VILLAFC2000 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 In recent weeks we have seen the unfortunate finacial demise of Rangers and Pompey as well as Villa reporting loses of of 57 million. Now arguably one of the best financially shrewdly run clubs in the PL is Arsenal. They have paid off their debts for their stadium as well as recording healthy Profits. They have some of the best youngstes around and play superb football. They do not use money to by sucess like Fergurson and City have done. Arsenal fans would argue that they have not won a trophy for years - blah blah blah. Could Arsenals Finacial model be one that Villa could look at..? Villa have one of the best acadamieS in the League and have produced some good players down the years. Today with 3 mins to play Gardner came on to the pitch and made a superb 30 yard pass with his first touches. 2 mins later he pick up the ball from bannan who did well and unleashed a left footed pile drived which Wienman picked up nicely. It was great to see Villas youngsters producing the potential which we know they are all capable of on the pitch. The way they celebrated was awsome. The point is this Villa have some promising youngster in the squad. Clarke, Albrighton, Gardner, Weinman The Fonz Bannan Lichaj Gabby (Product from Youth academy) I think Villa genuinly have to re stragtise there finacial game plan as it does not look likely that we will be overtaken any time soon - I could be wrong. Arsenal Are a great role model club - Villa could learn a lot from wenger. I have more respect for Wenger than Ferguson and Wenger nearly always spends less on transfers and wages and they play much better football. Ferguson attitude has been :- Veron we will have him - 35 million. Ferdinand - yep him to - 27 million Rooney - Sorry Everton we need him 35 million Nani - 18 million - him to Young - 20 million - we need a winger. How much did Wenger spend on Fabregas, Nasri, Vermalin, RVP ect...? Are these players good enough to take Villa to the next level..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick76 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 What about when Fergie went with the kids and the domination they had for years, in fact Giggs and Scholes are still going. You still need a mix of experience and kids, and no our kids aren't good enough. They are really good but you are comparing to a different level of talent above. One or two of ours might get to that level but stats suggest no more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 yes I agree I did not say anywhere that you dont need experince. I think the spine of your team needs to be experinced. I guess would it be a better way to run the club financially as we did make a loss of 57 million this year. I would get rid off the likes of Heskey, Makou , Beye, this year and gradual over a transitional period relesae players like Petrov ( Who I rate highly) Dunne ect and bring in the Younger players as mentioned above. Would these players be good enough though...?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 But dont you think the Man U kids were 20 years ago. And what are our kids not good enough for. Well maybe not the league title, but in 10 years time they will be top 4 material, well a few of them will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashingqwerty Posted March 11, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 11, 2012 and dont forget baker, lichaj, johnson, and all prominent figures from our youth/reserve winning teams the future's bright, the future's... claret and blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 What's happens when man city's owners get bored, and leave the club in loads of debt.. We are in a good position for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted March 11, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 11, 2012 But dont you think the Man U kids were 20 years ago. And what are our kids not good enough for. Well maybe not the league title, but in 10 years time they will be top 4 material, well a few of them will Exactly. When the kids played for ManUre, they weren't brilliant. They had some talent and showed some glimpses but they were far from the finished product. In fact, I'd argue that at the end of the season they were still not a finished product. But they were coached in a system by a good manager. He gave them the tactical role, the structure and - evenutally - the confidence to be able to play their position week after week and improve. And they responded. Our kids have talent and show glimpses, but 4 managers in 18 months with a tactically inept one now in charge is hardly helping them develop. Wenger, on the other hand, would do wonders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted March 11, 2012 Author Share Posted March 11, 2012 But dont you think the Man U kids were 20 years ago. And what are our kids not good enough for. Well maybe not the league title, but in 10 years time they will be top 4 material, well a few of them will Exactly. When the kids played for ManUre, they weren't brilliant. They had some talent and showed some glimpses but they were far from the finished product. In fact, I'd argue that at the end of the season they were still not a finished product. But they were coached in a system by a good manager. He gave them the tactical role, the structure and - evenutally - the confidence to be able to play their position week after week and improve. And they responded. Our kids have talent and show glimpses, but 4 managers in 18 months with a tactically inept one now in charge is hardly helping them develop. Wenger, on the other hand, would do wonders. You make the point about Fergurson being good with tactics. I disagree. At the very highest level he has always been outplayed. Bayern Munich in the final they were bossed about the park a lot. Two well taken goals at the end bailed them out. Against Chelsea in the CL final they hardly dominated the game, not to mention the game against Barca last year, He played Park and Giggs in centre midfield. United got pumped and outplayed again. For the best ever manager who some claim - to have 25 years in charge at United and to not get your team playing football like Barcelona and Arsenal....! If you take a look at the Barcelona team only 2 of there players were not home grown in that final David Villa and Danni Alves. The rest of the team Xavi, Pique, Inesta, Messi, Busquestes ect ect ect. Now What is harder to do - Build a team of young players at youth players and bring them through to being one if the best teams the world has ever seen or go out anf buy 15 indilviduals spening 250 million...? Also the PL is no where near at tactical as LL check out Cesc Fabregas Comments. "In Spain, it's tactically much stronger than the Premier League. But in England there is this passion. You are always trying to attack because the fans don't want you to keep possession for long. They want you to go forward – so that makes it interesting because you create lots of opportunities. A very different kind of football is played in Spain and England". Villa are 57 million in debt - I think it would be difficult to escualte a system 1/20 as good as the one in Barca, but its the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted March 11, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 11, 2012 I don't remember calling Ferguson a "great tactical master" like you are making out. What I said was that he was able to get the best out of the kids he had back in 94 (I think it was) by having a role and system for them to step into. Continually coaching them in that role and system builds confidence and he reaped the rewards. Our kids are in a similar situation to theirs then - but we don't have a manager that has any sort of tactical nous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapbranny Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I'll think you'll find that Arsenals profits last year, came from player sales. Not really a sustainable proposition as Arsenal are definately worse than last year. Replacements have not proven to be as good. Their previous profits have come from the development and sale of property at Highbury. This is coming to an end. I expect them to be making a loss this year, not on the scale of Villa but probably in the £20 mill bracket and it could be worse if they don't qualify for the champions league. The one area they have got right is their match day revenue, they make more than they do from TV money. However there is one good reason for that, they play attractive attacking football and have done for a number of years. Hence they have 60,000 people wanting to buy a ticket. You need to get things right on the pitch, something Villa haven't got anywhere near to yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted March 11, 2012 Author Share Posted March 11, 2012 I'll think you'll find that Arsenals profits last year, came from player sales. Not really a sustainable proposition as Arsenal are definately worse than last year. Replacements have not proven to be as good. Their previous profits have come from the development and sale of property at Highbury. This is coming to an end. I expect them to be making a loss this year, not on the scale of Villa but probably in the £20 mill bracket and it could be worse if they don't qualify for the champions league. The one area they have got right is their match day revenue, they make more than they do from TV money. However there is one good reason for that, they play attractive attacking football and have done for a number of years. Hence they have 60,000 people wanting to buy a ticket. You need to get things right on the pitch, something Villa haven't got anywhere near to yet. You are forgetting they have virtually just paid of the debt of there stadium which cost how much.....?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 You are forgetting they have virtually just paid of the debt of there stadium which cost how much.....?! They have? Where did you see that? The Emirates cost between £390 and £470 million to build, depending on what you read and what the costs include (ie, just construction of the Emirates or the entire project costs, including redevelopment of the old Highbury which was converted into property by the club) and Wenger said just last month that the club needs to pay about £20m a season on the mortgage for the place. They got a fat chunk of the construction cost from the sponsorship deals with Nike and Emirates Airlines and they would also have made a healthy profit on the property built on the former site of Highbury, though those places did not go up for sale until after the bottom fell out of the housing market so Arsenal got less than they were expecting there. Arsenal posted a £50m profit in November, thanks mostly to selling Fabregas and Nasri, but they also said their debt increased by £39m to £137m. They are probably on top of things because they can clearly afford their bills even if it leaves them unable to compete in the transfer market (though lets not forget they paid Southampton £12-15m for Oxlade-Chamberlain!) but they are far from debt free. They will be operating under these restrictions for another decade probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted March 11, 2012 Author Share Posted March 11, 2012 You are forgetting they have virtually just paid of the debt of there stadium which cost how much.....?! They have? Where did you see that? The Emirates cost between £390 and £470 million to build, depending on what you read and what the costs include (ie, just construction of the Emirates or the entire project costs, including redevelopment of the old Highbury which was converted into property by the club) and Wenger said just last month that the club needs to pay about £20m a season on the mortgage for the place. They got a fat chunk of the construction cost from the sponsorship deals with Nike and Emirates Airlines and they would also have made a healthy profit on the property built on the former site of Highbury, though those places did not go up for sale until after the bottom fell out of the housing market so Arsenal got less than they were expecting there. Arsenal posted a £50m profit in November, thanks mostly to selling Fabregas and Nasri, but they also said their debt increased by £39m to £137m. They are probably on top of things because they can clearly afford their bills even if it leaves them unable to compete in the transfer market (though lets not forget they paid Southampton £12-15m for Oxlade-Chamberlain!) but they are far from debt free. They will be operating under these restrictions for another decade probably. Lets get things into Perspective a bit. I agree with a lot of things yout have said. My point is this compared to teams around them such as Manchester City, Totteham, Liverpool, Everton, us and pretty much a lot of other PL teams they have by far the better finances in place. I dont understand are you disagreeing...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 No, I agree. Arsenal are a very well run club who have reaped the rewards of some excellent decisions back in the late 90s and early 2000s. They were way ahead of the curve when it came to scouting and imposing restrictions on players lifestyles (ie, getting the **** to stop drinking) and fortunately this period of success coincided with the popularity of football going through the roof, SKY subscriptions hitting a critical mass and the Champions League format change. They made a lot of money ten years ago and they have spent it wisely. They will need to hang on as they are doing for a while yet though as far as I can see, but in another ten years they will be in an unbelievably strong position once the stadium has been paid off and they can use the increased matchday revenue to improve the team. The big worry they have is that clubs like Manchester City and Barcelona seem to have decided not to bother with all this financial fair play bollocks and will continue to announce insane "sponsorship" deals like the Etihad stadium and Qatar Foundation ones. I guess I think you are right in what you are saying, you have just chose to use terrible examples to support your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts