The Randy Lerner thread

[Big_John_10]

Us buying 3 players instead of 6 will obviously be better, if we are allowed to increase wages. But you're assuming the teams around us or above us won't do better. If we improve an average squad with 3 players it might make us better but won't mean much if other teams are spending and improving more.

And I think the TV money is going to impact us in improving us with the plan you're so happy to see.

Looking at the link you posted and this table http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/PL-payments-2011-12.jpg

Over the last two years this is what clubs have earned through TV money.

Aston villa - £85 million

Everton - £99 million

Newcastle - £100 million

Fulham - £92 million

Swansea - £93 million

West brom - £94 million

Norwich - £91 million

And this season will see clubs gain a further financial advantage on us.

So how can you argue this won't effect us if the plan is spend what we can afford?How can you not hold Lerner responsible for clearly making it more difficult to financially compete with other clubs?

You keep defending the owner for making top half finish now a struggle to achieve for a club like ours.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Big_John_10

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

You can't just cite a single revenue stream as a reason why it'll be more difficult to compete with the teams on that list. The financial operations of each club is a lot more complex than just the TV money*.

Also, football is transient; the environment is ever changing. Newcastle fans probably wondered how they'll ever compete with a club like ours again when we relegated them in '09.

(*Interestingly, Newcastle have earned the most TV money in that table but how much did they spend in the summer? Where has the money gone: http://www.themag.co.uk/tyne-talk/ggg/)

Edited January 12, 2014 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe

[jacketspuds]

You can't just cite a single revenue stream as a reason why it'll be more difficult to compete with the teams on that list. The financial operations of each club is a lot more complex than just the TV money*.

Also, football is transient; the environment is ever changing. Newcastle fans probably wondered how they'll ever compete with a club like ours again when we relegated them in '09.

(*Interestingly, Newcastle have earned the most TV money in that table but how much did they spend in the summer? Where has the money gone: http://www.themag.co.uk/tyne-talk/ggg/)

Regarding Newcastle I think they took a gamble signing 4 or 5 decent players in January to try and ensure survival so spent a good portion of the TV money before they received it. Personally I think that this is something that we need to do this window.

[Big_John_10]

With the TV money increasing I think it's a major revenue source to look at. Our commercial income is not massively bigger than a lot of the clubs in that list so that's not going to close the gap.

If the plan is to spend what we can afford then of course what we earn compared to other clubs has to be taken into account.

Newcastle spent a fortune the previous January and pay their players good wages.

You don't think us earning less than those teams is going to effect us?

[foreveryoung]

 

Are you making up posts?  Mike Ashley has no where near as much money as Lerner. Also from the O'neil debarcle Villa have spent a hell of alot more money on transfers than Newcastle have.

 

Its all down to not having top experienced football people at the club. Many Owners in the league are not footballing savvy but its the people behind them that run the club. No footballing man would have employed McLeish for villa this decision was made by someone with no history of football.

Dont get me wrong Villa have made some terrible decisions, but Lerner is being advised very badly and im not sure why this is still happening...............

 

 

All you needed to do was to go on google and check and you couldn't even be bothered to do that - why should anyone bother reading your posts if you're not bothered about accuracy?

 

I was bothered, but you wont find the up to date finances of Lerner. the most recent I found was even before he sold the Browns. If you can find any proof on this please 'be bothered' and post the link.

Also the Forbes list shows Randy's personal fortune, when now the up to date figures will include the Lerner family trust, which believe me is worth a little more than Mike Ashley.

 

Anyway, its never been about how much money he has, cause we know he has 'enough'. He just dont want to blow a fortune and be burnt again like the O'Neil tenure.  He could quite easily give Lambert £50 million, but how does he know he wont f**** it up like O'neil did. I think until Lerner can trust the manager 100% and sees valid improvement, he wont be spending big money.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

With the TV money increasing I think it's a major revenue source to look at. Our commercial income is not massively bigger than a lot of the clubs in that list so that's not going to close the gap.

If the plan is to spend what we can afford then of course what we earn compared to other clubs has to be taken into account.

Newcastle spent a fortune the previous January and pay their players good wages.

You don't think us earning less than those teams is going to effect us?

But you're still taking it in isolation without considering all other factors including expenses.

And again, you cite Newcastle: a team who got relegated not so long go. Clubs can and do bounce back. Things in football are forever changing.

[lexicon]

 

 

I was bothered, but you wont find the up to date finances of Lerner. the most recent I found was even before he sold the Browns. If you can find any proof on this please 'be bothered' and post the link.

Also the Forbes list shows Randy's personal fortune, when now the up to date figures will include the Lerner family trust, which believe me is worth a little more than Mike Ashley.

 

Anyway, its never been about how much money he has, cause we know he has 'enough'. He just dont want to blow a fortune and be burnt again like the O'Neil tenure.  He could quite easily give Lambert £50 million, but how does he know he wont f**** it up like O'neil did. I think until Lerner can trust the manager 100% and sees valid improvement, he wont be spending big money.

 

 

So the Lerner family trust has a bigger net worth than Mike Ashley, so that makes Randy personally wealthier? You do understand the difference between a family trust and an individual, don't you? 

[lexicon]

Us buying 3 players instead of 6 will obviously be better, if we are allowed to increase wages. But you're assuming the teams around us or above us won't do better. If we improve an average squad with 3 players it might make us better but won't mean much if other teams are spending and improving more.

So how can you argue this won't effect us if the plan is spend what we can afford?How can you not hold Lerner responsible for clearly making it more difficult to financially compete with other clubs?

You keep defending the owner for making top half finish now a struggle to achieve for a club like ours.

 

- There's a wage budget, so getting 3 instead of 6 means that there's more money per person. 

- Other teams might improve but they might also regress, that's how football works.

- The financial side of things have been answered above

- It's only a struggle in the short term, that's the point. I'm willing to take a bit of struggle if it means long term we'll be better off. 

[Big_John_10]

The financial side hasn't been answered above and no surprise at all that you'd ignore it.

So you're saying we can financially match those teams and that we should be spending the same as those teams?

Of course these low finishes are going to effect the financial strength we have against other teams.

And your new defence is teams might regress? Well of course one or two might but are we really pinning our hopes on teams running themselves badly as a way for us to move up the table.

Planning to spend what you can afford, while earning less money each year and other teams increasing what they earn will make things more difficult. How can anyone disagree with that?

Edited January 12, 2014 by Big_John_10

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

And your new defence is teams might regress? Well of course one or two might but are we really pinning our hopes on teams running themselves badly as a way for us to move up the table.

Planning to spend what you can afford, while earning less money each year and other teams increasing what they earn will make things more difficult. How can anyone disagree with that?

On your first point, it's not a defence, and neither is it a hope that other teams regress, it's a belief that WE can start to build again and progress to where we should be.

On the second point, I disagree because you can't just solely take earnings into consideration without taking into account operating costs.

[Big_John_10]

Simple question then. Has the last 3 years made it harder or easier to financially compete with the teams around and above us?

[Guest]

The one thing from this season that shows me how far we have fallen, is hearing some fans suggest Steve Bruce could come in as manager.

 

The same manager we once called limited, who had a glass ceiling much lower than anything MON had.

 

We really have fallen.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

Simple question then. Has the last 3 years made it harder or easier to financially compete with the teams around and above us?

What's your measure for 'financially compete'?

If it's net spend then we have outspent Newcastle on transfers since the arrival of Paul Lambert despite your stat of them them earning more TV money. If carry on like this, and arguably get a better manager, then we should be able to finish above them again. Like I said: football is transient.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Morley_crosses_to_Withe

[Big_John_10]

So you honestly believe over the last 2 years we've been able to financially compete with Newcastle? Did you see last January?

And well dodged.

I'll ask again. Have the last 3 years made it easier or harder?

[lexicon]

Easier obviously, we've gotten that many people off the wage bill 

 

The financial side hasn't been answered above and no surprise at all that you'd ignore it.

So you're saying we can financially match those teams and that we should be spending the same as those teams?

Of course these low finishes are going to effect the financial strength we have against other teams.

And your new defence is teams might regress? Well of course one or two might but are we really pinning our hopes on teams running themselves badly as a way for us to move up the table.

Planning to spend what you can afford, while earning less money each year and other teams increasing what they earn will make things more difficult. How can anyone disagree with that?

 

- I felt it had been answered and still do.

- Yes, we can.

- Not massively and nowhere near as much as you are trying to make out.

- It's not a defence, it's a fact - as stated by MCTW - football is transient, things change ALL the time.

- People aren't disagreeing with that, they're disagreeing with your rationale - we aren't earning less money each year and with the amount of players we've got off the wage bill, we're sitting in a much better financial state than we have been and in the future, that will be very important.

 

I just don't think you look at things long term at all and it's pretty pointless trying to explain that over and over to you. 

[Big_John_10]

Easier obviously, we've gotten that many people off the wage bill

That's great stuff then. So we can expect some really quality in the next few weeks?

Yes, we can.

And yet we haven't. Funny that.

Not massively and nowhere near as much as you are trying to make out.

So we're going to spend what we can afford and teams earning over £10 million more than us through TV revenue won't have an impact on us? Explain that then.

we aren't earning less money each year

We are earning less money than other teams and another low league finish this year will add to that.

I just don't think you look at things long term at all and it's pretty pointless trying to explain that over and over to you.

Of course I'm looking at it long term, this is my concern. Its why Lerner has now made it more difficult to compete.

[lexicon]

Do you have the accounts of all of the clubs around us in the league then? How on earth do you know if they're making more money than us? Just because they get a little more money due to a higher league finish and more TV money, doesn't mean that they're actually run at more or less of a profit than us - how do you fail to understand this?

[Big_John_10]

That's very true but I don't see how earning millions of pounds more than us through TV will make things any easier for us. And as we've seen over the last three transfer windows we've been unable to financially compete, especially in terms of wages, with a lot of teams in the league.

[Guest]

I don't hate Lerner, nothing against him personally.

 

I'd love for us to do something whilst he is still here - as in win a cup - to thank him for the great work he has done off the pitch.

 

Unfortunately, where it matters (on the pitch)is where the big mistakes have been made by the owner. This is what I am very critical of. I would love so much if Lerner gave it one more shot and we could win a cup. 

 

The squad is at a bare minimum now, the costs are very low... we are in a prime position to push on. I don't think we will though.

Edited January 12, 2014 by dodgyknees

[blandy]

That's very true but I don't see how earning millions of pounds more than us through TV will make things any easier for us. And as we've seen over the last three transfer windows we've been unable to financially compete, especially in terms of wages, with a lot of teams in the league.

One of the issues we did have was that when we were earning a lot more money than most other teams through merit money from league placing, we were also spending a ton more on wages - we were spending nearly everything we got in on wages. This meant that there was nothing in the pot for transfers. Transfers (and other running costs) were being paid for by Randy lending the club money (which he's since seemingly written off) or directly giving the club money via equity.

 

Managers wasted money. He wasted money via appointing and then sacking McLeish etc.

 

So despite higher placings we were financially a mess, and couldn't compete.

That's the past. Blame who you like. One man or a collection of people.

 

The present, is that the wage bill is now, this season, much less than income. Meaning there should be money in the pot, So, our financial position, even if our league placing is worse than Norwich and West Brom and the others mentioned, will actually be better off than we were, and have more future ability to compete with them (or whoever).

 

That's what the club is doing. Both because Randy will not (we assume) keep on splurging his own cash, or borrowing money to pay for players, and because it's rules out by FFP and will be by the Prem.

 

As far as what we've been witnessing for our money. It's been crap. No arguments, there.

 

Again, the above is not a defence of anything, it's a discussion, trying to introduce context, as I see it to what is being done, and where it will leave us, if we stay up, whatever position we end up in.

It looks like a route to a better financial situation and a better financial situation will, or ought, to be better for the playing side of the club.

 

 

That's the counter to your narrow window view of the financials.