suttonpaul Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Yea the money may still be there for another player come January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Lerner's given good backing this summer. The fact that the Cleverly deal didn't come off doesn't mean the funds weren't there. He obviously gave Lambert a £12-14m transfer fund, which Lambert used on a couple of players plus would have used £8m on Cleverly. £12m summer transfer fund on a £100m turnover seems about right, if another £5m or so gets added to the pot in January. i wouldn't expect a sustainable club to spend more than 20% of its turnover on transfers. So each year, £60m on wages, £20m on transfers, £20m on overheads. the key then is to increase revenue so that we can spend more on wages & transfers whilst keeping to the 60/20/20 rule. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted September 2, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 2, 2014 Lerner actually did his bit at the end and was ready to stump up another 7 million. I don't blame Villa for not paying 60k to Ceverly because then a new contract to Ron would have been 70k, Delph 60k and Gabby up there also. Plus we have Grealish. Before you know we are back in the shit with salaries again. Let's take care of the above and hope we are still OK come January when we can push on again. Absolutely right. There is no way in this world a wage structure should be broken for tom cleverly! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 We're 19th in the spending table. Signing cleverley would have took us to 14th. Did Lerner do his part? Was the backing good? It doesn't look like it. It looks like once again the majority of teams outspent us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djemba_Villan Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 How does it look with regards net spending rather than gross? Which is surely what matters.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 The only real winner in this transfer window has been Lerner. This morning he's still sitting on that big fat pile of extra TV dosh and not spent more than a fraction of it But by pretending to be willing to spend some he got some folks off his back again. Is it any wonder Sociedad didn't respond to our 4m offer ??? Ha "Quick Brian, fax Madrid an 8m bid for Bale just so we can say we tried at least" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) How does it look with regards net spending rather than gross? Which is surely what matters.. We're 19th for gross spend above Stoke. We're 16th for net spend above Stoke, Southampton, Swansea and Spurs. Edited September 2, 2014 by ArteSuave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Yea the money may still be there for another player come January. Lol. Yeah! I still remember info leaks about the alleged 10m we had set aside for a creative #10 type player last season that amazingly never got spent either. It's very easy to claim you have money when it's too late to be spent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TrentVilla Posted September 2, 2014 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted September 2, 2014 Yea the money may still be there for another player come January. And it may not. In the hear and now, we've just spent £6m in a window in which the teams we are up against have spent £800m I simply cannot comprehend how Lerner thinks we can continue to get away with this or how us as fans can expect anything more than survival. In that context just keeping us up this season should in my view be considered an achievement by Lambert. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Yea the money may still be there for another player come January. And it may not. In the hear and now, we've just spent £6m in a window in which the teams we are up against have spent £800m I simply cannot comprehend how Lerner thinks we can continue to get away with this or how us as fans can expect anything more than survival. In that context just keeping us up this season should in my view be considered an achievement by Lambert. and has been the case since he has been here (Lambert) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 £835,000,000 and we spent 6,000,000. Ludicrous when you come to think of it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I think the most ludicrous is the £835m spent. But yes, we've spent far too little for my liking, but what we've spent I think we've spent wisely. So far it seems like that, anyway. And what doesn't come into this figure is the signing on bonuses for the free transfers, which if I've got it right usually is a lot higher than the bonuses for bought players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feidhlim Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Who cares how much we spent? We improved the squad no end. Chelsea spend a relatively low net amount and Man U spent a stupidly high amount. Chelsea signed players on a par with Man U, at a minimum. In summary, Net spend <> success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I'd be interested to know what our net spend thus far has been under Lambert's tenure compared to clubs like Newcastle, Stoke, Swansea, QPR, Palace, West Brom, West Ham, Hull , Sunderland and Leicester etc over the same period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 The only real winner in this transfer window has been Lerner. This morning he's still sitting on that big fat pile of extra TV dosh and not spent more than a fraction of it But by pretending to be willing to spend some he got some folks off his back again. Is it any wonder Sociedad didn't respond to our 4m offer ??? Ha "Quick Brian, fax Madrid an 8m bid for Bale just so we can say we tried at least" As far as I know Canales turned us down. Why do people keep peddling this shit that we've just pretended to sign players? I think it's blatantly obvious that we would've signed Cleverley for £8m if he wasn't **** about over wages. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 2, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 2, 2014 We're 19th for gross spend above Stoke. We're 16th for net spend above Stoke, Southampton, Swansea and Spurs. According to this we have spent 6mill net, coming in at equal 17th. What is interesting, though, is that signing Cleverly for the 7.5mill reported would put us 11th. Not bad for a guy who is trying to sell and not interested..... ... unless, of course, the failure to add Cleverly is somehow his fault too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 What is interesting, though, is that signing Cleverly for the 7.5mill reported would put us 11th. Not bad for a guy who is trying to sell and not interested... unless, of course, the failure to add Cleverly is somehow his fault too. Well that is interesting, so long as you also factor in the money of other teams that got close to deals but never finalised. Sunderland for Borini and Leicester for Deeney for example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Or Villa for Canale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 What is interesting, though, is that signing Cleverly for the 7.5mill reported would put us 11th. Not bad for a guy who is trying to sell and not interested... unless, of course, the failure to add Cleverly is somehow his fault too. Well that is interesting, so long as you also factor in the money of other teams that got close to deals but never finalised. Sunderland for Borini and Leicester for Deeney for example. Yep, it's easy to say what if. What if we had made the signings three or four weeks ago, or a year ago, or two years ago when we needed an AM. What if Lerner hadn't spent money like a kid in a sweet shop. What if Lerner hadn't have appointed a manager with heart problems who had been out of the English game for five years. What if Lerner had appointed a forward thinking manager after this. What if Lerner had a plan for success and not just 'throw it all on red'. What if Lerner had put restrictions in place from the start, not during the middle, before stopping them for the Bent signing, starting them again just after McLeish signed, then keeping them in place whilst selling off a team of players and forcing one manager to have a very limited budget. What if... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted September 2, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 2, 2014 Well that is interesting, so long as you also factor in the money of other teams that got close to deals but never finalised. Sunderland for Borini and Leicester for Deeney for example. Decent examples. I wouldn't include them though. Sunderland spent their Borini money elsewhere and Leicester never had a bid accepted - neither of which apply for Cleverly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts