Right, the dust has settled and it's now time to look at the bigger picture and if truth be known, we're punching above our weight, if we want to look at club money as an indicator.
But it isn't just about money, as Gareth Barry will find out soon, it's about the people and most importantly the manager. Martin O'Neill has done some good things at Villa Park since he arrived and with a little bit of extra quality, he'll be able to do better.
But why do I say we're punching above our weight? Well, I'm looking at the turnover of our club against the turnover of other clubs and you might be surprised at the list you are about to look at.
The list is fairly self explanatory. Number one generates the most money and number twenty generates the least. This information is taken from information the clubs have to file at Companies House each year and if you think I've done all this research myself, you'd be wrong, I got it from here.
Clearly some clubs are going to be less than others, for example the three promoted clubs, so they are at the bottom, but you might be surprised by the list as I've also added how much the club paid out in wages and how much debt the club are in.
Anyway, here it is and for the life of me, I can't see how we can be in so much debt, unless Lerner has done a Glazer and bought the club and then transferred it to debt, because our net spend in three seasons under O'Neill is about £65mn. and over those three years, we've also had money coming in.
It is also worth noting that the accounts used for our football club to put this list together (the latest ones available at Companies House) are accounts up to May 31st 2008, which is a long time before we spent the £45mn. last summer. Where exactly does all this debt come from?
Still, I'm not an accountant and my reference to Glazer was a flippant one, for which I apologise.
| Turnover (£M) | Wages (£M) | Debt (£M) | |
| Manchester United | 252.6 | 121.1 | 699 |
| Arsenal | 222.5 | 101.3 | 416 |
| Chelsea | 213.6 | 149 | 701 |
| Liverpool | 159 | N/A | 280 |
| Spurs | 114.7 | 52.9 | 65 |
| Newcastle | 100.8 | 74.6 | 106.2 |
| Manchester City | 82.3 | 54.2 | 147 |
| Everton | 76 | 44.5 | 39 |
Aston Villa | 75.6 | 50.4 | 73 |
| Portsmouth | 70.5 | 54.7 | 57.7 |
| Sunderland | 63.6 | 37.1 | 69.2 |
| Bolton | 59.1 | 39 | 52 |
| West Ham | 57 | 44.2 | 36 |
| Blackburn | 56.4 | 39.7 | 17 |
| Fulham | 53.7 | 39.3 | 197 |
| Middlesbrough | 48 | 34.8 | 93 |
| Wigan | 43 | 38.4 | 66.4 |
| West Brom | 27.2 | 21.8 | 8.9 |
| Stoke | 11.2 | 11.9 | 2.3 |
| Hull | 9 | 6.9 | 1 |
Now, like I said, I'm not an accountant so I'm not going to pretend to try and make this list into anything other than what it is but as a club, we don't generate as much money as the likes of Spurs, Everton, Manchester City and Newcastle and Pompey are very close to us and it is clear as day that the clubs playing in the Champions League each season are making much more money, so you can see why it is so important.
What I suppose it comes down to is investment. That debt for Chelsea is all Roman Abramovich and all interest free, although he has recently taken about half of it as more shares in the club, so can Lerner make that sort of investment? The simple answer is no, he can't.
On the other hand, will Abramovich ever see that money again? Possibly, but if he hopes to get it from a successful football team it might taken a very long time.
Anyway, I just thought I'd post this list as it interested me and if you think about it, would you take an extra £100mn. worth of debt to play in the Champions League when you can see the potential rewards?
Possibly makes for an interesting debate.