A few weeks ago, there was an informal meeting between Robin Russell (CFO), Paul Faulkner (CEO), and members of the AVST (Aston Villa Supporters Trust) as part of the club’s AGM. Given that we have a little time to cover other topics due to the international break, I wanted to cover what I feel is a key area of interest.
Because the meeting was only one discussing topics on an informal basis, and because financially sensitive information that was not deemed suitable for public divulgence, it was not fully minuted. However, information was provided on the core of what was discussed, and those overviews are listed below (in bold), along with my own comments on each section (in italics).
“Competing Against The Likes of ‘Spurs'”
The Club: Back in 2010, Club was 6th in league, cup runs. MON exit 4 days before the start of the season was a major blow to plans. We are now rebuilding and on a journey. Strategy is based on continuity of management. The club are looking to build success from continuity like ManU/Arsenal model. They are looking to try and build in continuity that can be maintained even if the manager changes, an ethos that runs through. Objective will be to keep improving but to do it in a steady, sustainable way. Lessons have been learnt from the change in management.
In terms of timescales for success, Paul (Faulkner) referred to the unpredictability of football – MON exit, whereas Spurs picking up a world record fee for Gareth Bale is the kind of thing that can suddenly bring success much closer. Football is an unpredictable game – so saying ‘Champions League in 5 years’ is pointless, it could be later, it could be sooner.
AVL: Like many other fans, I’m disappointed we have gone from a club competing at the top, to a club existing at the wrong end of the table in the space of the last few seasons. However, as discussed many times on this site, I understand why this has been the case.
Firstly, Martin O’Neill left the club in a situation that left the wages dangerously high. Between the then-coming institution of Financial Fair Play, and a general need for the business to operate in a sensible manner, cuts were assumed and expected.
Therefore the current situation isn’t so much a surprise as a readjustment. Yes, this has created a lot of frustration amongst our own fans – nobody likes to go backwards in life or football – but it is the result of the unpredictable nature of football, and MON leaving was a challenging situation, not only in terms of his financial legacy, but of the timing of his exit so close to the start of that particular season.
I also understand the frustration that Randy Lerner could have been on top of the financial situation faster. As we are all aware, MON can be a very charming man and, given his role in the game is that of a professional football manager, it made sense for Lerner to give his manager time and space to move forwards.
In that sense, it wasn’t so much a case of the chairman having no idea of what was going on, but rather of his desire to give a footballing man a chance to illustrate how he could effectively push the club forwards. Sadly, as a result of decreased progress when investment was sustained at a high level (then second only to Manchester City in net-spend terms), eventually the progress under MON had to be challenged by the club.
The Club’s Player Acquisition Strategy
The Club: Lambert has had £43 million to spend over the last 2 seasons and it is up to him how he spends it. He could spend that on 2 players or 15. It is important to maintain a sustainable wage structure though. We don’t sell players just because so called ‘big clubs’ want them. We sell players at a time and price that is right for Aston Villa. This is evidenced by Barry with Liverpool & Benteke last summer. Lambert speaks to Randy Lerner daily and has an excellent relationship with him.
It was Lambert who personally persuaded him that Aston Villa is the place for Benteke. Villa are still working on the basis of him staying on a long term basis due to his excellent relationship with Lambert. If we do sell him, he will only go to a team meeting our valuation, and there is no reason for that money not to be available for a replacement. Paul said it wouldn’t make any sense to sell a key player and then not replace him. It’s important not to confuse ‘not spending money’ with ‘spending money and it not working out’ which may have happened in the past. It’s not hard to persuade players to come to Aston Villa – we are an impressive club with a fantastic infrastructure in terms of stadium & training facilities. Lambert is able to build on this.
AVL: The figures spent on transfers by our current manager are (mostly) in the public domain. As stated previously on AVL, the chairman leaves decisions on who should be bought and why to the footballing personnel at the club. We also know that Gary Karsa now occupies a role that has been newly created since his employment.
Above, the club details that the money provided to Lambert is, like the money spent previously on the likes of Darren Bent, to be used at the manager’s discretion.
However, we also know enough about the past three seasons that wages have made a significant restriction on how the manager can spend money. Yes, Lambert can spend the money given to him over the past few seasons (£43m being a gross figure, not net), but there are certain undeniable correlations in the football market that denies him from spending money in a certain way (at present).
For example, the postulation that Lambert can spend the £43m on a smaller number of players (such as 2) may well be perceived as a choice but, upon closer analysis, it is only Hobson’s choice.
Why? Villa could, in theory, spend £43m on two players. However, assuming the full spend was made on those two players, there would be two major issues.
First, the wages of a £20m+ player would likely be high, and thus mean there would be a massive level of expectation on said signing(s).
Secondly, the squad has been majorly lacking in depth. Had two players been bought – a topic discussed by me a while back – we would have been even more susceptible to injury than we are now. Given this, Lambert is doing the right thing by padding the team out with “better value” players in the short term – to do anything otherwise would be bordering on negligent. Therefore I wholly understand and support the decisions made by the manager under the current restrictions, even if they are not made as apparent as simple mathematics make them appear.
UEFA Financial Fair Play/Financial Sustainability
The Club: With the increased income from Premier League TV rights, and the decrease in total player remuneration being addressed, the books are now balanced and in surplus subject to league position. We’re FFP compliant. Robin (Russell) also added that the yield (income as a ratio to attendance) has also been increasing.
AVL: We knew that this was the plan and, given the financial changes made, it is good that Villa are back to a balanced position.
It is important, however, to know that this doesn’t mean we will start significant investment straight away. Yes, there will be increased financial revenue from sustaining a position in the Premier League but this is given to the club per season, based on a) not being relegated and b) our overall placement in the league.
Logically, what would make sense would be to accrue an amount of money based on accruing money according to a primary objective – ensuring we are safe each year. Once this is established, and in keeping with FFP rules, it would then allows us to target an increased level of quality of player, but with the benefit of financial stability.
As above, this means that Lambert is starting off with a restricted ability to spend given wages outlay and a need to pad the team. Given that restriction, the three choices are a) young players who have not yet got to a high wage earning level, b) older players who have not progressed (i.e. previous failures at other clubs), or c) ignoring the depth issue and focusing on less players with more individual wages. The latter option is not truly viable given it would both create rifts based on wage disparity – an issue affecting the club previously – and the fact that injuries have proven how fragile our augmented squad still is. Had we spent money on less players, we would be down to playing the U19s out of necessity, not choice.
Again, this evolution process can feel slow, and may also be frustrating for fans, but it is infinitely preferable compared to the boom-and-bust cycle we experienced post-MON – anyone who wants to go back to such a plan must observe the ramifications of what it caused, and how upset that has made fans. Do we really want that again? One could argue strongly that they don’t – if they did, wouldn’t we be happy now based on simple cause-and-effect, given that we are where we are as a result of those choices?
North Stand Redevelopment
The Club: The plans have been updated but the priority now is to use resources to build a team that would fill the existing stadium.
AVL: Understandable – spending money on a capital investment when the club is lacking the ability to sell out current capacity would be foolish, and would restrict an already challenging budget.
You can read the original summary (including other topics not discussed in this article) from the following link on the AVST website (information regarding the above items is included in Appendix 1) – http://www.villatrust.org.uk/?p=506
The Author
