KHV Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 We have dropped of the top 20 clubs for revenue according to the latest Deloitte figures if mcleish stays for the full length of his contract then i would not be surprised if we drop out of the top 50. this is the impact he will have on us and im amazed lerner and faulkner don't realise this. Mcleish is like a cancer to this club and the sooner he has hone the better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If the revenue is dropping but the gap between revenue and expenditure stays the same that means that expenditure has to continue to be reduced. That means an ever decreasing wage bill and less spent on players, that matters. That is a major problem and that is a club in decline and its a cycle that would be hard to stop or reverse without external investment. Actually it doesn't. You reduce expenditure until such a time that it is under control, then you are in a position to speculate to accumulate. That is common business practice. The bigger problem is that when you speculate to accumulate whoever is doing the speculating (McLeish) has less room for error or you end up back where you were. Losses made by Aston Villa are only paper losses while our owner is prepared to support us with injections of cash through share issues and other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 9, 2012 If the revenue is dropping but the gap between revenue and expenditure stays the same that means that expenditure has to continue to be reduced. That means an ever decreasing wage bill and less spent on players, that matters. That is a major problem and that is a club in decline and its a cycle that would be hard to stop or reverse without external investment. Actually it doesn't. You reduce expenditure until such a time that it is under control, then you are in a position to speculate to accumulate. That is common business practice. The bigger problem is that when you speculate to accumulate whoever is doing the speculating (McLeish) has less room for error or you end up back where you were. Losses made by Aston Villa are only paper losses while our owner is prepared to support us with injections of cash through shaw issues and other means. Actually yes it does. Investments of cash from Randy Lerner are external investment, they are outside our revenue streams. It remains to be seen if Randy is prepared to continue to fund the club in such a way or not. It is not normal business practise for a business to have expenditure in excess of revenue, it is not normal business practise for people running businesses to think revenue doesn't matter as long as the gap between revenue and expenditure doesn't increase. If you honest think our revenue in relation to our expenditure isn't important than as I said that is economic naivety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 9, 2012 It is not normal business practise for a business to have expenditure in excess of revenue, it is not normal business practise for people running businesses to think revenue doesn't matter as long as the gap between revenue and expenditure doesn't increase. Actually it is normal practice. It seems at first glance to be mad, but it isn't, necessarily. For example Virgin Media has turned its first annual profit since its 2006 launch. There are gazillions of examples similar. But where your point is valid is the subtext - "what is the expenditure being used for?". If the expenditure is simply to "keep going" then clearly it's unsustainable and has to be stopped and then reversed. If it's to reshape the business, to expand it, to replace assets which have worn out, or to increase efficiency, then it's a different matter. In the context of Villa, people will have different opinions. For example the original RL plan was to spend in order to, amongst many things, improve performance and thus grow income and presumably start turning a profit, or at least to increase the value of the business for sale in the future, to recover the spend. For a number of reasons that plan has ended. Other competitors reached the place we were aiming for. The "architect" walked off in a hissy fit/felt he couldn't carry on [delete as applicable] and so on. Where we are now, cutting avoidable costs - the wages of the likes of unfit for purpose reserves etc is a no brainer.. It's right and good practice. Performance related income will fall, but that's not because Habib Beye's wages are taken off the bill, it's for other reasons, including as a consequence of gaining income from the sale of Milner, Young, Downing and co. as well as (if your viewpoint leans that way) of appointing poor, new "architects" of our new plan. If the new plan is to reduce wages to a level where the club can afford to pay them out of income (less than 66%of turnover, for example) and still have enough left over to run at a level or profit, then that's fine, business wise. Even if it takes a while to get there, as it inevitably will, that's fine, too, because the direction of the business is towards profitability - like with virgin media, twitter, or numerous more traditional businesses. If the club concentrates on getting to a sustainable situation, with the aim of trying again having learnt some lessons from the first go, then that's, for me, the right thing to do. I think they are. Whether they succeed is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 All the more admiration for what Redknapp has done at Spurs He's worked miracles there But of course he came to a club that had been spending (and trading players profitably) for a long time. This is a club who could spend big money on players like Dean Richards, Pavelchenko, Rebrov, etc, etc. They have made countless failures, whether it be Andy Reid or David Bentley or Dos Santos or Gomes... We saw ‘big’ spending on players for a small time, and stopped. What Redknapp has done is finally make sense of what was clearly a very good squad. He never signed Modric or Bale. Yes he signed Van der Vaart You might argue that quite a few of his signings like Bassong, Crouch, Keane mk11, Pineear haven’t worked out. Redknapp would like you to believe he has performed miracles; he hasn’t. He’s done very well, but with a very good inherited squad, which he has added to. And a chairman who doesn’t just decide to cave in and sell his best players. What Redknapp has done is get Tottenham to live up to its potential. If he were a miracle worker, players like Bentley would have performed Probably the most disheartening thing about the sale of Milner could be a comparison to the Modric situation. Milner stated himself that he'd continue to do his best for the team if he wasn't sold, much better than Modric's reaction to Chelsea's interest. If only we'd bitten the bullet and refused to sell - Levy's stance is very admirable and it's paid dividends. Instead we ended up losing a manager that's made Sunderland look like title contenders and the majority of our dangerous/talented players to boot. Randy's biggest mistake IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 We've probably spunked as much if not more than spurs on shit over the last 10-15 years For every Rebrov there is a Balaban, for every Bentley a Curtis Davies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 So Lerner cannot afford to cover the excess in wages (which was quoted as £10,000 / week per first team squad member which is equal to 13 million a year but will find money for new transfers....... I will be suprised if our spending over the next couple of windows isnt covered by player sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedge Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The Qatari takeover rumours seem to have gone quiet ever since the thread was locked. Not that I ever believed it was true anyway, surely RL has to sell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 My mate's dad works for a private chauffer company and he was the one who picked up the prince on Wednesday at BHX and took him to Bodymoor Heath. The prince was not Qatari but from Saudi Arabia. I forgotten the name but will get that as soon as I can but that is all he knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 My mate's dad works for a private chauffer company and he was the one who picked up the prince on Wednesday at BHX and took him to Bodymoor Heath. The prince was not Qatari but from Saudi Arabia. I forgotten the name but will get that as soon as I can but that is all he knew. Really :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 My mate's dad works for a private chauffer company and he was the one who picked up the prince on Wednesday at BHX and took him to Bodymoor Heath. The prince was not Qatari but from Saudi Arabia. I forgotten the name but will get that as soon as I can but that is all he knew. Really :winkold: Honestly, I don't see any reason for him to lie. Nothing suggests a takeover though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Plausible, there are something like 5,000 - 10,000 Royal Princes in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Perhaps one of them is just an innocent Villa fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 It's more likely to be Mido signing on a two-month deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Prince Abdul-Aziz Al Saud was the one that visited us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Prince Abdul-Aziz Al Saud was the one that visited us. Wasn't he trying to buy Pnathinaikos ? Not sure if he completed the purchase, but I guess if he did then the visit was just a look at BH, if not then it does at least show he as aninterest in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think he's a villa fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Prince Abdul-Aziz Al Saud was the one that visited us. Wasn't he trying to buy Pnathinaikos ? Not sure if he completed the purchase, but I guess if he did then the visit was just a look at BH, if not then it does at least show he as aninterest in football. Unlikely, as he is the one who is serving life for murder in a London hotel..... :?: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Unlikely, as he is the one who is serving life for murder in a London hotel..... :?: I know all the prisons are full but that's taking the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Unlikely, as he is the one who is serving life for murder in a London hotel..... :?: I know all the prisons are full but that's taking the piss. I know. Surely Amnesty International would be involved if prisoners were subjected to torture such as having to endure Villa home games.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukes Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud is the one who beat his servant to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts