villan_007 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Stanthemanisgod appears to realise the importance of what has happened regarding spending. It was either that or go bust. What i would like to know is when the penny is going to drop with the many people on here who somehow fail to see that? hmmm well it hasn't dropped then, if you think nobody can grasp what was happening regarding spending. You need to look past the PR of financial constraints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The issue is Lerner foolishly pissed his money away, now he wants Villa to get it back for him. We all understand the financial circumstances the idiot has brought upon us. He spent like a fool and should suffer the consequences. Not sell off our assets to get a bit back. Are you for real?? Listen to what your saying. Is a man not entitled to try and make money out of the business he owns? Do all businesses do what you suggest? Were spending too much money, shall we cut costs?? Nah, I tell ya what - lets carry on spending and suffer the consequences and get even more in debt. AVFC is a football club whos owner is not rich enough to treat it as a plaything. Its a business - Its frustrating but for god sake, Get over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 You don't need money to play attacking football with players showing 100% effort and looking like there is a plan to their game - that is down to the manager - when will some of you realise that is of more concern than the money tap being switched off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 You don't need money to play attacking football with players showing 100% effort and looking like there is a plan to their game - that is down to the manager - when will some of you realise that is of more concern than the money tap being switched off? We do, but the point made by thegiddygambler was that lerner should be critcised for tightening the purse strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegiddygambler Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The issue is Lerner foolishly pissed his money away, now he wants Villa to get it back for him. We all understand the financial circumstances the idiot has brought upon us. He spent like a fool and should suffer the consequences. Not sell off our assets to get a bit back. Are you for real?? Listen to what your saying. Is a man not entitled to try and make money out of the business he owns? Do all businesses do what you suggest? Were spending too much money, shall we cut costs?? Nah, I tell ya what - lets carry on spending and suffer the consequences and get even more in debt. AVFC is a football club whos owner is not rich enough to treat it as a plaything. Its a business - Its frustrating but for god sake, Get over it It's so black and white with you isn't it? There's no grey areas! You've a whole heap of accusations and presumptions. I really cannot be arsed to go into this at length but here goes......... YES he is fully entitled to run AVFC as a business! Now let me explain my, and a lot of other's grievance. His stewardship is characterised by EXTREMES! Extreme spending, followed by Extreme austerity. It's a disgraceful way to run AVFC. As I said earlier, he recklessly lost his own money. EXTREME SPENDING. If he cared for this club I would say the correct response of finally realising his error. Would be to stop spending BUT ensure the club was still able to operate in the market. E.G. at least allow cash generated through sales (Downing & Young) to be reinvested. Before you mention Bent, that was the Milner money. Instead of doing this he disregarded the health of this club and has imposed EXTREME AUSTERITY. Nobody asked Lerner to go overboard spending, when we object to him selling everything with 2 legs all you can come back at us is "business plan" and "he has a right to make money" Yes he does and I support him cutting back but he's not even reinvesting sales revenue. We never asked for or deserve EXTREME AUSTERITY. He'll make a fcukin fortune if he ever sells us, and in any case he could get his back by just ensuring we only spend what we sell. Sadly he's not even willing to do that. My response is a bit rushed but I say all the only because I love the club and ALL fans. Whether we agree with each other or not!!! UTV Are you able to agree with us dissenters in stating his reign has been characyerised by 2 extremes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macandally Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The issue is Lerner foolishly pissed his money away, now he wants Villa to get it back for him. We all understand the financial circumstances the idiot has brought upon us. He spent like a fool and should suffer the consequences. Not sell off our assets to get a bit back. Are you for real?? Listen to what your saying. Is a man not entitled to try and make money out of the business he owns? Do all businesses do what you suggest? Were spending too much money, shall we cut costs?? Nah, I tell ya what - lets carry on spending and suffer the consequences and get even more in debt. AVFC is a football club whos owner is not rich enough to treat it as a plaything. Its a business - Its frustrating but for god sake, Get over it Seeing as you used a business analogy here. The company was running over budget and that needed addressing, without a doubt. Suitable checks and balances were not put in place during the previous management (ONeill era) and that meant the company paid over the odds for staff that contributed little to the needs of the organisation. Those checks and the risk should have been assessed and managed by the Board and the company owners. What we have done since is where the lunacy began. The company needed to continue to be competitive in the market place but cut overheads. They sold off some of their established profit makers that provided stability and a steady profit/loss ratio to ensure a short term cash injection, bringing in replacement staff who were a gamble at best. They then appointed a management team that had already taken their previous business to bankruptcy in order to reestablish the company brand and improve profits whilst cutting costs. Does that sound like a sound business model to you? Some of it is understandable, the McLeish appointment still sounds suicidal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islingtonclaret Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Aside from the endless bickering on here, I had a look on the Browns Board to see if Lerner has made much of an appearance there. Turns out, he seems to be staying away from both of his clubs. I think the rampant moodyness doesn't even exist in Cleveland anymore because they seem so used to it. I hope he doesn't intend to run us that way, but he seems pretty much set on it anyway. What's the point of doing an interview where you say you recognise that you need to communicate with the fans more and then disappearing?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Aside from the endless bickering on here, I had a look on the Browns Board to see if Lerner has made much of an appearance there. Turns out, he seems to be staying away from both of his clubs. I think the rampant moodyness doesn't even exist in Cleveland anymore because they seem so used to it. I hope he doesn't intend to run us that way, but he seems pretty much set on it anyway. What's the point of doing an interview where you say you recognise that you need to communicate with the fans more and then disappearing?! Yes he may have recognised he poor communication but I don't remember him promising to rectify the situation? The major problem I have with Lerner is atm that we seem to be calling for cost cuts on one hand yet we throw money down the drain on the other. For example compensation paid for/to MON, GH and AM, the Jenas wages etc etc. In my view if a business is looking to save money then the idea of wasting many millions is pure incompetence and idiocy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Anyway, the thread title is still unanswered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Am I correct in thinking Heskey has more goals than our chairman has appearances this season ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMcKenna Posted December 22, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 22, 2011 Met some fans from Sutton in the '82 lounge last night who had been to Cleveland Browns game (I cant remember when they went) - said they had a long chat with Randy Lerner who talked about a number of highly paid players that would be off the books by the summer. He told them that once the decks were cleared of said players there would be further investment. They didnt discuss January transfer window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 there would be further investment Which means nothing, it could be Ridgewell, Carr or someother lower league clogger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMcKenna Posted December 22, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 22, 2011 there would be further investment Which means nothing, it could be Ridgewell, Carr or someother lower league clogger Very true - only passing on what I heard 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 Am I correct in thinking Heskey has more goals than our chairman has appearances this season ? Randy has been twice I think, Norwich & ManUre Has Heskey scored ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis_B Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Has Heskey scored ? Well Doris the Tea Lady said last night....ooops sorry sworn to secrecy :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Met some fans from Sutton in the '82 lounge last night who had been to Cleveland Browns game (I cant remember when they went) - said they had a long chat with Randy Lerner who talked about a number of highly paid players that would be off the books by the summer. He told them that once the decks were cleared of said players there would be further investment. They didnt discuss January transfer window.Just imagine what Mcleish could do if he was backed eh? Doug also used to talk about further investment (list of ten players anyone?) and nothing came of it. Utter BS I'm afraid (not your passing on the message Mike but the message itself) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 22, 2011 Just imagine what Mcleish could do if he was backed eh? Doug also used to talk about further investment (list of ten players anyone?) and nothing came of it. Utter BS I'm afraid (not your passing on the message Mike but the message itself) You're right to point out GK's quote, but equally there's a massive difference with Randy in that there is a wealth of evidence that he is prepared to invest. Many people have rightly pointed out that the wage bill got out of kilter, but it seems to me that were it to be restored to some sort of equilibrium that there's good reason to think that the Club could then effectively use the money saved on OTT wages to put towards players, at least in part, and as long as there could be a return on the money - wages - straight out the door, a player bought for X million and later sold to recover some/all/more than the cost is a different matter. Sustainability is the key thing, for me. Personally, I have no idea if the comment is BS or not, but have no reason to conclude that it clearly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Sorry Pete but the problems with all that sell to buy and wages at a sustainable level thing we keep getting are 1. Sell to buy - You can only sell what other people want to buy swimple as that. This means your best players ( as has been proven ). So then what do you do? How do you replace them? With the same standard or lower standard? Presumably if wages are an issue then a lower standardif at all. ( as has been proven) How does that then benefit the club? It leads to worse performances, less points, no cup runs and then lower attendances and less money into the club. (as has been proven ) 2. Wages at a sustainable level - totally regressive this and instead of trying to bring wages in line with revenue ( as in point 1 above the level of revenue will undoubtedly drop and there we fall into a vicious circle ), then he should have been looking to increase revenue. Taking cost out of the business is all well and good but when that cost is actually driving the success of the business a cost reduction will ultimately reduce business success. Now we have been through a period of sustained selling off and wages reduction, and still wages are too high and unsustainable it seems. So what happens when they get to a level that is then sustainable? Do you honestly not see that we will not be in a position to increase them again as that then makes them unsustaonable again, especially as the revenue will reduce by the falling support that we have witnessed. Regressive policies from Lerner that actually will have the opposite affect and your jam tomorrow scenario will never arrive. The only way we will progress is for Lerner to leave and a richer owner to take over and I for one cannot wait until the time that he leaves. Lerner most definitely out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 You cannot run a successful PL club and hope to break even Not even close We need an owner who's prepared to set fire to £40m per annum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 22, 2011 You cannot run a successful PL club and hope to break even of course you can. Man Utd have done for years. Spurs do, Arsenal do.... It's not easy, but it's possible. And the new rules should make it easier, if they're enforced. On Richard's comments, I disagree. There's of course a deal of truth in that view, but it's not IMO the only outcome. Clubs, all clubs have to continually renew their squads as players get older, anyway. There's no problem, IMO with doing so via a mix of developing and buying players. And that can be done within an economical way. Some clubs will always be wealthier than others and can therefore take good players from poorer clubs, but have to pay to do so. It will, or may weaken a squad for a year or so, but good scouting and development can re-generate things. Wages at a sustainable level - regressive my a**e. Yes, endeavour to increase revenue, but letting wages go out of kilter is foolish. Aiming for a percentage of income, around 60% or so on wages is sensible. It's not regressive. The only way we will progress is for Lerner to leave and a richer owner to take over and I for one cannot wait until the time that he leaves. Yes, you've espoused that view till you're blue in the face, and I fundamentally disagree with the idea of an arms race looking for ever more wealthy owners to throw money at the Club, or for that matter any Club. I'll take the Arsenal model over the Man City or Chelsea model every single day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts