Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine

Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: 1_Pablo_Angel on August 12, 2010, 12:02:14 PM

Title: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: 1_Pablo_Angel on August 12, 2010, 12:02:14 PM
I've been trying to do a bit of research to back up the claim that in our last set of accounts wages were at about 85% of turnover... I remember seeing the article posted at the time, pretty sure it had a rather spiffy graph attached too, but I can't find it anywhere now. Wonder if anyone could point me in the right direction?

All I seem able to find are accounts for 07/08 which show the figure at 66%.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: jonzy85 on August 12, 2010, 12:04:33 PM
That thread title belongs to one of the more boring modules I did in college, not on football forum.

The fact it is makes me want to cry...
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: paul_e on August 12, 2010, 12:08:07 PM
try here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt)

Oops, I went on the date of the article, reading it they're the 2007/2008 figures.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: 1_Pablo_Angel on August 12, 2010, 12:20:38 PM
Yeah I've found those all over the place but not the next lot. Closest thing I can find to an actual article is a line in the Birmingham Mail about a £71m wage bill but obviously without a proper source.

Apologies Jonzy!
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: paul_e on August 12, 2010, 12:35:22 PM
What the old ones show (and the assumed figures of 84m turnover and 71m wages) is that the sponsorship cash could have a big big effect.

The rumours all seem to suggest that the combined new sponsorship deals are worth about 12m, if that's the case and we assume no other changes to income and that the total for wages is not too different then we get...

71/84x100 = 84.5%
71/96x100 = 73.9%

so purely by getting the new sponsorship we've seen a 10.5% drop.

This clearly doesn't include the extra income generated from the cup runs either.  For a normal company that would still be pretty high but as we're privately owned it's less of a problem, add on that it's not unusual for sports clubs to 'run high' on wages (on the understanding that higher wages means increased chance of success, so more profit and better global exposure).

Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Woofles The Wonder Dog on August 12, 2010, 12:36:48 PM
Not £12m aa year though. Nice try. :-)
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: jembob on August 12, 2010, 12:44:26 PM
1_Pablo_Angel. Sad as it may seem, I've been thinking of doing an analysis on the cost of individual players against playing time. I'm sure that the Club does this and is the root of concern as expensive assets are not being utilised. Although the wage to turnover ratio would be an obvious concern, from what General Krulak has said, they are fed up with money going down the drain as players on top wages never play.

A rough example might be:

Ashley Young gets approx £3M per annum and plays 45 games = cost approx £67K per game.

NRC gets approx £2M per annum and plays about 10 games = cost approx £200K per game.

Ouch! Value for money (ROI)  has to be a major concern for the club when you see it set out in writing like this!

If you could get some information which may shed light on that I think that it would equally as revealing.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: paul_e on August 12, 2010, 12:49:29 PM
Not £12m aa year though. Nice try. :-)

We'll probably never know exact figures but the fxpro one is at least 7.5m a year as it's the biggest deal we've ever had and the nike one works out at around 7m.  I'll admit 12 might be optimistic but 8m a year better off is a minimum, even that sees us down to around 77%.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: 1_Pablo_Angel on August 12, 2010, 12:56:38 PM
1_Pablo_Angel. Sad as it may seem, I've been thinking of doing an analysis on the cost of individual players against playing time. I'm sure that the Club does this and is the root of concern as expensive assets are not being utilised. Although the wage to turnover ratio would be an obvious concern, from what General Krulak has said, they are fed up with money going down the drain as players on top wages never play.

A rough example might be:

Ashley Young gets approx £3M per annum and plays 45 games = cost approx £67K per game.

NRC gets approx £2M per annum and plays about 10 games = cost approx £200K per game.

Ouch! Value for money (ROI)  has to be a major concern for the club when you see it set out in writing like this!

If you could get some information which may shed light on that I think that it would equally as revealing.

Indeed it would be. Pretty horrendous even if you tallied up the average for Luke Young, Sidwell, NRC etc etc... Does sound like a lot of effort though! I'm after the turnover figures mostly to back up my argument with a staunchly pro Mon Irishman that something had to be done about them. It's annoying because I'm almost certain I've seen an article that quoted an 85/90% ratio... but I can't find it. Where does the £71m/£84m figure actually come from?
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Villa'Zawg on August 12, 2010, 01:16:51 PM
1_Pablo_Angel. Sad as it may seem, I've been thinking of doing an analysis on the cost of individual players against playing time. I'm sure that the Club does this and is the root of concern as expensive assets are not being utilised. Although the wage to turnover ratio would be an obvious concern, from what General Krulak has said, they are fed up with money going down the drain as players on top wages never play.

A rough example might be:

Ashley Young gets approx £3M per annum and plays 45 games = cost approx £67K per game.

NRC gets approx £2M per annum and plays about 10 games = cost approx £200K per game.

Ouch! Value for money (ROI)  has to be a major concern for the club when you see it set out in writing like this!

If you could get some information which may shed light on that I think that it would equally as revealing.

Indeed it would be. Pretty horrendous even if you tallied up the average for Luke Young, Sidwell, NRC etc etc... Does sound like a lot of effort though! I'm after the turnover figures mostly to back up my argument with a staunchly pro Mon Irishman that something had to be done about them. It's annoying because I'm almost certain I've seen an article that quoted an 85/90% ratio... but I can't find it. Where does the £71m/£84m figure actually come from?

Whatever you say to him about those figures, won't he point out that £71m in wages is not bad at all for a top 6 club but £84m turnover is shite? Won't he just point out that the high ratio is due to poor turnover rather than high wages?
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: 1_Pablo_Angel on August 12, 2010, 01:31:20 PM
Sure, but the need to redress such a ratio still stands. This seems even more sensible when half the players that account for the high figure never get a game. Plus we are growing the turnover, but these things don't happen overnight. Anyway it's not that shit a turnover, bigger than Everton's.

I'm starting to think I imagined this article. I'm not, I'm sure I saw it because I remember thinking 'Shit! That's high.' But christ knows where it is.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: AV82EC on August 12, 2010, 01:49:58 PM
My own view would be we need to try and at least hold the wages at that level as Turnover will have grown since that last set of accounts.

As some one suggested our Cup Runs last season, increased commercial income from Hospitality and the new sponsoship deal will all have a positive affect on the turnover figure.

Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Tezmond on August 12, 2010, 02:38:34 PM
long time lurker, this is the best article I've found with some scans of actual accounts:

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/03/07/revealed-villas-50m-transfers-and-2-4m-per-man-salaries-070302/

shocking read, and only sustainable if we'd hit top 4 and got CL cash to up Turnover. No wonder MoN went for broke trying for top 4 instead of Europe.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: TheSandman on August 12, 2010, 02:46:24 PM
Our turnover maybe shite but as someone says it is also bigger than Everton whose wagebill is just over £20million less. Everton being a team who in the previous two seasons to the last finished above us and whilst they did finish below us last season whether that would have happened had they not suffered a number of injuries to key players. This is something we have lived without.

Spurs, of course have a larger turnover but also a smaller wagebill.

I have the accounts somewhere. I'll have a look.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: 1_Pablo_Angel on August 12, 2010, 03:02:55 PM
Great find Tezmond, thanks for that.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Tezmond on August 12, 2010, 03:06:44 PM
n short (account till end of March or previous year):

2008 wages £50.4m, turnover £75.5m (66% ratio), loss £700k
2009 wages £70.5m, turnover £84.2m (84% ratio), loss £30.1m

2010:

out: Barry, Knight, Gardner
in: Downing, Delph, Warnock, Dunne, Collins, Beye

reported loss on player sales = £29.4m
increase in salary = ???
increase in turnover = ???
wages:turnover ratio = ??? (nearing 100% I'd guess if Beye's rumoured £40k a week is to be believed)
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: hollybobble on August 12, 2010, 09:56:56 PM
it really can not carry on like this can it 
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: TonyD on August 12, 2010, 10:10:28 PM
The problem with wage bill was signing players, then not using them and wasting both the signing fee AND their salaries.    RL was not prepared to see £mmss  wasted on having half a squad left idle whilie the manager bought further players (with only half being used/favs).  Best off sinking £20/25m in one proven/1st teamer rather than 3 £6ms and leaving them in the reservres.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Chris Smith on August 12, 2010, 10:13:08 PM
The problem with wage bill was signing players, then not using them and wasting both the signing fee AND their salaries.    RL was not prepared to see £mmss  wasted on having half a squad left idle whilie the manager bought further players (with only half being used/favs).  Best off sinking £20/25m in one proven/1st teamer rather than 3 £6ms and leaving them in the reservres.

Lerner specifically said about 3 months ago that we were not able to spend £20m-£30M on a single player.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: TonyD on August 12, 2010, 10:19:35 PM
The problem with wage bill was signing players, then not using them and wasting both the signing fee AND their salaries.    RL was not prepared to see £mmss  wasted on having half a squad left idle whilie the manager bought further players (with only half being used/favs).  Best off sinking £20/25m in one proven/1st teamer rather than 3 £6ms and leaving them in the reservres.

Lerner specifically said about 3 months ago that we were not able to spend £20m-£30M on a single player.

By "we" he meant he didnt trust the manager.  RL didnt get where he is today without the abillity to pave the way for people to depart on amicable terms.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: sfx412 on August 12, 2010, 10:23:17 PM


Lerner specifically said about 3 months ago that we were not able to spend £20m-£30M on a single player.

I thought that had been stated policy for most of the 4 past seasons not a recent addition.

I seem to remember Gen k on  Fears site say so years back
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: sfx412 on August 12, 2010, 10:25:29 PM

RL didnt get where he is today without the abillity to pave the way for people to depart on amicable terms.

must admit I find it strange so few fans fail to appreciate that point
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Chris Smith on August 12, 2010, 10:28:16 PM
The problem with wage bill was signing players, then not using them and wasting both the signing fee AND their salaries.    RL was not prepared to see £mmss  wasted on having half a squad left idle whilie the manager bought further players (with only half being used/favs).  Best off sinking £20/25m in one proven/1st teamer rather than 3 £6ms and leaving them in the reservres.

Lerner specifically said about 3 months ago that we were not able to spend £20m-£30M on a single player.

By "we" he meant he didnt trust the manager.  RL didnt get where he is today without the abillity to pave the way for people to depart on amicable terms.

No

Jesus, talk about rewriting history. He will not pay that for players, we cannot afford it and we cannot afford the associated wages those players command. That's fair enough, even though we've added about 4-5k to the crowd in the last 4 years we still don't get anywhere near the revenue of the teams above is in the league. There are probably only 4 clubs in this country that could pay that amount for a single player and we're not one of them.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Chris Smith on August 12, 2010, 10:29:28 PM


Lerner specifically said about 3 months ago that we were not able to spend £20m-£30M on a single player.

I thought that had been stated policy for most of the 4 past seasons not a recent addition.

I seem to remember Gen k on  Fears site say so years back

No, your memory is failing you. The General said exactly the opposite, that if the right player was available we would pay it.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: pauliewalnuts on August 12, 2010, 10:30:04 PM
The problem with wage bill was signing players, then not using them and wasting both the signing fee AND their salaries.    RL was not prepared to see £mmss  wasted on having half a squad left idle whilie the manager bought further players (with only half being used/favs).  Best off sinking £20/25m in one proven/1st teamer rather than 3 £6ms and leaving them in the reservres.

Lerner specifically said about 3 months ago that we were not able to spend £20m-£30M on a single player.

No he didn't

30m, yes. 20-30m, no, despite it sounding a bit more dramatic.

Quote
Asked if he would entertain spending extravagant amounts on a player, Lerner said: “I just don’t think we could write a cheque for £30m.

“On principle or on budget? On budget. I think that would be outside of our means.”
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Chris Smith on August 12, 2010, 10:34:07 PM
The problem with wage bill was signing players, then not using them and wasting both the signing fee AND their salaries.    RL was not prepared to see £mmss  wasted on having half a squad left idle whilie the manager bought further players (with only half being used/favs).  Best off sinking £20/25m in one proven/1st teamer rather than 3 £6ms and leaving them in the reservres.

Lerner specifically said about 3 months ago that we were not able to spend £20m-£30M on a single player.

No he didn't

30m, yes. 20-30m, no, despite it sounding a bit more dramatic.

Quote
Asked if he would entertain spending extravagant amounts on a player, Lerner said: “I just don’t think we could write a cheque for £30m.

“On principle or on budget? On budget. I think that would be outside of our means.”


Fair enough, I should have checked but the point stands that we are not in the market currently for players in that price range. I have no issue if that is the way they say we have to run, they know the business better than us its just wrong then to use the fact that we didn't sign £20-£25m players on the ex-manager because the truth is that we can't afford them.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: pauliewalnuts on August 12, 2010, 10:38:50 PM
Fair enough, I should have checked but the point stands that we are not in the market currently for players in that price range. I have no issue if that is the way they say we have to run, they know the business better than us its just wrong then to use the fact that we didn't sign £20-£25m players on the ex-manager because the truth is that we can't afford them.

I wonder - and it isn't a loaded, finger pointed question, just a general thought - whether, for the money he has spent, Randy wished Martin had bought a 20-30m player (say rather than 3 7-10m ones), in that that would have been a bums on seats player, which would have made his job (filling the stadium, creating excitement) much easier?

Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: DaveK on August 12, 2010, 10:43:05 PM

RL didnt get where he is today without the abillity to pave the way for people to depart on amicable terms.

must admit I find it strange so few fans fail to appreciate that point

I find it strange that people think Randy is such a fantastic businessman and has this degree of foresight, yet he apparently didn't notice MON spending the club into oblivion.

You can't have it both ways surely.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: TonyD on August 12, 2010, 10:46:32 PM

RL didnt get where he is today without the abillity to pave the way for people to depart on amicable terms.

must admit I find it strange so few fans fail to appreciate that point

Exactly.  The situation is shite.   But when the manager does an apeshite and leaves RL was calm about it. No point going moaning about like kids.   History will tell it's own story.   And my famous Aston Villa will live forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: TonyD on August 12, 2010, 10:53:02 PM
Fair enough, I should have checked but the point stands that we are not in the market currently for players in that price range. I have no issue if that is the way they say we have to run, they know the business better than us its just wrong then to use the fact that we didn't sign £20-£25m players on the ex-manager because the truth is that we can't afford them.

I wonder - and it isn't a loaded, finger pointed question, just a general thought - whether, for the money he has spent, Randy wished Martin had bought a 20-30m player (say rather than 3 7-10m ones), in that that would have been a bums on seats player, which would have made his job (filling the stadium, creating excitement) much easier?


The right player yes,   No worries.  But MON didnt.  I still think that RL will give the next manager the option of spending the necessary cash if needed on the right player. 
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: nipper on August 12, 2010, 11:01:57 PM
Was telling a mate today how high our wages to turnover ratio was and he couldn't work it out. Rightly he was saying that we don't pay particularly high wages (compared to other top end clubs), haven't got what you'd call a huge squad of players and that we are one of the bigger clubs with average attendances of around 40,000 so why aren't we making more money. The thing with the Villa is we still charge what i'd say is a fairly reasonable price for season tkts, still expensive i know, but compared to other clubs who are taking the piss with close on a grand for the season we are one of the cheapest going i think. Now if the club was to suddenly join these other clubs who we are trying to compete with and charge say double what we're paying now, then me, and probably thousands more won't be going that regular, so for the club it's a bit of a catch 22 situation.  I'd love to see 20 - 30m players down the Villa but if we were to go down that route, the only people i feel populating Villa Park would be the sort of new wave, Sky generation supporter who you find filling the like of WHL and the bridge. Not me.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: pauliewalnuts on August 12, 2010, 11:04:12 PM
Was telling a mate today how high our wages to turnover ratio was and he couldn't work it out. Rightly he was saying that we don't pay particularly high wages (compared to other top end clubs), haven't got what you'd call a huge squad of players and that we are one of the bigger clubs with average attendances of around 40,000 so why aren't we making more money. The thing with the Villa is we still charge what i'd say is a fairly reasonable price for season tkts, still expensive i know, but compared to other clubs who are taking the piss with close on a grand for the season we are one of the cheapest going i think. Now if the club was to suddenly join these other clubs who we are trying to compete with and charge say double what we're paying now, then me, and probably thousands more won't be going that regular, so for the club it's a bit of a catch 22 situation.  I'd love to see 20 - 30m players down the Villa but if we were to go down that route, the only people i feel populating Villa Park would be the sort of new wave, Sky generation supporter who you find filling the like of WHL and the bridge. Not me.

Even if you ignore the percentage of turnover thing, though, our wage bill is far higher in absolute terms than those of Everton and Spurs **, so we're clearly not the average payers we think we are.


** +25 pages
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: TimTheVillain on August 12, 2010, 11:05:26 PM

RL didnt get where he is today without the abillity to pave the way for people to depart on amicable terms.

must admit I find it strange so few fans fail to appreciate that point

I find it strange that people think Randy is such a fantastic businessman and has this degree of foresight, yet he apparently didn't notice MON spending the club into oblivion.

You can't have it both ways surely.

I may be absolutely incorrrect here, but Randy made his millions when his Father sold MBNA.

Both he and his sister inherited c $1 billion each.

This doesn't mean that Randy is not a fantastic businessman,( chip off the old block etc)  but for sure, his Father was.

Randy does however surround himself with advisers ( unlike corner shop keepers) - so he is probably not a control freak as I see it.



Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: TheSandman on August 12, 2010, 11:11:05 PM
Was telling a mate today how high our wages to turnover ratio was and he couldn't work it out. Rightly he was saying that we don't pay particularly high wages (compared to other top end clubs), haven't got what you'd call a huge squad of players and that we are one of the bigger clubs with average attendances of around 40,000 so why aren't we making more money. The thing with the Villa is we still charge what i'd say is a fairly reasonable price for season tkts, still expensive i know, but compared to other clubs who are taking the piss with close on a grand for the season we are one of the cheapest going i think. Now if the club was to suddenly join these other clubs who we are trying to compete with and charge say double what we're paying now, then me, and probably thousands more won't be going that regular, so for the club it's a bit of a catch 22 situation.  I'd love to see 20 - 30m players down the Villa but if we were to go down that route, the only people i feel populating Villa Park would be the sort of new wave, Sky generation supporter who you find filling the like of WHL and the bridge. Not me.

Even if you ignore the percentage of turnover thing, though, our wage bill is far higher in absolute terms than those of Everton and Spurs **, so we're clearly not the average payers we think we are.


** +25 pages

Indeed.

Spurs' Wage bill is £11million less and Everton's is £21million less which is pretty shocking.

Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: nipper on August 12, 2010, 11:16:04 PM
the more you look in to it the more you realise why Randy's put his foot down. 11M less than Spurs?? is very shocking comparing the players they've got to ours
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Chris Smith on August 12, 2010, 11:21:25 PM

RL didnt get where he is today without the abillity to pave the way for people to depart on amicable terms.

must admit I find it strange so few fans fail to appreciate that point

Exactly.  The situation is shite.   But when the manager does an apeshite and leaves RL was calm about it. No point going moaning about like kids.   History will tell it's own story.   And my famous Aston Villa will live forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As mentioned before no need for him to say anything, he got the General to do his dirty work for him but we've already had the debate so ne point repeating it.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Chris Smith on August 12, 2010, 11:24:37 PM
Fair enough, I should have checked but the point stands that we are not in the market currently for players in that price range. I have no issue if that is the way they say we have to run, they know the business better than us its just wrong then to use the fact that we didn't sign £20-£25m players on the ex-manager because the truth is that we can't afford them.

I wonder - and it isn't a loaded, finger pointed question, just a general thought - whether, for the money he has spent, Randy wished Martin had bought a 20-30m player (say rather than 3 7-10m ones), in that that would have been a bums on seats player, which would have made his job (filling the stadium, creating excitement) much easier?



Who can buy £20m-30M players? Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea and now Man City. We just don't have the pulling power in terms of prestige or the ability to make them a financial package they can't refuse.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: jembob on August 13, 2010, 12:10:00 AM

Who can buy £20m-30M players? Manu, Liverpool, Chelsea and now Man City. We just don't have the pulling power in terms of prestige or the ability to make them a financial package they can't refuse.

It's probably only Citeh at the moment!
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Ads on August 13, 2010, 12:30:04 AM
Have a look at the SSN trasnfer ticker. You'll see that nobody has spent any real net money, bar Man City.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Dave Cooper please on August 13, 2010, 01:14:32 AM


I find it strange that people think Randy is such a fantastic businessman and has this degree of foresight, yet he apparently didn't notice MON spending the club into oblivion.


I do like a bit of hyperbole now and again, but "spending the club into oblivion"?
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: IFWaters on August 13, 2010, 08:30:44 AM
THere was a post early on in this thread that said that last year we paid £71 million in wages - I think thats before buying Dunne, Warnock and Collins. Someone else said our wages have now risen to £85 million.

Doing a bit of basic maths, the club has 440 full time employees including players. Say 20 of them are top management and earn an average of £100k a year = £2 million. Then say 380 of them do all the other jobs and earn an average of £25k a year = £9.5m. Add in approx 1300 casual staff for say 25 match days a year at £30 a match...errr...£975k - call it a million. Then 20 youth players on maybe avg tops of £50k a year - thats another million.

So far weve spent 13.5 million. That leaves between 57 and 72 million to spend on the top 20 players (poor things).

That means they are bumping along on between £2.9 and £3.6 million a year each or £55 to £69k a week - average......is that right ???
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: Tezmond on August 13, 2010, 08:55:03 AM
Looking at the accounts, Randy sanctioned the loan notes to pay for players and wages and was well aware of the wages:turnover ratio. I guess he saw an opportunity to qualify for the CL which has now receded with the emergence of Man City, MoN only spent the money available to him and is now clear why they (both MoN and Randy) took the gamble on blowing the Moscow game for a better chance of the top 4.

I guess the fall out has come over MoN wanting one more shot with an expensive squad and Randy wanting a change in modus operandi.

The accounts also show quite clearly that Randy is not a philantropic benefactor, but a sensible(?) business investor. All the loan notes are repayable after 10 years, which means we will need to generate 110m GBP in profits over the next 7-8 years or refinance (not even taking into account 09/10 accounts).

It is also a myth that Villa were on an even keel when Randy bought us, he took on 17m GBP debts in addition to the 62m GBP buying price.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: AV82EC on August 13, 2010, 04:02:58 PM
Tezmond, is he the new Risso?
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: deanl123 on August 13, 2010, 04:46:01 PM
..... RL didnt get where he is today without the abillity to pave the way for people to depart on amicable terms.

No, he got where he was today because his dad left him loads of money.
Title: Re: Accounts, wages, turnover...
Post by: DaveK on August 14, 2010, 10:19:22 AM


I find it strange that people think Randy is such a fantastic businessman and has this degree of foresight, yet he apparently didn't notice MON spending the club into oblivion.


I do like a bit of hyperbole now and again, but "spending the club into oblivion"?

You could be forgiven for thinking that's what Randy has allowed to happen reading some of the comments around here though Dave.

My point though, was that many people on here seem to lay the blame for everything that's bad at MON's door, and seem to think that Randy has now decided to put his foot down, so Martin quit. It all seems a bit convenient to me.

Perhaps, in actuality, MON was spending in line with what he had agreed with Randy, but Randy's failed to deliver the commercial success / revenue that was planned to support the wage bill and has therefore welched on his agreement with MON?

That seems as likely as the theory that MON "went a bit mad" with Randy's cheque book to me. If that is what happened then Randy isn't the manager that he's being held up to be IMO.

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal