Daniel Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Come on Lerner. I **** know you aint hard up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) The biggest problem is that Lerner wants to have a premier league club with championship players and wages. If it was that easy to stay in the Premier League then we would have 40 team division. That's not true. The figures seem to point towards Lerner busting a gut o get Champions League football when MON was manager, he (and we) could never have known what was going to happen with Man City, and suddenly there were too many teams vying for the 4 places. At that time we were probably better positioned than Tottenam and Everton, however without Champions League football we weren't increasing revenues at a suitable rate to maintain the wage levels. So what Lerner is now looking to do is to get wages down to a rate tat te club can sustain. Unfortunately this is coupled with being left with a number of players earning massive wages but being considered surplus to requirements by our current manager. Lerner went for it, and if it ad been one year earlier I'm certain we would have got it, however nobody could expect the club to keep on losing between £54M and £30M per year. In Lerners time, our net spend us the 8t highest in the premiership, Lerner and we should rightfully expect to be in a better position than we are, but in my opinion he as backed managers, unfortunately we really have not bought we'll, and now we're left with the bare bones, and what seem to be a few mercenaries. Edited January 13, 2013 by dukes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The constant defence of the owner is mind blowing. I'm glad it seems to only be 2/3 people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 8th highest in the Premiership back then.... surely we should be able to cover that without the owners input anyway then.....If not two things are apparent either Lerner doesnt know how to grow revenue correctly or we don't pay the going rate to watch a top football team so we didnt get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I've been one of his biggest supporters, but he's got 18 days to prove that he cares about this club (and that he's not a total word removed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 20 million on eight players of which Bennett and Bowrey are odd signings the rest have been reletively good. More money is needed it is as simply as that and the issue is compounded by the fact of the huge increase in TV money. The debate shouldnt be should we spend money but who should we be buying. Lerners appointment of Houlier and McClown was a joke as was there huge payoffs. Lerners denial of giving the propper funds to MON only to give them to Houlier was a joke! OPR are trying to buy M'Via our transfer news is we cant sign a player for 6 million It's all a terrible joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 If there is no backing this windows, I am going to come up and handcuff myself to Lerner's car as a protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 If there is no backing this windows, I am going to come up and handcuff myself to Lerner's car as a protest. Haven't you heard Lerner's skint? He can't afford a car and he comes to work on a tandem with Faulkner. You'll have to cuff yourself to that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Forgot that, of course he'd have sold his newly acquired jet too ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Forgot that, of course he'd have sold his newly acquired jet too ;-) Didn't want to pay the wages of Pilot's with any flight qualifications so it was either sell the plane or literally go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 To no great surprise the 20 Premier League clubs failed to agree on a form of salary capping this week, though they promised to revisit the subject in the new year. Rather like the newspapers post-Leveson there is a broad agreement that "something must be done", but, as with the newspapers, so disparate are the individual perspectives, finding agreement on what should be done is challenging. At least the press are united by a single threat, that of Government intervention. The clubs do not even agree on the problem. While for most the issue is how to resolve the bizarre conundrum of an industry that is experiencing an extraordinary boom yet fails to produce a financial return, others (Arsenal, Manchester United) view a salary cap as a means of combating clubs with limitless resources (Manchester City, Chelsea). There are also a few who object to any cap either because they fear it would make their club less attractive to investors or it would destroy their operating model. Aston Villa, West Bromwich, Fulham and Manchester City are reportedly among the objectors. What is not in doubt is that wages have increased exponentially during the Premier League era, growing even faster than the explosion in television income. Even with clubs exploiting other revenue streams, notably charging ever-higher ticket prices and developing the global market, they have failed to prevent wage ratios when measured against turnover from spiralling. In 1995-96 the 20 Premier League clubs had a joint turnover of £346m, out of which they paid £173m in wages, a ratio of 50 per cent, resulting in a collective profit (before transfers) of £52m (an average £2.6m each). Fifteen years later in 2010-11 (the last season for which all clubs' figures are available) Manchester United alone turned over £331m, with the league's revenue as a whole totalling £2bn. But wages had mushroomed with the result that eight of the 20 clubs recorded a loss. The suggested barometer above which wages are a cause for concern is two-thirds of income. Of the 20 current Premier League clubs only five were within that range in 2010-11: Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham, Newcastle United and West Bromwich Albion. All are noted for keeping a relatively tight rein on wages – Manchester United may pay big money, but they earn big money. Four clubs had a wage bill that exceeded their entire turnover: Aston Villa, Manchester City, Queen's Park Rangers and Swansea. The latter two were in the Championship, and in the process of going up, but while promotion would have brought in vastly increased income, it is probable, given their transfer activity and limited ground capacity, that QPR's wage bill still exceeds 100 per cent of turnover. Villa's situation is instructive. In 1995-96, despite keeping wages to 41 per cent of turnover, the club came fourth under Brian Little, as well as making a decent profit. By 2010-11 Villa's turnover had increased five-fold but wages were 103 per cent of income, precipitating a £34m loss. And the club finished ninth. By then owner Randy Lerner, having taken fright at the cost of attempting to break into the top four, had already decided to rein in expenditure and the consequences were starting to show with results waning and Martin O'Neill walking out in 2010. Villa now pursue a youth-first policy, supplemented by lesser-known overseas talent.Manchester City, like Chelsea, operate under different conditions to the rest of the league, especially City who are playing the same game of catch-up Chelsea did when Roman Abramovich arrived in 2003. Both clubs have driven up wages. Manchester United have been able to compete because Old Trafford is the country's biggest domestic stadium and they have a global support to "monetise". Arsenal have competed up to a point because of continued Champions League participation, supplemented by the lucrative Emirates Stadium. Tottenham, by dint of Daniel Levy's acumen have hung in, but others have struggled to compete. Newcastle are sensibly run now, but that was not always the case, and for every West Brom, shrewdly banking their parachute payments as they yo-yoed between the Premier League and Championship, before using them to stabilise, there has been a Portsmouth or Leeds, Birmingham or Coventry. If it is clear from the accompanying table that wage restraint is even harder outside the top flight than in it (thus the spread of salary capping measures in the Football League) the majority of top-flight clubs now recognise the only winners in this arms race are players and agents. So what is to be done? The logical solution to protect clubs from themselves is to tie wages to turnover as now happens in League's One and Two. However, like Uefa's Financial Fair Play plans and those in the Championship, which follow a "break-even" principle, that will effectively preserve the status quo making it difficult for owners to challenge the established order. The same applies to any regulation limiting annual wage increases to a set percentage. Unsurprisingly the likes of Arsenal and Manchester United favour these models. "You should just get the resources you generate, that will determine the real size of the club," said Arsène Wenger this season. It is not just City and Chelsea who object to this, Fulham have long been bankrolled by Mohamed al-Fayed and he has reportedly threatened legal action if prevented from continuing to support the club financially. An alternative is an annual limit to how much can be added to the collective wage bill, with Sunderland's Ellis Short understood to have suggested £4m. This would probably benefit the middle-sized clubs, enabling them to close the gap, but not arrivistes. It should also ensure some of the new £5bn TV deal, which will bring in £60-100m a year per club, ends up in the accounts of those owners who expect a financial return as well as reflected glory. Most clubs' approach is one-eyed. Reading and Southampton opposed FFP when they were spending to get out of the Championship last year; they support it now. Wigan chairman Dave Whelan massively outspent his club's income as he propelled them up the league – Wigan's wages-turnover ratio in 1995-96 was a staggering 223 per cent – now his team is a small fish in a big pool he wants clubs to show restraint. What is not on the agenda is a limit on owners piling debt onto clubs. A personal view is that Uefa and the English game should allow big investment but only if, as with City, Chelsea and Southampton, owners' loans are converted into equity not dumped on the balance sheet. That way a club's future is protected. In addition a much larger slice of income should be directed into grassroots and other good causes before the owners get their mitts on it. Both measures would indirectly curb wage inflation. What is crystal clear is that left to their own devices too many clubs will continue to spurn the opportunities offered by the greatest bonanza in the game's history. [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/can-the-premier-league-clubs-find-a-wage-cap-that-fits-all-8429590.html]link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Didn't want to pay the wages of Pilot's with any flight qualifications so it was either sell the plane or literally go down. Tried buying a cheaper pilot, unfortunately he decided on a move to Saudi club FC Al Qaeda, more money and better prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 13, 2013 Since MON left we've got a net spend of around £5m. Given that many of his signings have left us for free (or very cheaply) at the end of their contracts there wasn't the number of players there to be sold to raise more funds - Sidwell, Reo-Coker, Cuellar, Heskey, Harewood. Between those 5 alone that's nearly £30m of outlay with zero return. The managers that have followed MON have been working under conditions almost like no other in our division. £5m net spend across 3 years. In the Premier League. No wonder we're shit. Lerner out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Since MON left we've got a net spend of around £5m. Given that many of his signings have left us for free (or very cheaply) at the end of their contracts there wasn't the number of players there to be sold to raise more funds - Sidwell, Reo-Coker, Cuellar, Heskey, Harewood. Between those 5 alone that's nearly £30m of outlay with zero return. The managers that have followed MON have been working under conditions almost like no other in our division. £5m net spend across 3 years. In the Premier League. No wonder we're shit. Lerner out. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 13, 2013 What's our net spend on sacking managers in that time? Would we have been better off with McAllister and the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 13, 2013 We'd have been better off with someone advising Lerner on which manager to choose. It's something he clearly needs as he had an incredible record for hiring awful coaches at the Cleveland Browns too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villarocker Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Tried buying a cheaper pilot, unfortunately he decided on a move to Saudi club FC Al Qaeda, more money and better prospects. Not surprised at that really. I hear they're players are explosive and they are bombing up the league! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Since MON left we've got a net spend of around £5m. Given that many of his signings have left us for free (or very cheaply) at the end of their contracts there wasn't the number of players there to be sold to raise more funds - Sidwell, Reo-Coker, Cuellar, Heskey, Harewood. Between those 5 alone that's nearly £30m of outlay with zero return. The managers that have followed MON have been working under conditions almost like no other in our division. £5m net spend across 3 years. In the Premier League. No wonder we're shit. Lerner out. But to be fair to him, having that £30m completely written off is not his fault at all yet comes out of his own pocket. I assume that doesn't include their wages either, or the other 4 or 5 players still at the club who he is paying to do nothing. I don't see how he gets the blame for bad scouting of players, that is down to the manager at the time. I think he set fair budgets for our aims but he is probably not rich enough to lose £30m a year (he's a dollar billionaire I think, not a sterling one, plus the divorce and recession etc). In the long term he is doing the right thing but it has got to the point where he has to spend money this January and ensure that Lambert buys players that will have resale value. Of course it would be nice to hear him speak but he never spoke out during the good times either. The stick lies with the bloke doing the day to day job, Faulkner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 But to be fair to him, having that £30m completely written off is not his fault at all yet comes out of his own pocket. I assume that doesn't include their wages either, or the other 4 or 5 players still at the club who he is paying to do nothing. I don't see how he gets the blame for bad scouting of players, that is down to the manager at the time. I think he set fair budgets for our aims but he is probably not rich enough to lose £30m a year (he's a dollar billionaire I think, not a sterling one, plus the divorce and recession etc). In the long term he is doing the right thing but it has got to the point where he has to spend money this January and ensure that Lambert buys players that will have resale value. Of course it would be nice to hear him speak but he never spoke out during the good times either. The stick lies with the bloke doing the day to day job, Faulkner. He has 6 billion USD in total apparently but thats not what I wanted to comment on. You say it's not Randy's fault he lost that money well he sets the budgets, signs the checks, either he or Faulkner negociates the contracts either way they are his fault to as he employed Faulkner. He employed those scouts and manager. So how is it not his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The constant defence of the owner is mind blowing. I'm glad it seems to only be 2/3 people. I know, some people don't get it do they. Just because RL allegedly backs the managers he appoints it seems he is absolved of all guilt and blame. The fact that he keeps appointing the wrong person seems lost on some people. It's as if he keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Hopefully we all know what the definition is for someone that keeps doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts