Our new policy

[abdulaziz1]

Most of us are excited about our new policy in general .. And most of us if not all are backing Paul Lambert in his mission ..

 

However , Some of us are in doubts about couple of things , and are concerned of some ..

 

Mainly because of the Low backing , while the teams around us are spending huge money .. So some are seeing that as if it's a lack of ambition from the board ..

 

Anyway most of the fans are just thinking that we should have got a playmaker , someone with creativity ..

 

I'm going to talk about the low backing in the thread ..

 

For me , It's more of wise than it's a low backing ..

 

Why should we spend when we aren't in need ? Why don't we save the money until we really need it ? (I'm not talking here about the AM because I agree with everybody that we need creativity , Atleast to have one in the bench) ..

 

What I'm trying to say is , is reality .. What's the possibility for us finishing from 1-6 ?

 

And what could our "huge" backing would change this possibility ?!

 

I'm not saying we will "not" get a top 6 spot .. I'm actually wishing for that , But we all know how hard is that ..

 

However .. With this squad I think we are more than capable of getting the 7th spot or atleast challenging for it !

 

So a huge backing won't change that a lot ..

 

Whenever we cemented ourselves in the Top 8 again .. with a strong squad .. It would be the time to get 3 quality signings .. Which could make the difference .. 

 

And at the same time .. We take care of our finances ..

 

I don't think the club have a big problem for giving a huge wages for certain players if the time and the player is right ..

 

The thing is that no player (other than Benteke) worth more than 50k atm .. Even 40k ..

 

Even for players who we could get .. If a player like Higuain has gone to Napoli with 30+m ! While I rate The beast more than him and I'd rather having the Beast than two Higuains anyway !!

 

Established players or big names could cost more than what they offer ..

 

And mostly every player who goes with a huge fee will take a huge wage ..

 

So when is the best time for doing this ? It's exactly when we are taking the next step .. Which is Top 6 or even Top 4 !!

 

And that could be done in two ways , Building a team .. While saving money and take care of the finances !

 

I'm actually very happy that these teams are spending here and there .. And I will be much happier when we hopefully finish above them !

 

Put in mind that we're getting a new TV deal and we're yet to use that advantage .. Where other teams around us seems as they're using it !

 

Saying all that , I think we need to be getting to next stage in a near time because of the beast .. We might actually make him stay while we're improving .. But I think we must be in the Top 7 or atleast Top 8 ! That's the only thing that made me wanting an established playmaker in the summer .. Other than that I'm ok with only having a Westwood type signing for the AM or even not having anyone as we're now ..

 

UTV !!

[Anything11]

No one actually knows if PL isn't being backed (he bought 7 players didn't he?). People need to stop asuming that because we didnt spend 12 million on an AM that it means Lerner isn't dishing out the cash. There is speculating and then concluding things based on very little factual information which some posters seem to be going on about in various transfer threads.

Personally i think as we move up the table we will get closer to the vision that PL and Lerner share and more money will be spent on players who can make a difference. This will take more than a season or two to accomplish. Lets be patient.

[abdulaziz1]

 

 

Personally i think as we move up the table we will get closer to the vision that PL and Lerner share and more money will be spent on players who can make a difference. This will take more than a season or two to accomplish. Lets be patient. 

 

Exactly .. That's what I was trying to say ..

Edited September 4, 2013 by abdulaziz1

[sharkyvilla]

This whole 'backing' thing is a bit of a red herring to me, Lambert and Lerner/Faulkner seem to be on the same wavelength here. They negotiated the bulk of the signings at the start of the window which suggests to me that Lambert gave them names and got delivered them before any of the deadwood had been got rid of. It is a joint policy and we have the right people in charge of it at the moment. There have been a lot of lessons learnt and I don't care about what other clubs are doing. I would pick most of our signings over anyone else's, even if we couldn't negotiate for an attacking midfielder deep into the window. That's hopefully the next step as it was always going to take more that 3 windows for Lambert to completely turn things around but for me we are ahead of schedule.

[ozvillafan]

This whole 'backing' thing is a bit of a red herring to me, Lambert and Lerner/Faulkner seem to be on the same wavelength here. They negotiated the bulk of the signings at the start of the window which suggests to me that Lambert gave them names and got delivered them before any of the deadwood had been got rid of. It is a joint policy and we have the right people in charge of it at the moment. There have been a lot of lessons learnt and I don't care about what other clubs are doing. I would pick most of our signings over anyone else's, even if we couldn't negotiate for an attacking midfielder deep into the window. That's hopefully the next step as it was always going to take more that 3 windows for Lambert to completely turn things around but for me we are ahead of schedule.

 

We also seem to gloss over the re-signings of Wiemann and Benteke. They were on better terms and, again, before any of the deadwood departed.

[briny_ear]

I confess I'm not totally clear what this thread is about!

Edited September 4, 2013 by briny_ear

[Vincenzo]

I don't think spending huge amounts of money on players always guarantees success. Not straight away anyway, it takes time.

Villa are building a solid foundation that can be built on, improving the players as time goes on. It will take a few years no doubt but the style of football is a pleasure to watch. All the players are comfortable on the ball, keeping possession, working hard and not giving the ball away cheaply.

The Premier league with all its money isn't as stronge as the media like to tell us it is. The English teams didn't perform as well as expected in the Champions league, even after spending mega bucks like Man City.

[ender4]

Lambert has had a net spend of around £32m in the 16 months he has been at Villa.

 

We have an annual turnover of £80m, of which £60m is used for wages.

 

Anyone who thinks he hasn't been backed is just plain wrong.

[Rob182]

But those 16 months could easily become 2 years if we don't spend anything (or much) in Jan.

£32m in 2 seasons doesn't sound a lot when you see smaller clubs splashing £10-15m on one player.

I personally don't care how much we spend, as long as Lambert is happy with the players he's getting. But saying it's £32m over 16 months makes your "you are wrong" argument a bit slanted imo.

[Richard]

Lambert has had a net spend of around £32m in the 16 months he has been at Villa.

 

We have an annual turnover of £80m, of which £60m is used for wages.

 

Anyone who thinks he hasn't been backed is just plain wrong.

exactly, I mean what large sales has he made? Has he recouped much? No but he has still spent.

He has been backed to get rid of players for not much, to bring in a load, to reward those he wants to keep and backed when things were going badly and it looked bad for our league status by the fact that he retained his job and support of his employers. Then he was backed further this summer to get rid of more for nothing and recruit players before some of the big earners were off the books.

I'd call that backing, and then some ;-)

[ender4]

But those 16 months could easily become 2 years if we don't spend anything (or much) in Jan.

£32m in 2 seasons doesn't sound a lot when you see smaller clubs splashing £10-15m on one player.

I personally don't care how much we spend, as long as Lambert is happy with the players he's getting. But saying it's £32m over 16 months makes your "you are wrong" argument a bit slanted imo.

 

and so if it becomes £32m in 2 seasons, thats £16m per year, which is 20% of turnover which is around the maximum any club can spend long-term on transfer fees.

 

so Lambert is still being backed to the maximum available whilst staying sustainable.

[villa-revolution]

It's basically all about balancing everything out whilst still maintaining progress on the pitch.

 

Work out the following equation:

 

Spend 102% instead of 65% of your income in the pursuit of glory =

 

Do I have to spell it out for you?

 

Our days of wastefulness & unnecessary profligacy are over. The club have been seriously haemorrhaging cash as if it was going out of fashion & this cataclysmic & catastrophic route had to be seriously addressed in order to avoid financial melt down.

 

What we now have is a common sense approach. The books are starting to balance & we have invested in a young, hungry & vibrant transfer policy that hopefully in time will reap it's rewards.

 

The fans are sensible too & fully understand where this Club is at in the greater scheme of things. The Board have backed Lambert within the parameters dictated to by the prudency of our current financial dispensation.

 

The Board have shown previously that they will invest seriously in trying to bring success to this club. However, they now have 7 years experience under their belts & are quickly learning the laws of the jungle.

 

We cannot currently compete financially directly with the rich clubs awash with obscene amount of cash.

 

We can however, have a long term strategy that builds a team in a completely different context & a viable approach that in time may well develop & prove that it is capable of competing at the highest level on a consistent basis. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Also. Some of those rich Clubs will face financial meltdown & the abyss if their rich backers suddenly realize that ultimately only one team can win the Premiership & only one team can win the Champions League each season & subsequently remove their backing when the penny drops.

 

Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich can't all win this season can they? So, how much are they going to lose just trying to come second or third or even to fail completely?

 

Meanwhile, a project like Borussia Dortmunds means that by coming second you can still hit the Jackpot.(They might even go one better this season.)

 

Encouragingly our current model is based on this sensible approach & for me it is the correct strategy.

 

 

Are Man Utd a rich club? Yes

Are Liverpool a rich club? No.

Are Man City a rich club? Yes.

Are Chelsea a rich club? Yes.

Are Aston Villa a rich club? No.

 

Are Man City a big club? No.

Are Chelsea a big club?No.

Are Liverpool a big club? Yes

Are Aston Villa a Big Club? Yes.

 

So, to sum up,  you have the big club that is rich. the rich clubs that are not true big clubs, and the big clubs like us & Liverpool that are not rich. That is the reality & that is the difference. Subsequently you have to cut your cloth accordingly.

 

The even better news is that Aston Villa are too big to fail & history tells you we will come again.

 

Bottom Line - Keep The Faith.

[Jonoridge91]

I really don't understand why people are concerned when we don't spend big money. Just because we didn't spend as much as the newly promoted teams for example doesn't mean we're worse off than them or that we look weaker than a lot of the teams that finished around us. We don't need to make big money signings all the time especially if they could potentially flop.

 

A £12million flop of Kiyotake might be nothing to a top team but it'll really hurt us spending that money and him failing. I'm not saying he would but for the price and our budget we would have to be a bit more certain of how he'd improve us and I'd imagine there's still a lot of question marks on whether he'd adapt well etc.

I'm just using him as an example of course because he seemed to be the one we were closest to getting for a bit of money.

 

I guess my point is I'd rather spend £2million on Luna than £28million on Baines...

[ender4]

Liverpool are a rich club, 4th richest club in the premier league at the last set of accounts, and not far behind Chelsea.

They get £45-50m just from shirt revenue (sponsorship - Standard Chartered, production - Warrior Sport)

Villa get £7m from Daftbet & Macron.

 

Overall, Liverpool have double Villa's revenue. 

Edited September 4, 2013 by ender4

[Oaks]

Like it or not there is a long term strategy that's not putting the club at risk. I feel we have the right manager to make the most of this strategy.

They're things I'm slightly disappointed in, like lack of English players brought in this year, but that's the market we are in and a market we never used prior to Lambert. So although I'm slightly disappointed it doesn't bother me to much.

I also wonder what will happen when Benteke (for instance) is sold. Will Lambert be given all the money? If he is given the money and he brings in 4 £10 million players are you not going back to the high wages?

As long as the same mistakes are not made and we improve organically each year I will be happy.

I have no idea what I was babbling on about..,

[Eames]

 

Are Man Utd a rich club? Yes

Are Liverpool a rich club? No.

Are Man City a rich club? Yes.

Are Chelsea a rich club? Yes.

Are Aston Villa a rich club? No.

 

Are Man City a big club? No.

Are Chelsea a big club?No.

Are Liverpool a big club? Yes

Are Aston Villa a Big Club? Yes.

 

 

I looked at this first and then decided that the rest of your post was nonsense. 

 

Man City and Chelsea are big clubs. 

[villa-revolution]

 

 

Are Man Utd a rich club? Yes

Are Liverpool a rich club? No.

Are Man City a rich club? Yes.

Are Chelsea a rich club? Yes.

Are Aston Villa a rich club? No.

 

Are Man City a big club? No.

Are Chelsea a big club?No.

Are Liverpool a big club? Yes

Are Aston Villa a Big Club? Yes.

 

 

I looked at this first and then decided that the rest of your post was nonsense. 

 

Man City and Chelsea are big clubs. 

 

 

No they are not. They just happen to have big backers at the moment. One of them will disappear when they realise they can't dominate anymore because they can't out spend the other one to make it work.

 

Who will blink first. My money is on Abramovich at Chelsea because Man City can just blow his wallet away with their small change. Then watch Chelsea implode & return to being the 4th biggest club in London behind Arsenal,  Tottenham & West Ham.

 

Remember also they had only ever won one league title before Abramovich turned up so they were definitely not a big club.

 

There is definitely a difference between being a big club & rich to being a big club & poor or a mediocre club but obscenely rich.

 

Take away the benefactors & you will see the true picture..

[AvfcTheObsession]

If you are calling us a big club then you can't dismiss Man City as not being a big club.

They got bigger crowds than us even before their takeover.

Neither of us had won the league for a long time before their takeover, us in 81, them in 68.

Overall we have won more than them but it's been a long time since we've had any success. If we can go all these years without winning anything and still be considered a big club what's the difference with them?

[briny_ear]

 

Are Man Utd a rich club? Yes

Are Liverpool a rich club? No.

Are Man City a rich club? Yes.

Are Chelsea a rich club? Yes.

Are Aston Villa a rich club? No.

 

Are Man City a big club? No.

Are Chelsea a big club?No.

Are Liverpool a big club? Yes

Are Aston Villa a Big Club? Yes.

 

 

 Trouble is, this thread doesn't have a sound enough argument/discussion framework, so we are going to be flying off at all sorts of tangents.

 

Also, that list is a bit mad. Liverpool are rich and Man C and Chelsea are big clubs (although a definition of terms would probably help). Also at present I don't think you can say Villa are a big club although we are maybe getting back in the right direction.

[villa-revolution]

If I came on here 5 years ago & said Man City were a bigger Club than us I would have been laughed out of town. Similarly, if I had said the same thing about Chelsea pre Abramovich you would have called for the men in white coats to come & take me away & rightly so.

 

These clubs have big backers nothing else. They have bought their success were as we have earned it. Is their model self sustaining? Only time will tell for sure but I suspect not & still fancy that our current strategy will be better in the long run.

 

We are a Big Club.

 

Period.