Stevo985 Posted November 22, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 22, 2011 Interesting Gareth. Would love to see the weekly cost of the starting lineups too (wages wise I mean) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 And I'd like to sniff Eliza Dushku's used tampon, but it ain't gonna happen. Unless someone can point me in the direction of a wage list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I may be completely wrong but just having a rough guess did the spurs starting 11 cost less than our starting 11 last night? And if I am wrong I can't imagine the difference between transfer fees is huge. Scary how much I agree with you these days, was thinking along the same lines: Tottenham 24 Friedel - £nil 03 Bale - £5m 04 Kaboul - £9m 26 King - £nil 28 Walker - £4.5m 32 Assou-Ekotto - £3.5m 07 Lennon - £1m 08 Parker - £5.5m 11 Van der Vaart - £8m 14 Modric - £16.5m 10 Adebayor - £loan Total = £53m Substitutes 23 Cudicini, 13 Gallas, 19 Bassong, 30 Sandro, 40 Pienaar, 17 Giovani, 18 Defoe Aston Villa 01 Given - £3.5m 02 Hutton - £2m 03 Warnock - £8m 05 Dunne - £5m 06 Collins -£5m 24 Cuellar - £8m 19 Petrov - £6m Herd - £nil 09 Bent - £18m 11 Agbonlahor - £nil 18 Heskey - £3.5m Substitutes 22 Guzan, 21 Clark, 07 Ireland, 10 N'Zogbia, 16 Delph, 25 Bannan, 26 Weimann Total = £61m Now that's a very rough and ready stab including some guesses at what they cost, but it shows that amounts spent aren't as wildly different as they are when we play Man City or Chelsea. You can argue about the real costs, and add in the subs if you like, but in my opinion it's just a lie that Spurs should be seen as some uncatchable team operating on a different plane. They're just run better, and have a much better manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Meh, a curse on Gareth's fast fingers and wildly different transfer costs! And a pox on his house and first born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchard Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Re: Money spent - it doesn't reflect well on oneill, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 22, 2011 What has Lerner done that gets him off the hook so much? I truly suspect the only thing he has done that lets him off the hook is not being Doug Ellis The fact that many of us for years campaigned to get rid of him for running the club so poorly and we blamed him solely for the fact that we couldn't compete. Well I think the arrival of Lerner just made some so grateful that he finally removed Ellis that he can do no wrong and now seeing we cannot compete if they were to blame Lerner it could mean all that stuff against Ellis may not have been deserved (it was by the way) For me it is similar to the JPA defence. I rated him when he first came (JPA that is) but the last couple of seasons he was dire. Many still supported him as he was seen as a victory against Ellis (IMO). Same with Lerner I can't speak for anyone else, but that's quite wrong in my eyes for several reasons. 1. I'm not sure, for a start, that he "gets off the hook so much" anyway. There are a small number of posters who think 'eck is doing a good job and was a good appointment, and a large number who think he was a bad appointment and isn't doing a good job. All of those second lot think RL is wholly or partly to blame (with PF) for that situation, and have pretty muc.h said so. I've seen no evidence of a "yeah, he messed up, but that's fine" 2. Communication problems - been done to death, too. Plenty of criticism has been made re the comms to fans and media. - He's not "let off" for it. There's no "he can do no wrong " 3. Comparison with Ellis. The two are completely different. Different in their behaviours, their motives, their actions and their words. I'm not sure that (all) the people who wanted Ellis out did so because they blamed him "for the fact that we couldn't compete." But I don't really want to go over old ground, there. 4. People were undoubtedly overjoyed when RL took over, but not just because he was anone but Ellis, but because he immediately demonstrated better intent, better respect for the Club and for the fans than Ellis had ever done. And putting lots of his own money into the club helped enormously - something Ellis never did (not that he needed to or should have). Like it or not, Randy has demonstrated by deed a great many things which, for me at least, show that he's a good owner. That said, the managerial appointment area isn't his strong suit, Communicating isn't a strong suit and he's clearly learning as he goes along, as is natural. I'm happy for his to be the owner, to continue to improve, to work to make the club better and stronger and so on. His motives are good, his ethos is good and whilst all is not well, neither is everything in the sort of mess it was when he took over. We've taken about 4 steps forward and then a couple of steps back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Meh, a curse on Gareth's fast fingers and wildly different transfer costs! And a pox on his house and first born. I bite my thumb at you sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm happy for his to be the owner, to continue to improve, to work to make the club better and stronger and so on. His motives are good, his ethos is good and whilst all is not well, neither is everything in the sort of mess it was when he took over. We've taken about 4 steps forward and then a couple of steps back. Completely disagree, Pete, completely and utterly. I don't think Lerner's motives extend past it being a vanity project that he underestimated the costs of, with probably a faint hope that there's be some huge new TV deal that would double our income. He also charged a fair amount in management charges and interest on the loans from the family trust. And in terms of improvment, I don't think the squad is any better than when he took over, and if anything, Lerner and Faulkner are actually far worse at the actual business side of running a football club than Ellis and Stride were. Ellis actually appointed some terrific managers and indeed suggested O'Neill to Lerner. Lerner has appointed Houllier and McLeish, and has to pay compensation for all of them. Then there have been all the gaffes over kits, sponsors and so on. I'm sorry but when it comes to sports ownership, Lerner hasn't got a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Football Manager 2012 seem to have Randy spot on when it comes to appointing managers! (Steve Clarke just got sacked) Uploaded with ImageShack.us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 His motives are good, his ethos is good For me this isn't enough. You could say the same about Heskey but i don't want him playing week in week out. This is competitive sports and haven't good intentions isn't enough to be a good owner. His control of the finances are poor and his managerial appointments are poor, they're the two biggest things an owner has to do. I also don't think you can ignore his poor decision making at the browns. There is very little to suggest randy Lerner is a good sports team owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Scary how much I agree with you these days, was thinking along the same lines: It was only that little northern Irishman that stopped our bromance from blossoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I agree with Blandy, I think Risso's take on things is a less balanced and unfair critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 My view is that Risso is being absolutely honest and being straight to the point about Lerner which is why I agree with that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Its quite simple the Villa fans should run the club, they already know SO much about what managers are available and will come, what players will, how easy it is to generate money (just make it) and all the other answers which usually means calling for PF head. Quite simply if he hadn't appointed McLeish and had continued spending money he would be a good owner, because he is only a bad owner recently because he's not doing that and telling us about everything. Villa fans continuing to be an embarrassment. Spend money appoint popular manager, communicate = good owner. Cannot afford to spend money appoint unpopular manager, limit communication = bad owner. Communicate = still a bad owner its not what we wanted to hear. Fans in general should be ignored, as we would have a new manager after every bad performance and would be billions of pounds in debt. This would be a decent post if you weren't ignoring what seems patently clear to me. Randy has not had any success with the AVFC accounts. He spent an absolute shitload and our revenue is terrible in comparison. 100% of his appointments have been disastrous so far. Houllier was a head-scratcher, Mcleish even more so (perhaps more like a skull-caver). You are simply lumping the people who don't believe Randy to know how to run a Premier League club well, with people who apparently just want oil money and for Villa to become the next Man City. You seem oblivious to the fact that we have already spent more money than most Prem clubs have the opportunity to do, and that Randy's money has been all but pissed down the drain. Lerner needs a long-term Director of Football to help AVFC get its shit together if he's gonna stick around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 22, 2011 My view is that Risso is being absolutely honest and being straight to the point about Lerner which is why I agree with that view. As do I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 100% of his appointments have been disastrous so far. Houllier was a head-scratcher, Mcleish even more so (perhaps more like a skull-caver).Regardless of how it turned out, I don't think the Houllier appointment was a bad one at the time. We'd just had our manager walk out on us right before the start of the season. There weren't really that many options available to us at that time. Houllier did have a fair bit of success and while he had health issues I distinctly remember him being passed fit by his doctor. In hindsight it might look a bad appointment, but as I said, at the time, I don't think it was bad at all. McLeish on the other hand was as you said, a skull-caver. He'd just gotten SHA relegated after they were looking safe only a few months before. His teams play dire football and he came straight from SHA. While I don't think his SHA connections matter, it did to some people and I'm pretty sure Randy and Faulkner would have had the foresight to know that appointing him with all those things in mind would certainly ruffle a few feathers. Not only that but there were definitely better candidates out there. I just don't understand what their rationale was. It was possibly one of the most bizarre managerial appointments in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanpabloangel18 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 It's also the links between MON ---- GH --(Martinez)-- AMC that baffle me. Anyone who'd been into football for more than a month could tell you that the managers we had or tried to recruit are pretty much the antithesis of one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowDoINotLikeThat Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I just don't understand what their rationale was. It was possibly one of the most bizarre managerial appointments in history. Agreed. The fact we tapped him up as well! Like you say one most bizarre appointments ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I just don't understand what their rationale was. It was possibly one of the most bizarre managerial appointments in history. Agreed. The fact we tapped him up as well! Like you say one most bizarre appointments ever.That's it - it's the paying so much in compensation that I don't understand. If they'd gotten McLeish for free then you could kind of understand it because it would show that they wanted to do things on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I just don't understand what their rationale was. It was possibly one of the most bizarre managerial appointments in history. Agreed. The fact we tapped him up as well! Like you say one most bizarre appointments ever. Perhaps he was genuinely the only 1 left available. We won't have had a list of candidates any better willing to take charge believe me. Why? Because we are not that good a prospect - especially with the 'cut the wage bill' startegy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts