Selling the 'deadwood' and their 'high' wages

[sfx412]

Have seen a few sites discussing the problem Villa are having shifting the unwanted's, Coker, Sidwell, Davies, Beye, Shorey, Young and so on.

Many have suggested the high wages Mon signed them on being the cause for the lack of interest. I was interested to see our wage bill exceeded that of Spurs and the players are hanging on for similar wages or waiting until their contracts are up so they can move cheaply at some cost to Villa as Harewood did.

I appreciate Mon feels he has to offer big wages to encourage the 'better' players but this does seem to be a down side to that plan.

If its accurate of course.

I also think back to Strachan's comments in his early days at Celtic, where he had a similar problem of over paid expensive mainly no hopers who few wanted. So maybe it is.

[Greg N'Ash]

its not that we paid top wages to the 'better' players, but that he paid them to average players. the sort of  clubs who'd want a nrc, or shorey to improve their team just aren't the sorts of clubs who can afford their wages. Harewood was another one - i bet there was interest in him but any other club outside the top6 aren't going to pay him 30k a week.

[Risso]

We do seem to be stuck in a position where we have players like Davies and Sidwell who the manager doesn't seem to rate any more, but will find it hard to move on.

[pauliewalnuts]

I think we'd probably manage to move Davies on if we wanted to.

[cheltenhamlion]

We might well move a number of them on but it is something of a concern to see the kind of money we are reported as chucking around on wages for average players.

[boboonthecorner]

We might well move a number of them on but it is something of a concern to see the kind of money we are reported as chucking around on wages for average players.

I'm sure the staunch MON fans will even defend that.......?

[Ads]

There hasn't been a great deal of movement in the domestic market so far, as only Man City have really dipped their toes and that was abroad. We need somebody to put some money into it to really kick things off.

[pedro25]

I think it is personalising it too much to blame M'ON, would it really be him who gets into the nitty gritty of wages.  i always thought he would be a bit more arms length, saying to Randy or whoever, i want these players please, see what you can do.  He's no the finance guy and it's not his business to run, he just looks after the players.

[cheltenhamlion]

Does he bollocks. He negotiates all the contracts with the assistance of Paul Faulkner.

[Greg N'Ash]

i've always assumed it was MON as we always have to wait for him to start the ball rolling when he gets back from holiday and with his control freak personality. If it isn't then the finance guy should be sacked.

[cheltenhamlion]

It is MON.

[pauliewalnuts]

There hasn't been a great deal of movement in the domestic market so far, as only Man City have really dipped their toes and that was abroad. We need somebody to put some money into it to really kick things off.

I agree.

Unfortunately, I think it'll be Man City putting money our way for Milner

[Concrete John]

I also wonder how much the players wages are the domain of the manager, but I can't see him not knowing what they are and if he sees an issue he's hardly likely to hold his toungue on it.

[boboonthecorner]

It is MON.

As I said the other day if Randy has tightened the purse strings you wouldn't blame him really would you?

[pauliewalnuts]

I also wonder how much the players wages are the domain of the manager, but I can't see him not knowing what they are and if he sees an issue he's hardly likely to hold his toungue on it.

Even if you accept the wages aren't the direct call of the manager, surely, at some point, regardless of who does what, it would come down to the finance people saying "player X wants £45k a week for four years, is he worth it?" - as the manager is the one making the football decisions?

For what we've heard of MON he likes to control everything at the club, so suggesting he has not that much to do with wages looks a bit like convenient revisionism to me.