ozvillafan Posted July 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2014 Yes everyone knows the wage bill got out of hand (Lerner's fault and responsibility) but I think looking at his net investment on player fee's during his time here still has a place in any assessment of his tenure. Especially given that quite a regular defense offered for him is that he has spent a lot on players over his time here, quite simply he hasn't. The net spend on transfers over his tenure is about as small as you could get, I doubt many if any clubs have a lower net spend over an 8 year Premier League period. It should also be considered when people assess the managers that have followed O'Neill. Too simplistic, for mine. If I remember correctly, Lerner never wanted to sell our better players and held other clubs to ransom on transfer fees: - Barry (bought before Lerner, sold for £12 million) - Milner (cost £12 million, sold for £28.5 million) - Young (cost £8 million, sold between £15 million and £20 million) - Downing (cost £10 million, sold for £20 million) That's a maximum of ~ £48 million. That would make a dent in the "net spend" figure - but surely that's just good business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted July 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2014 He is trying to recoup money , money he has spent. Money he spent recklessly it transpires. So the asking price is higher because of that So if he did really well, made Champions League, increased profits, enlarged the stadium.... ... he'd set a lower price? If I hear correctly, he has dropped the price from £200 million to £150 million. Still trying to recoup costs, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2014 Yes everyone knows the wage bill got out of hand (Lerner's fault and responsibility) but I think looking at his net investment on player fee's during his time here still has a place in any assessment of his tenure. Especially given that quite a regular defense offered for him is that he has spent a lot on players over his time here, quite simply he hasn't. The net spend on transfers over his tenure is about as small as you could get, I doubt many if any clubs have a lower net spend over an 8 year Premier League period. It should also be considered when people assess the managers that have followed O'Neill. Arsenal had 30 million credit between 2007 and 2012 Spending money doesn't equate to success. Lerner's tenure should be looked at as a failure based on more than money. Actually, they didn't it was in the region of £17-18m but that is irrelevant really given you've picked selected years in which they were funding a new stadium. However they went backwards in this time as a football team for this very reason. I'm not actually entirely sure what point you are trying to make. No money spent doesn't equate success, I've not said that it does although in the PL you don't have success without spending money. I'm simply pointing out that as a club out net transfer spending is extremely low over the time Lerner has been here. You seem somehow to be under the impression I think criticism of Lerner should be limited to this area, you couldn't actually be more wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 He is trying to recoup money , money he has spent. Money he spent recklessly it transpires. So the asking price is higher because of that So if he did really well, made Champions League, increased profits, enlarged the stadium.... ... he'd set a lower price? If I hear correctly, he has dropped the price from £200 million to £150 million. Still trying to recoup costs, then? He probably wouldnt want to sell then would he? It's only because he has failed Yes still trying to recoup some losses, never going to recoup all of them is he? Useless owner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Yes everyone knows the wage bill got out of hand (Lerner's fault and responsibility) but I think looking at his net investment on player fee's during his time here still has a place in any assessment of his tenure. Especially given that quite a regular defense offered for him is that he has spent a lot on players over his time here, quite simply he hasn't. The net spend on transfers over his tenure is about as small as you could get, I doubt many if any clubs have a lower net spend over an 8 year Premier League period. It should also be considered when people assess the managers that have followed O'Neill. When you consider how many players bought for big money who were released or left on Bosmans it make more of a joke of that figure. If we had managed to get fees in for those players the net spend could and should have been a lot less. Melberg Sorensen Bouma Harewood Sidwell Carew Friedel Reo Coker Cuellar Heskey Warnock Dunne From memory, I reckon thats just short of £50 million considering Carew was a swap for Baros all left with a net return of zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2014 Too simplistic, for mine. If I remember correctly, Lerner never wanted to sell our better players and held other clubs to ransom on transfer fees: - Barry (bought before Lerner, sold for £12 million) - Milner (cost £12 million, sold for £28.5 million) - Young (cost £8 million, sold between £15 million and £20 million) - Downing (cost £10 million, sold for £20 million) That's a maximum of ~ £48 million. That would make a dent in the "net spend" figure - but surely that's just good business? Its not too simplistic, its just fact. I think Lerner was a far more willing seller than you, particularly on the last 3. But besides, I fail to see how that changes the fact he has spent less than £10m a season net during his time here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted July 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2014 He probably wouldnt want to sell then would he? It's only because he has failed That's possible. It's also just speculation. He has since had a marriage breakdown - which also cost him a bomb. Perhaps there is another reason? Yes still trying to recoup some losses, never going to recoup all of them is he? Useless owner You're right. He should sell it for a tenner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2014 If we had managed to get fees in for those players the net spend could and should have been a lot less. I agree, only we were desperate to give half of them away to get shot of their wages because of how badly he cocked up that element of running the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted July 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2014 Its not too simplistic, its just fact. I think Lerner was a far more willing seller than you, particularly on the last 3. But besides, I fail to see how that changes the fact he has spent less than £10m a season net during his time here. It doesn't change the fact, it just helps explain it. A bit like "£40 million over 2 years" needs to be in the context of 4 windows. You know - maths and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 We can talk about Randy's spending etc, It was the way he left the club to be run, we talk about wages, which owner let the wages spiral out of control. Fact is we overpaid for a lot of players, people will blame MON. Then look at the logic of giving Houllier 24million to buy a striker, another 6million to buy a midfielder. Now look at the values of those players. Then on top of that, we bring in McLeish, he allows him to give N'Zog and Given stupid long-term contracts. Then add all the money he has paid for removing and hiring managers, he just didn't know how to run a football club. I don't agree with this either. Lerner can be blamed for appointing shit managers. Though in his defence, on paper, Houllier was a good signing for Villa at the time. Are you suggesting the chairman should have interferred with the manager and his signings / contracts? Fans would have been up in arms had he done that... What made Houllier a good signing? No he should have had someone on the board who knew how to deal with contracts and work out whether the club can afford this kind of deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2014 He is trying to recoup money , money he has spent. Money he spent recklessly it transpires. So the asking price is higher because of that So if he did really well, made Champions League, increased profits, enlarged the stadium.... ... he'd set a lower price? If I hear correctly, he has dropped the price from £200 million to £150 million. Still trying to recoup costs, then? He has been recouping his costs for the last 4 years its not started with the attempt to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2014 Its not too simplistic, its just fact. I think Lerner was a far more willing seller than you, particularly on the last 3. But besides, I fail to see how that changes the fact he has spent less than £10m a season net during his time here. It doesn't change the fact, it just helps explain it. A bit like "£40 million over 2 years" needs to be in the context of 4 windows. You know - maths and all that. It doesn't do anything to explain it in the slightest, neither does it add any necessary context. There is nothing wrong with the maths either. But on the subject of maths you might want to take another look at your figure for Milner and remind yourself about Stephen Ireland. Oh and while you are at it, I'd be curious to know how you think Lerner would have kept those players and reduced our wage bill these last few years which has seemingly been his main priority. Given you like maths, I'm looking forward to seeing how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted July 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2014 He has been recouping his costs for the last 4 years its not started with the attempt to sell. Didn't you say a few posts ago that the "wage bill was out of hand"? Now you can call that "recouping your costs" if you like - but surely reducing the wage bill was just common sense? Or - dare I say it - "good business"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2014 He has been recouping his costs for the last 4 years its not started with the attempt to sell. Didn't you say a few posts ago that the "wage bill was out of hand"? Now you can call that "recouping your costs" if you like - but surely reducing the wage bill was just common sense? Or - dare I say it - "good business"? Yes I did, you should also recall I mention transfer spending... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted July 21, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2014 It doesn't do anything to explain it in the slightest, neither does it add any necessary context. There is nothing wrong with the maths either. But on the subject of maths you might want to take another look at your figure for Milner and remind yourself about Stephen Ireland. Oh and while you are at it, I'd be curious to know how you think Lerner would have kept those players and reduced our wage bill these last few years which has seemingly been his main priority. Given you like maths, I'm looking forward to seeing how it works. Really? Ok, here goes: Lets say we sell Barry, Young, Milner and Downing for half the transfer fees we got but bought he same players anyway. Our net spend goes up £24 million and looks healthier. That was the point. And the only point. "Good business in transfer fees lowers net spend". As for Ireland, thanks for the reminder. I believe that takes £8 million off what I originally quoted. As for reducing the wage bill - why are/where the players in the "bomb squad" placed there? Because they are/were paid too high for what they produce. But they are not the only high earners: Gabby and Delph also cost a packet yet remain in the squad. Why is it necessary, then, that our better players (Milner, Barry, Young, Downing) that almost certainly would have stayed in the first team had to be moved on? As is the case with Gabby and Delph, surely good players that produce winning football actually bring in the revenue to pay for their wages? Or is it simply easier to argue that way because it suits a point of view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 He has been recouping his costs for the last 4 years its not started with the attempt to sell. Didn't you say a few posts ago that the "wage bill was out of hand"? Now you can call that "recouping your costs" if you like - but surely reducing the wage bill was just common sense? Or - dare I say it - "good business"? Reducing the wage bill that had got totally out of hand with him as the owner, so basically clearing up his own shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2014 Really? Ok, here goes: Lets say we sell Barry, Young, Milner and Downing for half the transfer fees we got but bought he same players anyway. Our net spend goes up £24 million and looks healthier. That was the point. And the only point. "Good business in transfer fees lowers net spend". As for Ireland, thanks for the reminder. I believe that takes £8 million off what I originally quoted. As for reducing the wage bill - why are/where the players in the "bomb squad" placed there? Because they are/were paid too high for what they produce. But they are not the only high earners: Gabby and Delph also cost a packet yet remain in the squad. Why is it necessary, then, that our better players (Milner, Barry, Young, Downing) that almost certainly would have stayed in the first team had to be moved on? As is the case with Gabby and Delph, surely good players that produce winning football actually bring in the revenue to pay for their wages? Or is it simply easier to argue that way because it suits a point of view? Yes I get that, if we sold them for less our net spend would be higher but we didn't so that is utterly pointless the net spend is what it is. I could just as easily argue we should have got more for them or some of the other players we've had to give away because of the fire fighting on the wage bill which would have reduced the net spend. The net spend though is the net spend which averages out at around £9.5m a season. As for the players that left, in order to keep them we would have had to increase their wages considerable not to mention signed players around them to match their ambition. Therefore I don't believe for one minute Lerner really wanted to keep them, I fail to see how he could for instance of offered the wages to match the likes of Man City while at the same time reducing the overall wage bill. Everything that has happened post Barry departure would seem to suggest that Lerner couldn't or wouldn't have kept them. Yes the players that departed would have offered more than those signed in their place but they would also have commanded more wages and were on more wages than those that have occupied the 'bomb squad' which is in part how the wage bill has been reduced. Barry was on more than Delph, Young was on more than N'Zogbia etc and that is before any theoretical increases to keep them. It has nothing to do with presenting an argument to suit my point of view, it is simply a reflection of what has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 We were such a shit club under Ellis that once we were up for sale it took ages for someone to buy us, oh hang on...... Because the situation was exactly the same? Come on Richard - the profile of the Premier League has changed a lot since then, plus the asking price is a lot higher. But earlier on you said we had broken transfer records in this 'current' era. You expected to do that when there was half the amount of TV money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicon Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 We were such a shit club under Ellis that once we were up for sale it took ages for someone to buy us, oh hang on...... Because the situation was exactly the same? Come on Richard - the profile of the Premier League has changed a lot since then, plus the asking price is a lot higher. But earlier on you said we had broken transfer records in this 'current' era. You expected to do that when there was half the amount of TV money? I don't really see what you're on about here. Try to explain it in a way that makes sense and doesn't assume that I expected something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Selling players like Milner, Barry, Young and Dwoning for the money we received is quite understandable and logical if you replace them with players that have the potential to be as good or better. That is the real trick keeping that conveyor belt of potential moving along. It takes a really good set up and manager. The most successful team at it over the past 10 years has been Everton who have raked in millions selling the likes of Rooney, Rodwell, Lescott, Fellani, etc. Lerner has failed miserbly in overseeing such a plan with us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts