The Randy Lerner thread

[Dodgyknees]

What I am about to say isn't popular on VT.

Nothing has changed for me 4 straight defeats still doesn't change the bigger picture.

We are as of this summer (assuming the same budget) now breaking even, on a personal view I don't see why we should expect as a club to spend more than what we earn. On a rules point of view we can't go over it by more than 15m a year (total yearly costs not signings) even if the owner does want to put that in.

When Soccer Saturday comes out with a comment like they apparently did this weekend I like the players mentioned and it shows with money Lambert will pick good players to come in however it doesn't fit with building a squad thus far but it does fit with building a team as of this summer as we don't need more fillers.

Therefore.

As Randy isn't going anywhere until we see concrete evidence he is selling up and Lambert going anywhere before the summer isn't going to happen and it isn't that likely he will go anywhere in the summer I think we as fans should wait to see if the assumed spend happens in the summer and who it is on before passing judgement and chanting "BOO S A" at Lerner if we aren't happy.

Is your surname Faulkner? Edited April 14, 2014 by dodgyknees

[suttonpaul]

Nope but I have just read what he said

[Risso]

What I am about to say isn't popular on VT.

On a rules point of view we can't go over it by more than 15m a year (total yearly costs not signings) even if the owner does want to put that in.

 

 

 

That isn't right.  You can make maximum losses of £45m per year.  It's only £15m if the owner DOESN'T put equity in, so the inference is that £30m of losses can be backed with shareholder equity.

[suttonpaul]

Actually that's not right.

 

It can only be 5m a year if he doesn't put equity in 15m a year if he does put it in and you play in Europe and 45m a year if you aren't playing in Europe.

 

The reason I say 15m and it seems to be the accepted rule for common sense reasons....... Why on earth would anyone put in 45m a year get to the European places and then not be able to play as they went over the 45m over 3 years that you are allowed, it makes it pointless.

[Risso]

Actually that's not right.

 

It can only be 5m a year if he doesn't put equity in 15m a year if he does put it in and you play in Europe and 45m a year if you aren't playing in Europe.

 

The reason I say 15m and it seems to be the accepted rule for common sense reasons....... Why on earth would anyone put in 45m a year get to the European places and then not be able to play as they went over the 45m over 3 years that you are allowed, it makes it pointless.

 

Not according to that link you put up the other day which says that the maximum permitted loss is £35m a year (which I meant, not £45m), and £15m if not linked to equity injections.  You seem to be getting mixed up with the UEFA rules, which are utterly irrelevant to us.

 

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

I thought it was that the PL rules allow you to make a loss over three seasons of £105M as long as £90M of that is backed by equity.

[suttonpaul]

UEFA rules are not irrelevant as if you break UEFA rules getting into Europe you cant play.

 

Spending say 100m to get to 6th to play in the Europa League will fit with PL rules but it won't fit with UEFA of losing 45m therefore you can't play as the rule break is so big.

 

And that is if you ignore the principal of you should only spend what you earn.

[suttonpaul]

and oh yea it is 35m a year not 45m un PL rules

 

The UEFA one isn't 45m pounds its Euros too which amplifies my point.

[Risso]

The point is, unlike every single one of your posts that say we CAN't spend any money because of FFP rules; we can.  We can make £35m losses a year to try and close the gap between being relegation scrappers every year, and finishing in the top half.  With the new TV deal from this year that should give a new owner scope to set about improving things.

[lexicon]

The really sad thing is, why incur losses like that to get into the Europa League? You won't recoup them by playing in that competition. 

[Risso]

The really sad thing is, why incur losses like that to get into the Europa League? You won't recoup them by playing in that competition. 

 

On the other hand, relegation, which is where the current course of action is taking us, will cost us far, far more.  It's a balancing act.  I don't want to see us spending ridiculous amounts of cash, I just want us to be playing decent football, with a reasonable chance of finishing top 8 and generally enjoying watching us play.  The last few years have been shite on just about every level, and I've had enough of it.

[cbr600rr]

i think the bigger picture is ..learner is not willing to pay the going rate of Premier League players but sure as hell he wants the Premier League tv £ & our ticket £ etc etc..

 

i see as you do the backlash on fb regarding the "pull together thread". its disgusting that faulkner thinks we as fans dont care & have not backed the team.its just wrong

[lexicon]

 

The really sad thing is, why incur losses like that to get into the Europa League? You won't recoup them by playing in that competition. 

 

On the other hand, relegation, which is where the current course of action is taking us, will cost us far, far more.  It's a balancing act.  I don't want to see us spending ridiculous amounts of cash, I just want us to be playing decent football, with a reasonable chance of finishing top 8 and generally enjoying watching us play.  The last few years have been shite on just about every level, and I've had enough of it.

 

 

Of course yeah - that's a realistic expectation and what the club are seemingly trying to work towards with the current project. The biggest issue we have is whether Lambert is given the chance to get in some quality or not this summer - 3 quality players in, combined with the injured back, we'd have a pretty decent shot of that and we weren't that far away from top 8 for most of this season.The brand of football is clearly your and a lot of peoples' issue though, which is fair enough. I've no idea if the board will keep him or not, with the vote of confidence from Faulkner today - I think he's got until the end of the season to save himself. It doesn't look like we'll go down and we're in a pretty decent position to build for next season and challenge for top 8. 

Edited April 14, 2014 by lexicon

[blandy]

 

The point is, unlike every single one of your posts that say we CAN't spend any money because of FFP rules; we can....

Only if someone (the bank or RAL) will lend the club the money and only if the RL puts in equity to cover losses.

It's pretty clear that the aim is to stop making dobbin gert losses. So that "can" is a bit of conditional thing.  

[Big_John_10]

and what the club are seemingly trying to work towards with the current project

They don't seem to be working towards that at all.

[Risso]

 

The point is, unlike every single one of your posts that say we CAN't spend any money because of FFP rules; we can....

Only if someone (the bank or RAL) will lend the club the money and only if the RL puts in equity to cover losses.

It's pretty clear that the aim is to stop making dobbin gert losses. So that "can" is a bit of conditional thing.  

 

 

Absolutely.  But that's not what was being discussed with respect.  Sutton was making the point that a hypothetical new owner couldn't come in and spend very much, even if they wanted to.  My post was there to say that if they've got the money to spend/waste, they can up to a certain level without falling foul of FFP.

[lexicon]

 

and what the club are seemingly trying to work towards with the current project

They don't seem to be working towards that at all.

 

 

Of course they bloody well are - it's clear as day. 

[DelboyVilla]

 

 

The point is, unlike every single one of your posts that say we CAN't spend any money because of FFP rules; we can....

Only if someone (the bank or RAL) will lend the club the money and only if the RL puts in equity to cover losses.

It's pretty clear that the aim is to stop making dobbin gert losses. So that "can" is a bit of conditional thing.  

 

 

Absolutely.  But that's not what was being discussed with respect.  Sutton was making the point that a hypothetical new owner couldn't come in and spend very much, even if they wanted to.  My post was there to say that if they've got the money to spend/waste, they can up to a certain level without falling foul of FFP.

 

 

 

 

We could in fact loose £105m in one year so long as we lost nothing or made money for the next 2 years?

[useless]

One of the Admin on that bells are ringing forum seems to think a meeting has been called at Villa on Thursday in which all staff must attend, don't know what it's to do with so didn't know where to mention it. If true perhaps It's just a rallying call going into the last five games.

[Risso]

 

 

 

The point is, unlike every single one of your posts that say we CAN't spend any money because of FFP rules; we can....

Only if someone (the bank or RAL) will lend the club the money and only if the RL puts in equity to cover losses.

It's pretty clear that the aim is to stop making dobbin gert losses. So that "can" is a bit of conditional thing.  

 

 

Absolutely.  But that's not what was being discussed with respect.  Sutton was making the point that a hypothetical new owner couldn't come in and spend very much, even if they wanted to.  My post was there to say that if they've got the money to spend/waste, they can up to a certain level without falling foul of FFP.

 

 

 

 

We could in fact loose £105m in one year so long as we lost nothing or made money for the next 2 years?

 

 

I guess.  I think it's slightly unrealsitic though, as you'd either have to massively increase your turnover, or sack everybody who worked for you and leave the country!