B3ndy1 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 People seem to expect Randy to cover the debt each year and then spend loads on transfers as well. I think we need to get the club covering most of the day to day costs and then Randy will happily throw more money at it. Everyone says the club is still in debt but that has to be paid off each year too, and it's the owner paying that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 4, 2013 You really have got it down to a fine art now having you, contradicting yourself. You criticise me for stating something which would need ITK knowledge then you make a definitive statement concerning Bent which could only be confirmed by someone connected to the club. You will find that i'm right about the Benteke fee. Yes we've signed seven players. Yes we've increased the wages of two players but what has been our net expenditure over two windows and as i thought HH has already confirmed that Lambert wasn't backed on all of his targets which i had alluded to.You are trying to correlate our progress as a squad to our net spend. That is a very blinkered way of looking at it without taking the realities into account. You are all also slightly talking cross purposes because no-one is actually trying to dispute that we're not spending truck loads of money. This appears to be an argument of "we're not spending enough" versus "I know, but we're progressing as a club". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I dont think HH said Lambert wasnt backed for his targets. he said we wanted a midfielder that was named on here but never pursued it. we also increased the contracts/wages of 5 players which I imagine the exit of Dunne and Ireland made up for most of it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 4, 2013 HH does make mention of players being identified who were outside the budget or having to go for players who were not #1 choice. Some people have jumped on those points despite the fact it is almost definitely the same at every football club outside the 5 or so richest in the world. It is being used as a stick to beat Lerner with when it is no such thing. I suspect because people want to beat Lerner with any stick they can find, even when it's not a fair one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 That means Arsene Wenger wasn't backed because he didn't get Suarez. Or Moyes wasn't backed because he didn't get Fabregas by that logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folski Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 That means Arsene Wenger wasn't backed because he didn't get Suarez. Or Moyes wasn't backed because he didn't get Fabregas by that logic. Or Ancellotti wasn't backed because they didn't get Neymar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 HH does make mention of players being identified who were outside the budget or having to go for players who were not #1 choice. Some people have jumped on those points despite the fact it is almost definitely the same at every football club outside the 5 or so richest in the world. It is being used as a stick to beat Lerner with when it is no such thing. I suspect because people want to beat Lerner with any stick they can find, even when it's not a fair one. To be fair there's plenty of sticks to beat Lerner with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 4, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 4, 2013 HH does make mention of players being identified who were outside the budget or having to go for players who were not #1 choice. Some people have jumped on those points despite the fact it is almost definitely the same at every football club outside the 5 or so richest in the world. It is being used as a stick to beat Lerner with when it is no such thing. I suspect because people want to beat Lerner with any stick they can find, even when it's not a fair one.To be fair there's plenty of sticks to beat Lerner with.Yeah and to be unfair, people make up bogus ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Lerner has a LONG way to go, and everything to prove before i'll start putting any trust in him again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 4, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 4, 2013 Better the devil you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarpie Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 At least we're not owned and run by Mike Ashley and Joe Kinnear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Lerner has a LONG way to go, and everything to prove before i'll start putting any trust in him again. Everything to prove? I think the last year goes some way to rebuilding the trust that many lost in him. Sacking McLeish, hiring Lambert, allowing Lambert to get rid or not use the older players he didn't value, giving Lambert funds to rebuild the squad, keeping Benteke this summer & most importantly, not getting rid of Lambert when many thought we were relegated last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 People really need to look at the teams around us and what they have spent. Southampton have spent £23.5m on Osvaldo & Lovren, factor in we've spent about £9m on Kozak & Okore, now that's a head scratcher. Swansea spent £12m on Bony yet we spent half that on Benteke last season. Cardiff paid 4 times more than we did for Helenius when they bough Corneilus, yet Helenius had a better record in a poorer team. West Ham spunked about 15m on Andy Carroll and 100k a week, Benteke is on half that and is twice the player. Look at Fulham they've brought in Parker who's legs are gone, Bent, Taarabt give me Andi any day of the week. We were all envious of Newcastle last January and how many of their signings would we want now on the money they are on? When you consider the relative impacts of Sissoko & Syla and their relative wages who's proving the better signing? It's not what you spend it's how you spend it. You get a house point. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 We're still here and we go again, what's not to like? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biskitt Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I'm happy with the business we've done and pleased in the direction were taking. It would cost obscene amounts of money to compete at the top level in the short term so I like this longer term, organic growth policy that we are taking. Financially, we still have to factor in the cost of Given and Huttons wages over the remaining period of their contracts it wr can't shift them. If they both see out the remaining of their contracts here ( Given 3 years, Hutton 2 years ) then that alone would cost the club approximately £12m for zero return. I do think better times are ahead and that we will in future be able to sign the £8-10m players again, it's just that some of the problems caused by GH and AM tenures are still evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) He then spent a 'huge' 20m plus a season (not even that spread over the course of his stay so far) in a wafer thin attempt to live up to his word. If you don't understand finances then fair enough but then don't go throwing around bullsh*t numbers. The last set of accounts showed total loans owed to Randy of around £130m with a similar size of equity thrown on top. In other words Randy has pumped in over £200m+ into the club since he took over. If you can't grasp that then have a look at the losses posted - £17 million £54 million, £38 million and £47 million over the last 4 sets of accounts. These are staggeringly bad numbers. Far greater than the £20m figure you seem to band around. All that spending brought us sweet f*ck all (which Randy has to take a large slice of the blame for) and things had to change. The money Randy puts in doesn't disappear into thin air either. AVFC owes Randy this money back. If you want him to throw his billion dollars into the club then the club will owe Randy that billion dollars back. That can end only one way (See Portsmouth). Edited September 4, 2013 by RunRickyRun 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 HH does make mention of players being identified who were outside the budget or having to go for players who were not #1 choice. Some people have jumped on those points despite the fact it is almost definitely the same at every football club outside the 5 or so richest in the world. It is being used as a stick to beat Lerner with when it is no such thing. I suspect because people want to beat Lerner with any stick they can find, even when it's not a fair one. To be fair there's plenty of sticks to beat Lerner with. Yeah and to be unfair, people make up bogus ones. Neither i nor anyone else for that matter has fabricated anything to criticise Lerner. What i have said however is that the expenditure over the last two windows when we are re-building in comparison to other teams has been poor which it undoubtedly has been for a club of our stature and since i have noted comments from fellow posters that Lambert has been backed i have rightly questioned that and indeed been proven right that he hasn't been given the full backing he has asked for concerning all his targets. I also had a debate several weeks ago with a fellow poster concerning whether Lambert would pull back from buying a player if the funding was there but he nevertheless thought that the player's transfer fee would be too much. Lambert wanted a AM and if the board had given the go ahead for that signing he would have taken it irrespective to improve the team. As it is, it was the board who didn't sanction all of his targets which is surprising since wages have been reduced and hence my comment on the possibility of the club being prepared for a sale. No swinging a stick to beat Lerner with, just deductions some of which have been proven right and the other we'll know through time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 That means Arsene Wenger wasn't backed because he didn't get Suarez. Or Moyes wasn't backed because he didn't get Fabregas by that logic. Thats complete rubbish. The difference being that their respective boards made the money available for the manager to sign those players while our board refused to back Lambert on several of his targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwan Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 That means Arsene Wenger wasn't backed because he didn't get Suarez. Or Moyes wasn't backed because he didn't get Fabregas by that logic. Thats complete rubbish. The difference being that their respective boards made the money available for the manager to sign those players while our board refused to back Lambert on several of his targets. Also rubbish. It could also be that PL wanted his target at a certain price and nothing above. It doesn't mean that he wasn't backed by the board. To say that PL goes to the board and says, "I need this player at any price" is ridiculous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3ndy1 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 That means Arsene Wenger wasn't backed because he didn't get Suarez. Or Moyes wasn't backed because he didn't get Fabregas by that logic. Thats complete rubbish. The difference being that their respective boards made the money available for the manager to sign those players while our board refused to back Lambert on several of his targets. Rodgers said Suarez had a valuation that wasn't met by arsenal, you could easily say that Wenger wasn't backed with the funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts