Villa & Sustainability | Vital Football

Villa & Sustainability

They've completely turned the club around from top to bottom. Gone are the days when our youth were just released after years of underachieving. Hopefully, until financially, we're on a par with the big boys,an academy that produces players who get sold for decent money ie Guehi- Chelsea 18m or Brewster- Liverpool 25m will make us more sustainable.
Ideally tho it would be nice if the vast majority, or even 4/5/6 made the grade thus saving us multi millions in the long run. This I think is the grand plan and will only strengthen the clubs position as I believe the current trend for the majority of spend spend spend will eventually come crashing down like a house of cards.
 
Fulford said:
Being a sustainable club will win us nothing these days.
Click to expand...
Unsustainable will mean destruction of the club. If no trophy’s is the price, then so be it. I don’t think that’s the case though.

We’ve just started a year with net positive £ on transfers, and i think we’re more likely to win one than we were. Really hoping for the FA cup. It’s the only one my old man hasn’t seen us win.
 
Fulford said:
Being a sustainable club will win us nothing these days.
Click to expand...

If you think of sustainability in the traditional sense and with how Lerner defined it I would agree with you. However, I think our owners view it much differently. I think sustainability for us is will change as we move through different phases of our plan. The club has already shown us they're willing to take risk so long as it fits within our long-term goals.

Sustainability as a top 4 club is going to look a little different to a midtable club. As we grow and build our revenue our financial stability improves and it becomes less and less necessary to sell players. I think the club will see selling players as a secondary revenue stream. For Lerner it was sell to buy, thats an outdated model of sustainability. I think we're working similarly to Leicester in that we will always have our replacements already in house.

The last point is Leicester and Liverpool have both won things without taking on extreme financial burden or jeopardizing themselves. Liverpool and Leicester have also arguably improved significantly by selling some of their best players. While I don't think thats what the club wants to do I think there is some inevitability to losing players as we grow.

I think we're in the easy phase of growing, the ceilings from here to 5th aren't insurmountable. It also really feels like things are aligning for us. The trajectory of our club along with the timing of the youth players coming through seems to almost carry an air of inevitability. I think when you're trying to break into the top 4 and carrying the burden of the Europa Lge. you need a strong second team just like the top sides. Our youth players are coming through at just the right time. If we can snag a European place this season or next then we're suddenly able to jump-start the emerging players by giving them European experience too. That would put us in a position to have a strong 22 man squad as we push for 4th without having spent additional 100s of millions that would have been an unsustainable burden on a club still building commercial revenue.
 
CDX_EIRE said:
If you think of sustainability in the traditional sense and with how Lerner defined it I would agree with you. However, I think our owners view it much differently. I think sustainability for us is will change as we move through different phases of our plan. The club has already shown us they're willing to take risk so long as it fits within our long-term goals.

Sustainability as a top 4 club is going to look a little different to a midtable club. As we grow and build our revenue our financial stability improves and it becomes less and less necessary to sell players. I think the club will see selling players as a secondary revenue stream. For Lerner it was sell to buy, thats an outdated model of sustainability. I think we're working similarly to Leicester in that we will always have our replacements already in house.

The last point is Leicester and Liverpool have both won things without taking on extreme financial burden or jeopardizing themselves. Liverpool and Leicester have also arguably improved significantly by selling some of their best players. While I don't think thats what the club wants to do I think there is some inevitability to losing players as we grow.

I think we're in the easy phase of growing, the ceilings from here to 5th aren't insurmountable. It also really feels like things are aligning for us. The trajectory of our club along with the timing of the youth players coming through seems to almost carry an air of inevitability. I think when you're trying to break into the top 4 and carrying the burden of the Europa Lge. you need a strong second team just like the top sides. Our youth players are coming through at just the right time. If we can snag a European place this season or next then we're suddenly able to jump-start the emerging players by giving them European experience too. That would put us in a position to have a strong 22 man squad as we push for 4th without having spent additional 100s of millions that would have been an unsustainable burden on a club still building commercial revenue.
Click to expand...

Some good points in there CDX. Regarding losing top players and becoming better, I think the Dippers have really done well in that regard in recent years. The Coutinho sale in particular showed what should be done whereas you look at the wasteful spending by Spuds after the Bale sale and you see exactly what shouldn't be done.
 
Lerner was in a difficult position. He gave MON funds for transfers on the expectation that the redundant players would be sold. MON wasn't interested in selling players, and anyway the players were over-priced.
 
McParlandTheGreat said:
Lerner was in a difficult position. He gave MON funds for transfers on the expectation that the redundant players would be sold. MON wasn't interested in selling players, and anyway the players were over-priced.
Click to expand...

Would you stop. MON spent £20m a season just like Lambert, McLeish and all the others. The difference was that we finished 6th under MON and we almost got relegated under all of the others.
 
BodyButter said:
Would you stop. MON spent £20m a season just like Lambert, McLeish and all the others. The difference was that we finished 6th under MON and we almost got relegated under all of the others.
Click to expand...
You're fighting a lone crusade there BB, MON almost put us out of business, he is a vile little shit. end of! You've been living in umpa lumpa land far too long
 
BodyButter said:
Would you stop. MON spent £20m a season just like Lambert, McLeish and all the others. The difference was that we finished 6th under MON and we almost got relegated under all of the others.
Click to expand...
MON was spending a lot more than £20m in his first three seasons, together with inflated wages. £20m was what Randy was forking out towards the end.
 
Ever since NSWE walked through the doors at B6, we always knew the long term plan for Aston Villa was to be 'sustainable' and it was ably demonstrated in all the transfer talk we saw about the types of players we would be moving for, as well as the major moves being made at Academy level to not only 'grow our own' but also ensure players would be saleable assets moving forward.
https://astonvilla.vitalfootball.co...-six-2021-22-could-be-key-in-doing-just-that/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.