Mantis Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 (edited) If we build something under Lambert and do well then of course Lerner will get huge amounts of credit. Once again you're talking rubbish. But he won't though, not from you anyway. Err.... Pretty sure I've just said he will. Saying and doing are two completely different things. Basically, BJ10 can't win. Not at all. I'm only going by what's been said (and what's not been said) in the past. If the double standards with regards to Lerner stop then fair play. Edited September 15, 2013 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 In the end its not all about spending huge amounts on players to achieve mid table. There are many teams in the league who have achieved midtable or higher without top 4 finances. Swansea, we even could include Everton. Its down to one man at the moment if we don't make it, an that's Lambert. If we don't make midtable or higher this season, we will be blaming Lambert for not buying a CM an bulking up the midfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 ... we should be able to compete at around that level in the Premier League. The fact we currently can't is due to Lerner getting his money back out.... My main criticism of Lerner is that he's tried to get his money back out the club too quick, and almost relegated us because of it.... The difficulty I have with this part of your post is that it's simply untrue, as far as anyone can tell from the accounts. He's made no effort at all "to get his money back out". Every year he's been putting money in, not taking it out... What he's seemed to have done, in essence, is reduced the amount he is continually putting in every year, clearly with the intent to transition to either putting no more of his personal money (or loans) in, or at some future date to start top recover what's been put in. Which is a different thing altogether. Yes it's his fault/responsibility that the finances were unsustainable, but he's not been taking money out, as of the last set of accounts. There was one single 7 million out about 3 years ago, as some sort of management fee. But that dwarfs the amount put in, that year and other years. Yes, we're not spending big (or even medium) on players fees, yes we'd love to have better players. The reality is that what he's done, with Lambert, is look at getting the wage bill to income ration back to something sensible, after all the waste. That's what's behind the money stuff, I think I'll admit I haven't looked at the accounts and I'm not sure when the last ones were published so I can't check (can't really be bothered to find out ), but my understanding is that in the last couple of years when we've substantially reduced the amounts spent on transfers, yet continued to bring in the same amount of money, must mean that the club is either turning a profit, or it's breaking even and loans are being repaid. I thought I read that our last set of published accounts (IIRC April 2012) showed us as making a loss due to loan repayments, but I may be incorrect on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 15, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 15, 2013 ....my understanding is that in the last couple of years when we've substantially reduced the amounts spent on transfers, yet continued to bring in the same amount of money, must mean that the club is either turning a profit, or it's breaking even and loans are being repaid. It means the losses are less bad. We were spending nearly all out income on wages at one point, so there was nothing left for transfers, and other operating costs - result big losses. By reducing the wage bill, and reducing the amount being spent on players, those losses have to an extent been stemmed, but the turnover also dropped due to that Scottish manager and general poor results and merit money from the telly, so even that improvement in wages was offset by lower income, overall. One thing I don't know is whether the loans will ever be paid off, or if they'll be written off. Unless the financial situation improves a lot, then writing them off, or at least some of them seems more likely. There could be trouble ahead if we don't start turning a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 I know this is an unpopular position but I think we should dramatically increase ticket prices. Take that money and help buy/pay for quality. If you got the ticket prices up by an average of a fiver, and assuming we held an average of 37k, that would give you £3.5m to play with. Even if it was twenty quid, you're only talking £14m, which is probably the cost of Kozak for he fee and term of contract. Works for me. That kind of extra quality would be most welcome. I am in a bit of a negative mood but lets face the reality. The only way to compete in the premier league is money. You can still fail and spend money but overall the rule is you must spend a lot of money to have a chance at getting up the league. May I have a little moan? Ok then. I am just sick of year after year watching us bobble along. Sick of Villa park being a nice easy 3 points. Sick of playing in a league which is rigged so the rich get richer, the likes of us are here to make up the numbers, we can achieve nothing just like most of the teams. In short, football sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 There could be trouble ahead if we don't start turning a profit. He really has done a terrible job at running this club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 Less spending has not meant profit for anyone, Lerner or otherwise, it had many less losses for the club, but losses nonetheless We're pushing towards being a self sufficient club, currently at the cost of not being able to spend as much, but are people not willing to suck it up for a few years so that the club can stop hemorrhaging money? Are you all that **** impatient that you'd rather see us losing tens of millions a year for the same of finishing a couple is places higher, rather than reigning it in to break even point and being able to push on in the future? Either with the current owner or a new one? Lerner regularly foots the bill for our losses, putting £19/20/30m in, and all it does is plug the gaps temporarily. I'd rather us be is a position where that money is able to be spent on pushing us forward not keeping us afloat, but that won't happen until the club is breaking even every year, and like it or not, that means not spending a ton of money. We have among the cheapest tickets in the league, yet we almost never sell out. It's time for people to realize, we aren't a big club any more, not by any measure that's not purely historical, and that hurts us financially too. Give me self sufficience and 10m from the owner over 30m losses and 30m from the owner any day 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 Makes me wonder what all the fuss was about regarding the desperation to see Doug sell the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 Less spending has not meant profit for anyone, Lerner or otherwise, it had many less losses for the club, but losses nonetheless We're pushing towards being a self sufficient club, currently at the cost of not being able to spend as much, but are people not willing to suck it up for a few years so that the club can stop hemorrhaging money? Are you all that **** impatient that you'd rather see us losing tens of millions a year for the same of finishing a couple is places higher, rather than reigning it in to break even point and being able to push on in the future? Either with the current owner or a new one? Lerner regularly foots the bill for our losses, putting £19/20/30m in, and all it does is plug the gaps temporarily. I'd rather us be is a position where that money is able to be spent on pushing us forward not keeping us afloat, but that won't happen until the club is breaking even every year, and like it or not, that means not spending a ton of money. We have among the cheapest tickets in the league, yet we almost never sell out. It's time for people to realize, we aren't a big club any more, not by any measure that's not purely historical, and that hurts us financially too. Give me self sufficience and 10m from the owner over 30m losses and 30m from the owner any day This and ciggiesnbeers quote "football sucks" sums it up for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 Are you all that **** impatient that you'd rather see us losing tens of millions a year for the same of finishing a couple is places higher, rather than reigning it in to break even point and being able to push on in the future? Either with the current owner or a new one? What evidence is there that our owner wants us to push on in the future? Your patient because for some reason you have complete faith in our owner. I have doubts he wants anything more than survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 There could be trouble ahead if we don't start turning a profit. He really has done a terrible job at running this club. As far as I'm aware most clubs struggle to turn over a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 (edited) Are you all that **** impatient that you'd rather see us losing tens of millions a year for the same of finishing a couple is places higher, rather than reigning it in to break even point and being able to push on in the future? Either with the current owner or a new one?What evidence is there that our owner wants us to push on in the future? Your patient because for some reason you have complete faith in our owner. I have doubts he wants anything more than survival.Whether there owner wants to push on or not, us being self sufficient is still a huge step in that direction by default. Do you not think he'd rather put £15m in every now and then and see it being used by the manager than putting in £30m a year to stop the club going under? You seem to think he'd rather put in nothing at all, and you know what, if we ever get to that point we'll be in a very healthy situation Edited September 15, 2013 by P3te Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 If we won both of our home games this season, the 'home wins since O'Neill left' stat wouldn't be mentioned, even though the stat wouldn't be very different. What a strange thing to say. And if we'd won more matches under Mcleish no one would have a problem with him. If Heskey had scored more goals no one would mention him as shit. We're talking about what has happened. You've clearly misread or misunderstood my point. I'm not saying "If we'd won lots of games, the stat would be different", which are the points you're implying. I'm saying if we'd won TWO home games this season, this discussion would not be taking place, even though the 'home wins since O'Neill' stat would be similarly poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 If we won both of our home games this season, the 'home wins since O'Neill left' stat wouldn't be mentioned, even though the stat wouldn't be very different. What a strange thing to say. And if we'd won more matches under Mcleish no one would have a problem with him. If Heskey had scored more goals no one would mention him as shit. We're talking about what has happened. You've clearly misread or misunderstood my point. I'm not saying "If we'd won lots of games, the stat would be different", which are the points you're implying. I'm saying if we'd won TWO home games this season, this discussion would not be taking place, even though the 'home wins since O'Neill' stat would be similarly poor. Well obviously, because if we won a couple of the bounce it would look like maybe we were starting to turn things around. But we didn't, so it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 It's amazing how one defeat has added about half a dozen pages in this thread, after most people thought he and Lambert had had a positive 6 months or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 If we won both of our home games this season, the 'home wins since O'Neill left' stat wouldn't be mentioned, even though the stat wouldn't be very different.What a strange thing to say. And if we'd won more matches under Mcleish no one would have a problem with him. If Heskey had scored more goals no one would mention him as shit. We're talking about what has happened. You've clearly misread or misunderstood my point. I'm not saying "If we'd won lots of games, the stat would be different", which are the points you're implying. I'm saying if we'd won TWO home games this season, this discussion would not be taking place, even though the 'home wins since O'Neill' stat would be similarly poor. Well obviously, because if we won a couple of the bounce it would look like maybe we were starting to turn things around. But we didn't, so it doesn't. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 It's amazing how one defeat has added about half a dozen pages in this thread, after most people thought he and Lambert had had a positive 6 months or so. ....but it isn't one defeat is it. We have been outplayed in every department in 2 home games, on the back of having a generally poor Home record. so its a trend we are talking about, its just we have chose to talk about it now ,with a bit more conviction. do you want us to raise problems with the team on the back of a series on consecutive wins?.....wouldn't make much sense, despite the validity of the argument presented. no I think now is about right, to raise concerns. That was a very very significant game in terms of our development and was a Barometer as to how we are shaping up....That performance has set quite a different complexion of opinion on Paul Lambert IMO and I'm not sure he realises how serious that Performance was on his reputation....It was bloody Turgid If I had been in that dressing room after the match, they would have all had much worse than the " Hairdryer" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 (edited) Yeah this match felt like the real start to the season. The first real chance to see what we were all about. And it felt like not much had changed from the last 3 awful years. Edited September 15, 2013 by Big_John_10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 (edited) Saying we're outplayed in every department makes it sounds like we were murdered in each game it something. We could very early have drawn or won both or either had we taken out chances a little more clinically. We didn't though, but we've hardly been hopeless, despite what some think Edited September 15, 2013 by P3te Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 (edited) Doubler Edited September 15, 2013 by P3te Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts