terrytini Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 One of the things that I remember fondly is the Generals description - after we thumped Blues - of RL and him sitting back in their seats after everyone had gone, and soaking it all up. I think back then RL was doing a bit of genuine 'dream pursuing'. Not convinced it was reckless at all. I think 2 things happened I think he was then stung by our failure to crack Top 4 (I loved our times under MON but there is no doubt in the end he failed his brief) - and the financial crash. Possibly 3 if you include his divorce. Impossible to say whether he became 'less of a fan' so to speak, but his dream days were over. Although widely derided now the GH appointment wasn't totally stupid at the time - there were not many about, but god knows what possessed him oer Mcleish. Whether he then briefed PL on what to do next or PL briefed him (I suspect mostly PL who I think jumped at the chace to do a Dortmund thing here) we are now on what looks like a really good course, far more promising than all these Clubs buying the same names, doing Loans, getting 'marquee' (ugh) signings etc. The great bonus is PL has a really clear idea of what to do and is well on the way to doing it. In particular his realisation - missed a lot in Football Ithink - that you cant evolve cultural change in football. The reason we hae such fixed views on the 'villa way', the 'west ham' way etc is that by changing a few each year the oerall remains very similar, PL haing the nerve - and presumably RL's backing - has allowed him to moe forward light years in one season. So, in all, I remain broadly pro RL, and totally pro PL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Really? Is that not what we did last season? Are we still trying to get the wage bill down? How much backing did Lambert get in January when we needed it? By the way, right now I'm happy with what we're doing. I think there's also a possibility that Lambert is a stubborn idealist who refuses to pay out cash for players he thinks are over-valued or thinks we do not need. The lack of January spending may be indicative of Lerner slamming on the financial brakes, but it could also be down to Lambert having faith in the players we already had or only seeing Sylla as value in that window. Or thinking that the time taken a January signing to settle in would be too long to be worth spending money on, given the position of the team at the time. It's very difficult to tell at this point what the actual reasons are, but Lambert seems the type to insist on doing things exactly his way irrespective of what anyone else thinks. Lerner may also be more willing to spend more money when Lambert has fully earned his trust, as it were. Again, it's just speculation, but it's impossible to definitively conclude that RL has no ambition for AVFC any more based on what evidence we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Lerner may have more ambition. We'll see. I'm sure we'll one day be close to the club we were under Doug and we can all sing his praises. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Lets hope we don't get relegated like we did under Doug lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Even logical old me would be filled to my eyeballs with undying hatred for Randy Lerner if we got relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil3241 Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 I think Lerner might back Lambert more out of his own pocket in time. Only for transfer fees though, I think he would like the club to be paying the wages itself. Given the pretty much unanimous good feeling that the members of Villa Talk have for Lambert and what he is doing you can bet that Lerner does the same but is waiting to see how things progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 I think Lerner might back Lambert more out of his own pocket in time. Only for transfer fees though, I think he would like the club to be paying the wages itself. Given the pretty much unanimous good feeling that the members of Villa Talk have for Lambert and what he is doing you can bet that Lerner does the same but is waiting to see how things progress. I'd think he'll keep backing him to sign players like he is now. His transfers have added value to the club massively. Benteke alone is probably worth £30m more than we paid for him, Westwood £7-8m, Lowton £8m. We haven't seen what the new boys can do yet but that's £50m on those three players alone. He'd be a fool NOT to back him. The question comes when we're established and looking to take that next step - when the wages become higher, the fees bigger and the players slightly older - will he stump up the cash again then? Who knows, we're a couple of years away from that yet at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 A stable well-run club would have around 60% of turnover on wages, and around 10% of turnover on transfer fees. Seeing that past 2 seasons revenue is around £80m per year, net transfer fees for Lambert should be around £16m in total since he started at Villa. Its actually been £26m so far, so way in excess of what a club our size should be spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 A stable well-run club would have around 60% of turnover on wages, and around 10% of turnover on transfer fees. Seeing that past 2 seasons revenue is around £80m per year, net transfer fees for Lambert should be around £16m in total since he started at Villa. Its actually been £26m so far, so way in excess of what a club our size should be spending. £26m is that expenditure on fees or wages ? - Thought our wage bill was closer to £50m ? What I don't understand is why the likes of Norwich, Southampton, Cardiff , Swansea seem to have more available funds than villa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 A stable well-run club would have around 60% of turnover on wages, and around 10% of turnover on transfer fees. Seeing that past 2 seasons revenue is around £80m per year, net transfer fees for Lambert should be around £16m in total since he started at Villa. Its actually been £26m so far, so way in excess of what a club our size should be spending. £26m is that expenditure on fees or wages ? - Thought our wage bill was closer to £50m ? What I don't understand is why the likes of Norwich, Southampton, Cardiff , Swansea seem to have more available funds than villa. Who says they do? We have no idea what kind of money Lambert has to spend. And even then, so what? What matters at the end of the day is that we finish above them. Who spent the most means **** all really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 A stable well-run club would have around 60% of turnover on wages, and around 10% of turnover on transfer fees. Seeing that past 2 seasons revenue is around £80m per year, net transfer fees for Lambert should be around £16m in total since he started at Villa. Its actually been £26m so far, so way in excess of what a club our size should be spending. £26m is that expenditure on fees or wages ? - Thought our wage bill was closer to £50m ? What I don't understand is why the likes of Norwich, Southampton, Cardiff , Swansea seem to have more available funds than villa. Because they have budgeted well and haven't been pissing money up the wall for the likes of Ireland, Hutton and Bent. Our wage bill has been the major issue and only now it is coming under some control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 A stable well-run club would have around 60% of turnover on wages, and around 10% of turnover on transfer fees. Seeing that past 2 seasons revenue is around £80m per year, net transfer fees for Lambert should be around £16m in total since he started at Villa. Its actually been £26m so far, so way in excess of what a club our size should be spending. £26m is that expenditure on fees or wages ? - Thought our wage bill was closer to £50m ? What I don't understand is why the likes of Norwich, Southampton, Cardiff , Swansea seem to have more available funds than villa. as i said in my initial post, its net transfer fees. we have overspent in transfer fees since Lambert has joined, so we shouldn't be surprised if no more players come in this summer or january. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 A stable well-run club would have around 60% of turnover on wages, and around 10% of turnover on transfer fees. Seeing that past 2 seasons revenue is around £80m per year, net transfer fees for Lambert should be around £16m in total since he started at Villa. Its actually been £26m so far, so way in excess of what a club our size should be spending. £26m is that expenditure on fees or wages ? - Thought our wage bill was closer to £50m ? What I don't understand is why the likes of Norwich, Southampton, Cardiff , Swansea seem to have more available funds than villa. Perhaps because they weren't financially mismanaged by their owner in the first few years of ownership! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 A stable well-run club would have around 60% of turnover on wages, and around 10% of turnover on transfer fees. Seeing that past 2 seasons revenue is around £80m per year, net transfer fees for Lambert should be around £16m in total since he started at Villa. Its actually been £26m so far, so way in excess of what a club our size should be spending. £26m is that expenditure on fees or wages ? - Thought our wage bill was closer to £50m ? What I don't understand is why the likes of Norwich, Southampton, Cardiff , Swansea seem to have more available funds than villa. Perhaps because they weren't financially mismanaged by their owner in the first few years of ownership! Or perhaps that's exactly what they're doing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 5 wins in 21 games at Villa Park. What an owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 (edited) 5 wins in 21 games at Villa Park. What an owner. Yes because Randy manages the team and plays in the games... Edited September 14, 2013 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 5 wins in 21 games at Villa Park. What an owner. Yes because Randy manages the team and plays in the games... No he just hires managers and sets budgets. Clearly has no effect on the team does it. We've won 17 home games since MoN left and the owner had to start making footballing decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 5 wins in 21 games at Villa Park. What an owner.Yes because Randy manages the team and plays in the games... No he just hires managers and sets budgets. Clearly has no effect on the team does it. We've won 17 home games since MoN left and the owner had to start making footballing decisions. Yeah but judging the owner on home wins is bizarre 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 5 wins in 21 games at Villa Park. What an owner.Yes because Randy manages the team and plays in the games...No he just hires managers and sets budgets. Clearly has no effect on the team does it. We've won 17 home games since MoN left and the owner had to start making footballing decisions. Yeah but judging the owner on home wins is bizarre I'm not judging him on home wins. Just another example of how piss poor we've been with him as an owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 5 wins in 21 games at Villa Park. What an owner. Yes because Randy manages the team and plays in the games... No, he invests money to make us compete. Well, he invests a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts