NurembergVillan Posted January 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 13, 2013 I don't see how Faulkner's more to blame than Lerner. He doesn't scout the players either. And don't be fooled into thinking it's all coming out of Lerner's pocket - it's not. It's all being leveraged against the club as loans. Loans that are earning Lerner a higher rate of interest than he'd be getting from keeping his money in the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Well if he wants that to continue, he must spend to keep us in the Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 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. Not lost on me I would go further than just on the playing field he should have also sorted more corperate hospitality than he has and much earlier, rebuilt the north stand using the exsisting planning permission and allowed school children in for free up to a certain level for seating that wont sell out 10000 seats empty against southampton. The club would have known this at least 2 weeks ago 5000 plus seats would be empty so why not give them away to the school kids get them hooked get them buying food/programs makes no sence just to see them empty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lp_villa830 Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I don't see how Faulkner's more to blame than Lerner. He doesn't scout the players either. And don't be fooled into thinking it's all coming out of Lerner's pocket - it's not. It's all being leveraged against the club as loans. Loans that are earning Lerner a higher rate of interest than he'd be getting from keeping his money in the bank. Are you sure its All loans, in sure read somewhere that it was 50/50 between loans from his family trust and money put in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Well said Nuremberg, thats what people ignore. It's the Lerner Trust that have LOANED the money to Aston Villa not RL personally. He has made loans at a 2% rate which is good for the club but he has also made administrative or management charges against the club which goes back to the Lerner Trust. Certainly I recall one of these 'charges' was £10m. He man be a pretty crap businessman in footballing terms but he's pretty damned good at looking after his own funds............his jet is probably on a rental agreement but how much must that be costing him? No doubt all written off as business expences against his tax bill. He makes no effort to talk to the fans, he makes litle effort to attend that games, he is now not funding the club, so just exactly what use is he? This club needs leadership both ON and OFF the pitch - we have neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I don't see how Faulkner's more to blame than Lerner. He doesn't scout the players either. And don't be fooled into thinking it's all coming out of Lerner's pocket - it's not. It's all being leveraged against the club as loans. Loans that are earning Lerner a higher rate of interest than he'd be getting from keeping his money in the bank. To be fair NV, how much interest would a private bank pay on X millions? I'm not sure. How much interest does he get from Aston Villa? I'm not sure of that either. Do you know the answer to both of these? As far as I'm aware, he's put a lot in as equity, and the loans he has put in are shareholder loans, which some consider as a form of equity anyway. I haven't got a problem with how much he's put in, or the manner in which he's decided to do it. It's the money he's not putting in right now, which is causing the club to struggle, that's my issue with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarpie Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 If Lerner doesn't give enough funds for Lambert to buy players this january, it's clear that he has resigned to the idea that we're going down no matter what so investing wouldn't make sense in his mind. With business men it's all about how big risk is there to lose the investment, if we invest and relegate, we would not only lose the Premier league money but also the investment to the players but if we stay up without investing, hey, the club gets bigger share of the PL money to the coffins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 So all Villa fans except for 2 or 3 of us (thanks for that BJ) want Lerner and Faulkner out. How does that help our situation ? Unless you know someone with a few hundred million spare to basically throw away on a football club how does the fans wanting him out make that happen, or actually have any effect ? I still don't want him out, i understand all the frustrations, I'd particularly like him to appoint someone with football knowledge to the board, but at the end of the day it's his football club, and if we are relegated the individual that stands to lose the most is him. Whether that's actually enough to bother him i don't know, but i suspect he is the person least satisfied with the current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 When you look at the new owners that have generally come to the league they are good owners pumping money in and changing the business models this is what we need in the medium term, in the short term it's simple more players of a higher quality that can change games and keep us tighter at the back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 When you look at the new owners that have generally come to the league they are good owners pumping money in and changing the business models this is what we need in the medium term, in the short term it's simple more players of a higher quality that can change games and keep us tighter at the back Apart from Man City, which owners are you talking about ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted January 13, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) How long will it be til a fan will make a video similar to this but Villa Park will be in the background EDIT: Ignore the first 20ish seconds... Edited January 13, 2013 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool (Now), Sunderland, QPR, Arsenal & Newcastle all of there owners have put a lot of money into the clubs except Arsenal and no one knows truely why Wenger doesnt spend there so I have included them on the list. The exceptions are Liverpool's first owners, Blackburn, Pompy, & Man Utd for obvious reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMcKenna Posted January 13, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2013 I don't see how Faulkner's more to blame than Lerner. He doesn't scout the players either. And don't be fooled into thinking it's all coming out of Lerner's pocket - it's not. It's all being leveraged against the club as loans. Loans that are earning Lerner a higher rate of interest than he'd be getting from keeping his money in the bank. What if Faulkner as CEO (the person ultimately in charge of strategy) said; "You can have £20 million to spend but..... The player salary budget must not exceed £xxxx ((say 55 % of forecast income) and that any new player must not earn more than (say) £30k per week" Quite obviously such strictures would have a massive effect and force Lambert to look around the bargain basement. I would say that these are reasonable assumptions and would make Faulkner as culpable as Lerner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted January 13, 2013 VT Supporter 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. Well it seems he took the advice from the majority of the fans in hiring Lambert. Hasn't done him much good either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 13, 2013 What if Faulkner as CEO (the person ultimately in charge of strategy) said; "You can have £20 million to spend but..... The player salary budget must not exceed £xxxx ((say 55 % of forecast income) and that any new player must not earn more than (say) £30k per week" Quite obviously such strictures would have a massive effect and force Lambert to look around the bargain basement. I would say that these are reasonable assumptions and would make Faulkner as culpable as Lerner. I agree entirely. My point was that Faulkner can't be MORE to blame than Lerner. I can't believe that Lerner is saying to PF "you do whatever you want in terms of policy and plans". They've got to be AT LEAST equally culpable if not Lerner more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool (Now), Sunderland, QPR, Arsenal & Newcastle all of there owners have put a lot of money into the clubs except Arsenal and no one knows truely why Wenger doesnt spend there so I have included them on the list. Taking out Chelsea and Man City for obvious reasons. Liverpool this season have a net spend of £32M, but £12M of that has been spent in January (Sturridge), meaning they spent less than us in the Summer, last season they had a net spend of £35M, but the previous two seasons they made a profit on transfers of £17M, so they seem to be being run along similar lines to us. Sunderland have spent only £14M net this season, and £5M the season before, and made a net profit of £14.1M on transfers the season before. So again they seem to be being run along similar lines to us. QPR, in their last season in the championship had a wages to turnover ratio of 183% (turnover was £16.5M), in their first Premier League season they lost £56.1M, and they have spent an awful lot more on wages since then. I do not believe theirs is a model we should be following. Arsenal have made an overall profit on Transfers since the Premier League began, who knows how they have managed that, we could only wish to be able to follow their model, and maybe that's the ultimate goal. That said, like us they lose their top players because they don't wine any trophies, and won't pay them what they can get elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 What if Faulkner as CEO (the person ultimately in charge of strategy) said; "You can have £20 million to spend but..... The player salary budget must not exceed £xxxx ((say 55 % of forecast income) and that any new player must not earn more than (say) £30k per week" Quite obviously such strictures would have a massive effect and force Lambert to look around the bargain basement. I would say that these are reasonable assumptions and would make Faulkner as culpable as Lerner. In 3 seasons at Norwich, Lambert spent £10M you could say that he was chosen because he knew the 'bargain basement', and as Villa Cass has stated elsewhere he was fully aware and accepted the direction of the club and transfer policy before he accepted the job. So, he built a double promotion winning team, and kept that team in the premier league by spending (net) £10M, yet here he had an existing squad of Premier League players, has so far spent £23M net, and has taken us backwards. I doubt any Norwich players were earning £30K a week, so his new constraints should have been easy for him to operate in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 None of the clubs I mentioned are slashing wage bills and are spending something we arent doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 None of the clubs I mentioned are slashing wage bills and are spending something we arent doing But with the exception of Chelsea, Man City and QPR they are working within the constraints of a sensible wage structure. Liverpool are slowly removing the big earners like Joe Cole. All have reduced the amount they spend on Transfers, and are obviously acutely aware that the wage to turnover ratio must be reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulfromsutton Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I's also say that hes been here what 7 years now? He could have got excellent scouts like Henke years and years ago and started getting the best 15/16/17 yr olds way back then if he wanted a team produced by the academy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts