Where will the club be in 5 years time. I see no strategy.

[Brennan]

Arsenal's stated policy is to invest no more than £15m in young players and to sell them on at the peak of their value. Baines is probably at the peak of his value now but Moyes would fight to keep him unless the offer was too good to turn down. We only occasionally sell our best players whereas it happens almost yearly at the Emirates.

Billy mate, i'm telling you, we were going to sell Baines to United for far less than he's worth to us. Baines said no.

If the club really wanted to keep their best players they'd invest some bloody money into the club.

 

[MACCA75]

It was a ballsy move by Kenwright to appoint Moyes in the first place and then to stick with him.

Where is a transfer kitty going to come from? Villa will be losing their sponsors at the end of the season and clubs like Blackburn have struggled to find any sponsor at all. As Elstone points out the deal with Chang is the largest in the club's history. We may feel that we're worth more but getting it is another matter.

Let me put it this way, which other club's owners would you prefer that we had?

Ok this was a reply to me so i'll answer it.

A ballsy move to appoint Moyes!? We were a club struggling against relegation fairly regularly, and had no money. We werent suddenly going to appoint a proven world class manager, or even poach a manager from another Prem team. Realistically we had to go for a young upcoming manager from the lower divisions. Moyes was Walter Smiths suggestion and was the outstanding candidate.
It was never ballsy to stick with him as there has never ever been a mandate from our fans to sack him - Moyes had huge support even after we finished 17th.

Of course the current deals are the 'biggest in the clubs history' as Elstone loves to continually tell us. The money in Premier League football these days is unprecedented, and the global audience huge. Did you expect the Hafnia deal in the 80's to be worth more!? I'd be astounded if every club in the league hasnt got a 'biggest ever deal', its irrelevant unless you compare the figure with other clubs, and our deals are dreadful.

Other chairmen i would want, well for example, Ellis Short. Sunderland have a similar wage bill and have spent around 50 million more than Everton on transfers since he has been there. The grass isn't always greener but honestly, our grass is threadbare and dying a very slow painful death.

 

[Number_25]

I remember the same thread back in 2009.

 

[D410]

Billy mate, i'm telling you, we were going to sell Baines to United for far less than he's worth to us. Baines said no.

If the club really wanted to keep their best players they'd invest some bloody money into the club.

No wonder Moyes wants to wait till after the transfer window before he thinks about any contracts.

They can,t be trusted.

 

[davek]

I agree that we're worth more I'm just not sure that it's down to incompetence that we're not getting it. Villa are the first club in England's second city, whereas we're the second club in a smaller city as far as shirt sponsors are concerned. Maybe Elstone would tell you that our deal with Chang is strategically important and also offers benefits in kind? I imagine that it's getting more and more difficult for middling sides to find companies prepared to spend significant amounts on shirt sponsorship.

Talk about clutching at straws.

You may as well have said we get less than Villa because they play in claret and we play in blue...it's about as nonsensical as that *explanation*.

God loves a trier though mate.

 

[Brennan]

Just for reference, the shirt deal Newcastle were looking into with Wonga would have been £32m over four years, or twice what our deal with Chang is worth per year.

Are Newcastle twice as big or well recognised a club as we are ?

 

[billycopper]

You don't make money from football and none seriously tries.

Man U might just be the exception but if owners really wanted to make money out of football clubs they wouldn't invest in the playing staff. If Barcelona spent the 16th most on wages and transfers in spain every year, they'd be most profitable. they wouldn't get relegated and their profits would be much higher then now when they're the best team in the world.

But no owners act that way at all and even if they did they would make about a tenth of what the average decent sized non sporting business makes. Just in terms of time it's not worth it. That money could be better spent if you all want in return is money.

Lerner, Henry, Lewis etc have pumped millions into their clubs with no financial reward.

I think it's maybe more a case of no direct or obvious financial reward. The owners of these clubs are often self-made multi-millionaires and serious business people. I find it hard to believe that they would throw millions into a black hole just for the sport of it. With Henry for example it seems like a case of transatlantic branding to connect Liverpool and the Red Sox which paves the way for brands such as Warrior to enter the UK marketplace. Maybe it's similar with Etihad and City. Whereas Spurs seems to have close links to the music promoter AMG and was hoping to partner with them at the Olympic Stadium.

 

[billycopper]

Ok this was a reply to me so i'll answer it.

A ballsy move to appoint Moyes!? We were a club struggling against relegation fairly regularly, and had no money. We werent suddenly going to appoint a proven world class manager, or even poach a manager from another Prem team. Realistically we had to go for a young upcoming manager from the lower divisions. Moyes was Walter Smiths suggestion and was the outstanding candidate.
It was never ballsy to stick with him as there has never ever been a mandate from our fans to sack him - Moyes had huge support even after we finished 17th.

Of course the current deals are the 'biggest in the clubs history' as Elstone loves to continually tell us. The money in Premier League football these days is unprecedented, and the global audience huge. Did you expect the Hafnia deal in the 80's to be worth more!? I'd be astounded if every club in the league hasnt got a 'biggest ever deal', its irrelevant unless you compare the figure with other clubs, and our deals are dreadful.

Other chairmen i would want, well for example, Ellis Short. Sunderland have a similar wage bill and have spent around 50 million more than Everton on transfers since he has been there. The grass isn't always greener but honestly, our grass is threadbare and dying a very slow painful death.

The received wisdom was to appoint an established manager to ensure Premier League survival. It need not have been someone who was in demand. There are lots of old hands out of the game who would have jumped at the chance.

There was no reason for Hughton, Di Matteo (twice) or Adkins to be sacked but the chairmen thought they could do better. Kenwright could have decided that Moyes was overly cautious, not media-friendly enough or simply a nearly man and opted to change direction.

I don't especially disagree with you on the sponsorship issue. I'm just trying to put the other viewpoint across.

My concerns with Ellis Short are that a couple of season ago they had to make full use of the loan market to put a team together and that he suddenly sold Bent. I think he's done a reasonable job but I wouldn't be willing to let go of what we've established to test him out with Everton.

 

[electricblue]

I agree that we're worth more I'm just not sure that it's down to incompetence that we're not getting it. Villa are the first club in England's second city, whereas we're the second club in a smaller city as far as shirt sponsors are concerned. Maybe Elstone would tell you that our deal with Chang is strategically important and also offers benefits in kind? I imagine that it's getting more and more difficult for middling sides to find companies prepared to spend significant amounts on shirt sponsorship.

No we're not. Can't believe any Blue would state that.

 

[billycopper]

Billy mate, i'm telling you, we were going to sell Baines to United for far less than he's worth to us. Baines said no.

If the club really wanted to keep their best players they'd invest some bloody money into the club.

I know that we accepted Bayern's offer of £9m for Baines a year or two ago but that he didn't want to move. It was out of necessity though because we were being financially squeezed. Arsenal lose big players each year though: 12/13 Van Persie, Song 11/12 Fabregas, Nasri, Eboue, Clichy 10/11 Eduardo 9/10 Adebayor, Toure 8/9 Hleb, Silva 7/8 Henry, Reyes, Ljungberg...

 

[billycopper]

No we're not. Can't believe any Blue would state that.

Around the world Liverpool is known for Liverpool FC. There's no escaping the fact.

 

[Blooy]

Neville will be 5 years older and still first choice.

 

[electricblue]

Around the world Liverpool is known for Liverpool FC. There's no escaping the fact.

Doesn't make them the first club of the city though.

 

[billycopper]

Talk about clutching at straws.

You may as well have said we get less than Villa because they play in claret and we play in blue...it's about as nonsensical as that *explanation*.

God loves a trier though mate.

So you're a major company looking to tie up a shirt sponsorship deal. Why would you choose a team from the sixth largest city in England, who are arguably overshadowed by their near neighbours, who haven't won anything in close to two decades, who infrequently compete in European competition, who are only the seventh most televised club in the league and whos fans, demographically, are not that sought after by advertisers?

 

[billycopper]

Doesn't make them the first club of the city though.

It depends how you judge it. A neutral would think of Liverpool before us.