get to compete at the top end of the table is with a lot of outside investment from a rich backer. If getting that rich backer means sacking everyone who's at the club then so be it. As we stand the very best we can hope for is to be a solid mid table side like Swansea or Stoke and Tom Fox isn't going to be able to change that. Edited June 4, 2015 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 With FFP, whoever is making the footballing decisions (which I assume is Tom Fox?) is far more important than the owner. The owner really cant do very much. He can't put his own money in, most of them don't know a great deal about football and don't make decisions regarding the playing stuff. It's up to Tom Fox to try and generate some cash, make the right sales and bring in the right players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 the bottom line is that the only way we'll ever get to compete at the top end of the table is with a lot of outside investment from a rich backer. Have you missed the whole ffp thing that prevents the owner from putting money in, no matter how rich he is, due to our previous losses? Lerner can't put money in. A new owner can't put money in. we need to generate money independently of ownership to spend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) the bottom line is that the only way we'll ever get to compete at the top end of the table is with a lot of outside investment from a rich backer. Have you missed the whole ffp thing that prevents the owner from putting money in, no matter how rich he is, due to our previous losses? Lerner can't put money in. A new owner can't put money in. we need to generate money independently of ownership to spend 1. UEFA FFP is irrelevant if you are not in Europe so it doesn't affect us at all. We can spend all the money we like to get the team into a situation where we are stable as a top 6 club. If we couldn't enter the Europa league because we violated FFP that would just be a bonus. The premier league FFP rules are unknown to me but Man City haven't received any sanctions and neither would any club on a spending spree. 2. There are also ways around it through "clever" sponsorship deals etc. 3. Platini has already confirmed that the FFP rules are going to be relaxed/abandoned. (My guess is that UEFA have realised that the rules are against EU competition law. There are a number of pending court cases) 4. Clubs like Man City and PSG are violating FFP, they are still in the champions league, still winning trophies and they just pay the fine with their vast, vast wealth. No big deal. Lerner could put in as much money as he likes, he just doesn't want to. The FFP/balance the books/sound financial footing/ excuse is just an excuse for owners to run clubs at a profit and keep the profit for themselves. If you want a club to win things you have to be a huge club like Man U or Barca or else run it at a loss like PSG/Man City. There's a glass ceiling in the premier league and clubs like Liverpool and Spurs keep smashing into it because they aren't quite rich enough. Then there's a few well run clubs that sit comfortably in midtable and then there are some badly run clubs and smaller clubs who battle relegation every season. We can aim to be a well run mid-table club like Swansea or Stoke but that's it. That's our ceiling without a sugar daddy. Football as a competitive sport is broken. It is now a predictable monopoly/cartel at the top end. Edited June 4, 2015 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 1. UEFA FFP is irrelevant if you are not in Europe so it doesn't affect us at all. We can spend all the money we like to get the team into a situation where we are stable as a top 6 club. If we couldn't enter the Europa league because we violated FFP that would just be a bonus. The premier league FFP rules are unknown to me but Man City haven't received any sanctions and neither would any club on a spending spree. 2. There are also ways around it through "clever" sponsorship deals etc. 3. Platini has already confirmed that the FFP rules are going to be relaxed/abandoned. (My guess is that UEFA have realised that the rules are against EU competition law. There are a number of pending court cases) 4. Clubs like Man City and PSG are violating FFP, they are still in the champions league, still winning trophies and they just pay the fine with their vast, vast wealth. No big deal. Lerner could put in as much money as he likes, he just doesn't want to. The FFP/balance the books/sound financial footing/ excuse is just an excuse for owners to run clubs at a profit and keep the profit for themselves. If you want a club to win things you have to be a huge club like Man U or Barca or else run it at a loss like PSG/Man City. There's a glass ceiling in the premier league and clubs like Liverpool and Spurs keep smashing into it because they aren't quite rich enough. Then there's a few well run clubs that sit comfortably in midtable and then there are some badly run clubs and smaller clubs who battle relegation every season. We can aim to be a well run mid-table club like Swansea or Stoke but that's it. That's our ceiling without a sugar daddy. Football as a competitive sport is broken. It is now a predictable monopoly/cartel at the top end. 1. Not talking about UEFA FFP, I'm talking about domestic Premier League FFP, the rules of which are known already if you bother looking, and we're at the bottom end of it, pretty much only able to spend what we make for the next year. 2. The same kind of sponsorship deals that got PSG and City hammered with sanctions in Europe? They won't work domestically. However clever deals in terms of good, solid commercial arrangements WILL work, and that's why we need someone like Fox who has done that for a living. 3. Platini is talking about UEFA FFP not Premier League FFP, they're completely different things 4. Again, you're talking about UEFA FFP The sugar daddy concept no longer exists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaid Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 the bottom line is that the only way we'll ever get to compete at the top end of the table is with a lot of outside investment from a rich backer. Have you missed the whole ffp thing that prevents the owner from putting money in, no matter how rich he is, due to our previous losses? Lerner can't put money in. A new owner can't put money in. we need to generate money independently of ownership to spend Is it not possible for a new owner to buy something worth nothing for a 100million from a friend and then this friend buys a similar 'vip seats season package' for a 100 million? Or is that sort of stuff being stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 That's being stopped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) 2. The same kind of sponsorship deals that got PSG and City hammered with sanctions in Europe? They won't work domestically. However clever deals in terms of good, solid commercial arrangements WILL work, and that's why we need someone like Fox who has done that for a living. The sugar daddy concept no longer exists They are working domestically? The Eithad sponsorship of city's stadium, jersey and training ground is a joke sponsorship where they completely overpay as the two companies have the same owners and surprise, surprise the premier league don't care. If a rich sugar daddy came into villa and sold the 50 year naming rights to Villa park to another company he owned for a huge amount of money the premier league wouldn't care (IMO) because they love money. They'd love to see another Man City buying players for £30m and making "the best league in the world" even better As long as the owner isn't borrowing to fund the splurge then you wouldn't be sanctioned. Also England is in the EU (at the moment) and subject to E.U. competition laws so I'd be fairly sure that the Premier League or the FA can't do anything to stop an owner investing money in his own business. It's all a moot point anyway as we won't be getting a rich owner anytime soon and as a result we are going nowhere fast as a club. Edited June 5, 2015 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The problem with the PL FFP rules is that it was voted in by a majority and they're not being contested. If the PL or FA can't do anything about rich owners soending what they want then why are all clubs working to comply with the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 We missed our last chance to join the big boys in the early Lerner era. If well run we might become a top 10 club but we have missed the boat.No new owner can bridge the gap to the top 6 with the FFP rules even if they have been relaxed. Basically we are forever to be a crusierweight trying to fight heavyweights.At best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts