brommy Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 21 minutes ago, NottingVilla said: Randy Lerner with a twitter account. Sad truth I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjvilla Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 29 minutes ago, NottingVilla said: Randy Lerner with a twitter account. Sad truth How did you come to this conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, brommy said: I don't see it. No twitter account? Don't think the comparison is fair as of yet anyway. I think Xia has been let down by the people he entrusted to run his football club. He needs to step in and make some tough calls now before it's too late though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 4 hours ago, dudevillaisnice said: Whilst it was widely documented hiring Bruce was a Wyness decision, the Dr could be going on to his 3rd manager in what is a short period of time of his tenure at the club. Badly advised? Bad decisions from him personally? Or clever and not leaving it fester longer than it should like Lerner has in the past? It’s evident something isn’t right so the next appointment is very much a big one. Biggest of them all. after Deadly Doug we had then have Dr. Death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 I wouldn't go as far as calling it a lie, but I do feel as though FFP is being used somewhat as a convenient distraction from possible real issues with Dr Xia's ownership. There are certain comparisons between Lerner and Xia; buy from a hated past owner, promise big things, invest in fan friendly PR schemes, spend huge sums on players following advice from poor footballing men and pass them to poor managers, shout about how the big bad wolf has changed everything (Man City/ FFP) and cut spending. Lerner went one step further and stopped investing completely and abandoned his toy - but Xia isn't quite there yet fortunately. As I understand it FFP allows new owners a little more flexibility than others, all they need is a plan. This slight tweak allowed, or certainly was aimed at not discouraging, new owners to invest in failing teams. Another words if you take over a failing club and have to spend 1000% times their income but from your own pocket that's understood as long as you have a plan to break even within a period agreed with UEFA. Otherwise certain clubs, certainly such as ours, would be unsellable as it would be impossible to rectify the issues caused by a former owner. It'd be like asking a house owner to buy a house but only letting them spend a few hundred quid when the house has fallen to pieces - some larger initial investment is needed at the beginning. See this article from the Guardian for more but particularly relevant is; "How do the rules now work? After prospective club owners, particularly in Italy, complained to Platini that the FFP rules made it impossible to buy a club and then invest responsibly to grow it, Uefa introduced caveats allowing new owners to put in cash as long as they can offer a business plan that shows how they will reach breakeven. Under the new rules, clubs are encouraged to proactively approach Uefa to explain that they plan to invest and show how they will eventually reach break even." I don't think we can blame FFP for our decisions this summer as much as Xia/ Wyness would like us to believe. We needed to spend money on quality in midfield and to write off a lot of money due to past ownership; it would have been easy to pay off the likes of Richards ages ago and tell UEFA these were exceptional costs as a result of buying the club. He may be media friendly. He may be fan friendly. But I'm still not sure he's anything better than previous owners yet. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 One thing I will say is that if he does not see some returns coming back off the money spent he will get fed up and bored. Hes a buisiness man at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 2 hours ago, NottingVilla said: Randy Lerner with a twitter account. Sad truth We were actually good when Lerner was spending money though. Joking aside, any idiot can spend their money, if we continue to make bad decisions and go no where Xia will have a poor reputation as owner. Has to have more than good intentions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jareth Posted August 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted August 13, 2017 2 hours ago, NottingVilla said: Randy Lerner with a twitter account. Sad truth Complete balls 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, jackbauer24 said: I wouldn't go as far as calling it a lie, but I do feel as though FFP is being used somewhat as a convenient distraction from possible real issues with Dr Xia's ownership. There are certain comparisons between Lerner and Xia; buy from a hated past owner, promise big things, invest in fan friendly PR schemes, spend huge sums on players following advice from poor footballing men and pass them to poor managers, shout about how the big bad wolf has changed everything (Man City/ FFP) and cut spending. Lerner went one step further and stopped investing completely and abandoned his toy - but Xia isn't quite there yet fortunately. As I understand it FFP allows new owners a little more flexibility than others, all they need is a plan. This slight tweak allowed, or certainly was aimed at not discouraging, new owners to invest in failing teams. Another words if you take over a failing club and have to spend 1000% times their income but from your own pocket that's understood as long as you have a plan to break even within a period agreed with UEFA. Otherwise certain clubs, certainly such as ours, would be unsellable as it would be impossible to rectify the issues caused by a former owner. It'd be like asking a house owner to buy a house but only letting them spend a few hundred quid when the house has fallen to pieces - some larger initial investment is needed at the beginning. See this article from the Guardian for more but particularly relevant is; "How do the rules now work? After prospective club owners, particularly in Italy, complained to Platini that the FFP rules made it impossible to buy a club and then invest responsibly to grow it, Uefa introduced caveats allowing new owners to put in cash as long as they can offer a business plan that shows how they will reach breakeven. Under the new rules, clubs are encouraged to proactively approach Uefa to explain that they plan to invest and show how they will eventually reach break even." I don't think we can blame FFP for our decisions this summer as much as Xia/ Wyness would like us to believe. We needed to spend money on quality in midfield and to write off a lot of money due to past ownership; it would have been easy to pay off the likes of Richards ages ago and tell UEFA these were exceptional costs as a result of buying the club. He may be media friendly. He may be fan friendly. But I'm still not sure he's anything better than previous owners yet. I'm not sure about this TBH. There seems to be some differences between UEFA rules and how the PL and FL apply them and their own rules. I'm not certain as it's all needlessly complicated, but I think the UEFA rules govern their competitions only. In therory you could win the Prem and pass the PL test, but fail the UEFA one and face sanctions from them? The FL rules do allow for owners to inject cash and you are allowed to 'lose' more if they do. I can't find any mention of 'new ownership' affecting this in relation to the FL rules, just that if the owner injects equity, you can trade with a bigger operating loss. Even if it's right, what 'plan' could we possibly put in front of them to prove we can/could break even anytime soon? I'm not sure they'd accept 'get promoted' as a valid business plan! Maybe you can get a note from UEFA to give to the FL to excuse you, like mum used to give me to get out of school rugby in the middle of January?! Edit: Had a quick read of the article you linked and it confirms part of what I'm saying. UEFA FFP rules apply to teams playing in European competition. PL rules are similar for obvious reasons, but not intrinsically linked. You could fail UEFA test, but finish 8th in the prem and they couldn't do anything, it would be down to the PL to punish against their rules. We adhere to a different set of rules, made up by the FL and there's no 'new owner' get of jail free card. If we win the FA cup, it might work in our favour. Great. Edited August 13, 2017 by wazzap24 Info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 If that were true though then it wouldn't protect clubs from getting in to trouble, it'd prevent them from getting out of it. Imagine Club A has been run in to the ground and players are getting £100k a week in League Two. The owner has run up £100m in debt. The new owner then can't repair the previous incumbents damage. Which means they are now unsaveable as any repair investment would be punished. It wouldn't work. This wouldn't be the case so as long as there is a structured plan I believe all new owners get some leeway. If nothing else UEFA shows precident. And let's be honest, FFP is beyond broken anyway so it will inevitably come down to court arguments anyway. But this is all for a FFP thread. My view is just that Xia is using it too much as an excuse and he's yet to be any different that Lerner and is following a very similar path so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 I don't think he will respond until after the reading game. I think he is very pissed off behind the scenes at Bruce's "progress" dreadful yesterday and no excuse for getting beaten in such a way 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Demitri_C said: I don't think he will respond until after the reading game. I think he is very pissed off behind the scenes at Bruce's "progress" dreadful yesterday and no excuse for getting beaten in such a way and there lies the crucial bit....it says it all i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 Has he tweeted his thoughts about the match yet or is the silence still deafening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveAV1 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 (edited) FFP may be being used as an excuse because, A. The Doc hasn't got the dosh, B. It is a really true and we are close to some terrible punishment, or C. The Doc doesn't trust Bruce to invest anymore of his dosh and is keeping his powder dry for the next incumbent. Since I have no evidence as to which is true, then for my mood/sanity I'm going for C. Edited August 13, 2017 by DaveAV1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said: If that were true though then it wouldn't protect clubs from getting in to trouble, it'd prevent them from getting out of it. Imagine Club A has been run in to the ground and players are getting £100k a week in League Two. The owner has run up £100m in debt. The new owner then can't repair the previous incumbents damage. Which means they are now unsaveable as any repair investment would be punished. It wouldn't work. This wouldn't be the case so as long as there is a structured plan I believe all new owners get some leeway. If nothing else UEFA shows precident. And let's be honest, FFP is beyond broken anyway so it will inevitably come down to court arguments anyway. But this is all for a FFP thread. My view is just that Xia is using it too much as an excuse and he's yet to be any different that Lerner and is following a very similar path so far. Is not OT, it's directly related to Xia and his ownership of the club. Forget debt, it's irrelevant to a large extent. You can have as much debt as you like, it's about your operating position. In your scenario, an owner can come in and clear debt, but previous operating losses will dictate what they can do from there. See Man Utd as an example, they have the highest net debt of any club in the world, but make a profit every year so wouldn't have an issue with FFP. I genuinely don't believe Xia us using it as an excuse, he's in an impossible position. Don't forget, we were making heavy losses in the prem, even with all that income. Now that income has dropped dramatically, his hands are very much tied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, wazzap24 said: Is not OT, it's directly related to Xia and his ownership of the club. Forget debt, it's irrelevant to a large extent. You can have as much debt as you like, it's about your operating position. In your scenario, an owner can come in and clear debt, but previous operating losses will dictate what they can do from there. See Man Utd as an example, they have the highest net debt of any club in the world, but make a profit every year so wouldn't have an issue with FFP. I genuinely don't believe Xia us using it as an excuse, he's in an impossible position. Don't forget, we were making heavy losses in the prem, even with all that income. Now that income has dropped dramatically, his hands are very much tied. You might be right. There is a strong belief though that FFP doesn't have any hard and fast rules though, I can see it collapsing in the not too distant future. But if what you're saying is the hard fast rule, then there is no point a person buying a club that isn't successful anymore; basically you're suggesting FFP only allows you to take on someone else's debt and not improve or invest in their new purchase. Surely can't be right. Surely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phumfeinz Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 30 minutes ago, theboyangel said: Has he tweeted his thoughts about the match yet or is the silence still deafening? Hasn't been on since Friday 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 Every reasonable owner will look at the purchases and given a period of time build up a trend in his head of whether the money is working or not in a general sense. very, very few will feel comfortable with a situation where the investment is not showing dividends on the pitch....and the loose purse strings will tighten as a consequence We seen this with Lerner and O'Neill.....and in some cases its a process to smoke the man out by making relationships more difficult and unsavoury decisions more easily.....if its clear the signings are not working. Its not always the case of the owner not having the money, its more a case of whether HE thinks its been spent wisely and HE wants to carry on with throwing good money after bad. He may feel that he has got out of jail with some of his sales and might think it won't be so easy next time. The confidence from the owner wanes and the Transfer money goes in to hiding. FFP is just another complication to throw in and can be used to an owners convenience if he so wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 27 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said: FFP may be being used as an excuse because, A. The Doc hasn't got the dosh, B. It is a really true and we are close to some terrible punishment, or C. The Doc doesn't trust Bruce to invest anymore of his dosh and is keeping his powder dry for the next incumbent. Since I have no evidence as to which is true, then for my mood/sanity I'm going for C. I will go for C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 Silence is golden! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts