More redundancies at club

[pauliewalnuts]

Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.

Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.

even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation of performance and productivity.

Hmmm, so it's just coincidence that we're cutting those costs at the same time as we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side; seems unlikely.

Thus far, we've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest that there's any change to the policy of financial fugality that we heard them talking about so much this last year or two. Having started to make this change, he's not really going to stop now.

In my opinion, the efforts we're making to get the wage bill (players wise) under control, efficiency savings like this, and given what he's done with the Browns recently, point to him getting things healthier in preparation to sell the club.

I think that is, at the very least, far more likely than the theory that he flogged the Browns because he loves Villa so much and wants to invest more money in the club.

[pauliewalnuts]

Oh, and re selling the club - there's no guarantee that any future buyers are going to be Man City style gajillionaires, they might well be owners who don't want to run a club which is anything but self sufficient (which is what Faulkner has said we're after - the club has to look after itself financially).

In other words, much more like Everton (although even they lose money with their frugality) than Man City, I'm afraid.

[Toronto Villa]

Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.

Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.

even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation of performance and productivity.

Hmmm, so it's just coincidence that we're cutting those costs at the same time as we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side; seems unlikely.

Thus far, we've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest that there's any change to the policy of financial fugality that we heard them talking about so much this last year or two. Having started to make this change, he's not really going to stop now.

In my opinion, the efforts we're making to get the wage bill (players wise) under control, efficiency savings like this, and given what he's done with the Browns recently, point to him getting things healthier in preparation to sell the club.

I think that is, at the very least, far more likely than the theory that he flogged the Browns because he loves Villa so much and wants to invest more money in the club.

or just getting the club to a point where it makes sense as a business as opposed to the disaster it had become. Maybe selling the Browns gives him an opportunity to concentrate on one sports team rather than two. I agree, that it doesn't mean that he'll invest one more penny into our club, but instead it just gives him a bit more time that he can now focus on us. If all of the measures taken mean that we run better as a business and subsequently as a football club then it will only help in the long term. Whether that long term involves him or not is something none of us truly know.

[Toronto Villa]

Oh, and re selling the club - there's no guarantee that any future buyers are going to be Man City style gajillionaires, they might well be owners who don't want to run a club which is anything but self sufficient (which is what Faulkner has said we're after - the club has to look after itself financially).

In other words, much more like Everton (although even they lose money with their frugality) than Man City, I'm afraid.

that's the one thing that I've never understood with people eager to see Randy sell. Selling up means that head into more uncertainty and Man City or PSG style owners that bank roll success simply don't grow on trees. Both of those clubs and Chelsea before them got massively lucky, but that's only 3 clubs that have been able to that anywhere. Most of the time takeovers give you much the same or more likely you end up in a worse position than before.

[hilts_coolerking]

It's difficult to imagine there are potential owners out there who could have done a worse job over the last two years.

[pauliewalnuts]

It's difficult to imagine there are potential owners out there who could have done a worse job over the last two years.

I think that's probably a slight exaggeration on how I'd put it, but you're right, they've had two piss poor years, there's no way to rewrite that chunk of history.

[dave.woodhall]

There are some redundancies, mostly voluntary and on the marketing side, mainly due to the downturn in non-matchday corporate business. I know the public sector use Villa Park a lot and they've obviously been affected by cuts.

[pauliewalnuts]

Oh, and re selling the club - there's no guarantee that any future buyers are going to be Man City style gajillionaires, they might well be owners who don't want to run a club which is anything but self sufficient (which is what Faulkner has said we're after - the club has to look after itself financially).

In other words, much more like Everton (although even they lose money with their frugality) than Man City, I'm afraid.

that's the one thing that I've never understood with people eager to see Randy sell. Selling up means that head into more uncertainty and Man City or PSG style owners that bank roll success simply don't grow on trees. Both of those clubs and Chelsea before them got massively lucky, but that's only 3 clubs that have been able to that anywhere. Most of the time takeovers give you much the same or more likely you end up in a worse position than before.

It really depends. Obviously nobody would choose shysters as their new owners, but I think we're all expecting Randy to be a bit more sensible than that.

One thing I will say, though, is that if we're going to be entirely self sufficient, we'd better get used to the fact that we're not going to be spending big on players at all again for a very long time, if ever.

Ask Everton fans how much they enjoy scrimping around and trying to balance the books. They're lucky they've got a manager with the nack of making it work, and who has stuck around for ages.

I bet as soon as Moyes goes, they'll sink like a stone.

[Percy McCarthy]

Let's hope so.

[hilts_coolerking]

One of the key things if you're looking to run the club along austere lines is that on the occasions when the board have to choose a new manager they have to get it absolutely spot on or, as paulie says, the club could plummet.  We've bollocksed it up twice but hopefully have finally made the right appointment in Lambert.  Solksjaer might have been a more exciting option but I can't blame the board for going for a safer choice.

[Toronto Villa]

Oh, and re selling the club - there's no guarantee that any future buyers are going to be Man City style gajillionaires, they might well be owners who don't want to run a club which is anything but self sufficient (which is what Faulkner has said we're after - the club has to look after itself financially).

In other words, much more like Everton (although even they lose money with their frugality) than Man City, I'm afraid.

that's the one thing that I've never understood with people eager to see Randy sell. Selling up means that head into more uncertainty and Man City or PSG style owners that bank roll success simply don't grow on trees. Both of those clubs and Chelsea before them got massively lucky, but that's only 3 clubs that have been able to that anywhere. Most of the time takeovers give you much the same or more likely you end up in a worse position than before.

It really depends. Obviously nobody would choose shysters as their new owners, but I think we're all expecting Randy to be a bit more sensible than that.

One thing I will say, though, is that if we're going to be entirely self sufficient, we'd better get used to the fact that we're not going to be spending big on players at all again for a very long time, if ever.

Ask Everton fans how much they enjoy scrimping around and trying to balance the books. They're lucky they've got a manager with the nack of making it work, and who has stuck around for ages.

I bet as soon as Moyes goes, they'll sink like a stone.

Maybe it's the eternal optimist in me but I don't think we'll become Everton any time soon. I'm not going to completely agree on us not spending any large transfer fees again in the future. I am convinced that we won't be going down the MON road of signing players on a with a big transfer fee, large signing bonus and wages, a long term contract packaged neatly with a permanent place on the bench. I happen to think we'll be a lot more careful about how we identify players, better scouting and more emphasis on the academy. So instead of signing a 15m player, we'll sign him for a lot less and develop him so that if he does get sold we will be the ones to sell him for 15m or more.

[Dante Lavelli]

Look at Malaga too, bought by Qatari investor, Abdullah bin Nasser bin Abdullah Al Ahmed Al Thani in 2010 (thanks wiki), signing loads of players and appointing Pellegrini as manager.  He’s since lost interest and the club cannot afford to pay their players and they’re have a fire sale of their best players (Toulalan anyone?).

I think it’s vital that Randy/Faulkner run the business in a sustainable manner.  This doesn’t mean penny pinching and never signing players but building strong foundations that the club can build from with certainty that the club does not need Randy’s money.

[hilts_coolerking]

I think that's right.  There's nothing wrong with spending big on a player; it just has to be the right player under the right conditions which means having a top class scouting network.  Spending £12M+ on Steven Fletcher is an example of how not to do it.

[pauliewalnuts]

Maybe it's the eternal optimist in me but I don't think we'll become Everton any time soon. I'm not going to completely agree on us not spending any large transfer fees again in the future. I am convinced that we won't be going down the MON road of signing players on a with a big transfer fee, large signing bonus and wages, a long term contract packaged neatly with a permanent place on the bench. I happen to think we'll be a lot more careful about how we identify players, better scouting and more emphasis on the academy. So instead of signing a 15m player, we'll sign him for a lot less and develop him so that if he does get sold we will be the ones to sell him for 15m or more.

Mind you, how often do we finish above Everton? Faulkner said the club has to pay for itself, several times. They've made that pretty clear, it's hard to see how they could have done much more to do so, in fact.

Obviously, I want us to get excellent players for value prices, but the thing about selling them for 15m or more, is that is what we did with Milner, Downing and Young, which went down like a fart in a crowded lift at the time.

If we consistently flog off our better players, it's hard to see how we're ever going to move beyond where our squad pegs us at now - mid table.

I think you're right, going down the MON route is definitely off the menu, and that makes sense, but that doesn't really change anything re the self sufficiency thing. We all probably have our own standpoints on what we think of that, but whatever our opinions, there hasn't actually been any evidence to suggest that policy has changed. We've lost a few players from a skimpy squad, we've signed, what, two players this window? Vlaar and Lowton - actually am I forgetting someone (who isn't Holman)? Ah, yes, KEA.

It all points at the same financial realities as last season, and I think anyone thinking that's going to change suddenly, be it because of the Browns sale or whatever reason, is going to be disappointed.

[The Left Side]

Blimey that isn't good news, I thought this was a blose thread at first.