Risso Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I have visions of Joe Kinnear being drafted in to help with the mega star recruitment in the forthcoming windows. We'd be more likely to get Greg Kinnear... Roy Kinnear. And a horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Bovine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Hmm …. during 2011/12 our wages were out of control at 94% of our total annual income. This season I'm guessing that we are now below the £52 million wage bill p.a that triggers restrictions in the Financial Fair Play regulations. The problem is that if that is the case and we then wish to exceed that £52 million figure next season or in the near future, we can only do so by increasing total wages by £4 million per year without incurring sanctions. That would mean that there could be no more big transfers by AVFC, because the demands of even a couple of £8 million pound players would exceed the £4 mil p.a cap. This may well be Lerner"s intention …. by reducing the wage bill to just below £52 million he has a ready made excuse for only targeting players who will accept very average salaries. Of course this may just be me being cynical in my old age, but if this is our current and future policy it may well pay RL to remain as Villa owner for some considerable time …. as long as we survive in the Premiership! No way our player wage bill is as high as 52m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 They show the wage bill needed to drop. Where does is say then we go again? As for the bit in bold, are you taking the piss? I'd rather not win anything if it means risking a Portsmouth or a Leeds trying to Are you taking the piss? Spending money on the squad when its so poor instead of a new stand is hardly going to turn us into **** Leeds utd is it? However flirting with relegation constantly could see us finally relegated, where does that leave us then? Can't believe we've reached a point where suggesting money gets sent on improving a poor squad over a new stand is taking the piss. The thing is, if it's naming rights for a new stand, it's probably not a case of "we'll just use that on signings instead" It could well be that we're only getting naming rights IF we build a new stand. So the choice is 1. We build a new stand and get money for it 2. We don't build a new stand but don't get any money. I agree that if Randy spent his own money on the stand then it wouldn't make much sense when we're lacking in transfer funds. But I would imagine if we're getting naming rights then maybe there's some sort of stipulation that we HAVE to develop the north stand. I don't know that, obviously. Just speculating. That's a fair point and one I couldn't disagree with. The point I disagreed with was the poster who said it should go towards the new stand because its a safer financial investment than improving the squad. But increasing commercial revenue is how the clubs future will be safeguarded and will be what ultimately makes the club self sustainable and allow us to sign the players that you crave. Rome wasn't built in a day. In all seriousness how much can we expect to improve commercial revenue without the team to back it up? And I've got no problem in building something to increase money we can spend on players however your initial post said it was a safer investment to build the stand, nothing about building commercial revenue to sign better players. Sorry, but whether you like it or not the cold hard facts are that bricks and mortar are a much safer investment than players (particularly with our track record of losing money on higher value signings). I would have thought it would have been obvious that by increasing commercial revenue we increase our ability to spend, i didn't think that needed explaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 They show the wage bill needed to drop. Where does is say then we go again? As for the bit in bold, are you taking the piss? I'd rather not win anything if it means risking a Portsmouth or a Leeds trying to Are you taking the piss? Spending money on the squad when its so poor instead of a new stand is hardly going to turn us into **** Leeds utd is it? However flirting with relegation constantly could see us finally relegated, where does that leave us then? Can't believe we've reached a point where suggesting money gets sent on improving a poor squad over a new stand is taking the piss. The thing is, if it's naming rights for a new stand, it's probably not a case of "we'll just use that on signings instead" It could well be that we're only getting naming rights IF we build a new stand. So the choice is 1. We build a new stand and get money for it 2. We don't build a new stand but don't get any money. I agree that if Randy spent his own money on the stand then it wouldn't make much sense when we're lacking in transfer funds. But I would imagine if we're getting naming rights then maybe there's some sort of stipulation that we HAVE to develop the north stand. I don't know that, obviously. Just speculating. That's a fair point and one I couldn't disagree with. The point I disagreed with was the poster who said it should go towards the new stand because its a safer financial investment than improving the squad. But increasing commercial revenue is how the clubs future will be safeguarded and will be what ultimately makes the club self sustainable and allow us to sign the players that you crave. Rome wasn't built in a day. a day and a half..i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 52mil on wages? That's a million a week - like **** are we spending anywhere near that these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 HH said to me that we were after Milner on loan as well as hoolahan. I've never doubted that Lambert's had to strip the wage bill but there's been no clear evidence that the plan was to do that and then start spending again. Are we to assume that you have verified the identity and therefore the credibility of HH? Or are you clinging on to him/her as someone who says things that either give you hope or reinforce your point of view? I think doubting HH was a clear ITK is a hit daft. So clinging then. ITK, yes. 'Clear ITK', as in everything he/she gives is fact, i am not so sure. That is why I asked whether you had verified the identity and credibility. There are plenty of ITKs quoted on here whose offerings are rubbished, sometimes justifiably, Their profession requires them to be 'ITK', but their 'skill' is to embellish, exaggerate and sometimes provoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarjei Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 52mil on wages? That's a million a week - like **** are we spending anywhere near that these days. I would guess that is all wages for anyone working at the club, not just players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 52mil on wages? That's a million a week - like **** are we spending anywhere near that these days. I would guess that is all wages for anyone working at the club, not just players. They are negligible. According to the 2012 accounts directors pay was £442k, which I assume is all Faulkner. Other than that I doubt whether there are any people outside of the playing/coaching side above £60k per year, and they would be few. If you consider the contracts of Gabby, Delph, Given, N'Zog and Bent, you are probably talking a cost of around £18m. The 2012 accounts showed a wage bill of £69.5m, so I guess that if we have jettisoned 6 similar high earners since then and replaced them with modest contracts, then we should be under £52m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 HH said to me that we were after Milner on loan as well as hoolahan. I've never doubted that Lambert's had to strip the wage bill but there's been no clear evidence that the plan was to do that and then start spending again. Thanks Milner seems like a white whale but I suppose we'll try again in summer! I'm not sure what you think comes after stripping back and there's loads of times he's mentioned building the club up. That to me means we will have to spend maybe not MON type spending but sustainable spending which with the new TV deal and a controlled wage bill and continuity of management so your not starting from scratch every 2 year is achievable. As I've said this summer will be the time to judge Lerner as the austerity period will be over so he won't have any excuses and Lambert hopefully will have money to add quality so next year will be the time to judge him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 52 million a year, if we look solely at the playing squad, spread evenly, would be 20 players on 50k a week. We don't even have 10 players on that now, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 'm not sure what you think comes after stripping back My worry is that its surviving on the cheap until a buyer for the club is found. I hope you're right. I hope we are able to sign some quality players to go into our starting 11 next year and I hope that continues as we build a quality squad. But the last 4 years have given me little hope of seeing that under this owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even in the stripping back period we've spent money on players - you have absolutely no basis in fact if you think that the previous 4 years prove that we won't be spending anything next summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 And the 4 years before that might give at least a little hope that we'll try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even in the stripping back period we've spent money on players - you have absolutely no basis in fact if you think that the previous 4 years prove that we won't be spending anything next summer. No you're right there's no rumours of the club being up for sale and we haven't been surviving on the cheap for 2 years. And even though McLeish had some money to spend his appointment is evidence of our ambition levels over the last few years. Yeah no basis what so ever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 So there's been no press release from the club saying that we're not for sale? The net spend in the last 2 years isn't really 'on the cheap' - we've just had to replace a lot of players, so the money was spread out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Pointless discussion if you don't think our spending under Lambert has been cheap. Look at the wages and last two January windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted February 7, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 7, 2014 They show the wage bill needed to drop. Where does is say then we go again? As for the bit in bold, are you taking the piss? I'd rather not win anything if it means risking a Portsmouth or a Leeds trying to Are you taking the piss? Spending money on the squad when its so poor instead of a new stand is hardly going to turn us into **** Leeds utd is it? However flirting with relegation constantly could see us finally relegated, where does that leave us then? Can't believe we've reached a point where suggesting money gets sent on improving a poor squad over a new stand is taking the piss. The thing is, if it's naming rights for a new stand, it's probably not a case of "we'll just use that on signings instead" It could well be that we're only getting naming rights IF we build a new stand. So the choice is 1. We build a new stand and get money for it 2. We don't build a new stand but don't get any money. I agree that if Randy spent his own money on the stand then it wouldn't make much sense when we're lacking in transfer funds. But I would imagine if we're getting naming rights then maybe there's some sort of stipulation that we HAVE to develop the north stand. I don't know that, obviously. Just speculating. That's a fair point and one I couldn't disagree with. The point I disagreed with was the poster who said it should go towards the new stand because its a safer financial investment than improving the squad. But increasing commercial revenue is how the clubs future will be safeguarded and will be what ultimately makes the club self sustainable and allow us to sign the players that you crave. Rome wasn't built in a day. a day and a half..i think long lunch on the first day held them up a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted February 7, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 7, 2014 Pointless discussion if you don't think our spending under Lambert has been cheap. Look at the wages and last two January windows. Hang on though are you really suggesting that in the position we were in, in terms of paying huge wages to players who weren't going to contribute anything, was the right time to be offering big wage contracts? Apart from covering the horrendous losses mostly down to the wage bill, Lerner was making up that shortfall from his own pocket and giving Lambert £20m to spend each summer. Lambert chose to do things as quickly as possible so he made the money go as far as he could whilst completely rebuilding the squad. That's his choice, I'm not sure how "on the cheap" it is to be making up tens of millions in club losses year on year and provinding £20m on top of that for players. Especially when the goal in the rebuilding was to lower the wage bill to a sensible percentage of turnover. Hopefully we'll manage to move Hutton, Given and Bent permanently in the summer, but don't forget we still have the last of the hangover from the last time we spent big (£250m big) before it's sensible to start thinking about trying it again. It was also be prudent to start from a position where we aren't running at a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 To all the moaners about the wages we are paying now, would you rather have the current squad, or the Bents, Warnocks and Huttons of today on 50-60 k a week, most likely to play a similar standard of football? If in the summer we get three 5-8 million players i'd be over the moon. Let's build it slowly but surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts