Confirmed Transfers Summer 2013

[momo]

 

 

Yep it can only be speculation until someone confirms whether he has been backed on all his targets or not and therefore i'd be more than a little interested in what HH would have to say about it?

 

PL has been given a budget, he has looked at players within this budget and done a tremendous job in finding these players and bringing them in. Agree he may have had targets like Kiyo that are out of our price range but that does not mean he hasn't been backed. A manager will have a belief on a players worth, his knowledge on a players value is paramount. He managed to persuade PF and PL to shell out 7million on an unknown quantity by many last year. Lets also not forget AVFC are a business, unless you've been asleep during the time the financials have been released, we have been making massive losses. We cannot go and buy 3 or 4 players for 10-15million yet. As we turn around the fortunes on the pitch, we need to turn it where we become a self sufficient business not making multi-million £ losses.. PL has mentioned many times this is not a quick fix, this club will take time to rebuild. You also stated that the Bent money would not be re-invested, but the signing of Kozac proves it didn't go into Lerners pocket.

 

 

I think this is a great post. If you are asking me if the manager had targets who were outwith the budget available then yes. Would he sometimes prefer to sign the finished article rather than sign potential. yes. Does he perhaps find it frustrating sometimes when he spots a player who he feels would do a really good job but the money required isn't there. Yip, a little bit. And does it annoy him even more when they move to a rival club in England. Yes. But he also appreciates where the club is at this moment in time, the problems that overspending has created in the past and it is obviously a long-term project to completely turn this club around. Instead of becoming a top eight club in two years it might take four. And you would hope by the time the club are no longer paying anything towards Ireland's wages, get rid of Bent completely, get Given, Nzogbia and Hutton off the wage bill then it might just free up wages and transfer fees for the one or two finished articles which would make all the difference. But I suppose progress is the name of the game and what a job Paul Faulkner has did this summer as well. He deserves a great deal of praise. It's a slow burner, it will take time to get where everyone wants to be and maybe a little too long for some, but the club continues to head in the right direction. There will be results and periods when it will be frustrating this season but as long as you remember this is a long-term project and not a short-term fix then the target to once again be a leading club in the country and a return to European football should hopefully help you accept the plans in place.

 

ps. Morpheous - Get a good night out this weekend and cheer yourself up! It's a good time to be a Villa fan!!!! :P

 

 

Can you shed some light on who those players are? Can we guess?

[Morpheus]

 

 

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.

 

I try to post on the assumption that people can read. Please refer to HH post.

 

I didn't say that Lambert has gone to the board with 'i need this player at any price.' He identified targets to the board. If the board came back to him and said yes to one of the AMs we were linked with do you think Lambert would then say no to the transfer on the basis that the player was costing too much? I don't think so.

[Morpheus]

 

 

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.

 

Yet Arsenal then paid £42.4m for Mesut Ozil out of a reported 100m plus transfer fund.

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

 

 

 

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.

 

Yet Arsenal then paid £42.4m for Mesut Ozil out of a reported 100m plus transfer fund.

 

 

Considering how much Arsenal charge for normal/season tickets they'll probably make that back within the year purely from ticket sales, so it's not really a good comparison is it? (It wasn't in the first place either). Arsenal are much, much richer than Villa, so will always have a bigger budget. 

 

I don't quite get how much Lambert is supposed to have had available to spend, we aren't a rich club. Lerner maybe a Billionaire, but that is US Billionaire, not UK. Therefore Lerner has a personal wealth of roughly £700m, a hell of a lot for a normal person, but to run a Premier League team? Not anywhere near enough to keep pumping your own money into. Considering how much Lerner has already given the club (and lost), why should he put more in. If we continued with a similar amount of investment as we had under MON, then Lerner's personal wealth would be exhausted within 10 years, with Villa left in huge debt, much bigger than we have now, and Lerner would want a considerable amount of money from the club.

 

I'd much rather have a few years of turmoil, reining in the spending and have a club that begins to climb back up the table and also turn a profit (or small losses) than have a few years of fun and end up with a debt of around £500-700m that we have to pay back to Lerner at the end.

 

As much as challenging near the top of the table would be great, the only way to do it in modern football is either taking the better part of 10 years to get there (Spurs style) or have a multi-billionaire buy the club who is willing to spunk money up the wall for a few years (and with FFP, that won't happen to small teams like Man City again).

[B3ndy1]

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.

Yet Arsenal then paid £42.4m for Mesut Ozil out of a reported 100m plus transfer fund.

So you could say Arsenals board would only pay for one, and Wenger not being backed, as he wanted both opted for Ozil.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

 

 

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.

 

I try to post on the assumption that people can read. Please refer to HH post.

 

I didn't say that Lambert has gone to the board with 'i need this player at any price.' He identified targets to the board. If the board came back to him and said yes to one of the AMs we were linked with do you think Lambert would then say no to the transfer on the basis that the player was costing too much? I don't think so.

 

 

So PL says to Randy and PF go and get me Kiyotake, pay whatever it takes even though his club are asking for more money than what Dortmund sold Kagawa for. Right then if it didn't work, you'd then slate PL that he's overpaid on a player and forget completely that RL backed his man. Whether you like it or not PL has been backed in the transfer market in the windows, possibly not the spending you'd like to see but he has been backed.

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Yet Arsenal then paid £42.4m for Mesut Ozil out of a reported 100m plus transfer fund.

 

 

Considering how much Arsenal charge for normal/season tickets they'll probably make that back within the year purely from ticket sales, so it's not really a good comparison is it? (It wasn't in the first place either). Arsenal are much, much richer than Villa, so will always have a bigger budget. 

 

I don't quite get how much Lambert is supposed to have had available to spend, we aren't a rich club. Lerner maybe a Billionaire, but that is US Billionaire, not UK. Therefore Lerner has a personal wealth of roughly £700m, a hell of a lot for a normal person, but to run a Premier League team? Not anywhere near enough to keep pumping your own money into. Considering how much Lerner has already given the club (and lost), why should he put more in. If we continued with a similar amount of investment as we had under MON, then Lerner's personal wealth would be exhausted within 10 years, with Villa left in huge debt, much bigger than we have now, and Lerner would want a considerable amount of money from the club.

 

I'd much rather have a few years of turmoil, reining in the spending and have a club that begins to climb back up the table and also turn a profit (or small losses) than have a few years of fun and end up with a debt of around £500-700m that we have to pay back to Lerner at the end.

 

As much as challenging near the top of the table would be great, the only way to do it in modern football is either taking the better part of 10 years to get there (Spurs style) or have a multi-billionaire buy the club who is willing to spunk money up the wall for a few years (and with FFP, that won't happen to small teams like Man City again).

 

I didn't use Arsenal as the original comparison.

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

 

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.

Yet Arsenal then paid £42.4m for Mesut Ozil out of a reported 100m plus transfer fund.

So you could say Arsenals board would only pay for one, and Wenger not being backed, as he wanted both opted for Ozil.

 

No you couldn't say that due to Arsenal's transfer fund.

[BOF]

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.

You misunderstand. I never said anyone made up facts. What I meant by 'making up bogus ones' was that people were making up unfair 'sticks' to beat Lerner with by twisting facts that are not all that damning when taken in proper context.

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Yet Arsenal then paid £42.4m for Mesut Ozil out of a reported 100m plus transfer fund.

 

 

Considering how much Arsenal charge for normal/season tickets they'll probably make that back within the year purely from ticket sales, so it's not really a good comparison is it? (It wasn't in the first place either). Arsenal are much, much richer than Villa, so will always have a bigger budget. 

 

I don't quite get how much Lambert is supposed to have had available to spend, we aren't a rich club. Lerner maybe a Billionaire, but that is US Billionaire, not UK. Therefore Lerner has a personal wealth of roughly £700m, a hell of a lot for a normal person, but to run a Premier League team? Not anywhere near enough to keep pumping your own money into. Considering how much Lerner has already given the club (and lost), why should he put more in. If we continued with a similar amount of investment as we had under MON, then Lerner's personal wealth would be exhausted within 10 years, with Villa left in huge debt, much bigger than we have now, and Lerner would want a considerable amount of money from the club.

 

I'd much rather have a few years of turmoil, reining in the spending and have a club that begins to climb back up the table and also turn a profit (or small losses) than have a few years of fun and end up with a debt of around £500-700m that we have to pay back to Lerner at the end.

 

As much as challenging near the top of the table would be great, the only way to do it in modern football is either taking the better part of 10 years to get there (Spurs style) or have a multi-billionaire buy the club who is willing to spunk money up the wall for a few years (and with FFP, that won't happen to small teams like Man City again).

 

I didn't use Arsenal as the original comparison.

 

 

That's why I said it wasn't a good example in the first place i.e. SIT's post

 

Plus, I kind of went of on a tangent to a more general point after the first line.

Edited September 5, 2013 by MessiWillSignForVilla

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I try to post on the assumption that people can read. Please refer to HH post.

 

I didn't say that Lambert has gone to the board with 'i need this player at any price.' He identified targets to the board. If the board came back to him and said yes to one of the AMs we were linked with do you think Lambert would then say no to the transfer on the basis that the player was costing too much? I don't think so.

 

 

So PL says to Randy and PF go and get me Kiyotake, pay whatever it takes even though his club are asking for more money than what Dortmund sold Kagawa for. Right then if it didn't work, you'd then slate PL that he's overpaid on a player and forget completely that RL backed his man. Whether you like it or not PL has been backed in the transfer market in the windows, possibly not the spending you'd like to see but he has been backed.

 

Interesting that not only do you seem to be a mind reader but can also look into the future and i note no reference to HH post were he categorically states that Lambert wasn't given backing for all his targets.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

 

 

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.

 

I try to post on the assumption that people can read. Please refer to HH post.

 

I didn't say that Lambert has gone to the board with 'i need this player at any price.' He identified targets to the board. If the board came back to him and said yes to one of the AMs we were linked with do you think Lambert would then say no to the transfer on the basis that the player was costing too much? I don't think so.

 

Yes IMO he would say no, if his target was say Kiyotake, his value possibly ranged from 7m to 10m. He knows more about players values than anyone else at VP.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I try to post on the assumption that people can read. Please refer to HH post.

 

I didn't say that Lambert has gone to the board with 'i need this player at any price.' He identified targets to the board. If the board came back to him and said yes to one of the AMs we were linked with do you think Lambert would then say no to the transfer on the basis that the player was costing too much? I don't think so.

 

 

So PL says to Randy and PF go and get me Kiyotake, pay whatever it takes even though his club are asking for more money than what Dortmund sold Kagawa for. Right then if it didn't work, you'd then slate PL that he's overpaid on a player and forget completely that RL backed his man. Whether you like it or not PL has been backed in the transfer market in the windows, possibly not the spending you'd like to see but he has been backed.

 

Interesting that not only do you seem to be a mind reader but can also look into the future and i note no reference to HH post were he categorically states that Lambert wasn't given backing for all his targets.

 

 

One question was PL backed this summer YES or NO? Did PL bring in Players YES or NO? Did PL get to offer new contracts to his star players YES or NO? If that isn't backed then I don't know what is.

 

You seem to think PL just draws up a list and says bring me X, Y and Z, and just sits on his ass, he will have ball park figure of what he feels a player is worth. I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand with that one.

Edited September 5, 2013 by SikhInTrinity

[SikhInTrinity]

That's why I said it wasn't a good example in the first place i.e. SIT's post

 

Plus, I kind of went of on a tangent to a more general point after the first line.

 

 

It's an example to be used in it's context, if a manager does not get a player in, it does not mean a manager has not been backed, there are more factors than just the financial backing. There is one where a selling club over-values a player, there is one where a player is just not for sale i.e. Suarez.

[B3ndy1]

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.

Yet Arsenal then paid £42.4m for Mesut Ozil out of a reported 100m plus transfer fund.

So you could say Arsenals board would only pay for one, and Wenger not being backed, as he wanted both opted for Ozil.

No you couldn't say that due to Arsenal's transfer fund.

Which was what?!? Arsenal have a way of leaking good sounding news around seaaon ticket renewal time which was when it came out they had 100m to spend.

To me the Suarez / Ozil side is the same as the AM / Kozak side for us, both managers probably wanted both but had to choose the 1 they thought would help the most, we're just on the cheaper model

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I try to post on the assumption that people can read. Please refer to HH post.

 

I didn't say that Lambert has gone to the board with 'i need this player at any price.' He identified targets to the board. If the board came back to him and said yes to one of the AMs we were linked with do you think Lambert would then say no to the transfer on the basis that the player was costing too much? I don't think so.

 

 

So PL says to Randy and PF go and get me Kiyotake, pay whatever it takes even though his club are asking for more money than what Dortmund sold Kagawa for. Right then if it didn't work, you'd then slate PL that he's overpaid on a player and forget completely that RL backed his man. Whether you like it or not PL has been backed in the transfer market in the windows, possibly not the spending you'd like to see but he has been backed.

 

Interesting that not only do you seem to be a mind reader but can also look into the future and i note no reference to HH post were he categorically states that Lambert wasn't given backing for all his targets.

 

 

One question was PL backed this summer YES or NO? Did PL bring in Players YES or NO? Did PL get to offer new contracts to his star players YES or NO? If that isn't backed then I don't know what is.

 

You seem to think PL just draws up a list and says bring me X, Y and Z, and just sits on his ass, he will have ball park figure of what he feels a player is worth. I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand with that one.

 

Read HH post.

[SikhInTrinity]

 

So PL says to Randy and PF go and get me Kiyotake, pay whatever it takes even though his club are asking for more money than what Dortmund sold Kagawa for. Right then if it didn't work, you'd then slate PL that he's overpaid on a player and forget completely that RL backed his man. Whether you like it or not PL has been backed in the transfer market in the windows, possibly not the spending you'd like to see but he has been backed.

 

Interesting that not only do you seem to be a mind reader but can also look into the future and i note no reference to HH post were he categorically states that Lambert wasn't given backing for all his targets.

 

 

One question was PL backed this summer YES or NO? Did PL bring in Players YES or NO? Did PL get to offer new contracts to his star players YES or NO? If that isn't backed then I don't know what is.

 

You seem to think PL just draws up a list and says bring me X, Y and Z, and just sits on his ass, he will have ball park figure of what he feels a player is worth. I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand with that one.

 

Read HH post.

 

 

I've read his post, there was targets which we couldn't afford due to their price, but he didn't mention what there value was which you seem to fail to understand. You seem to think PL draws up a list and says get me him, I don't care what it costs. PL has been backed in this window and for you to say otherwise is nonsense.

[Morpheus]

So i'm basing my assumption on information from a respected ITK and you are basing your assumption on what, the inability to admit when your wrong. We quite obviously inquired about at least one if not more AMs one of which was in the 10m-12m bracket and Lambert wasn't given the money to sign him. You also forget last January's window as well where Lambert did enquire about other players and wasn't backed again on his targets.

 

So one can assume then that Lambert hasn't been fully backed by the board and HH has already stated that.

 

Seemingly you find that hard to understand or as stated beforehand and in previous debates you just won't admit to what has been put in front of your nose.

[BOF]

The inability to admit when you're wrong. That's an interesting accusation to throw.

[romavillan]

I believe it's called "projection" in the psychology trade

 

Anyway, surely the comparison with Arsenal is a joke right? They fill their 60,000 seater stadium every match and they have bonkers prices too. They have turned a big profit for years and have been playing consistent CL football since most current players can remember. 

 

That's so far away from where we are now it's mental to even consider a comparison of the backing/non backing of their board and ours. We STILL haven't completely cleared out the overpaid non contributing playing staff. Sanctioning big money moves right now for players who would want similarly big wages would be rash to say the least.

Let's finish clearing out the crap, turn a profit for a couple of years whilst getting up the table and then we can talk about backing for a push on for european football etc. It's too soon now, now we're looking at finishing top half and upping our revenue whilst cutting the wage bill. Not coz Randy is a tight arse, because then we could be in a position to have another pop at it. The last go nearly killed us so anyone saying we should throw caution to the wind and chuck millions about again has badly misread our situation.

 

Edited September 5, 2013 by romavillan