Moyes linked with Villa and Spurs

[Matt Damon]

Not surprised Villa are in the ****. £70m net spend between 07 and 10 with no return. O'Neill should be paying Villa compensation.

True mate. And that doesn't include wages!

Reo Coker: £8.5million fee plus four years on £60,000 a week. Released from contract.


Total net cost £21million.

Net cost per year £5.25 million a season

:huh:

 

[kenada_blue]

That's incorrect. You made a £37million loss last season (after player trading) and you're going to make a £30 million loss for this season.

If that's "financially healthy" then you need to get a new definition!

"then Houllier has come in and the wage bill has been reduced, therefore funding has been provided"

It doesn't happen like that. If you're releasing players you have to pay off their remaining contracts.

It takes a full season before you start recouping any additional revenue from a player no longer being on the wage bill. Otherwise you have to borrow yet more money on the difference until it's recouped and then, you're exposed to interest repayments.


Villa are skint. They're on a life support machine from Lerner. A situation Lerner allowed to arrise. Zero financial independence. And as for renovating the stadium, that is yet more cost.

By the time Villa did all that you'll be about £400million in debt.

Or in the Championship

But they are also a more attractive club. They can expand their ground, make more money than we do, and Lerner is a more astute buisness man that he would more than likely sell up and put them back to zero.

We on the other hand are stationary and an unattractive club for buyers, unable to expand a ground, loans to the hilt, a board who invest zero, and a manager who has to carry a club on his shoulders every season. We are a bottom have finish away from meltdown with no back up plan.

 

[Matt Damon]

But they are also a more attractive club. They can expand their ground, make more money than we do, and Lerner is a more astute buisness man that he would more than likely sell up and put them back to zero.

We on the other hand are stationary and an unattractive club for buyers, unable to expand a ground, loans to the hilt, a board who invest zero, and a manager who has to carry a club on his shoulders every season. We are a bottom have finish away from meltdown with no back up plan.

*facepalms*

And the "he would likely sell and put them back to zero" is the most illogical naive and ridiculous statement since Davek's "Everton are going into administration" one.

Oh. And we're (EVERTON) not unattractive to investors.

It's all about Kenwright et al's asking price

 

[davek]

"Everton was quiet during the summer because didn't want to overpaid like other teams did. Their will be a great chances for bargains in the winter and we will take advantage of that then" - Matt Damon, September 2010. LOL!

 

[davek]

But they are also a more attractive club. They can expand their ground, make more money than we do, and Lerner is a more astute buisness man that he would more than likely sell up and put them back to zero.

We on the other hand are stationary and an unattractive club for buyers, unable to expand a ground, loans to the hilt, a board who invest zero, and a manager who has to carry a club on his shoulders every season. We are a bottom have finish away from meltdown with no back up plan.

Is the correct answer.

Lerner or Kenwright as your chairman? I thnk there'd be a landslide if that was put to the test.

 

[ClaretandBlue]

Thankyou for the responses.

That's incorrect. You made a £37million loss last season (after player trading) and you're going to make a £30 million loss for this season.

If that's "financially healthy" then you need to get a new definition!

"then Houllier has come in and the wage bill has been reduced, therefore funding has been provided"

It doesn't happen like that. If you're releasing players you have to pay off their remaining contracts.

It takes a full season before you start recouping any additional revenue from a player no longer being on the wage bill. Otherwise you have to borrow yet more money on the difference until it's recouped and then, you're exposed to interest repayments.


Villa are skint. They're on a life support machine from Lerner. A situation Lerner allowed to arrise. Zero financial independence. And as for renovating the stadium, that is yet more cost.

By the time Villa did all that you'll be about £400million in debt.

Or in the Championship

I'm sorry but you're wrong, and I'm sure any Villa fan will back me up. I don't think you understand the term sell to buy, under Doug Ellis we had to do so, just look at the net spending we had to do then, but now Lerner has come in due to money coming in from his own pocket (a lot of which won't be loans), and the increase in TV revenue doesn't mean we have to sell to buy. By pointing losses out like above, you can do that to any club in the country, I know we have our debt but almost every club in the league has one and the important thing is that we can afford to pay it off short term. If we weren't able to do so like our rival Birmingham City then of course there would be very limited funds and we'd have to sell players.

(I was going to post a link but not allowed However on May 19, the guardian did a good article on the set of accounts at each club, our turnover was 84m and our wage bill was 71m.)

Here is a good link, and you will be able to see Evertons situation too. Not sure where you got that 37m loss from before player trading though?

As others have mentioned we have already released 10 players, this has already recouped about 80k a week. We then have players to offload such as Beye on 40k a week, Warnock on 30k, Heskey on 50k :blink: etc... Not all might sell but we should lose most of them. We will also be a lot more careful with our money, Lerner foolishly gave O'Neill full control over the wages meaning he gave big contracts to average players he barely played, and this was a big mistake.

Regarding borrowing money when losing players off the wage bill, well yeah every club will borrow there money off the owner to do so but it will be paid back a year later and of course interest free.

I didn't want to go too off topic as this is an Everton forum of course, but all I wanted to point out is that we're far from skint and if Moyes was join us money would be there. But that would be the only reason for him to come.

 

[davek]

Thankyou for the responses.



I'm sorry but you're wrong, and I'm sure any Villa fan will back me up. I don't think you understand the term sell to buy, under Doug Ellis we had to do so, just look at the net spending we had to do then, but now Lerner has come in due to money coming in from his own pocket (a lot of which won't be loans), and the increase in TV revenue doesn't mean we have to sell to buy. By pointing losses out like above, you can do that to any club in the country, I know we have our debt but almost every club in the league has one and the important thing is that we can afford to pay it off short term. If we weren't able to do so like our rival Birmingham City then of course there would be very limited funds and we'd have to sell players.

(I was going to post a link but not allowed However on May 19, the guardian did a good article on the set of accounts at each club, our turnover was 84m and our wage bill was 71m.)

Here is a good link, and you will be able to see Evertons situation too. Not sure where you got that 37m loss from before player trading though?

As others have mentioned we have already released 10 players, this has already recouped about 80k a week. We then have players to offload such as Beye on 40k a week, Warnock on 30k, Heskey on 50k :blink: etc... Not all might sell but we should lose most of them. We will also be a lot more careful with our money, Lerner foolishly gave O'Neill full control over the wages meaning he gave big contracts to average players he barely played, and this was a big mistake.

Regarding borrowing money when losing players off the wage bill, well yeah every club will borrow there money off the owner to do so but it will be paid back a year later and of course interest free.

I didn't want to go too off topic as this is an Everton forum of course, but all I wanted to point out is that we're far from skint and if Moyes was join us money would be there. But that would be the only reason for him to come.

Cheers for the expert analysis ClaretandBlue. It sounds from all that that Villa have done some necessary pruning and are good to go again when the next manager comes in and steps right into a stable environment? I agree about the Lerner role: he and his family have loaned money to the club with interest, but you cant see what would be in it for them to ever call that in as it would destroy their asset - the club.

I also notice that Vlla's revenue streams have been stunted of late partly because of the Acorn sponsorship deal - which was allowing a local charity to get some money from their association with the club. That's now over and the club have some extra revenue from that source now with FxPro?

 

[ClaretandBlue]

Cheers for the expert analysis ClaretandBlue. It sounds from all that that Villa have done some necessary pruning and are good to go again when the next manager comes in and steps right into a stable environment? I agree about the Lerner role: he and his family have loaned money to the club with interest, but you cant see what would be in it for them to ever call that in as it would destroy their asset - the club.

I also notice that Vlla's revenue streams have been stunted of late partly because of the Acorn sponsorship deal - which was allowing a local charity to get some money from their association with the club. That's now over and the club have some extra revenue from that source now with FxPro?

A manager certainly has the money to come in and make changes, but a lot need to be made. We will probably have no keepers with Premiership experience and poor defence that will need replacing. Other areas seem to be ok though, and we have a good batch of youngsters to play as backup like yourselves.

Personally if Moyes came to us he would have to make sure he used all the money wisely to make us go a step ahead of you, as I feel right now ignoring potential that only 3 or 4 players are good enough for that step. Whereas yourselves you probably only need a good striker and some depth in a couple of other positions.

Yeah we had the extra bit of revenue from our sponsor (was one of the highest in the league) but they have since ended it and we're now looking for a new one but that should soon be sorted.

 

[Matt Damon]

Thankyou for the responses.



I'm sorry but you're wrong, and I'm sure any Villa fan will back me up. I don't think you understand the term sell to buy, under Doug Ellis we had to do so, just look at the net spending we had to do then, but now Lerner has come in due to money coming in from his own pocket (a lot of which won't be loans), and the increase in TV revenue doesn't mean we have to sell to buy. By pointing losses out like above, you can do that to any club in the country, I know we have our debt but almost every club in the league has one and the important thing is that we can afford to pay it off short term. If we weren't able to do so like our rival Birmingham City then of course there would be very limited funds and we'd have to sell players.

(I was going to post a link but not allowed However on May 19, the guardian did a good article on the set of accounts at each club, our turnover was 84m and our wage bill was 71m.)

Here is a good link, and you will be able to see Evertons situation too. Not sure where you got that 37m loss from before player trading though?

As others have mentioned we have already released 10 players, this has already recouped about 80k a week. We then have players to offload such as Beye on 40k a week, Warnock on 30k, Heskey on 50k :blink: etc... Not all might sell but we should lose most of them. We will also be a lot more careful with our money, Lerner foolishly gave O'Neill full control over the wages meaning he gave big contracts to average players he barely played, and this was a big mistake.

Regarding borrowing money when losing players off the wage bill, well yeah every club will borrow there money off the owner to do so but it will be paid back a year later and of course interest free.

I didn't want to go too off topic as this is an Everton forum of course, but all I wanted to point out is that we're far from skint and if Moyes was join us money would be there. But that would be the only reason for him to come.

No. I'm sorry you're wrong. The Villa fans may want to support their club and suggest that everything's rosey. But it's not.

You cannot post loses like you have and expect their to not be consequences.

The latest loses were in your last published accounts (for 2009/2010 - published in February 2011)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/01032011/58/premier-league-villa-announce-37m-losses.html
Premier League - Villa announce £37m losses
- Press Association - Sport
March 1st 2011.


The fact you don't know about this says you don't understand the situation you're in.

You are skint. Right now you're about £140 to £150 million in debt.

That's 150% of your turnover. You cannot afford to "pay it off short term" thats a ridiculous thing to say.

 

[davek]

No. I'm sorry you're wrong. The Villa fans may want to support their club and suggest that everything's rosey. But it's not.

You cannot post loses like you have and expect their to not be consequences.

The latest loses were in your last published accounts (for 2009/2010 - published in February 2011)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/01032011/58/premier-league-villa-announce-37m-losses.html
Premier League - Villa announce £37m losses
- Press Association - Sport


The fact you don't know about this says you don't understand the situation you're in.

I think, rather than cherry pick headline figures and project from them some *knowledge* of the inner workings of a club like you have done, ClaretandBlue has given a measured insiders assessment of the internal dynamic at Villa and how a problem was identified (ridiculous wages run up by that oaf O'Neill) and is well into the process of being dealt with.

They stand on solid foundations moving forward.

We, on the other hand (and as you yourself have ackowledged and argued in the past) are unsustainable as a financial going concern.

 

[Matt Damon]

Cheers for the expert analysis ClaretandBlue. It sounds from all that that Villa have done some necessary pruning and are good to go again when the next manager comes in and steps right into a stable environment? I agree about the Lerner role: he and his family have loaned money to the club with interest, but you cant see what would be in it for them to ever call that in as it would destroy their asset - the club.

I also notice that Vlla's revenue streams have been stunted of late partly because of the Acorn sponsorship deal - which was allowing a local charity to get some money from their association with the club. That's now over and the club have some extra revenue from that source now with FxPro?

UN - BE - LEIVABLE

Where the hell is Neiler right now? He's so got to see this.

THE FX PRO DEAL HAS ENDED! They terminated it because Villa wouldn't accept a lower payment / renegotiation.

So they didn't even get the full money for that!


Davek. Honestly. :huh:

 

[ClaretandBlue]

Again I'm sorry but you're wrong, you will have to look on the Guardian website the accounts released in May have been posted and we are not making record losses. It would be impossible when each club is getting 45m a year TV money, but obviously you're not going to listen.

All I can say is that you will see come the end of the summer we have money to spend, not a lot but a net spend of around 15-20m as we have done every season (Apart from last year due to the O'Neill saga).

If we were in the trouble you are suggesting we wouldn't have spent 24m and 75k wages on Darren Bent.

 

[Matt Damon]

I think, rather than cherry pick headline figures and project from them some *knowledge* of the inner workings of a club like you have done, ClaretandBlue has given a measured insiders assessment of the internal dynamic at Villa and how a problem was identified (ridiculous wages run up by that oaf O'Neill) and is well into the process of being dealt with.

They stand on solid foundations moving forward.

We, on the other hand (and as you yourself have ackowledged and argued in the past) are unsustainable as a financial going concern.

IS that after the "record" FX PRO deal they were touting last summer got terminated?

*cough*


Davek. Unbelievable.

 

[Matt Damon]

Again I'm sorry but you're wrong, you will have to look on the Guardian website the accounts released in May have been posted and we are not making record losses. It would be impossible when each club is getting 45m a year TV money, but obviously you're not going to listen.

All I can say is that you will see come the end of the summer we have money to spend, not a lot but a net spend of around 15-20m as we have done every season (Apart from last year due to the O'Neill saga).

If we were in the trouble you are suggesting we wouldn't have spent 24m and 75k wages on Darren Bent.

The VILLA accounts were released in February. They have to be released before April due to the end of the financial tax year.


You seriously need to go back and find out exactly what is going on at your club! As you seem not to know!

 

[davek]

UN - BE - LEIVABLE

Where the hell is Neiler right now? He's so got to see this.

THE FX PRO DEAL HAS ENDED! They terminated it because Villa wouldn't accept a lower payment / renegotiation.

So they didn't even get the full money for that!


Davek. Honestly. :huh:

That's why I left a question mark there. Oh dear!

Regardless, Villa will have a paying sponsor and not going with a charity contributing zero money.

You're right to call for Neiler though, you need back up.

Lol!