DCJonah Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I love this "straight in his pocket" rubbish... Who do you think has been plugging the £50m losses every year? Why do you think we are making £50m losses every year? Take a look back at the historical books during Lerner's time. We've only just stopped bleeding money And I think we're struggling to be sold because he's trying to recoup a lot of it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Even at 200m he wouldn't recoup what the club has cost him. Im not saying it's not good own fault or anything, but the fact is he's going to make a significant loss regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) but doesn't that indicate that in the first fours years he spent reasonably well and when the money was spent badly largely by the man he put all his faith in,only then did he decide to throw the towel in (as far as spending goes and his man subsequently left).....thus lowering the average spend by the lack of spending in the last four years. I guess it depends on what argument you want to support. Yes but then I didn't think that needed repeating yet again given that just about every Villa fan alive is already aware of that. As for the accusation(again) I'm slanting the figures to support a particular argument or view point once again you are wrong. The only argument or point Im making is that the idea Lerner has spent a lot on players (fees) in his time here simply isn't true, I struggle to comprehend how anyone can dispute that. your response is completely at odds with what i have written....I'm not sure how more simple i can make my point.I'm not asking you to agree with it, but it seems you have clearly missed it. Randy Lerners second four years has negated the reasonable spending in the first four years.....to argue that he was generous in the beginning and miserly at the end would i guess be selective as to how you want to present your opinion of his spending....but to create a cumulative and say the 8 years he has been tight in my opinion is misleading. I'm merely saying he never set out like this ..........his view on spending on players changed. in my humble opinion he lost confidence of getting value for money. If everyone and his dog is saying this, then i apologise for not seeing it. Edited July 23, 2014 by TRO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Lets be honest its been a mitigating disaster for him. the bits about whether its his own fault or not could create another pile of pages I just don't think he picks staff very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 23, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2014 but doesn't that indicate that in the first fours years he spent reasonably well and when the money was spent badly largely by the man he put all his faith in,only then did he decide to throw the towel in (as far as spending goes and his man subsequently left).....thus lowering the average spend by the lack of spending in the last four years. I guess it depends on what argument you want to support. Yes but then I didn't think that needed repeating yet again given that just about every Villa fan alive is already aware of that. As for the accusation(again) I'm slanting the figures to support a particular argument or view point once again you are wrong. The only argument or point Im making is that the idea Lerner has spent a lot on players (fees) in his time here simply isn't true, I struggle to comprehend how anyone can dispute that. your response is completely at odds with what i have written....I'm not sure how more simple i can make my point.I'm not asking you to agree with it, but it seems you have clearly missed it. Randy Lerners second four years has negated the reasonable spending in the first four years.....to argue that he was generous in the beginning and miserly at the end would i guess be selective as to how you want to present your opinion of his spending....but to create a cumulative and say the 8 years he has been tight in my opinion is misleading. I'm merely saying he never set out like this ..........his view on spending on players changed. in my humble opinion he lost confidence of getting value for money. If everyone and his dog is saying this, then i apologise for not seeing it. It isn't misleading, it's just a fact or as close as is possible to get when not all fees are revealed. Regardless of the pattern it is a matter of fact that he hasn't spent very much in terms of net spend during his tenure. Giving an average yearly figure over the 8 years isn't swaying events to fit opinion it is just an average figure to try and put the spending in context. That the spending was front loaded in the first 4 years is irrelevant as is the fact he changed his approach, the net spend is the net spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) but doesn't that indicate that in the first fours years he spent reasonably well and when the money was spent badly largely by the man he put all his faith in,only then did he decide to throw the towel in (as far as spending goes and his man subsequently left).....thus lowering the average spend by the lack of spending in the last four years. I guess it depends on what argument you want to support. Yes but then I didn't think that needed repeating yet again given that just about every Villa fan alive is already aware of that. As for the accusation(again) I'm slanting the figures to support a particular argument or view point once again you are wrong. The only argument or point Im making is that the idea Lerner has spent a lot on players (fees) in his time here simply isn't true, I struggle to comprehend how anyone can dispute that. your response is completely at odds with what i have written....I'm not sure how more simple i can make my point.I'm not asking you to agree with it, but it seems you have clearly missed it. Randy Lerners second four years has negated the reasonable spending in the first four years.....to argue that he was generous in the beginning and miserly at the end would i guess be selective as to how you want to present your opinion of his spending....but to create a cumulative and say the 8 years he has been tight in my opinion is misleading. I'm merely saying he never set out like this ..........his view on spending on players changed. in my humble opinion he lost confidence of getting value for money. If everyone and his dog is saying this, then i apologise for not seeing it. That the spending was front loaded in the first 4 years is irrelevant No it isn't irrelevant...... it was central to his decision making to curtail his spending and a heavy influence on the decision for second four years.....that makes it totally relevant and further more the kernel to the problem. I'm not saying i agree with his thinking just saying that is what i believe his line of thought to be. Trent, I sincerely enjoy your posts.....but we will have to agree to disagree on this. Edited July 23, 2014 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 23, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2014 No it isn't irrelevant...... it was central to his decision making and a heavy influence on the decision for second four years.....that makes it totally relevant and further more the kernel to the problem. I'm not saying i agree with his thinking just saying that is what i believe his line of thought to be. Trent, I sincerely enjoy your posts.....but we will have to agree to disagree on this. I think mate we are at cross purposes. I'm not disputing what your saying in terms of the reasoning or his thinking or the pattern to the spending. I just meant that none of that changes my original point, that the belief he has spent a lot on players in his time here in terms of fee's isn't actually true. That was it. Anyway, as you say we can agree to disagree before we bore each other and everyone else (Although we maybe too late) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 He will be here in Dallas, but won't be anywhere near me for the opportunity to yell every profanity I know at him. It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.... an inconvenience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 23, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.... an inconvenience? 2006 called, Ed Byrne wants his joke back 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.... an inconvenience? 2006 called, Ed Byrne wants his joke back 1990 called, it said nobody calls anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rob182 Posted July 23, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2014 Surely 1990 would be saying that calling people is all the rage? 2014 would be saying that no one calls anymore. Unless 1990 can somehow see into the future? But that's stupid. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Suppose to be at the match tonight. I will give him a good heckling if I see him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 So, who's going to Photoshop that onto Abbey Road then? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 So, TRO and Trent, which matters most, the net average spend or the pattern of spending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The most important thing is we spend 10m on average over the break even point every year so we are FFP compliant whilst spending as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The most important thing is we spend 10m on average over the break even point every year so we are FFP compliant whilst spending as much as possible. What if we spent 10.5M? Are Uefa going to check accounts and spending of every top league team in Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The most important thing is we spend 10m on average over the break even point every year so we are FFP compliant whilst spending as much as possible. What is FFP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam_ Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 The most important thing is we spend 10m on average over the break even point every year so we are FFP compliant whilst spending as much as possible. What is FFP? Financial fair play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts