P3te Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 looking at those figures Sky/BT/BBC payments have paid for those and gave some spare change unfortunately the wages were many many times more Honestly I think some people think professional footballers play for free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Thanks for trying to find the figures, I assume you left out certain player names from that list because the figures were disclosed at the time. Assuming the figures are right and they wont be 100% correct it has us at 13m a year and in the last 2 seasons our spend was 16 and 20m according to the list so the owners spending has gone up. As for the person who said its the wages that are the problem that is only a half truth, it is a large part of the problem but so is the lack of a sell on value of players i.e. buying players who are older or more likely haven't performed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 lol Pete so true you're always hearing the Milner money or the (add name here) money, like the only cost is buying players. Even the more intelligent ones say wage bill cost + transfer fees but even then there is many other costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Thanks for trying to find the figures, I assume you left out certain player names from that list because the figures were disclosed at the time. Assuming the figures are right and they wont be 100% correct it has us at 13m a year and in the last 2 seasons our spend was 16 and 20m according to the list so the owners spending has gone up. As for the person who said its the wages that are the problem that is only a half truth, it is a large part of the problem but so is the lack of a sell on value of players i.e. buying players who are older or more likely haven't performed at all. The fees I left out were the ones which had actual values on the wiki pages (ie Milner[in]=£12m), which were just the pages for the last 8 seasons, and the fees I included were my estimates at the undisclosed fees. I think they are mostly accurate, or are what was indicated at the time. Although the net spend has gone up from the average, our player turnovers (total transfers in & out) have been 17 [2012-13] and 14 [2013-14] for those two seasons, which is more than the rough average of 10/11 from previous seasons, signalling Lambert has had shuffle the squad a bit more on those budgets. Also, take in to consideration that the main thing that brings down the average spend was a season when we made upwards of £35m in player sales, the amount of money that has been made available to Lambert to make these player turnovers hasn't been enough. If you take 11-12 as an anomaly you get an average of ~£18m per season, so Lambert has been given roughly the same amount to make 3-6 extra signings/sales per season, whilst also reducing the wage bill, a ridiculous task when you consider the minimum expectations were to also stay up. If Lerner doesn't sell up or loosen the purse strings, I can see Lambert walking and don't think many managers would want to replace him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) I've said it before, but I don't begrudge him not pumping in silly money anymore - I just wish that we could get some sort of indication of where we are wage bill-wise. I don't expect others to feel the same as me, but I could tolerate another 18 months to 2 years of 'cost-cutting' as long as there is some sort of 'finish-line'. It's the not knowing that's killing me.Books were balanced months ago and Ireland was moved on since then. Ireland was moved on in the summer not since then. Nothing changes with his loan being made permanent. You have no actual knowledge about whether the books are balanced and Lerner doesn't have to prop the club up with his own money any more, the latest accounts haven't come out yet. Falkner said in the summer that the wages were getting under control but Lambert got £20m in the summer. Was that money the club generated or was it another donation from Lerner? Edited February 1, 2014 by LondonLax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villarocker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) looking at those figures Sky/BT/BBC payments have paid for those and gave some spare change unfortunately the wages were many many times more Honestly I think RANDY LERNER thinks professional footballers play for free Fixed. Edited February 1, 2014 by villarocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Just remember, Faulkner is playing a big part in this cutting costs. Im sure if Faulkner wanted money to spend for Lambert a couple of 5 million would have been available. Everyone blames Lerner, but its Faulkner looking after his interests while he is not here!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCAM Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I've said it before, but I don't begrudge him not pumping in silly money anymore - I just wish that we could get some sort of indication of where we are wage bill-wise. I don't expect others to feel the same as me, but I could tolerate another 18 months to 2 years of 'cost-cutting' as long as there is some sort of 'finish-line'. It's the not knowing that's killing me.Books were balanced months ago and Ireland was moved on since then.Ireland was moved on in the summer not since then. Nothing changes with his loan being made permanent. You have no actual knowledge about whether the books are balanced and Lerner doesn't have to prop the club up with his own money any more, the latest accounts haven't come out yet. Falkner said in the summer that the wages were getting under control but Lambert got £20m in the summer. Was that money the club generated or was it another donation from Lerner? Faulkner actually went on record saying that the books are now balanced and where they want them to be...that's not to say we'll be making a profit, but he did use the word 'balanced' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I've said it before, but I don't begrudge him not pumping in silly money anymore - I just wish that we could get some sort of indication of where we are wage bill-wise. I don't expect others to feel the same as me, but I could tolerate another 18 months to 2 years of 'cost-cutting' as long as there is some sort of 'finish-line'. It's the not knowing that's killing me.Books were balanced months ago and Ireland was moved on since then.Ireland was moved on in the summer not since then. Nothing changes with his loan being made permanent. You have no actual knowledge about whether the books are balanced and Lerner doesn't have to prop the club up with his own money any more, the latest accounts haven't come out yet. Falkner said in the summer that the wages were getting under control but Lambert got £20m in the summer. Was that money the club generated or was it another donation from Lerner? So Paul Faulkner organised a meeting with the villa trust to lie to them? Is that what you're saying? And you have no idea what percentage of Ireland's wages stoke were paying. I'd be surprised if it was 100% A donation from Lerner? Haha how lucky we are. A donation? I'm stunned someone has used that word. That's summed your attitude up perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) You know what? I'd be interested in seeing our NET transfer spend each season RL has been here. If anyone feels the urge to provide this info along with the valuation of the players in and out for that given season it would be appreciated. Working backwards (Using figures from Wikipedia, not including loans and guesstimatting at undisclosed fees) 13-14: ~£15.8m (assuming Luna=£2m, Kozak=£6m, Bannan+Makoun=£2m) 12-13: ~£19.5m (Wiki says £22m out, £2.5m in) 11-12: ~(-)£21.75m (assuming L.Young+Hogg=£1m) 10-11: ~£4m (assuming Bent=£18m, Ireland=£8m, Milner=£26m, Makoun=£6m) 09-10: ~£23m (assuming Delph=£6m, Beye=£3m, Warnock=£8m, Knight=£2m) 08-09: ~£44.9m (assuming Davies=£10m, Friedel=£2m, Shorey=£2m, Maloney=£1m, Routledge=£1m) 07-08: ~£4.25m (assuming Harewood=£3m, Salifou=£1m, Davis=£4m, Cahill=£5m, Youngsters=negligible) 06-07: ~£15.6m (assuming Berson=£500k) Overall: ~£105.3m. Think that is close. Edited February 1, 2014 by dodgyknees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So 2 loan signings sanctioned when we clearly needed a little more quality in the squad. This was shown in the games Vlaar was injured and Bentake wasn't fit. It's probably more wishful thinking than anything but I'm convinced no permanent moves were sanctioned because a sale of the club is immentent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 You know what? I'd be interested in seeing our NET transfer spend each season RL has been here. If anyone feels the urge to provide this info along with the valuation of the players in and out for that given season it would be appreciated.Working backwards (Using figures from Wikipedia, not including loans and guesstimatting at undisclosed fees) 13-14: ~£15.8m (assuming Luna=£2m, Kozak=£6m, Bannan+Makoun=£2m) 12-13: ~£19.5m (Wiki says £22m out, £2.5m in) 11-12: ~(-)£21.75m (assuming L.Young+Hogg=£1m) 10-11: ~£4m (assuming Bent=£18m, Ireland=£8m, Milner=£26m, Makoun=£6m) 09-10: ~£23m (assuming Delph=£6m, Beye=£3m, Warnock=£8m, Knight=£2m) 08-09: ~£44.9m (assuming Davies=£10m, Friedel=£2m, Shorey=£2m, Maloney=£1m, Routledge=£1m) 07-08: ~£4.25m (assuming Harewood=£3m, Salifou=£1m, Davis=£4m, Cahill=£5m, Youngsters=negligible) 06-07: ~£15.6m (assuming Berson=£500k) Overall: ~£105.3m.Think that is close. Wow. 105m net spend and left with a squad probably worse than when started. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) 105 million over 8 seasons...... 13 million (ish) per season. Edited February 1, 2014 by mykeyb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 105 million over 8 seasons...... 13 million (ish) per season. Which leads us to exactly where we are - and have been - relegation battlers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AValon Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 If a sale is'nt in the pipeline, then I'm at a loss to understand Lerners original motives for buying a historic, proud old ENGLISH football club, other than it being some kind of status symbol for a bored American rich dude. Maybe he would have been more suited to sponsoring some mid-state university polo team! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So 2 loan signings sanctioned when we clearly needed a little more quality in the squad. This was shown in the games Vlaar was injured and Bentake wasn't fit. It's probably more wishful thinking than anything but I'm convinced no permanent moves were sanctioned because a sale of the club is immentent. Why are you convinced? We've had pages of QIA and Red Bull and there wasn't a grain of truth in any of it. For me he's cutting back because of the mess he made of the finances not because a sale is imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So 2 loan signings sanctioned when we clearly needed a little more quality in the squad. This was shown in the games Vlaar was injured and Bentake wasn't fit. It's probably more wishful thinking than anything but I'm convinced no permanent moves were sanctioned because a sale of the club is immentent. Why are you convinced? We've had pages of QIA and Red Bull and there wasn't a grain of truth in any of it. For me he's cutting back because of the mess he made of the finances not because a sale is imminent. I'm convinced a sale is on the cards, the Red Bull story is perhaps one that has been used to keep a shadow over the real story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So 2 loan signings sanctioned when we clearly needed a little more quality in the squad. This was shown in the games Vlaar was injured and Bentake wasn't fit. It's probably more wishful thinking than anything but I'm convinced no permanent moves were sanctioned because a sale of the club is immentent. Why are you convinced? We've had pages of QIA and Red Bull and there wasn't a grain of truth in any of it. For me he's cutting back because of the mess he made of the finances not because a sale is imminent. I'm convinced a sale is on the cards, the Red Bull story is perhaps one that has been used to keep a shadow over the real story. Why are you convinced? I think people are getting a bit carried away with what they want to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarpie Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Someone's been tweeting: Jordan Adams @Jordanadams001 42 min Randy wants out, he'll get out, but only at the right price. I'd assume 4 x times income, so roughly £240m. #AVFC Käyttäjän Heart Of The Holte uudelleentwiittaama Laajenna Vastaa Uudelleentwiittaa Suosikki Jordan Adams @Jordanadams001 43 min We've got no cash as director dividends are equal to players wages. Last year they were greater. #AVFC Käyttäjän Heart Of The Holte uudelleentwiittaama Laajenna Vastaa Uudelleentwiittaa Suosikki Jordan Adams @Jordanadams001 44 min And that margin has very little to do with wages. Even at our height of wages it was offset by sales of Milner, Downing, Young. #AVFC Käyttäjän Heart Of The Holte uudelleentwiittaama Laajenna Vastaa Uudelleentwiittaa Suosikki Jordan Adams @Jordanadams001 44 min The last set of accounts show for the last two years Randy has taken back his 'loan'. We are running at a 25% profit margin. #AVFC Käyttäjän Heart Of The Holte uudelleentwiittaama Laajenna Vastaa Uudelleentwiittaa Suosikki Jordan Adams @Jordanadams001 46 min Admittedly looking for self praise but I did say on the first day of the window we had no money. There is no surplus cash at AVFC. Käyttäjän Heart Of The Holte uudelleentwiittaama Laajenna No idea how reliable he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 So 2 loan signings sanctioned when we clearly needed a little more quality in the squad. This was shown in the games Vlaar was injured and Bentake wasn't fit. It's probably more wishful thinking than anything but I'm convinced no permanent moves were sanctioned because a sale of the club is immentent. Why are you convinced? We've had pages of QIA and Red Bull and there wasn't a grain of truth in any of it. For me he's cutting back because of the mess he made of the finances not because a sale is imminent. I'm convinced a sale is on the cards, the Red Bull story is perhaps one that has been used to keep a shadow over the real story. Why are you convinced? I think people are getting a bit carried away with what they want to happen.[/quote I know this sounds stupid but I just have this feeling. I had the same feeling before Lerner took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts