Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: sfx412 on July 16, 2010, 12:02:44 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think we'd probably manage to move Davies on if we wanted to.
-
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.
-
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.......?
-
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 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.
-
Does he bollocks. He negotiates all the contracts with the assistance of Paul Faulkner.
-
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.
-
It is MON.
-
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
-
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.
-
It is MON.
As I said the other day if Randy has tightened the purse strings you wouldn't blame him really would you?
-
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.
-
It is MON.
As I said the other day if Randy has tightened the purse strings you wouldn't blame him really would you?
#
you'd certainly want him taken out the loop thats for sure.
-
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.
He has a huge say in wages. He has done at every club he has ever manged and demands that this is the case.
The finance people are there to ensure that we offer won't bankrupt the club and sort out the legal particulars.
-
I never said he didn't have input, just that I do think there are other factors in those decisions as well.
For instance, should we sit down with Milner to discuss a new contract, would Martin be in that meeting regarding the financials and would he make the final call on it?
-
I never said he didn't have input, just that I do think there are other factors in those decisions as well.
For instance, should we sit down with Milner to discuss a new contract, would Martin be in that meeting regarding the financials and would he make the final call on it?
He might not make the final call, in that Lerner signs the cheques and can ultimately refuse to, but i don't think for a nanosecond Martin wouldn't be in that meeting and would be agreeing the contract.
-
I think he will wait untill he sorts out milner's future before buying anyone. Has he got a sell before buy policy i have read he has but i dont know for sure.
-
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.
I agree with much of that. If you think about it we are paying Nicky Shorey forty odd grand a week. Nicky Shorey for Pete's sake. Before they re-negotiated his contract Luka Modric was on £25grand a week at Spurs exhibiting exactly why and where our wage bill is bigger than Spurs.
I have ranted on this subject many times indeed it is perhaps my main criticism of Martin but we have players who are getting fat wedges of notes for not playing. We are getting rid of players or at least trying to who have hardly played. Luke Young, Curtis Davies and Nigel Reo-Coker are stand out cases here. Whilst I'm far from a fan of two of those surely these lads should at least get the odd chance to fill in ahead of an injured or fatigued player?
At Celtic a lot of aging players were left on the wagebill. Alan Thompson and Joos Valegaren were both on fat wages and in their early thirties and were given free transfers. Bobo Balde however, had just signed a new contract and stayed for four years under Strachan despite not playing whilst picking up something like £30,000 Per week, which is utterly massive for the SPL. To illustrate that I don't think anyone is currently earning that much at Rangers or Celtic.
-
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.
So 2 clubs Vila and celtic have the same problem and its nothing to do with their manager ??
OK, dream on
-
I never said he didn't have input, just that I do think there are other factors in those decisions as well.
For instance, should we sit down with Milner to discuss a new contract, would Martin be in that meeting regarding the financials and would he make the final call on it?
He might not make the final call, in that Lerner signs the cheques and can ultimately refuse to, but i don't think for a nanosecond Martin wouldn't be in that meeting and would be agreeing the contract.
Surely as the General is fond of saving Mon has complete control of playing affairs and I'd have thought that included transfers and wages
No?
-
Without getting lambasted for supporting MON here, most of the players we're talking about were signed before the arse fell out of the world economy.
Up until Portsmouth nearly hit the wall football clubs still thought the good times would always roll and the cash would never run out. It wouldn't surprise me that now no-one can get a bank loan cause the banks have got no money and Pompey are still right up shit creek without a paddle that clubs are reassessing just how much money they're willing to spend on players. If that's the case I doubt we're the only club with players on contracts that with the benefit of hindsight look a little bit silly.
-
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.
So 2 clubs Vila and celtic have the same problem and its nothing to do with their manager ??
OK, dream on
Hold on - I'm not saying it isn't right, just raising the question of where the final decision comes from on players wages. Hardly incites the reaction of 'dream on'!
I don't know a lot about the Celtic situation so can't really comment, but most clubs have older players on large contracts - it's normally the younger ones you can get away with paying less. As a contract comes up for renewal a player normally gets a payrise, which means probably a 6 year stay and therefore an older player. It's the way of football works.
My concern, and it's my only concern, is that we do have a lot of players at Villa earning a fortune who aren't contributing. Blame MON for that if you like, but at least it's been recognised before it becomes a major problem and we seem to be trying to address it.
-
I never said he didn't have input, just that I do think there are other factors in those decisions as well.
For instance, should we sit down with Milner to discuss a new contract, would Martin be in that meeting regarding the financials and would he make the final call on it?
He might not make the final call, in that Lerner signs the cheques and can ultimately refuse to, but i don't think for a nanosecond Martin wouldn't be in that meeting and would be agreeing the contract.
Surely as the General is fond of saving Mon has complete control of playing affairs and I'd have thought that included transfers and wages
No?
The impression I get of O'Neill as regards contracts etc is that he would quibble over every aspect of a contract, whereas a man like Harry Redknapp would take the agent into the training ground canteen, ask him what the player wants, say done if he agrees and leave the fine print to the execs.
-
we have a fair few players that are surplus and a few who we'd all like to see the back of,
but i cant see them going anywhere, the players themselves arnt good enough to command the wages they are on,
take Heskey for instance,
we will more than likely have him in the squad next year because although other clubs probably below us could afford the transfer fee, they wont pay the 60k wages that he's reputed to be on, same goes for Sidwell, Davies, NRC etc
we have a sqaud with far to many very average players, on so much money we cant move them on
-
we have a fair few players that are surplus and a few who we'd all like to see the back of,
but i cant see them going anywhere, the players themselves arnt good enough to command the wages they are on,
take Heskey for instance,
we will more than likely have him in the squad next year because although other clubs probably below us could afford the transfer fee, they wont pay the 60k wages that he's reputed to be on, same goes for Sidwell, Davies, NRC etc
we have a sqaud with far to many very average players, on so much money we cant move them on
There's not a squad in the land where that last statement does not apply.
-
But it's not just Villa and Celtic who have players on big wages. The figures coming out of Hull were frightening. Take a look at Portsmouth, too. You now get average players on big wages and modest clubs. Welcome to the Premier League.
Thing is, Davies, Shorey, etc weren't signed as reserve players. They weren't handed £40k a week to play in the reserves, they were first team players. It's just now they've fallen down the pecking order, which is why we're trying to offload them.
-
Well it looks like a fee has been agreed with Fulham for Sidwell.
-
we have a fair few players that are surplus and a few who we'd all like to see the back of,
but i cant see them going anywhere, the players themselves arnt good enough to command the wages they are on,
take Heskey for instance,
we will more than likely have him in the squad next year because although other clubs probably below us could afford the transfer fee, they wont pay the 60k wages that he's reputed to be on, same goes for Sidwell, Davies, NRC etc
we have a sqaud with far to many very average players, on so much money we cant move them on
I don't think it quite works that way, as should a player go without asking for a transfer, he normally gets a pay off from the club.
Taking Heskey as an example again, lets say it's £60k a week he's on and Stoke want him, but will only pay him £40k a week. With a year left on his contract that's £1m difference, so we'd pay him that ourselves, which means he's not out of pocket and we save £2m, which is the other £40k a week we'd pay him otherwise. Also, with signing on fees taken into account, maybe he'd get a £750k lump sum from them, we might get away with only a £500k 'golden handshake' and thereby save even more money.
This is all based upon the player's desire to play 1st team football, of course.
-
Thing is, Davies, Shorey, etc weren't signed as reserve players. They weren't handed £40k a week to play in the reserves, they were first team players. It's just now they've fallen down the pecking order, which is why we're trying to offload them.
A very good point!
-
If a player is happy sitting around collecting a big wage rather than putting the effort in to make the most of their ability its no surprise they can't get into MON's team.
-
My concern, and it's my only concern, is that we do have a lot of players at Villa earning a fortune who aren't contributing. Blame MON for that if you like, but at least it's been recognised before it becomes a major problem and we seem to be trying to address it.
Addressing it by bringing in Robbie Keane* on a three or four year contract? I wonder who else would not only be willing to pay the fee but also the salary. I've yet to hear anybody else interested in him.
It's all very similar to John Gregory and the wasted millions, not to mention the football. It stinks of desperation.
* Assuming we buy him.
-
Couldn't disagree more. I think Keane, again should he sign, will be a success with us. John Gregory spent what was at the time big money on older players (Stone, Merson, Dublin) where as MON has so far spent relatively small fees on them (Carew, Dunne).
-
Couldn't disagree more. I think Keane, again should he sign, will be a success with us.
I think he'll do well for a season but we're unlikely to sign him for just a season. The waste will come in years two, three and four. A very expensive quick fix in my book.
-
My concern, and it's my only concern, is that we do have a lot of players at Villa earning a fortune who aren't contributing. Blame MON for that if you like, but at least it's been recognised before it becomes a major problem and we seem to be trying to address it.
Addressing it by bringing in Robbie Keane* on a three or four year contract? I wonder who else would not only be willing to pay the fee but also the salary. I've yet to hear anybody else interested in him.
It's all very similar to John Gregory and the wasted millions, not to mention the football. It stinks of desperation.
* Assuming we buy him.
Spot on.
Not forgetting the fact I'm still far from convinced that he's still fully 100% in terms of fitness.
What would it be £70K per week on a 29/30 year old forward? I also doubt that MoN will be our manager beyond the end of the coming season. What if a new man comes in and is stuck with a player he doesn't want, potentially struggle to sell and who's on a small fortune in pay?
-
Couldn't disagree more. I think Keane, again should he sign, will be a success with us.
I think he'll do well for a season but we're unlikely to sign him for just a season. The waste will come in years two, three and four. A very expensive quick fix in my book.
As a player, I see the value and welcome him, but as to whether or not it makes sense financially, I'll wait until we see what the fee is and his wages are before judging.
-
Couldn't disagree more. I think Keane, again should he sign, will be a success with us.
I think he'll do well for a season but we're unlikely to sign him for just a season. The waste will come in years two, three and four. A very expensive quick fix in my book.
How come you're using the name Kelly now, Mr Nostradamus?
-
What if a new man comes in and is stuck with a player he doesn't want, potentially struggle to sell and who's on a small fortune in pay?
Isn't that the case with any player we sign this summer?
-
Just what i was looking for another let's criticise the manager thread.
In the PL these days you have to pay the going rate, which includes what wages players are on, so to suggest these players are overpaid is the understatement of the century, every single PL player is over paid.
So when players are signed they are obviously on big wages, it all depends on what happens to them next that counts, Gabby, Ash, Milner and Barry were all given new improved contracts before there current ones expired, Shorey, NRC, etc weren't.
I would imagine Dunne, Collins, Cuellar will be offered new contracts also.
In hindsight MON maybe would have offered the "deadwood" less wages, but then they wouldn't have signed for us and the critics would be blaming MON for that.
MON does seem to have been successful in his transfer targets, i.e whoever he has wanted we have signed. MON has also been very successful in holding on to players, that is down to the amount of wages on offer as much as anything else, again if we had lost Ash, Milner, Gabby, etc i'm sure MON would have been blamed.
I can't understand how people have all turned into Deadly Doug and are now concerned how much is spent on every aspect of the club, Randy et al knew that high wages, big transfer fees, investment in facilities, etc' etc' were part of the commitment of turning Aston Villa into real challengers again, as far as i am aware they still know this.
I do not blindly agree with everything MON does, but credit where credits due he has signed players on big wages, because the alternative was to not sign anyone.
Also i don't buy into this crap of criticising every aspect of what he does, yesterday it was his choice to put checks on the new kit, today it's wages, tomorrow it will be MONs fault for the Balti pies being too hot.
I'm sure the MON knockers will rip this post to shreds, well go on knock yourselves out, i'm just bored at work, and am about to go home now so don't expect a reply.
UTV.
-
What if a new man comes in and is stuck with a player he doesn't want, potentially struggle to sell and who's on a small fortune in pay?
Isn't that the case with any player we sign this summer?
Possibly. But I think Keane will be one who gets paid more than most of the other players we have been linked to and will sell. Admittedly Stephen Ireland and Klaas-Jan Huntleaar would get paid a lot too but both are younger players who will have greater sell on value. If we signed either of them I'd also expect they would both be successful signings whereas I'm less sure on Keane.
-
Just what i was looking for another let's criticise the manager thread.
If that's the case, you're going to love next season.
-
I don't think it qould be anywhere near 70k p/w for Keane.
-
But if all these rumours are true that we pay so much more than Spurs, then surely we can give him a nice little pay rise and still have him only on a par with our best earners?
We need to pay the going rate and can't diminish his earnings just because he's 29. I'm more concerned about the fee, due to the sell on value issue you rightly raise, than I am his wages.
-
True. To be honest I wouldn't be too unhappy if we got him at a reasonable fee and maybe a lower wage than quoted. It's just the thought of paying something like £8-10million for him and then giving him such large wages. £6million I'd think we had got a great deal and I've been told that my fears about him based on last season are to do with a recurring injury that he's over.
I believe its not that we pay more than Spurs (Both teams pay around the same figures to top earners) it's just that we pay more to our lower earners.
-
Couldn't disagree more. I think Keane, again should he sign, will be a success with us.
I think he'll do well for a season but we're unlikely to sign him for just a season. The waste will come in years two, three and four. A very expensive quick fix in my book.
How come you're using the name Kelly now, Mr Nostradamus?
To be fair, though, Chris, you don't have to be Nostradamus to work out that in years 2, 3 and 4, Robbie Keane will be 31,32 and 33 and therefore well into the downward slope.
-
But if all these rumours are true that we pay so much more than Spurs, then surely we can give him a nice little pay rise and still have him only on a par with our best earners?
We need to pay the going rate and can't diminish his earnings just because he's 29. I'm more concerned about the fee, due to the sell on value issue you rightly raise, than I am his wages.
They're not rumours. They're true, actual facts as per the published accounts of both clubs.
He's 30 now. The going rate for wages should surely take account of the player's age?
-
We need to pay the going rate and can't diminish his earnings just because he's 29. I'm more concerned about the fee, due to the sell on value issue you rightly raise, than I am his wages.
His wages will exceed his transfer fee over a three year contract. His resale value at the end of that contract will be zero. I'm sure these numbers are not lost on MON, we can only hope he does as well in the transfer market as he did last summer. My concern is that after a season Keane joins the 'deadwood' list. He's not the player he was a couple of years ago and from watching his performances for Celtic, a club he loves and gave his all, is never likely to be again.
It's a very high risk signing where the numbers are stacked against us.
-
With a player like Keane you either pay the wages or you don't get him, to me that's not the issue. And whether or not he earns that money is all down to how well he would do for us, which opinion is split on. The only financial factor that his age effects is the transfer fee.
We wouldn't sign Didier Drogba and expect him to drop his wages as he's 30 or so, so the same is true of Keane.
-
With a player like Keane you either pay the wages or you don't get him, to me that's not the issue. And whether or not he earns that money is all down to how well he would do for us, which opinion is split on. The only financial factor that his age effects is the transfer fee.
We wouldn't sign Didier Drogba and expect him to drop his wages as he's 30 or so, so the same is true of Keane.
If you signed Didier Drogba age 32, of course he gets less money than he would if he was 28.
IF you agree a four year contract with Keane at 60k a week and you sign him for 8m (these aren't the actual figures, I'm using them for illustration), your commitment there is:
8m transfer fee
13m wages (3m x 4 plus 11 percent on top for NI)
That's 21m pounds (ignoring stuff like signing on fees, performance bonuses etc etc) it will cost us, and at the end he will be worth nothing. The larger part of that is the wage cost.
You simply can not ignore things like that.
This thread is discussing the players we've already got who are not playing and costing us a fortune, surely those players are evidence of why you can't just focus on the transfer fee.
-
My concern, and it's my only concern, is that we do have a lot of players at Villa earning a fortune who aren't contributing. Blame MON for that if you like, but at least it's been recognised before it becomes a major problem and we seem to be trying to address it.
Addressing it by bringing in Robbie Keane* on a three or four year contract? I wonder who else would not only be willing to pay the fee but also the salary. I've yet to hear anybody else interested in him.
It's all very similar to John Gregory and the wasted millions, not to mention the football. It stinks of desperation.
* Assuming we buy him.
Spot on.
Not forgetting the fact I'm still far from convinced that he's still fully 100% in terms of fitness.
What would it be £70K per week on a 29/30 year old forward? I also doubt that MoN will be our manager beyond the end of the coming season. What if a new man comes in and is stuck with a player he doesn't want, potentially struggle to sell and who's on a small fortune in pay?
Maybe we should limit this discussion to players that are already here as opposed to players we may or may not sign.
-
With a player like Keane you either pay the wages or you don't get him, to me that's not the issue. And whether or not he earns that money is all down to how well he would do for us, which opinion is split on. The only financial factor that his age effects is the transfer fee.
We wouldn't sign Didier Drogba and expect him to drop his wages as he's 30 or so, so the same is true of Keane.
If you signed Didier Drogba age 32, of course he gets less money than he would if he was 28.
IF you agree a four year contract with Keane at 60k a week and you sign him for 8m (these aren't the actual figures, I'm using them for illustration), your commitment there is:
8m transfer fee
13m wages (3m x 4 plus 11 percent on top for NI)
That's 21m pounds (ignoring stuff like signing on fees, performance bonuses etc etc) it will cost us, and at the end he will be worth nothing. The larger part of that is the wage cost.
You simply can not ignore things like that.
This thread is discussing the players we've already got who are not playing and costing us a fortune, surely those players are evidence of why you can't just focus on the transfer fee.
I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it's an issue in regards to age, or at least as big an issue as the fee is. A younger player might also leave after three years for nothing. And if we had a player already in our squad playing well who was 29 and had his contract up, would we try and negotiate his contract downwards due to age? We'd lose the player if we did that.
I feel keane will be worth the money while he's here - that's an 'investment' for want of a better word. His fee is dead money due to his age.
EDIT: and I very much doubnt Drogba would accept a pay cut to go anywhere.
-
It isnt about whether Drogba would take a pay cut to go anywhere, it is about the fact that after a certain age, the wages offered to players go down as they get older, no matter who they are.
If Drogba were to renegotiate his contract with Chelsea now, do you think he'd get the same wages offered age 32 as he would 28?
A younger player could leave after three years for nothing, yes, but the point is, in three years Robbie Keane will - no might about it - be 33 years old and therefore is highly unlikely to be pulling up many trees in the top flight, yet we will be contractually obliged to pay him the whole contract if he so desires.
-
The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are. So, if we take that as a constant the other issue is the fee, which would be smaller for Keane than say Huntelaar due to age. Basically, if we're going to be paying the wages anyway, the difference between Keane and a younger striker is the fee, which is why that concerns me more.
-
Can we get back on track about deadwood etc, I know Harewood has left as has Freddy and the 3rd choice goally but only Freddy has a club and has to prove his fitness first unless i missed something. Why is Osbourne and Salifou still on our books?
-
The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.
Funny how that's only a rule for us. I can't imagine why.
-
Thing is, Davies, Shorey, etc weren't signed as reserve players. They weren't handed £40k a week to play in the reserves, they were first team players. It's just now they've fallen down the pecking order, which is why we're trying to offload them.
A very good point!
Somewhat ruined by the fact that MON never really rated Shorey and only signed him as a short term solution to the problem of Bouma's injury.
-
Can we get back on track about deadwood etc, I know Harewood has left as has Freddy and the 3rd choice goally but only Freddy has a club and has to prove his fitness first unless i missed something. Why is Osbourne and Salifou still on our books?
I hate to break this to you mate but they still have a year on their contracts.
-
The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.
Funny how that's only a rule for us. I can't imagine why.
Are you saying other clubs would sign Keane and get away with paying him less?
-
Thing is, Davies, Shorey, etc weren't signed as reserve players. They weren't handed £40k a week to play in the reserves, they were first team players. It's just now they've fallen down the pecking order, which is why we're trying to offload them.
A very good point!
Somewhat ruined by the fact that MON never really rated Shorey and only signed him as a short term solution to the problem of Bouma's injury.
Shorey was signed to play in the 1st team when Bouma got injured. It wasn't short term as much as it was as close to a panic buy as MON will ever get.
-
The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.
Funny how that's only a rule for us. I can't imagine why.
Are you saying other clubs would sign Keane and get away with paying him less?
I believe he is suggesting that if we signed another striker of similar quality from abroad where pay is often lower we could offer them less money.
That is possibly why Tottenham were only paying Modric £25K per week.
-
I don't think there was anything short term about Bouma's injury, was there?
Even without the benefit of hindsight (two years out, then being released), we all knew Bouma would be out for the full season, so MON didn't sign Shorey as cover, or as a squad player. He was in as first-choice left-back when signed. Just panned out that he didn't make the grade (in O'Neill's opinion).
-
Possibly, but I'd back Keane to score more than any striker new to the PL next season, other than top players bought in on massive wages.
-
I don't think there was anything short term about Bouma's injury, was there?
Even without the benefit of hindsight (two years out, then being released), we all knew Bouma would be out for the full season, so MON didn't sign Shorey as cover, or as a squad player. He was in as first-choice left-back when signed. Just panned out that he didn't make the grade (in O'Neill's opinion).
Why offer a left back, that you aren't sure about and think is too slow, £43k a week though?
It's nuts
-
The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.
Funny how that's only a rule for us. I can't imagine why.
Are you saying other clubs would sign Keane and get away with paying him less?
No John, other clubs tend to look a little bit further afield than ourselves. But let's just imagine we decided to withdraw our interest in Keane, what next? Spurs want rid, Keane wants to play first team football, something would have to give. Sunderland, Blackburn, even the Rags might be interested but unlikely on the same wages.
As Randy I'm sure is finding out, it's a very expensive game just to stand still. MON inherited a small squad and had to buy a lot of potential deadwood just to make the first steps. Four years in, we really should no longer be in the same position of buying for a quick fix.
-
I don't think there was anything short term about Bouma's injury, was there?
I seem to remember several learned 'fans' picking flies out of my suggestion Bouma's injury was likely to be career threatening and certainly not the sort that would get him back in 10 weeks as some said.
That said Shorey did seem to be a another panic buy, and another under utilised if over paid older player.
I also don't think he's as bad as some propagate, but then I thought Ian Wright did OK
-
I often wonder whether people who post on here have selective memories to suit their arguement or just forget situations in the past.
When Randy came in we were only able to bring in one player before that transfer window closed. By the time his money became effective and available to buy players West Ham had the Icelandic owners and Man City had Thaksin come in and instantly we had competition to sign the type of players that the top four would not consider but were needed to take mid-table teams to Euro chasing teams. Posters talk about how much we offered players to get them here but this was nowhere near what West Ham were offering to the likes of Lucas Neill - £75k a week! The same was happening at Man City.
Now people are intimating that we were wrong to sign players on contracts of £40k per week. We had a squad to build and had to persuade players to come to us. Although we consider ourselves to be an attractive club, modern footballers do not seem to see it the same way.
You cannot run a PL club without paying wages or signing new players if you want to compete. You have to spend vast sums just to stand still. Very basic calculations show that gate income and Sky money just about pays the club staff. Transfer fees have to be funded by other commercial activities and investment by owners or money from cup runs, although the latter is taken up to some extent by players' bonus payments.
As another poster has mentioned, clubs like Portsmouth are showing the true state of English football. Chelsea and now Man City are bankrupting English football. These clubs are paying over the top for top players in both transfer fees and more importantly, wages. Even these two clubs have to pay over the top for players as South American Johnny Foreigner would rather play in Spain or Italy than turn out on a cold and wet night in Manchester. Football as we know it is in trouble and spiralling out of control but people do not want to face up to it.
To make believe that MON is the only manager that signed players on excessive contracts is, as I said above, using a selective memory and 20/20 hindsight vision to have a dig at the manager. The manager has made mistakes, every manager has but the way some people go on, I find it extremely annoying when I think it is not warranted to the extreme comments but forward by some posters. I suppose, however, in todays society some people think they have to shout the loudest to get listened to.
-
I'm not really bothered about other clubs. In West Ham's case, the manager got the bullet and the owner lost his shirt. Good.
What does bother me, is we've let two players go for nothing or a pittance who only a couple of years ago were worth 10m, They had no noticable influence on the team during their employment, and the 20m they cost in fee's and wages would have probably gone a good way to funding our transfer dealings this summer. We're not Man C, so every penny we waste will have a knock on effect to the money we have to spend
-
I'm not really bothered about other clubs. In West Ham's case, the manager got the bullet and the owner lost his shirt. Good.
What does bother me, is we've let two players go for nothing or a pittance who only a couple of years ago were worth 10m, They had no noticable influence on the team during their employment, and the 20m they cost in fee's and wages would have probably gone a good way to funding our transfer dealings this summer. We're not Man C, so every penny we waste will have a knock on effect to the money we have to spend
Ignoring reality again to suit your arguement.
Your comments at times do amaze me.
-
Gregs last comment is pretty correct.
-
i'd say that was totally realistic. i don't think Lerner came to this club aiming to shower it with money for no return for the next decade. if you think differently i'd say you're the one not being realistic
-
Gregs last comment is pretty correct.
Out of context, yes it is valid. In the context of the situation at the time it didn't seem so unreasonable.
Were you one of the posters that has said "I don't care, it's Randy's money not mine" when talking hypothetically about buying players that would never come to Villa Park.
-
I'm not really bothered about other clubs. In West Ham's case, the manager got the bullet and the owner lost his shirt. Good.
What does bother me, is we've let two players go for nothing or a pittance who only a couple of years ago were worth 10m, They had no noticable influence on the team during their employment, and the 20m they cost in fee's and wages would have probably gone a good way to funding our transfer dealings this summer. We're not Man C, so every penny we waste will have a knock on effect to the money we have to spend
Ignoring reality again to suit your arguement.
Your comments at times do amaze me.
Ignoring reality? I seldom feel Greg is right and frequently think he ignores reality but in this case everything he says reflects reality.
Have we wasted a lot of money on players who don't play and who will sell for less than we paid for them? Yes. Sidwell, Shorey, L. Young, Reo-Coker, Harewood, Davies, Heskey and Beye is quite some role call in that regard especially considering most of them are on at least £40K a week, most of them excepting Heskey have hardly ever played and most of them could well have actually played from time to time last season.
It's not just that these players have cost us a fortune in fees and wages. It is the fact that they have got it for sitting on their hands last season.
-
What annoys me is people not actually reading what people are saying before clambering onto their high horse and moaning about the posters who shout the loudest etc etc
Nobody said MON is the only manager to sign players on big contracts. He's the one were most bothered about though, as we're Aston Villa supporters and he's our manager.
And yes, we did need to build a squad four years ago, the issue isn't paying decent wages, it is paying them for players you then decide not to use.
Where, for example, was the sense in buying Beye to then make him third choice right back? What was the point of spending that money on Shorey then almost instantly binning him?
You might not agree that we have a problem with unused high earners but whingeing about people even talking about it seems a bit over the top.
Incidentally, to talk about the trouble English football is in and that the clubs aren't facing up to it, whilst defending our pay policy, doesnt really stack up, as - although not as bad as Portsmouth or West Ham, clearly - we currently pay approximately 85 percent of our turnover on players wages, one of the highest levels in the league, and way, way beyond what is considered a "sensible" level.
In that sense, we are one of the worst offenders.
-
If you have a squad of around 24 then inevitably some are going to play a lot of games, some a middling amount and some very few. Shorey has featured in about 30 games during his time here so falls in the mid range. It might have been more if he hadn't spent most of last season on loan and if he hadn't behaved like a spoiled brat at Fulham the season before last.
-
He might have played for us more had the manager not sent him on loan for the season?
I guess that's undeniable.
-
He might have played for us more had the manager not sent him on loan for the season?
I guess that's undeniable.
I'm glad the twat went out on loan but whether he was sent or asked to go is not something either of us are privy to.
What is undeniable is that the man keeping out of the side is twice the player he'll ever be.
-
What annoys me is people not actually reading what people are saying before clambering onto their high horse and moaning about the posters who shout the loudest etc etc
Nobody said MON is the only manager to sign players on big contracts. He's the one were most bothered about though, as we're Aston Villa supporters and he's our manager.
And yes, we did need to build a squad four years ago, the issue isn't paying decent wages, it is paying them for players you then decide not to use.
Where, for example, was the sense in buying Beye to then make him third choice right back? What was the point of spending that money on Shorey then almost instantly binning him?
You might not agree that we have a problem with unused high earners but whingeing about people even talking about it seems a bit over the top.
Incidentally, to talk about the trouble English football is in and that the clubs aren't facing up to it, whilst defending our pay policy, doesnt really stack up, as - although not as bad as Portsmouth or West Ham, clearly - we currently pay approximately 85 percent of our turnover on players wages, one of the highest levels in the league, and way, way beyond what is considered a "sensible" level.
In that sense, we are one of the worst offenders.
You were obviously referring to my comments so I will respond.
You are annoyed because you think I had not read what another had said before 'clambering onto my high horse and moaning'. Far from it, my comments were not aimed at anybody's comment in particular but the blinkered view of some on the transfer policy of our manager. And yes, I have read all of the posts on this topic. I always do because I do not engage my fingertips before putting my brain into gear. There again, I could take your comment as being a response to our previous 'history' on this message board.
We are all more interested in Villa than other clubs but you cannot ignore what happens at other clubs and make believe it only happens at Villa and that it is solely due to the inadequacies of our manager.
A football club is based on a squad not a team. You have a squad to cover for injuries and suspensions and maybe rotate for loss of form/freshness. We cannot ignore the fact that we have been very lucky with injuries and suspensions over the last 2/3 years and MON has not had to bring in his squad players for this. I think most people would agree on our best first 11 and it would generally be the 11 MON picks on a regular basis. I would agree that MON does not change things at times when I feel he should but there again, it's a fine line and the closer we have got to the top four, the more conservative MON has become. He belives that we have more chance with the first 11 than making changes. His decisions are directly related to how long he stays in a job, whereas it is very easy to play manager over the internet
The Beye purchase was because he was available at a good price, was proven in the PL and he needed a right back if Young was going to play left as MON was having difficulties in prising Warnock away from Blackburn. Shorey was bought due to the preseason injury to Bouma and was an emergency purchase. At the time he looked a good player at Reading and had been on the verge of the England side (I suppose on reflection after the world cup that is not saying much). As it turned out, his attacking qualities outshone his defensive capabilities, when what we needed was a better defensive fullback. Hopefully, in the fullness of time Warnock will prove to be that player.
I am concerned with how much we pay our squad players but come the time of injuries and suspensions we need squad players. As I have said, we have been very lucky with injuries etc.. I am not 'whingeing' about people even talking about it (perhaps you should go back and read what I said and not jump on YOUR high horse - pot, kettle and all that). What does get me is the one sided view of things and ignoring of pertinent facts.
Who said I am defending our pay policy. Randy has come in with a cetain budget to spend and only he knows how far he is willing to go compared with what he could recoup by selling the club. There is very little comment that comes out of the club regarding finance and transfers. Most comments are based on speculation and unfounded media stories.
Again, only Randy knows what a 'sensible level' of spending is on players wages. Just because Platini says it should be x%, it doesn't mean that it is the same for every club. For example, a club could be developing young players and sell them on a regular basis to fund the running of the club. In this case, they could afford to pay more in wages as a % of income.
In fact, I think we should be more self sufficient by developing and selling young players rather than filling the squad with purchased players, even if this saw us not challenging the top four for a couple of seasons. Others will not see it this way and still believe we should be able to compete with Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea. It is not a level playing field and whereas Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are starting with a foot on the white line and Man City, Chelsea and Man Utd a metre in front of it, Villa and Everton seem to be starting two metres behind the line. As for the others, they should not even bother to take part.
-
In fact, I think we should be more self sufficient by developing and selling young players rather than filling the squad with purchased players, even if this saw us not challenging the top four for a couple of seasons. Others will not see it this way and still believe we should be able to compete with Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea. It is not a level playing field and whereas Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are starting with a foot on the white line and Man City, Chelsea and Man Utd a metre in front of it, Villa and Everton seem to be starting two metres behind the line. As for the others, they should not even bother to take part.
Have you nothing better to do on a Saturday night than be sensible? Shame on you, Sir.
-
We are all more interested in Villa than other clubs but you cannot ignore what happens at other clubs and make believe it only happens at Villa and that it is solely due to the inadequacies of our manager..
That's what I mean by stepping in without actually bothering to read what people are saying.
Nobody is saying it does only happen at Villa, so I don't know why you got the hump over it in the first place.
I am not 'whingeing' about people even talking about it (perhaps you should go back and read what I said and not jump on YOUR high horse - pot, kettle and all that). What does get me is the one sided view of things and ignoring of pertinent facts.
No, of course not:
The manager has made mistakes, every manager has but the way some people go on, I find it extremely annoying when I think it is not warranted to the extreme comments but forward by some posters. I suppose, however, in todays society some people think they have to shout the loudest to get listened to.
And, as I said, nobody is moaning about "the giving out of contracts of 40k a week", it is the way those players are then used or not used they're moaning about.
What I really don't understand is that you argue that position, then ultimately say the the game is going to hell in a handcart (which I agree, it is) financially, and that more prudence is needed - two standpoints which seem diametrically opposed.
As I said before, if you are looking for paragons of financial good sense in the game, it certainly is not us with our wages to turnover ratio. Are we the only club in that position? Far from it. But we're still in that position.
You're right, West Ham and their 75k for Lucas Neill and Portsmouth and their 80k a week for John Utaka (even worse) are much worse than anything we've ever done, but the point still remains, we've a finite budget to spend on players - transfer fees and wages - we can't just go and scoop up some more from the money pit.
Given that, if you look at people like Beye with his 40k a week to do nothing (and no matter the reasons why, he is still doing nothing), or Heskey, a 3.5 year big money contract for a 31 year old, or Shorey, or Sidwell with his 15 minute cameos, regardless of whether other managers make similiar mistakes, you really have to have a cavalier disregard for financial matters to shrug those off.
If the English game is going to a bad place (and, you're right, no doubt about it, it is), it is not so much about the big name players getting big money, it is about the average players getting big money - there are far more of them, and they contribute a lot less.
-
Now people are intimating that we were wrong to sign players on contracts of £40k per week. We had a squad to build and had to persuade players to come to us. Although we consider ourselves to be an attractive club, modern footballers do not seem to see it the same way.
That might be true if you were talking about top players.
But the likes of Harewood, Sidwell, Shorey, Beye, Heskey and co would be on a par (possibly even a notch or two down) with our purchases pre Lerner, at the back end of the HDE years.
-
I often wonder whether people who post on here have selective memories to suit their argument or just forget situations in the past.
very true and you are a prime example of exactly that.
No one I've read is suggesting Mon is the only one who wastes money, but he's the only one managing Villa, he's the only one who has near topped the transfer monies in Europe in the PL for 2 seasons, despite your affirmation that Chelsea, Man City, Utd etc spend more.
He did need to build the squad after he removed so many from it without a second thought. Were many of those poorer players than Harewood, Knight, Maloney, Beye, SALIFOU, Heskey, Shorey, Routledge. and so on, not for me.
4 seasons in, huge sums spent, 6th remains the epiphany. good enough ? For the spend he's had, the waste on the books, at such big wages, from players he never uses, or can't use because they are so poor, because his ability to pick players is so poor is not good enough.
Not for me .
If he had not spent and wasted so much most of your arguments would be justifiable. Had he gained a trophy even, had a good run in Europe, which is allegedly our aim, maybe fine, but he's spent big, despite your denials, and is failing to achieve, and has a load of crap he can't unload that is crippling our, meaning Aston Villa's, wage bill. True?
-
If the English game is going to a bad place (and, you're right, no doubt about it, it is), it is not so much about the big name players getting big money, it is about the average players getting big money - there are far more of them, and they contribute a lot less.
If there was ever a "in the nutshell" sentence better than this about the state of the game at the moment then I have yet to see it.
-
very true and you are a prime example of exactly that.
Please do elaborate.
What I meant was people talk about the worth to the club now of the 'Villa 6' but do not mention the reason why each of these players were bought and the transfer climate at the time of each purchase.
No one I've read is suggesting Mon is the only one who wastes money, but he's the only one managing Villa
By the way some go on about it, it seems that way. Not many people give a balanced view to show how big an issue it is compared with other clubs in a similar position. There again before anybody mentions it, this is a Villa site so why compare with other clubs.
despite your affirmation that Chelsea, Man City, Utd etc spend more.
Where did this one come from, I certainly didn't say that. I commented that Man City and Chelsea were leading English football towards bankruptcy.
He did need to build the squad after he removed so many from it without a second thought. Were many of those poorer players than Harewood, Knight, Maloney, Beye, SALIFOU, Heskey, Shorey, Routledge. and so on, not for me.
Players released were either deemed not good enough or would not accept not being in the first team. Who does not fit into these categories?
Had he gained a trophy even, had a good run in Europe, which is allegedly our aim, maybe fine, but he's spent big, despite your denials
Where have I denied that he has spent big.
I would be very interested to read your analysis of each players purchase as I outlined above.
-
I would be very interested to read your analysis of each players purchase as I outlined above.
to achieve what perchance.
The manager sinks or swims by the way he acts, and that includes buying and selling players. The prevailing circumstances of those transfers have little credence as excuse paragraphs for his failures, just as they have little credence to the ones he has got right.
-
Why offer a left back, that you aren't sure about and think is too slow, £43k a week though?
It's nuts
Again, with hindsight it looks a rotten deal. At the time, it looked a perfectly good deal and a sound signing, given we had no fit left-back with the season a month away.
-
Yes, and he had played well at Reading, and was called up for England, so arguably one of the best three English players in that position, and one that had Premier league experience under his belt. It was a knee jerk buying decision, but not a panic buy. A panic buy would be getting Robbie Savage to play in that position. Old Man Villa Fan, you make some reasoned and educated points, memories are short and clouded and have the benefit of hindsight. MON, or any manager does not have this, and makes the best decision he can. If RL didnt believe in him or trust him, it wouldnt be a case of tightening his purse strings, he would be out. Paying his severance would be much cheaper than backing further or continued purchases if he didnt trust him.
-
Why offer a left back, that you aren't sure about and think is too slow, £43k a week though?
It's nuts
Again, with hindsight it looks a rotten deal. At the time, it looked a perfectly good deal and a sound signing, given we had no fit left-back with the season a month away.
Which alone is poor management, and a sign of no forward planning.
Last minute poorly thought out deals, most every time. That said the ones he buys early, Sidwell, Coker, rarely work out too :)
-
This does all remind me of the JG era, or his legacy anyway. Over paid journey-men bought for substantial fees with little sell-on value. It's clear we need to loose a few of them.
I'd just like to see an exciting signing for once. Not necessarily foreign, young or old. Just someone a bit more exciting than the Habib Beyes or Nicky Shoreys of this world.
Someone like a JPA or Paul Merson. Not a Steve Stone or Hassan Kachloul.
And god forbid MON leaves and we have to sign a Mark Kinsella or Øyvind Leonhardsen.
-
I would be very interested to read your analysis of each players purchase as I outlined above.
to achieve what perchance.
The manager sinks or swims by the way he acts, and that includes buying and selling players. The prevailing circumstances of those transfers have little credence as excuse paragraphs for his failures, just as they have little credence to the ones he has got right.
To understand what your feelings were towards the purchases at the time without the benefit of hindsight and to see if you considered them to be a total waste of money/good gamble/good buy etc.
Totally agree with your statement about the manager 'sinks or swims' etc. Some players are a success, some not but it is the overall view on all transfers that should say whether the maanger has got value for money from what he has spent i.e. if our net spend has been around £80m, is this a fair amount to get from where we were to where we are now.
If you are not willing to give an opinion on each of the transfers (for whatever reason - does suit your arguement?), I will.
Harewood - It looked at the time that MON wanted a back up to Carew, somebody that was strong and imposing to take the pressure of the young/less experienced Gabby and Young. Harewood had had a good season with West Ham the year before in the PL and had torn us apart at Upton Park. My preference at the time was that we went for a player that was an alternative/challenger to the front two. Spending another £2-4m would have been my choice.
Reo-Coker - Looked a good young prospect for improving the team. Very experienced for his age and had captained the England U21s. Main attributes were that he was physical and would add the energy to our midfield, something that we were lacking at the time. Season before he p***** all over our midfield at Villa Park. Negative point was that he came with 'baggage' - his attitude but MON had been known for taking players and sorting them out. For me, at the time, I was excited by this purchase.
Davis - Looked at top young player and recognised as potentially a future England captain. He was raw and lacked PL experience but looked as though he could have been polished into a 'diamond' in the bright, young Villa side at the time. I thought that the price was about £2m over what we should have paid but sometimes you have to pay to get your man.
Sidwell - Had looked a very good player at Reading (agian another player that had played very well previously against Villa - common theme here). Chelsea had bought him as he looked as though he could be a potential first team player and England international. At the time when we signed him I thought he could have gone one of two ways. Firstly, he could have become the new 'Dennis Mortimer' or he could have failed, having lost is enthusiasm after a year (or was it two) on the bench. I was still of the opinion that Reo Coker was the better bet and that £8m was too much to pay, again £2-5m over the top.
Shorey - Again looked good playing for Reading, on the verge of playing for England. At the time it looked as though Bouma would be the left back for the season but his injury preseason was tragic. If it had been a less serious injury I would have used the squad players to cover but as it was long term we needed an experienced player. The best around at the time and available at the right price was Shorey. I thought he would add the attacking play from full back position that we had lacked in the early MON years. Looked a good buy to me.
Beye - Due to the failings of Shorey the previous year, Young moved to left back. MON was in the market for a new left back with Warnock being his prime target. Blackburn were playing hardball and it looked as though he was being priced out of the market. With the view that Young would stay at left back, we needed a right back and also extra strength/experience at the back. Beye looked a solid player and had come off the back of a good year at Newcastle (one of the few that year). Remember also that this purchase was pre Collins and Dunne and Beye could also player centre of defence. For the money, he looked a good squad player but nothing more.
Luke Young - I had always been impressed by him as a right back and if we were after an English player he was the best around that was available. I was disappointed that we had not bought him the year before and so when we did buy him it was £2m over the top.
These were my views at the time and it has turned out that I was probably too optimistic but I am not a paid football manager.
I would be very interested on other peoples views on each of the players.
-
Harewood;West Ham reserve. Never good enough.
Sidwell: chelsea reserve. never going to work in MON's midfield. why buy him?
nrc: never going to work in MON's midfield. why buy him?
Shorey:Agreed, he had a decent pedigree, but the reality was as a modern leftback he didn't suit us
young:looked the business till he killed MON's dog. or something.
Davies:Came straight out of a relegated defence which should tell you something.
Beye: see Davies
-
Sidwell: engine room for Reading when they qualified for Europe, looked class.
NRC: An important part of the England U21 squad that got to a final.
Davies: Last time I looked defence depends on a back four, a goalie and some cover from midfield. To blame Davies for WBA for their relegation is somewhat bizarre. I think there is a really good player in him
Beye: See Davies, and his achievements before he went to the barcodes.
Young: I like him, MON doesnt so much, and I think I would start Cuellar over him on what I have seen.
Harewood: Nothing to see here, move along
-
Reading actually qualified for Europe?
Harewood is off to Rangers, 2 year deal.
Harewood in the Champions League?
-
Why offer a left back, that you aren't sure about and think is too slow, £43k a week though?
It's nuts
Again, with hindsight it looks a rotten deal. At the time, it looked a perfectly good deal and a sound signing, given we had no fit left-back with the season a month away.
Which alone is poor management, and a sign of no forward planning.
Do me a favour. Yes, although O'Neill had a team of coaches telling him to expect his Dutch international left-back to shatter his ankle in a pre-season friendly and never play again for the club, the stubborn eejit refused to spend big on a new left-back earlier in the summer.
-
Reading actually qualified for Europe?
Harewood is off to Rangers, 2 year deal.
Harewood in the Champions League?
Can scottish teams still go into Chumps League, I thought they could only go into the Johnsons Paint trophy or something like that after winning the league.
-
They go into the qualifying for the champions league.
Only the winners do now though (I think)
-
Rangers will enter the Champions League in the group stage as they did last season due to being Scottish champions. It was during this great period that they lost 4-1 at home to giants of the European game Unirea Urzicheni.
Celtic as Second placed team in the SPL face a qualifier against Sporting Braga.
As of next season (11/12) the top placed team will face a qualifier due to shit performances from Scottish teams against giants like Unirea Urziceni and Sigma Olomouc.
-
Sidwell was worth the gamble I think, he actually did play well in his early games, chipped in with a couple of goals and played very well at Arsenal when we won down there before rapidly turning invisible there after so not a signing I'd burn MON at the stake with.
Same for NRC who has played a part in us going from mid table to 6th. But he isn't a player who will turnyou from 6th to top 4 as he's too limited.
Shorey, never really rated him at all tbh. Beye was a signing most were calling for as squad cover.
The thing with the wages is that Beye and Sidwell were earning shed loads at their previous clubs, Sidwell 50 + given he went to Chelsea on a free and given some of the wages Newcastle were rumoured to be paying out wouldn't surprise me if Beye was on that sort of figure aswell. So even with Both coming here and taking a 10k per week pay cut or thereabouts they're still both earning comfortably 2m + a year.
That's the economics it comes down to, do you pay Sidwell and Beye a combined 80k a week or do you decide the squad will cope without both as couyld happen in the next few weeks and sign a very good player on 80k a week. But then the rest of the better first 11 players will start demanding parity.
Ah modern football.
-
Bit of an old thread to resurrect but seems most appropriate seeing as I can't find the answer with the aid of the 'search' function.
A friend who shall remain nameless texted me the other day saying that Curtis Davies had a clause in his contract which meant that if he played another competitive game, we'd be forced to negotiate a new deal with him.
I can't find any reference to that on here, but wondered whether anyone else had heard the same? Or is there a thread about this that I've just managed to miss completely?
-
I believe there is a clause in his contract thats why he hasnt been played much since returning from injury. Out of the 'DEADWOOD' I wont be too dissapointed if Davies stays along with Reo and Luke. As long as the manager is fair with all the players and gives them all a fair crack. on the other hand why hasnt he tried offloading Salifou and Osbourne?
-
So my friend's not the only one to have heard that then? Bit of a coincidence him getting injured pretty much 1 game away from a new deal then.
I don't get why people are so bothered about Salifou being on the payroll and not really being anywhere near the first team. Does anybody know how much he's getting paid, weekly or annually?
Around the time of the attack on the Togolese national team in Angola, MON commented on how popular he was with the other players. Managed to find this article (http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/FootballNewsDetail/0,,10265~1927868,00.html) and this one too (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/10/martin-oneill-pledges-support) where he goes so far as to call him "an exceptional fellow".
He might not be PL-standard, but he has international experience and MON clearly sees him of benefit to the kids in the reserves. So, especially in light of what he went through last year, if RL is quite happy to keep paying him what (comparatively) little I assume he's on, then I personally couldn't give two hoots and wish the bloke well. Having said all that, I actually thought he looked quite good last night.
-
just read,its probably old nws, that Hughes has stopped the Sidwell deal, so another bites the dust. You'd think players from a side that won the Peace Cup finished 6th and went to Wembley would be in demand.
Wonder if the Albion deal will go through can they pay that sort of wage, I wonder.
-
All the players linked with moves;
Davies - Came with a good pedigree, looked good alongside Laursen, looked piss poor afterwards. In hindsight we paid far too much and i would now sell because we are well covered in that dept.
Beye - OK for the money, decent cover at right back, but would now sell because we have Lichaj coming through.
L Young - One of the best full backs i've seen in over 20 years at the club. Some strange goings on behind the scenes on this one, but personally i would say selling him would be a certifiable decision. So keep.
Sidwell - Again i was delighted when we signed him, but he's been disappointing. Seen far worse in a Villa midfield but i would sell, especially if we sign Ireland.
Reo-Coker - Every team, or certainly squad needs a Reo-Coker. Dogged performer, breaks up the opposition well, and sometimes breaks well out of midfield. On the back of his stance that he wants to stay and his performance last night, i would not only keep him but start him against West Ham.
Shorey - Needs too much time on the ball, and suspect to high balls, but to be honest i'd keep him as back up to Warnock.
Harewood - We were all underwelmed when we signed but he deserved a chance. Had a good first season when called upon, but done nothing since. In hindsight we paid too much, but again i've seen worse strikers play for us (ie Carlton Cole). Sell.
Milner - If we get £25m + i would snap there hand off for it. Very good player but no world beater, if we effectively get Ireland, McGeady and Keane for roughly the same money, we will be a better side this season without doubt. Sell (for that amount).
Heskey - Another one i was happy enough with when we signed, but has disappointed. Sell.
A Young - I thought he was going to be the new Dwight Yorke. Never got to that level, and i don't think he ever will, but he is still our most talented attacking threat and i would definately keep. Especially if Milner is going, i would not want to see that much disruption to the team.
-
Sidwell was useless at Chelsea, a slow one dimensional player not good enough for a top team- useless signing.
Downing lost his form edge 2 years ago, gets a broken foot and MON throws the cheque book at him, the worst £ for £ signing for a long time
Harewood decent lower prem nationwide player so why do we buy him
Davies had potential aparently, worse than Cahill but twice the money. Another great bit of business
Shorey not given a real chance but hasnt worked out, probably just not good enough.
Young decent player so why spend a season on the bench watching carlos slice the ball out of touch.
Beye i havent seen emough to know bt cant be worse than Cuellar at RB-baffleing.
All this proves that MON is not exactly king of the transfer market,
-
It was interesting to see a Premier League years thing the other day. NRC looked a different player at west Ham and he made some good rund against Valencia the other night.
I wonder how much of the criticism he gets is down to how he is being asked to play. Just a thought.
-
I think he was the same player at West Ham to be honest. I remember him playing against us at VP and doing everything that we know he's good at. I honestly didn't pay attention to the bits after he won the ball because I was too pissed off with us being muscled off it. I don't think he's suddenly developed an inability to retain possession as I'm guessing that's what's held him back from being a really top player. But we see everything now that he plays for us, and when he does what he's good at, and finds a team mate with the next pass, he's a very valuable asset to have.
-
It was interesting to see a Premier League years thing the other day. NRC looked a different player at west Ham and he made some good rund against Valencia the other night.
I wonder how much of the criticism he gets is down to how he is being asked to play. Just a thought.
If I recall the story right, when he signed for us and said he liked to play as an attacking player. MON asked him how many goals he normally scores, to which the answer was max 2 in a season, and that's why he was going to play him as a holding player. Don't think he ever notched up many assists for us or West Ham either?
I'm an NRC fan, but he's best as a destroyer with the odd forward run as opposed to being asked to be a creative influence.
-
It was interesting to see a Premier League years thing the other day. NRC looked a different player at west Ham and he made some good rund against Valencia the other night.
I wonder how much of the criticism he gets is down to how he is being asked to play. Just a thought.
My guess is that Reo-Coker's problems have come because he doesn't do the job he's been detailed to do ie: the manager wants him to hold and destroy, but he goes off marauding like he's Gerrard.
It's just a guess.
-
The problem with NRC is that there is a good player in there somewhere. Admittedly an incredibly well hidden one.
That's another thing that makes him hugely frustrating player.
-
NRC's strength is his stamina.
NRC was brought in to do the donkey work to let petrov get forward - "our lampard"
it has never transpired like that because petrov is too slow and it has been highlighted in a top league. his fall in output in games after 60 minutes towards the end of the season was alarming and, unless that is managed through rotation, it will happen again.
personally i would keep NRC, but it looks like the club will cash in and we will be lumbered with sidwell instead.