What is the height of your ambition?

[The Great Mass Debater]

Every time some new crook buys Leeds United though, all they are really buying is a brand, they don't own their stadium, they don't own their training pitch. You have to be both rich and stupid to 'invest' money into a business which has substantial debts but few real assets (other than football players), seeing as an investment is actually a loan and there is no decent collateral. Until they find somebody wealthy, naive and generous enough to invest a huge amount of money which the club can then use to purchase the freehold to Elland Road back they won't have chance of becoming a serious club again (Tony Fernandes would have fit the bill)

Every new owner at Leeds says that the club will purchase Elland Road back, and yet it never happens. If they don't purchase it back by 2029 it will probably be sold to property developers. Cellino claims he is a billionaire yet failed to raise the funds to buy it back for £16m last year, every year that they don't buy it back the rent goes up 3%, which is well above the rate of inflation.

They need someone with a particular interest in Leeds and big pockets. In the days where representing a big city meant lots of fans and big gate receipts, Leeds might have been attractive, but as you say, money comes from other sources these days and it really doesnt matter who you are.

For example, if Leyton Orient had inherited the Olympic Stadium, their fortunes could have changed dramatically. Suddenly they'd be a London club with a top stadium and would have lots of pull for foreign players.

With the right owner Leeds could rebuild the club, but as its been stripped to the bones there is not much to invest in anymore.

 

[KeiranShikari]

I don't think so, we had some pretty hefty bids on tables this summer, of course you could say that they were just empty bids to feign activity and appease fans. We got decent fees for Fer and Snodgrass, all players had relegation wage drops and of coursethe first year of parachute payments. 

They certainly did seem to go a bit over the top in the market last summer mind. Even if we didn't drop any huge fees there was quite a bit of wasted money.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

We don't really have any idea what our current financial status is, we won't know until they file accounts for the period ending 30th June 2015, who knows how much last season cost us - we could have had to borrow to cover a huge loss, and if we did then that would explain our conservative transfer dealings. 

Did you not start the 6m profit thread I bumped earlier?

 

[Canaryboy]

I don't think so, we had some pretty hefty bids on tables this summer, of course you could say that they were just empty bids to feign activity and appease fans. We got decent fees for Fer and Snodgrass, all players had relegation wage drops and of coursethe first year of parachute payments. 

They certainly did seem to go a bit over the top in the market last summer mind. Even if we didn't drop any huge fees there was quite a bit of wasted money.

I wasn't say that a huge loss last season was likely, just saying that for all we know there could have been, until shareholders get a copy of the accounts we have no idea. 

Transfer fees are often paid in installments these days (just like you can do monthly installments on football manager), so if we were to sign Dwight Gayle for £8m on a four year deal, it is even possible that we could have been committing to pay them £500k per quarter for 4 years, which would £2m from our budget each year for 4 years. 

That was my point about Brady/Snodgrass. Hypothetically Hull with Snodgrass could have agreed to pay us £7m over three years, and when we signed Brady we could have given them just £2.3m in cash, whilst writing off the oustanding liability of two years of Snodgrass payments that Hull still owed, say £4.7m. That's the exact same as paying £7m for Brady, but doesn't involve £7m leaving our bank account. That would put a new spin on what people perceived to have been a big fee, if most of it was actually us writing off a historic debt. 

Hull may well have paid for Snodgrass up front in cash, we may well have paid for Brady up front in cash, but just illustrating that a big transfer fee can literally just be added to the accounts as a new liability, rather than the entire lump sum literally being wired over on transfer day. 

I'm really looking forward to seeing our accounts for last season. It would be amazing if we'd managed to return whilst breaking even, wouldn't surprise me if we'd come back up with some external debt though, after being relegated without any. We did borrow money + get a loan payment holiday to fund our league one season. 

 

[Canaryboy]

Did you not start the 6m profit thread I bumped earlier?

£6m profit for the Premier League season, year ending June 2014. 

Latest accounts for our Championship season will be the year ending June 2015, which are the ones I'm looking forward to reading.

Let me be clear here, I'm not trying to scaremonger or speculate, I'm just genuinely looking forward to seeing how much last season cost us. It would be a fantastic achievement if we'd manage to keep the squad that we did last year, and win promotion, without having to borrow. 

And if we did have to borrow, it will have been worth it, but that would impact on what we would feel we could spend this season if we wanted to pay it back promptly. 

 

[eatonparkboy]

I was just basing any comparison on the fact that you quoted Villa as :

Villa finished 6th in 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 without spending Abramovich levels of money though, and they aren't that much bigger than us these days, so it can be done.

I was merely pointing out that Villa were always a big club so cannot be compared to Swansea, Bournemouth or even Forest, Leeds and Derby. And certainly not to us.

So consequently:

Never say never, a third world war or a real financial crisis, or just the Sky bubble bursting, could completely flip things on their head. 

I still maintain you are using the wrong comparison. It would not be a shock to many in football if Villa were to become a top six side again.

 

[Canaryboy]

They are a bit bigger than us, yes. Not massively though, turnover is surely the only sensible measure, because what we are really talking about is financial prowess. Their turnover was about 25% higher than ours during our last Premier League campaign. Spurs turnover was around double ours. Most people would consider Spurs a top 6/7 club, Villa are nowhere near as big as Spurs, so Martin O'Neil's achievements in achieving top 6 finishes three years in a row was - in my opinion - them punching significantly above their weight. Although it could also be argued that they overspent during that period too, I think a lot of their problems that Lambert was instructed to try and fix originated from that period, and the year or so which followed. 

Our turnover was comparative to that of Stoke City and Swansea City, yet significantly higher than West Brom's (who, incidentally, were also once a big club - 5 times FA Cup winners!). 

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

Have we sacrificed the cups in previous years? In my lifetime we've always been a terrible cup team in truth - milk cup was just before my time.

Its normal for teams to play their second strings in cup competitions, but you often hear 'concentrate on the league'.

I cant really remember a season where we looked like we ever really wanted to win a cup. Having never really had the luxury of safety being a given, or promotion being a given, have we always worried that a cup run would jeopardise our league form?

Or are we just really bad in cups?

 

[Wiz]

For me success is survival, pure and simple...survival.

 

[ZLF]

this season - consolidation in the prem and a good cup run (QFs)

ultimately I would like us to be pushing for euro qualification within 3-6 years - challenging but achievable but would require a high turnover from current playing staff.

 

[Canaryboy]

"I still maintain you are using the wrong comparison. It would not be a shock to many in football if Villa were to become a top six side again"

My initial point was: "they aren't that much bigger than us these days"

And sorry, but its true, what better measure that turnover, attendances, league poition? What's wrong with that statement? 

In the 2013/2014 season they had the 9th biggest turnover in the league, we had the 15th biggest turnover in the league. 

Yes they have a much greater history, but my point about Nottingham Forest and Leeds is that things can change rapidly in football and Villa have come very close to potentially becoming the next Leeds. 

Finishing 6th for three consecutive seasons was a fantastic achievement under Martin O'Neill, they finished 10th, 16th, and 11th in the seasons prior, and 9th, 16th, 15th, 15th, 17th in the seasons which have followed. 

But they have £100m of debt to show for it, that's the legacy, they finished in the top 6 but they couldn't afford to. 

For 2013/2014:

Aston Villa = £117m turnover, £102m of net debt

Norwich = £94m turnover, £0 of net debt.

They have a rich history, and as a result a brand which - whilst in this league - will give them a slight advantage in the transfer market, but their trophy cabinet doesn't pay their bills, and they were ridiculously close to potentially becoming the next Leeds United last year. 

I would actually be very surprised if Villa became a top 6 side again at any stage in the next couple of decades unless they get lucky with a stinking rich Russian sugar daddy, but I think they will do well to remain in this league in the shorter term and have the potential to be stuck in the league below with £100m of debt and an owner who is desperate to sell to the first person he can find. 

As for not being able to compare Villa with Leeds, are you sure? I'll grant you that Nottingham Forest's success is largely down to Brian Clough's tenure, but Leeds United were not all about the Don Revie period, they also won the top division in 1992 under Howard Wilkinson, the year before the inaugural Premier League season, and it was not much longer than a decade ago that they were a formidable team under David O'Leary for a good 5 or 6 years. 

5th, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, in the Premier League, impossible to get a ticket at Elland Road, one of the best teams of the first decade of the Premier League, semi final of the Champions League, beating the British transfer record for a defender by signing Rio Ferdinand for £18m. You can say the league was much weaker if you like, but the likes of Thierry Henry, Denis Bergkamp and Gianfranco Zola were playing in it, all three amongst the very best to ever play in the league. Leeds were getting far bigger gates than Villa throughout that period. 

Leeds Ave Attendances 2000/01 = 38974

Aston Villa Ave Attendances 2000/01 = 31523

Leeds were getting bigger gates than Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, Everton, and Man City too. 

To say that it wouldn't surprise many people if Villa returned to the top 6, and then saying it is silly to compare them to Leeds, doesn't make sense to me. Over the past 30 years Leeds have been by the far more successful of the two sides, and Villa would probably be the best example of a once big club on a major decline, like Leeds? 

For Leeds to go from 5 or 6 consecutive years of European football to being stuck in League One within a timeframe of about six years, going from an absolutely rocking Elland Road to not even filling half of their stadium in the third tier, is the most rapid declines in fortunes I can think of in English football. 

Granted they went bankrupt, but I don't envy any club which gets relegated with £100m of debt and a Premier League wage bill, Villa were 3 points away from that last season, Lerner doesn't seem to be able to find anybody to take the club and he's been trying for several years. He isn't putting any money into the club either. 

We've also grown significantly as a club over the past 20 years. When I first started going to Carrow Road I can remember gates of 16000 in the Premier League, we've practically doubled in size. So when I say "these days", it isn't just me perceiving Villa to be a shrinking club, but us being a growing one! 

Trust me, I hate admitting that Leeds were a huge club, but they were.... massive club. No better modern day example of what can happen to clubs who financially mismanage, we get bigger gates than them at that was simply unimaginable 15 years ago.  

 

[eatonparkboy]

I was just basing any comparison on the fact that you quoted Villa as :

Villa finished 6th in 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 without spending Abramovich levels of money though, and they aren't that much bigger than us these days, so it can be done.

I was merely pointing out that Villa were always a big club so cannot be compared to Swansea, Bournemouth or even Forest, Leeds and Derby. And certainly not to us.

So consequently:

Never say never, a third world war or a real financial crisis, or just the Sky bubble bursting, could completely flip things on their head. 

I still maintain you are using the wrong comparison. It would not be a shock to many in football if Villa were to become a top six side again.

 

[Din]

I'd like to see us do what the likes of Southampton and Swansea have done, and what Palace are doing this season, and establishing ourselves as a top 10 side and then eventually trying to push onto the next level of potential Europa League qualification. It's not going to happen in the next couple of seasons but maybe if we managed to maintain ourselves in the top flight for 4/5 seasons I don't see why we couldn't do it. I think the final year under Hughton taught us that perhaps it's better to try and stabilise ourselves in this division for a few years rather than try and push on to the next level just because you have the money to. We're fortunate really that we managed to get up first time, if we hadn't we could've been in a fair bit of trouble.

Though as long as our games our entertaining, and we're not going into every home game with the philosophy that a 0-0 draw is a good result then I'll be relatively happy. To be honest I think being a supporter of a 'yoyo club' is the best possible experience you can have as a football fan. You experience the whole range of emotions, including all the depressing, doom and gloom feelings you get when you're relegated, and then lose 7-1 on the opening day, but then for me that makes the highs of a Simeon Jackson goal in the 94th minute against Derby to keep us in 2nd place in the league, or a 2-0 victory at Wembley in the play-off final feel all that more special.

 

[Canaryboy]

Lets start again eatonparkcanary, because I suspect we may both be a little confused by each other here. 

What have I said which you don't agree with? Specifically? 

 

[eatonparkboy]

I don't know what has happened but the post I replied to has not appeared and an old appeared in its place.

Perhaps its telling me something.

 

[Canaryboy]

I don't know what has happened but the post I replied to has not appeared and an old appeared in its place.

Perhaps its telling me something.

LOL, I thought you were repeating yourself intentionally because you felt I'd ignored or not adequately addressed your post. 

 

[eatonparkboy]

Lets start again eatonparkcanary, because I suspect we may both be a little confused by each other here. 

What have I said which you don't agree with? Specifically? 

Sorry for the delay. Basically I think there is a way back for Villa and Leeds to become, certainly not top six but top ten Prem sides. And I was basically saying that history is just as much an ingredient of that chance as anything else. 

 

[Canaryboy]

You could probably add Newcastle United to that list, big clubs not fulfilling their potential. 

What about Sunderland, and possibly even West Ham? 

All would require massive investment though, like Chelsea and Man City. 

Doesn't FFP make 'doing an Abramovich' extremely difficult these days though? Difficult to envisage any of those sides being able to penetrate the top 6/7 without leaving themselves in trouble like Leeds did, and Villa have. 

I wonder whether we'll be talking about Liverpool as a sleeping giant one day, they are losing their commercial appeal and have struggled in recent years. 

 

[eatonparkboy]

Indeed Liverpool. They have spent twice as much as Chelsea this window and look to be worse off. They have never won the Prem in its 24 year history and all the years they spent ribbing ManU must wrankle a bit now. They do however remain a good bet for top 8 each season because their crowd do remain fairly loyal to the club and can lift them at home.

Newcastle, not unlike Spurs, don't really have a history of challenging for the league title but are/were more of a cup side. But they do have the other ingredients apart from the obvious sugar daddy that two of the big four have.

Birmingham and Leeds are the second and third cities of the empire though and really ought to be able to sustain top 8 of the Prem especially if we accept my theory that history has a part in building a new dynasty.

I would discount Sunderland and West Ham but offer Sheffield as a more likely alternative.

 

[eatonparkboy]

As a tangent to the thread, do you think the Netherlands have seen better days? They are the biggest shock in this qualifying round. They have been poor for the last five years and their clubs are make weights.