Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: N'ZMAV on February 28, 2012, 03:18:09 PM
-
of £54million despite record revenues of £92million.
Just read on Twitter.
More to follow I assume...
-
Fuck me, no wonder Randy's worried. Oh well, the turnover is getting there.
-
£12million exceptional charges re changes in management!
Turnover up 1.3% to £92million!
Randy has invested an additional £25million!
-
What season is that info for?
-
It could look even better next year.
-
Some good news! Bank borrowings reduced by £8.3million.
All for the year ended 31 May 2011 I think.
-
I was going to say our year end isn't until May. So they have waited until the last possible date to publish the accounts for last year.
-
Anyone got links for all of this?
-
So what HAS Faulkner actually been doing?!
-
So what HAS Faulkner actually been doing?!
He's increased turnover to a record level. The cost side is harder to address as the most significant cost is players' wages and they're on X year contracts.
-
So, if we've made £92m and have lossed on £54m, that should mean we've spent £146m? I'd like to no where!!
If it's 01/06/10 to 31/05/11, then wages would be higher than they are now, but wasn't the peak soemthing like 80% of turnover, so therefore about £74m. And we also bought Bent in that period, but incoming was the Milner money, which almost balances that out - say £8m defecit. So where did we the other £64m get spent??
-
So what HAS Faulkner actually been doing?!
He's increased turnover to a record level. The cost side is harder to address as the most significant cost is players' wages and they're on X year contracts.
You're right, although chasing turnover at the expense of profit seems like fools' activity.
Having said that, I haven't scrutinised these figues so perhaps it's too early to make sarcky comments about Faulkner.
-
Those figures will have the Bent and Makoun purchases ,plus manager pay offs of £12mil but not the Young and Downing Sales.I wonder if that revenue includes the Genting sponsership money that along with player sales and layers who left on free's but are off the wage bill should makes thing look alot better for next season..however it does show that relegation would leav eus in a very bad way.
-
£12m on 'exceptional charges' in relation to managerial changes is enough to bring tears to the eyes.
-
And presuming these figures are pre-Young/Downing sales (which I assume they must be) then it goes some way to explaining with the latter we changed our tact quite quickly on selling him.
-
£12m on 'exceptional charges' in relation to managerial changes is enough to bring tears to the eyes.
That doesn't include the compensation we paid the Rags to talk to McCleish.
-
Exactly - O'Neill (plus staff) & Houllier (plus staff) only! £12m!!!
-
I could have saved the villa millions in wasted wages. DONT SIGN OVER AGE OVER RATED PLAYERS LIKE HESKEY ON65K A WEEK.
Simples :)
Who advised on that one? and all the others that were signed on stupid salaries Beye anyone?
-
nothing available for "Reform Acquisitions Ltd" from Companies House yet for details. A quick overview can be found at: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05891280 when the financials are published by Companies House.
Would expect bad results for 2010/11 and probably again for 2011/12 - lets hope last years player sales and this years contract expiry dates finally get us on an even keel.
-
When did Houllier leave? Is his payoff included? I have a suspicion it might not be.
-
His departure was officially announced on the 1st June, so we are to assume all compensation was agreed by May 31st.
Not sure about Gary McAllister though.
Edit: Just checked, GM officially left on 18th June, so will only appear in next yearsaccounts.
-
When was O'Neill's and AM's compo agreed?
-
Wouldnt have happened on Dougs watch!
-
When was O'Neill's and AM's compo agreed?
We reached agreement with the Scab on 25th of May. We agreed to pay the Rags on 11th of July, so it will only appear in next years accounts.
-
Why do football managers have such contracts? In what other jobs does sacking for gross incompetence result in compensation?
-
Why do football managers have such contracts? In what other jobs does sacking for gross incompetence result in compensation?
I would imagine that they do not literally breach their contracts, i.e. they put teams out which comply with the relevant rules. it would be very hard to prove that poor performance was due to a breach of contract or negligence.
-
I doubt if transfer fees are the issue. It's the 12 million (which may or may not include Houllier + staff) for management changes and the ridiculous salaries we have been paying.
I assume the figure will include both O'Neill's and Houllier's departures, even though some of that cost was borne after 31st May.
It still boils my piss that O'Neill was allowed to throw money out of the window left right and centre, and then help himself to a wedge after shitting on the doorstep on the way out. Far more damaging to the club than the 'five days before kick-off' issue, which was bad enough in itself.
-
His departure was officially announced on the 1st June, so we are to assume all compensation was agreed by May 31st.
Not sure about Gary McAllister though.
Edit: Just checked, GM officially left on 18th June, so will only appear in next yearsaccounts.
In all likelihood they made an accrual for it.....surely.......
-
I don't want Randy to sell up and move on because he just ain't rich enough to make us compete. I want him to sell up because he has no idea how to run a football club and is going to ruin us.
-
His departure was officially announced on the 1st June, so we are to assume all compensation was agreed by May 31st.
Not sure about Gary McAllister though.
Edit: Just checked, GM officially left on 18th June, so will only appear in next yearsaccounts.
In all likelihood they made an accrual for it.....surely.......
Nope. Somebody made a hell of a lot of money dumping on Aston Villa.
-
I wonder if Ellis Short has been keeping an eye on this?
-
More great news. This really has been shit season.
-
Does anyone know what grounds O'Neill has for getting £12 million (if it's that - or even half of that).
Are we to conclude that Villa did something wrong?
-
Are we to conclude that Villa did something wrong?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
-
What the fuck have we paid MON upwards of 6million for? The little fuckwit walked out on us. One could accuse him of being a thieving bastard if he did get that sort of payout after resigning his job. It also suggests Villa have a mightily shit CEO, and a very, very poor legal team overseeing contracts.
-
£6m+!? I never thought it possible but I now hate that pube-headed poisonous dwarf even more.
-
I am being conservative. I reckon Houllier would have been 2-3million maybe - but MON rumours at the time were significantly more than 6 million, and this simply confirms that suspicion. We were taken to the cleaners by a bloke that walked out 5 days before the season. I might quit my job tomorrow and claim some cash. Only in football.
-
See, I know enough about commercial realities that if it was a technical point, or something slightly embarrassing, you might offer a gesture amount to settle, so you don't have to waste time on fighting the case, and to protect against the risk of losing.
So to settle at £6m or £12m, O'Neill must have had them by the balls, or it must have been some grievous breach of the law.
-
What the fuck have we paid MON upwards of 6million for? The little fuckwit walked out on us. One could accuse him of being a thieving bastard if he did get that sort of payout after resigning his job. It also suggests Villa have a mightily shit CEO, and a very, very poor legal team overseeing contracts.
My guess is lost earnings in the 12 months (a season) it took to reach an agreement plus a one year salary compensation for constructive dismissal, even though he resigned. At £3.5m a year, £7m in the bank for doing nowt other than dumping on Aston Villa is good money in anybody's book.
-
Is it bad news that comes in threes?? Bent out for the season,now this,whats tomorrow,contract extension for McCleish?
-
He'd be claiming constructive dismissal if he resigned, not unfair dismissal.
-
He'd be claiming constructive dismissal if he resigned, not unfair dismissal.
Indeed.
-
His departure was officially announced on the 1st June, so we are to assume all compensation was agreed by May 31st.
Not sure about Gary McAllister though.
Edit: Just checked, GM officially left on 18th June, so will only appear in next yearsaccounts.
No will not be allowed it is an after year end event
In all likelihood they made an accrual for it.....surely.......
-
Seriously if this was a normal trading business, we would be in adminstration . If Lerner had to pump in 25 million we got serious issues
-
And that's before next season when "nobody" is going to renew.
-
Mcliesh will see out contract, sell to buy policy, selling club with any future talent, no big signings. SHAMBLES
-
Were in the shit , dropping like a brick
-
Well i guess it just shows what an utter mug lerner was, but I can't help thinking it would have been cheaper if he'd just done a national tv and radio campaign advertising the fact - accounts are so dull. It looks like no-one was watching the balance sheet despite them saying differently at the time (to utter disbelief from yours truly). MON's pay-off is what you'd expect from the man - not an honourable bone in his body. I just hope he was Doug's choice otherwise I wouldn't trust Lerner anywhere near a new managerial appointment
-
Two things:
I have more sympathy for Randy now.
The size of the sum likely paid to O'Neill shows legally he was in the right when he walked out. We can shout all the bile at him we like but he was, apparently wronged when he left so can we leave all this "he walked out of the club five days before the start of the season" nonsense behind us. None of the evidence points to this being anything like true.
-
It's not nonsense. That's exactly what he did.
-
Two things:
I have more sympathy for Randy now.
The size of the sum likely paid to O'Neill shows legally he was in the right when he walked out. We can shout all the bile at him we like but he was, apparently wronged when he left so can we leave all this "he walked out of the club five days before the start of the season" nonsense behind us. None of the evidence points to this being anything like true.
Rubbish its exactly what he did. Martin O'Neill walked out on the club five days before the start of the season and left us completely and utterly in the shit. No debate. No arguement. FACT.
-
Maybe this will force their hand re: McLeish if season ticket sales plummet in June. It would mean a short term hit as yet again we pay off a manager but surely the loss of ST revenue and associated match day sales of food etc would dwarf this?
On the other hand they may be even more determined to give him more time to avoid more compensation payments, a thought that scares the shit out of me.
-
Is it bad news that comes in threes?? Bent out for the season,now this,whats tomorrow,contract extension for McCleish?
Worse. Emile's just signed another three and a half year contract or until he scores again, which ever happens sooner.
-
Two things:
I have more sympathy for Randy now.
The size of the sum likely paid to O'Neill shows legally he was in the right when he walked out. We can shout all the bile at him we like but he was, apparently wronged when he left so can we leave all this "he walked out of the club five days before the start of the season" nonsense behind us. None of the evidence points to this being anything like true.
or it could be he's a litigious little c*nt who employs an army of lawyers to sue everyone down to website's publishing critical letters from fans and Lerner didn't want 12 months of shit with all his dirty laundry washed in public.
-
Does a £54million loss and dropping us all in the shit mean Faulkner etc can get some obscene bonuses or would they have to move to RBS or similar for that ?
-
Pretty sure it was commented at the time we gave Houllier a very generous deal to come out of retirement. He signed a contract for 3 years and pretty sure he was on 2-3m a year.
The figures don't look good but tbf as others have said Downing and Young sales not included nor their wages or those of Friedel, NRC, L. Young, Carew etc coming off the wage bill so I'd be more interested to see the situation 6 months down the line.
-
i wanna know where these losses are coming from re the salaries. Surely they must have dropped a bit seeing we were letting players go left right and centre or will we eventually find out we've been paying Ivanhoe 20m a year?
-
i wanna know where these losses are coming from re the salaries. Surely they must have dropped a bit seeing we were letting players go left right and centre or will we eventually find out we've been paying Ivanhoe 20m a year?
The big clear-out was last summer and wouldn't affect these figues.
-
we still lost the likes of milner, carew, shorey, harewood, davies, sidewell? all big earners
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
-
I am no accountant but clearly plenty of you are. I would ask you a question. How different do you think these figures would be if the little rat had not walked out but stayed and kept us hovering sixth-ish?
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
well thats it really - I can't imagine Lerner fancied it all out in the open given his media allergy. Could have gone for much more just in costs if they'd took him on and you're not just fighting MON, you're fighting his public image just like the tax man was with redknapp. I think they just wanted shot of the whole business
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
The evidence must have been compelling to support MON's case for constructive dismissal, so the Villa legal team would have suggested an out of court settlement. At least that saved on the legal fees I suppose.
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
The evidence must have been compelling to support MON's case for constructive dismissal, so the Villa legal team would have suggested an out of court settlement. At least that saved on the legal fees I suppose.
And Americans are generally very law-averse.
RL will have said: "do whatever it takes to get the issue closed out".
For a man on a rolling 12 month contract, MON seems to have absolutely tonked them.
Move on from the accounts. It's the future that matters.
-
we still lost the likes of milner, carew, shorey, harewood, davies, sidewell? all big earners
Milner's wages were replaced by Ireland's, Sidwell's by Makoun's (possibly). Carew didn't leave before June 2011, and even though we sold Davies in January, and Shorey and Harewood the summer before, we bought Bent - so maybe not too much saved overall.
-
Our bright one?
-
MON was backed into a corner and felt he had no option but to walk, claiming constructive dismissal and won his case. It would seem that Randy had decided not to back his manager any longer. I can't help thinking that Paul Faulkner has a lot to answer in all this. Just before MON went Faulkner came in, and our financial decision making has been terrible ever since. MON had his faults, but Faulkner seems to making some terrible decisions that threaten to drag us down. Was Faulkner the one who decided the Milner money should not be spent? That in my opinion was the start of the end.
-
Robin Russell, Villa's chief financial officer, said: "The board is confident that the actions taken since the end of the 2010-11 financial year have galvanised the longer-term sustainability of the club and have given us a better financial platform on which to build for future success."
Or to put that another way, "we're skint and you'd better get used to it".
full text in the Guardian here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/28/aston-villa-losses)
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
Right. You don't pay any former employee 6 million quid (or more) unless you severly cocked-up. Time to stop blaming MON for the errors of Randy and the board.
-
MON was backed into a corner and felt he had no option but to walk, claiming constructive dismissal and won his case. It would seem that Randy had decided not to back his manager any longer. I can't help thinking that Paul Faulkner has a lot to answer in all this. Just before MON went Faulkner came in, and our financial decision making has been terrible ever since. MON had his faults, but Faulkner seems to making some terrible decisions that threaten to drag us down. Was Faulkner the one who decided the Milner money should not be spent? That in my opinion was the start of the end.
Or Faulkner realised that the expenditure was unsustainable and action was needed? We don't know the facts....
-
Any amortisation in there? (Doug's favourite word).
I wonder how much they write down Heskey each year?
-
Thanks Randy, for fucking up The Villa. You've managed to do what Doug never could.
-
Faulkner was at the club when Villa played Litex in the Uefa Cup in 2008. He was employed by the club, but not CEO at that time. In a meeting with someone I know, he told them his job was to speak with players agents and arrange contracts. He told them he was a Director of Football. He was apparently a very nice bloke. He also stated that he was Randy's right hand man, and they were very close. These things I have been told
I personally think that the issue O'Neill had was with Faulkner, not Randy and not Villa as a whole. I think that there was a massive breakdown in their relationship, leading to O'Neill walking.
-
Robin Russell, Villa's chief financial officer, said: "The board is confident that the actions taken since the end of the 2010-11 financial year have galvanised the longer-term sustainability of the club and have given us a better financial platform on which to build for future success."
Or to put that another way, "we're skint and you'd better get used to it".
full text in the Guardian here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/28/aston-villa-losses)
I read that earlier. It makes me feel like we're just going to pootle around in mid-table for the rest of eternity. I suppose its better than going out of business.
-
Fuck O'Neill.
-
I am no accountant but clearly plenty of you are. I would ask you a question. How different do you think these figures would be if the little rat had not walked out but stayed and kept us hovering sixth-ish?
based on it cost us £12mil to move him on and the extra TV place money between £15 and £20mil that is a guess without being an accountant and not anylising the numbers
-
No matter what the topic is, it always comes back to the Poison Dwarf.
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
It seems pretty obvious to me.
They were caught flat footed when he bailed (to the extent that Lerner, having been in the UK for a few days prior, quickly had to fly back) and the thought of paying the little twerp anything was like salt in the axe wound. Even if he was entitled to it.
Whether that money was due to him because of image rights, meeting targets (European qualification/ cup final/ cup semi) we can only speculate. He also quit early August - mirroring the time he joined us in 2006. So maybe his rolling contract had just started. Whereas if he'd walked in July he'd have been entitled to nowt. Whatever it was, there seems there was enough ambiguity for the club to believe they could get away with not paying it. Or maybe they didn't. Perhaps all they ever wanted to do was not pay him the full whack he was requesting, and arbitration helped them in this regard.
Regardless, if he had been truly wronged in the Curbishley sense -players sold from under him and all the rest of it- and if he knew he was on solid ground, why not proceed with the claim? Surely -in that instance- it would have been better to have it all out there, indisputable - as a matter of public record?
-
I am no accountant but clearly plenty of you are. I would ask you a question. How different do you think these figures would be if the little rat had not walked out but stayed and kept us hovering sixth-ish?
================================
It depends had he been allowed to 'not redue the wage bill' then about the same / slightly better but 11-12 figures would have been a lot worse.
Faulkner has a lot to answer for post O'Neill. I suspect that the O'Neill used PF 'elevation' maybe as his direct boss as the grounds for legal challenge. Whatever O'Neill's faults, PF has proved to be way out of his depth in his role of replacing him - one piss poor ill has been appointment and one even worse.
-
Proud history, bright future......does anyone have 50p for the meter?
-
Robin Russell, Villa's chief financial officer, said: "The board is confident that the actions taken since the end of the 2010-11 financial year have galvanised the longer-term sustainability of the club and have given us a better financial platform on which to build for future success."
Or to put that another way, "we're skint and you'd better get used to it".
full text in the Guardian here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/28/aston-villa-losses)
That may well have been the case had they made a reasonable choice for a manager.What they have done by signing Mcleish on a huge contract has compounded the situation and will see the figures for all forms of revenue drop considerabley next season.
On the MON situation they should have fought to clear their name and should now come forward and tell their side as it does look even more as though they have something to hide.
-
O'Neill must have been sacked.
-
One thing Pat Murphy did allude to was part of the issue in the latter part of the MON era was that RL was 'not just down the corridor.'
This wasn't an issue in previous years, but might have been when Faulkner was made Chief Exec in May 2010. Essentially meaning MON couldn't go above Faulkner's head anymore if he didn't get his own way, or the answers he was looking for.
-
Faulkner was at the club when Villa played Litex in the Uefa Cup in 2008. He was employed by the club, but not CEO at that time. In a meeting with someone I know, he told them his job was to speak with players agents and arrange contracts. He told them he was a Director of Football. He was apparently a very nice bloke. He also stated that he was Randy's right hand man, and they were very close. These things I have been told
I personally think that the issue O'Neill had was with Faulkner, not Randy and not Villa as a whole. I think that there was a massive breakdown in their relationship, leading to O'Neill walking.
Arranging player contracts? So would it be his fault that we have suffered from so much overpaid dross.
-
O'Neill must have been sacked.
Constructive dismissal mate. Randy and PF must have been dumb to walk into that one. How can a man on a one year rolling contract be constructively dismissed? It beggars belief. I'm starting to rue the day this idiot savant second generation Ivy League playboy ever cast eyes on us.
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
It seems pretty obvious to me.
They were caught flat footed when he bailed (to the extent that Lerner, having been in the UK for a few days prior, quickly had to fly back) and the thought of paying the little twerp anything was like salt in the axe wound. Even if he was entitled to it.
Whether that money was due to him because of image rights, meeting targets (European qualification/ cup final/ cup semi) we can only speculate. He also quit early August - mirroring the time he joined us in 2006. So maybe his rolling contract had just started. Whereas if he'd walked in July he'd have been entitled to nowt. Whatever it was, there seems there was enough ambiguity for the club to believe they could get away with not paying it. Or maybe they didn't. Perhaps all they ever wanted to do was not pay him the full whack he was requesting, and arbitration helped them in this regard.
Regardless, if he had been truly wronged in the Curbishley sense -players sold from under him and all the rest of it- and if he knew he was on solid ground, why not proceed with the claim? Surely -in that instance- it would have been better to have it all out there, indisputable - as a matter of public record?
Gagey you and me may be like that. I would take a reduced 'settlement' if it meant some e.g tabloid weasel had to apologise to me and my family and my hamster etc in public... O'Neill thought the deck was stacked in his favour and settled for e.g. £5m and his good name not tarnished as opposed to £3m and his name in lights. Lerner thought the 'extra' £2m not worth the legal battle/dragging Villa through the mud. Maybe - who knows it's all supposition. But O'Neill was on solid ground from a legal employment point of view.
Why the fuck football doesn't have a form of performance related pay for all playing and coaching staff is beyond me as results are transparent and obvious. They used to - nowadays they are paid huge sums regardless
-
Kevin: as I understand it, a 12-month rolling contract means you always have 12 months left on your contract, whether you leave in July or August. Ron Saunders resigned when Bendall told him that his three-year rolling contract had been ripped up which meant he was entering the last three years of a standard one.
-
PF? Drector of Football? You couldn't make it up.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/28/aston-villa-losses
David Conn who wrote this in the guardian was just interviewed on TalkSport.
Really interesting. About how many owners were known to general fans and the public even beyond the local fans about 10-15 years ago (hardly anybody) and how many, now. (loads in the PL and in the Cjhampionship if they have made major mistakes!)
Also, about how many owners would turn up, week after week, to watch the match. Yes, even in the good ol days before the russians and the sheiks. Hardly anybody apart from Deadly, of course. So nowadays is not that different, was his argument. They may be thousands of miles overseas right now, but back then some owners were a lot nearer and sat on the yacht or in the garden on a saturday afternoon.
Also spoke about how Villa were built up by Randy, and then; did not mention MON exiting by name but apparently it was absolutely obvious (to all in the football stratosphere that he inhabits) that this had a major effect financially on the club - like, downwards. Also referred to the need to reduce wages and outgoings leading to selling major players and how good an owner RL has been but ultimately, not rich enough to spend another £200million.
Because that's what he actually has spent. £200million.
I'm not surprised he wants to retrench a bit!
-
Fuck O'Neill.
Made me think of "Up yours, up mine, but up everybody's, that takes time. But they're working on it..." And yes I've misquoted it.
-
The very mention of O'Neill has the rose-tinted spectacles being dusted down again.
-
MON was backed into a corner and felt he had no option but to walk, claiming constructive dismissal and won his case. It would seem that Randy had decided not to back his manager any longer. I can't help thinking that Paul Faulkner has a lot to answer in all this. Just before MON went Faulkner came in, and our financial decision making has been terrible ever since. MON had his faults, but Faulkner seems to making some terrible decisions that threaten to drag us down. Was Faulkner the one who decided the Milner money should not be spent? That in my opinion was the start of the end.
Or Faulkner realised that the expenditure was unsustainable and action was needed? We don't know the facts....
Looking at the figures, it'd suggest the later. We've wasted a lot since then, i.e. the 12m but that's only roughly a quarter of the loss. Something had to change and it appears that it was not going to be MON.
-
What it says to me is football is just a mad world where normal rules of employment don't apply, either that or once you reach the £1m a year+ salary bracket you can afford lawyers good enough to unravel any employer and win a substantial payout for resigning....no wonder banks have to pay such big bonuses...
-
Aye Perc,
That's my understanding as well.
But who knows what curious conditions/ definitions were included within his terms of employment. O'Neill, Lerner and that's probably about it.
I flagged the start date and end date as it does seem a wee bit odd to me. And it did seem like he was unhappy far earlier into the summer. It might be purely co-incidence, I agree. But there is a school of thought that says he was 'waiting' to drop us in it. Whether that was just waiting for the most inopportune moment from the clubs point of view, or for his new contract to kick in none of us really know.
Personally, I like to think the best about people (until they prove otherwise) and would genuinely hope that he wasn't sitting and waiting all that time to really drop us in it. My belief is things probably came to a head when he couldn't shift Luke Young and NRC off the wage bill (he quit a matter of days after moves for both fell through). The thought of dealing with that pair, Steve Sidwell, Nicky Shorey and Curtis Davies - combined with not being able to bring in fresh blood until that lot had been cleared- killed any remaining enthusiasm he had for the job. After missing out on the Liverpool gig a few months previous.
The state of Richard Dunne can't have helped matters much either. He must have known he was on a hiding to nothing that season.
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
It seems pretty obvious to me.
They were caught flat footed when he bailed (to the extent that Lerner, having been in the UK for a few days prior, quickly had to fly back) and the thought of paying the little twerp anything was like salt in the axe wound. Even if he was entitled to it.
Whether that money was due to him because of image rights, meeting targets (European qualification/ cup final/ cup semi) we can only speculate. He also quit early August - mirroring the time he joined us in 2006. So maybe his rolling contract had just started. Whereas if he'd walked in July he'd have been entitled to nowt. Whatever it was, there seems there was enough ambiguity for the club to believe they could get away with not paying it. Or maybe they didn't. Perhaps all they ever wanted to do was not pay him the full whack he was requesting, and arbitration helped them in this regard.
Regardless, if he had been truly wronged in the Curbishley sense -players sold from under him and all the rest of it- and if he knew he was on solid ground, why not proceed with the claim? Surely -in that instance- it would have been better to have it all out there, indisputable - as a matter of public record?
The only people that did not want it as public record were Faulkner and Lerner and that is why they signed the cheque. There can be no doubt now that the handling of the MON era was based on complete and utter incompetance on thier part.
-
It has always puzzled me why it took the whole season to resolve the matter. It was almost like he was on 'gardening leave' seeing out his contract i.e. he couldn't move to another club and the club had to pay up his contract.
-
Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.
It seems pretty obvious to me.
They were caught flat footed when he bailed (to the extent that Lerner, having been in the UK for a few days prior, quickly had to fly back) and the thought of paying the little twerp anything was like salt in the axe wound. Even if he was entitled to it.
Whether that money was due to him because of image rights, meeting targets (European qualification/ cup final/ cup semi) we can only speculate. He also quit early August - mirroring the time he joined us in 2006. So maybe his rolling contract had just started. Whereas if he'd walked in July he'd have been entitled to nowt. Whatever it was, there seems there was enough ambiguity for the club to believe they could get away with not paying it. Or maybe they didn't. Perhaps all they ever wanted to do was not pay him the full whack he was requesting, and arbitration helped them in this regard.
Regardless, if he had been truly wronged in the Curbishley sense -players sold from under him and all the rest of it- and if he knew he was on solid ground, why not proceed with the claim? Surely -in that instance- it would have been better to have it all out there, indisputable - as a matter of public record?
The only people that did not want it as public record were Faulkner and Lerner and that is why they signed the cheque. There can be no doubt now that the handling of the MON era was based on complete and utter incompetance on thier part.
That's clearly not the case.
MON is not a pauper.
If he wanted his side of the story aired why accept a payoff?
I do accept he's ran rings around Lerner and Faulkner though - you only have to see how often the settlement is portrayed as a victory in his favour to see that.
-
Why do football managers have such contracts? In what other jobs does sacking for gross incompetence result in compensation?
Banking?
-
The very mention of O'Neill has the rose-tinted spectacles being dusted down again.
Probably because the the thoughts of 3 progressive seasons of improvement, cup finals and semi finals at Wembley, european football, signing top class young players and taking the game to and beating the sky darlings, as well as providing memorable victories over our local rivals and their useless manager, seem like a lifetime away right now.
-
Heads should fucking roll for these figures.
-
We need the accounts before we can read to much in to this - the figures that have been released are next to nothing. Given the team's year end is 31 May tomorrow is the last day for filing with Companies House before the fines kick in (although I'm sure the Villa can afford £100 - but it's the reputational issue).
One point to make though is that player trading and the effect it has on the accounts is not based on cash. Players are considered to be assets and their transfer fees go to the balance sheet initially and don't form part of profit and loss. The cost then goes to profit or loss over the length of their contract. You could therefore have a slightly bizarre situation (to a non-accountant at least) where getting rid of players before the end of their contract for much less than we paid for them can actually increase the loss significantly, despite getting their wages off the books and not incurring any cash expenditure. Until we see the accounts and the impact of player trading on them it's very difficult to judge exactly where the club is financially - these losses, whilst being the largest we've ever seen, could actually relate to money spent many years ago.
-
Faulkner was at the club when Villa played Litex in the Uefa Cup in 2008. He was employed by the club, but not CEO at that time. In a meeting with someone I know, he told them his job was to speak with players agents and arrange contracts. He told them he was a Director of Football. He was apparently a very nice bloke. He also stated that he was Randy's right hand man, and they were very close. These things I have been told
I personally think that the issue O'Neill had was with Faulkner, not Randy and not Villa as a whole. I think that there was a massive breakdown in their relationship, leading to O'Neill walking.
Arranging player contracts? So would it be his fault that we have suffered from so much overpaid dross.
Well, he would certainly have contributed. O'Neill would still have to take some for suggesting/asking/wanting players in the first place, such as Heskey and Beye, but being lumbered with them on massive contracts is perhaps the doing of Faulkner, and some fault would need to lie with him.
-
So in simple terms buying NRC for £8mil then him leaving for nothing would now show as a £8mil loss ?
-
MON was backed into a corner and felt he had no option but to walk,
Of course he had another option. He could have stayed doing the job he was ridiculously well paid to do, except that for the first time he might have had to work under a few restrictions, just like every other manager has to. We're not talking some young secretary being sexually harassed or an office junior getting bullied; this was an intelligent and driven man in one of the most high-powered professions in the country. I fail to see how anyone can excuse his behaviour.
-
'Pube-Head' Vs H&V Received Wisdom
H&V Received Wisdom: He's got a head of pubes
'Pube-Head': £6-12 million in compensation for constructive dismissal, Paul Faulkner, Alex McLeish, relegation battle
-
MON was backed into a corner and felt he had no option but to walk,
Of course he had another option. He could have stayed doing the job he was ridiculously well paid to do, except that for the first time he might have had to work under a few restrictions, just like every other manager has to. We're not talking some young secretary being sexually harassed or an office junior getting bullied; this was an intelligent and driven man in one of the most high-powered professions in the country. I fail to see how anyone can excuse his behaviour.
Agree. And even if he couldn't handle the restrictions he was going to be placed under it wasn't as if they were news to him when he left. He would have known for some time and could and should have left earlier if he couldn't handle them. Instead he left at the most spiteful time designed to damage the club.
-
Stop blaming mon for financial issues , those are firmly down to Faulkner , he is ceo and responsible for business mgmt. If Lerner had not put 25m in we would be in serious trouble . We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
-
So in simple terms buying NRC for £8mil then him leaving for nothing would now show as a £8mil loss ?
So in simple terms buying NRC for £8mil then him leaving for nothing would now show
as a £8mil loss ?
No we right transfer down over contract
So in simple terms buying NRC for £8mil then him leaving for nothing would now show as a £8mil loss ?
So in simple terms buying NRC for £8mil then him leaving for nothing would now show as a £8mil loss ?
-
Stop blaming mon for financial issues , those are firmly down to Faulkner , he is ceo and responsible for business mgmt. If Lerner had not put 25m in we would be in serious trouble . We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
yeah but one of our problems is we've a lot of ageing players on stupidly big money.
That's partly MON's fault (for thinking they were worth it, let alone then not bothering to use them) and Lerner's for being so blindly loyal in agreeing with everything he asked him for for four years.
-
So in simple terms buying NRC for £8mil then him leaving for nothing would now show as a £8mil loss ?
Almost.
Let's say we sign NRC for £8m on a four year contract in June 2008 (I can't remember the exact details). The £8m then gets released to profit and loss evenly over his four year contract. If he leaves after just less than two years for nothing it would show as an effective £6m loss in that year's accounts (ie the £2m charge for that year plus the £4m that would've been charged over the rest of his contract). If he left after just less than three years (ie just before he started the final year of his contract) we'd get a £4m loss impact in that year.
On the flip side, signing Bent for £24m in January last year on a four and a half year contract will have had very little impact on these accounts (c.£2 for four months worth of amortisation out of a total of 54 months).
Player trading can have very strange effects on the profitability of clubs.
-
We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
Where do you get this from? The figures released show bank borrowings have fallen by £8.3m which suggests cash has improved significantly.
-
I must be missing something here. Are some people suggesting that MON was able to claim constructive dismissal simply becasue he wasn't given enough money to spend? Couldn't almost any manager claim this at some point? How on earth did he resign yet end up in such a strong bargaining position that he walked away with millions? Something smells fishy.
-
I cant believe anybody is making excuses for that turncoat pubeheaded twat.
A lot of our troubles are down to him and he skipped off into the sunset at the first sign of trouble. A ****** of the first water.
-
Stop blaming mon for financial issues , those are firmly down to Faulkner , he is ceo and responsible for business mgmt.
larf. yeh i'm sure Lerner and faulkner kept forcing expensive buys on MON. The reality was it the only way they could keep him happy, and when the penny finally dropped that his piss poor "Mcleish on a lottery win" style of football would never get into the top4 they said no more and he walked. He's got a history of walking out on clubs when he doesn't get his way. We won't be the last thats for sure,
"
-
The very mention of O'Neill has the rose-tinted spectacles being dusted down again.
yep
-
MON was backed into a corner and felt he had no option but to walk,
Of course he had another option. He could have stayed doing the job he was ridiculously well paid to do, except that for the first time he might have had to work under a few restrictions, just like every other manager has to. We're not talking some young secretary being sexually harassed or an office junior getting bullied; this was an intelligent and driven man in one of the most high-powered professions in the country. I fail to see how anyone can excuse his behaviour.
I'm going to excuse his behavior, and this is why:
All the facts surrounding MON's departure are not public knowledge, only the club and MON really know everything that went on and what order it happened in. However, whatever the fine details, the means of his departure was enough for the club settle out of court for at least 6million quid - presumably if they had let it carry on it may well have been more - so it must be serious. My guess is that MON was essentially sacked, and he sought (& won) unfair dismissal.
I have no problem with MON over the way he left the club at all....some of the players he signed and their contracts though....well that's a whole different kettle of fish.
-
I am utterly amazed that the departure of O'Neill is now being spun into an almost honourable act by some on here on the baldly hypothetical assumption that "something serious must have happened that we do not know about" Like what? Like he was told to stop wasting money on players he never used? Like no you can't have Scott parker on a hundred grand a week?
In life I have found that the sifting of the runes and the spinning of hypotheses is a much inferior way of getting to the truth than the Basil Fawlty approach that a statement of the blindingly bleedin' obvious rules.
He ratted on us.
-
I must be missing something here. Are some people suggesting that MON was able to claim constructive dismissal simply becasue he wasn't given enough money to spend?
I don't get this either. A request for cut-backs cannot be construed as constructive dismissal, surely.
-
We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
Yes by Lerner putting further 25m in which equals 17m outflow
Where do you get this from? The figures released show bank borrowings have fallen by £8.3m which suggests cash has improved significantly.
-
Stop blaming mon for financial issues , those are firmly down to Faulkner , he is ceo and responsible for business mgmt.
Sorry Greg these accounts relate to the year when he bought no one, and we raised 20 m from sale of Milner. Even if we paid 6m to mon. And I am not defending him. Lerner still allowed legally to get position to allow him to sue and secondly allowed
Faulkner to run a company with a reading loss of 42m and need abother loan of 25m
it is a very badly run business, if Lerner called in the debt , we would be in adminstration
larf. yeh i'm sure Lerner and faulkner kept forcing expensive buys on MON. The reality was it the only way they could keep him happy, and when the penny finally dropped that his piss poor "Mcleish on a lottery win" style of football would never get into the top4 they said no more and he walked. He's got a history of walking out on clubs when he doesn't get his way. We won't be the last thats for sure,
"
-
does it really matter how we came to be so financially mired? The fact is we are, and the people responsible are, bar one, still in control, and show no sign of going anywhere. I can't reveal sources, but but my brother in law has corporate legal connections to the PL and Villa specifically. There is no takeover, RL is going nowhere, PF is going nowhere and neither is McFuckwit. I was told the award to MON was the equivalent of his year's rolling contract, the cupboard is empty, we don't have the proverbial pot to piss in and there will be no more compensation payments to anyone. The brutal truth is that ginger came because no other manager would work with the constraints we now have, a financial climate no doubt made even more brutal by ther owner getting his finger's incinerated by MON's blarney and despotic style of management. He was made to look stupid and the last thing he's going to do now is admit to his failings past or present. Quite honestly it's hard to see how we are not fucked on every level at the m oment with no sign that it can get better. right now where is my revolver...
-
We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
Where do you get this from? The figures released show bank borrowings have fallen by £8.3m which suggests cash has improved significantly.
Yes by Lerner putting further 25m in which equals 17m outflow
I'd imagine the £25m was spent on Bent's transfer fee. Hardly an example of a club seeping cash at a rate of £300k per week.
As for your other point about Randy calling in the debt and putting us in administration - well a large proportion of his investment is in shares so he can't just call it in. In any event, why would he? It's not going to be the best way to get his money back.
-
does it really matter how we came to be so financially mired? The fact is we are, and the people responsible are, bar one, still in control, and show no sign of going anywhere. I can't reveal sources, but but my brother in law has corporate legal connections to the PL and Villa specifically. There is no takeover, RL is going nowhere, PF is going nowhere and neither is McFuckwit. I was told the award to MON was the equivalent of his year's rolling contract, the cupboard is empty, we don't have the proverbial pot to piss in and there will be no more compensation payments to anyone. The brutal truth is that ginger came because no other manager would work with the constraints we now have, a financial climate no doubt made even more brutal by ther owner getting his finger's incinerated by MON's blarney and despotic style of management. He was made to look stupid and the last thing he's going to do now is admit to his failings past or present. Quite honestly it's hard to see how we are not fucked on every level at the m oment with no sign that it can get better. right now where is my revolver...
I can't reveal my sources but I know a man in Quatar and we are being taken over and will install Mourinho as manager and sign Messi before next season....god I hate it when people come out with this stuff. If you can't qualify your comments with some evidence then don't say anything. Just because you know someone who has legal connections with the club means nothing. If the club were involved in takeover talks then anyone who was anywhere near the negotiations would have signed a confidentiality agreement and therefore even if asked point blank would have to tell you nothing was happening.
I don't care whether O'Neill was right legally or not, he walked out on us and not only did he leave us up the creek without a paddle, he took the f***ing boat as well !!!
The way I see it now Randy has two choices, sell the club and get back as much of his money as possible or invest more trying to get us some success. I think he knows he does not have the money to reinvest and will therefore sell, what he is doing is trying to get us on an even keel to make us a viable option for someone (a bit like Doug did !!!)
Commercial revenues are growing 16% year on year and we have reduced our debt by £8.3M. With the reduction in operating costs we have seen over the last 12 months I would suggest the balance sheet is not this bad now.
When Doug was in charge he got battered for never wanting us to be in debt and never wanting us to make a loss, now Randy is getting pelters for doing just that, we can't have it both ways.
As far as I can tell the worst thing Randy has done is appoint McLeish (which is the worst thing he could have done to be fair !) and appoint Faulkner who appears to us on the outside to not have a clue but then we don't know what his remit was when he was appointed. He may be doing exactly what was required and Randy asked for.
-
I cant believe anybody is making excuses for that turncoat pubeheaded twat.
A lot of our troubles are down to him and he skipped off into the sunset at the first sign of trouble. A c*** of the first water.
With regard to the money that MON wasted on players and wages etc...
Can he be blamed completely for that? The person who signed off the cheque has to take some of the blame!
MON shares the blame for suggesting we sign some of the dross, and the board take the blame for letting him do it!
Ultimatley the people holding the purse strings have the responsibility to make sure things are progressing as they have planned.
-
Robin Russell, Villa's chief financial officer, said: "The board is confident that the actions taken since the end of the 2010-11 financial year have galvanised the longer-term sustainability of the club and have given us a better financial platform on which to build for future success."
Or to put that another way, "we're skint and you'd better get used to it".
full text in the Guardian here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/28/aston-villa-losses)
This "full text" implies that the AY / SD money is contained in the poor figures, but surely they will be in this year's numbers, coming after the end of May 2011?
-
Surely we didn't have to pay Houllier much. Surely we would have taken his health risks into account when we employed him and would have had clauses we could trigger in our favour if there were any signs his troubles reccurring. Surely we would have. Surely.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/28/aston-villa-losses
David Conn who wrote this in the guardian was just interviewed on TalkSport.
Really interesting. About how many owners were known to general fans and the public even beyond the local fans about 10-15 years ago (hardly anybody) and how many, now. (loads in the PL and in the Cjhampionship if they have made major mistakes!)
Also, about how many owners would turn up, week after week, to watch the match. Yes, even in the good ol days before the russians and the sheiks. Hardly anybody apart from Deadly, of course. So nowadays is not that different, was his argument. They may be thousands of miles overseas right now, but back then some owners were a lot nearer and sat on the yacht or in the garden on a saturday afternoon.
Also spoke about how Villa were built up by Randy, and then; did not mention MON exiting by name but apparently it was absolutely obvious (to all in the football stratosphere that he inhabits) that this had a major effect financially on the club - like, downwards. Also referred to the need to reduce wages and outgoings leading to selling major players and how good an owner RL has been but ultimately, not rich enough to spend another £200million.
Because that's what he actually has spent. £200million.
I'm not surprised he wants to retrench a bit!
Quite, Louise.
But we still come back to the manner of MON's departure: the spiteful and vindictive timing, followed up by a protracted legal dispute, has knocked the stufffing out of Lerner as well as stripped the cash cupboard somewhat.
-
The way I see it now Randy has two choices, sell the club and get back as much of his money as possible or invest more trying to get us some success. I think he knows he does not have the money to reinvest and will therefore sell, what he is doing is trying to get us on an even keel to make us a viable option for someone (a bit like Doug did !!!)
Well, I think he's following the third option - batten down the hatches and try and tough out the current financial shit-storm in the hope that the FFP rules will level out the playing field a little.
In the end I think he will sell up, but I'm not sure it's going to happen soon.
-
Surely we didn't have to pay Houllier much. Surely we would have taken his health risks into account when we employed him and would have had clauses we could trigger in our favour if there were any signs his troubles reccurring. Surely we would have. Surely.
Just watch the reaction when the results come out for the year in which we paid another team's player a million quid in wages while he was injured!
-
Just on the FFP rules. I think I remember hearing after Citeh released their figures that all UEFA wanted to see was a year on year improvement.
Does it not make sense for us to release a poor set of figures this year and then show improvement next etc. I suppose what I am saying is that is it possible for us to account a lot of "pre-payments" and player transfer fees in this years accounts rather than spread them over time? Financial bods will know more than me.
-
One or two things that may be encouraging for next years results.
Increase in Sponsorship revenue. Last year was the first time we had a sponsor for 2 years. FXpro, who we cut ties with about this time last year. Perhaps there was a loss in income there as the contract was terminated early. Genting will be paying us more I'd imagine.
Increase in TV revenue. The current TV deals are massive for clubs currently.
Downing and Young etc transfer income, plus wages which you would imagine have reduced since.
One concerning thing though is matchday revenue. This will almost certainly fall.
Another is whatever we paid Blues for Ecks services
-
Surely we didn't have to pay Houllier much. Surely we would have taken his health risks into account when we employed him and would have had clauses we could trigger in our favour if there were any signs his troubles reccurring. Surely we would have. Surely.
Jermaine Jenus
-
Well we wont be paying out much on win bonuses this year.
-
Surely we didn't have to pay Houllier much. Surely we would have taken his health risks into account when we employed him and would have had clauses we could trigger in our favour if there were any signs his troubles reccurring. Surely we would have. Surely.
Just watch the reaction when the results come out for the year in which we paid another team's player a million quid in wages while he was injured!
Ad@m , beat me to it , was just going to post the same thing. The club is being run terribly from top to bottom . well , Im sure the tea lady is doing a great job.
-
Surely we didn't have to pay Houllier much. Surely we would have taken his health risks into account when we employed him and would have had clauses we could trigger in our favour if there were any signs his troubles reccurring. Surely we would have. Surely.
Just watch the reaction when the results come out for the year in which we paid another team's player a million quid in wages while he was injured!
Ad@m , beat me to it , was just going to post the same thing. The club is being run terribly from top to bottom . well , Im sure the tea lady is doing a great job.
Yeah but Makoun should balance that one out. He has been injured for a long stretch in Greece.
-
In Express and Star
http://www.expressandstar.com/sport/aston-villa-fc/2012/02/29/aston-villa-look-to-future-after-their-53m-loss/
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
-
It's compounding the error. Like putting out a fire with Kerosene.
You dont get Frank Spencer to drive your £2m F1 car because Reubens Barichello took you to the cleaners.
-
It's compounding the error. Like putting out a fire with Kerosene.
You dont get Frank Spencer to drive your £2m F1 car because Reubens Barichello took you to the cleaners.
Very good.
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
Sticking with him may well end up costing us a lot more.
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
McLeish signed a three year deal on £2m a year, so getting rid in the summer, if it comes to that, should cost us £4m max.
-
The summer might be too late.
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
McLeish signed a three year deal on £2m a year, so getting rid in the summer, if it comes to that, should cost us £4m max.
Bargain. Best signing of the summer.
-
Then we'd probably give some no-mark club another few mill for the next Mike Bassett.
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
McLeish signed a three year deal on £2m a year, so getting rid in the summer, if it comes to that, should cost us £4m max.
We don't know that, though.
We don't know what the termination clauses in his contract are.
-
It's compounding the error. Like putting out a fire with Kerosene.
You dont get Frank Spencer to drive your £2m F1 car because Reubens Barichello took you to the cleaners.
Ooooh Betty, the cat's done a huge shit in my helmet.
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
Sticking with him may well end up costing us a lot more.
yeah, but I suspect the people running the club can't see that.
I reckon they think he's doing a good job. That's how detached from reality they seem to me.
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
McLeish signed a three year deal on £2m a year, so getting rid in the summer, if it comes to that, should cost us £4m max.
We don't know that, though.
We don't know what the termination clauses in his contract are.
Surely they can't be written in such a way that it costs more to sack him than it does employ him?
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
McLeish signed a three year deal on £2m a year, so getting rid in the summer, if it comes to that, should cost us £4m max.
We don't know that, though.
We don't know what the termination clauses in his contract are.
Surely they can't be written in such a way that it costs more to sack him than it does employ him?
This is Aston Villa we're talking about.We're paying another clubs injured players wages
-
The £12m spent on managerial compensation is the main reason why we're stuck with McLeish, I suspect.
McLeish signed a three year deal on £2m a year, so getting rid in the summer, if it comes to that, should cost us £4m max.
We don't know that, though.
We don't know what the termination clauses in his contract are.
Surely they can't be written in such a way that it costs more to sack him than it does employ him?
Not necessarily, but we have no idea what is in there termination-wise. Nothing would surprise me.
-
I wouldn't be suprised if there were no performance related clauses in McLeish's contract. This is a board who after all, forgot to include an injury clause into the loan deal for Jermaine "please sir, I think that sudden gust of wind just hyperrotated my pelvis" Jenas and decided that Emile Heskey was worth a contract lasting the same as the Assyrian Empire and will ultimately cost us something like £20m.
-
Not necessarily, but we have no idea what is in there termination-wise. Nothing would surprise me.
Very true.
It may have been such a termination clause in MON's contract that tirggered such a big payout, on the grounds it was constructive dismissal.
-
This man recommended Heskey at £60k p/w for 5 years as good business amongst other similarly fantastic bargains, then left us on the eve of a season with all his own mess strewn across our lawn. Far from winning a court case against the club, he should be dragged through the streets of Birmingham, whipped with stinging nettles as he goes before being scourged and crucified on Hodge Hill.
-
We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
With trading losses of circa 40m you going to be seeping cash, I manage working capital of SME business for a job and losses equate to cash in medium term
Where do you get this from? The figures released show bank borrowings have fallen by £8.3m which suggests cash has improved significantly.
Yes by Lerner putting further 25m in which equals 17m outflow
I'd imagine the £25m was spent on Bent's transfer fee. Hardly an example of a club seeping cash at a rate of £300k per week.
As for your other point about Randy calling in the debt and putting us in administration - well a large proportion of his investment is in shares so he can't just call it in. In any event, why would he? It's not going to be the best way to get his money back.
-
This man recommended Heskey at £60k p/w for 5 years as good business amongst other similarly fantastic bargains, then left us on the eve of a season with all his own mess strewn across our lawn. Far from winning a court case against the club, he should be dragged through the streets of Birmingham, whipped with stinging nettles as he goes before being scourged and crucified on Hodge Hill.
Are you for real? lets go of MON hatred, we had two shit managers since appointed by a CEO running up losses of 40m per season, fucks sake MON left 18 months ago move on. Your be blaming him for next.
When we are championship skint in 18 months, who fault will it be then .
Lerner and Faulkner appoint the managers, sign the contracts and balance the books, not some Irishman who fucked off 18 months ago.
Remember under the silent one it was champions league footy in 5 years not champonship in 6
-
We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
Where do you get this from? The figures released show bank borrowings have fallen by £8.3m which suggests cash has improved significantly.
Yes by Lerner putting further 25m in which equals 17m outflow
I'd imagine the £25m was spent on Bent's transfer fee. Hardly an example of a club seeping cash at a rate of £300k per week.
As for your other point about Randy calling in the debt and putting us in administration - well a large proportion of his investment is in shares so he can't just call it in. In any event, why would he? It's not going to be the best way to get his money back.
With trading losses of circa 40m you going to be seeping cash, I manage working capital of SME business for a job and losses equate to cash in medium term
Absolute nonsense. That's why companies present a cashflow statement in their annual accounts - if losses represented cash they would only have to present a profit and loss account.
How do you know those 'trading losses' aren't entirely a result of amortisation and depreciation - neither of which are cash items and both relate to historic expenditure so don't affect future cash generation. Companies can make profits and go bust just like they can make losses and be fine.
-
Oh for the days when Deadly signed every cheque that went out of the door....
-
This man recommended Heskey at £60k p/w for 5 years as good business amongst other similarly fantastic bargains, then left us on the eve of a season with all his own mess strewn across our lawn. Far from winning a court case against the club, he should be dragged through the streets of Birmingham, whipped with stinging nettles as he goes before being scourged and crucified on Hodge Hill.
Are you for real? lets go of MON hatred, we had two shit managers since appointed by a CEO running up losses of 40m per season, fucks sake MON left 18 months ago move on. Your be blaming him for next.
When we are championship skint in 18 months, who fault will it be then .
Lerner and Faulkner appoint the managers, sign the contracts and balance the books, not some Irishman who fucked off 18 months ago.
Remember under the silent one it was champions league footy in 5 years not champonship in 6
So, the current wage bill is nothing to do with a manager who left 18 months ago?
Not quite sure how you work that one out, when players often have contracts up to five years long.
-
We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
Where do you get this from? The figures released show bank borrowings have fallen by £8.3m which suggests cash has improved significantly.
Yes by Lerner putting further 25m in which equals 17m outflow
I'd imagine the £25m was spent on Bent's transfer fee. Hardly an example of a club seeping cash at a rate of £300k per week.
As for your other point about Randy calling in the debt and putting us in administration - well a large proportion of his investment is in shares so he can't just call it in. In any event, why would he? It's not going to be the best way to get his money back.
With trading losses of circa 40m you going to be seeping cash, I manage working capital of SME business for a job and losses equate to cash in medium term
Absolute nonsense. That's why companies present a cashflow statement in their annual accounts - if losses represented cash they would only have to present a profit and loss account.
How do you know those 'trading losses' aren't entirely a result of amortisation and depreciation - neither of which are cash items and both relate to historic expenditure so don't affect future cash generation. Companies can make profits and go bust just like they can make losses and be fine.
Adam well do understanding working capital and impact losses have on this?
-
This man recommended Heskey at £60k p/w for 5 years as good business amongst other similarly fantastic bargains, then left us on the eve of a season with all his own mess strewn across our lawn. Far from winning a court case against the club, he should be dragged through the streets of Birmingham, whipped with stinging nettles as he goes before being scourged and crucified on Hodge Hill.
Are you for real? lets go of MON hatred, we had two shit managers since appointed by a CEO running up losses of 40m per season, fucks sake MON left 18 months ago move on. Your be blaming him for next.
When we are championship skint in 18 months, who fault will it be then .
Lerner and Faulkner appoint the managers, sign the contracts and balance the books, not some Irishman who fucked off 18 months ago.
Remember under the silent one it was champions league footy in 5 years not champonship in 6
So, the current wage bill is nothing to do with a manager who left 18 months ago?
Not quite sure how you work that one out, when players often have contracts up to five years long.
Paulie MON is accountable but so is Faulker and Lerner, MON was not signing the cheques was he?
-
Thought it was significant, and worrying if you are a Sunderland fan, that Quinn left the club a couple of weeks back. Martin is compelling, and a man who knows about football on the board is not something that goes well with his methods of handling things. The biggest mistake our board made was not reigning in his very erratic methods in the transfer markets and the contracts handed out. When you look at the 53 million loss, you have to wonder what the hell we are paying to some of the players still here.
-
Paulie MON is accountable but so is Faulker and Lerner, MON was not signing the cheques was he?
They're all partly accountable, but I thought you were absolving MON of blame.
MON's fault was overpaying for players (largely because he couldn't be fucked to look for value abroad like other managers do), then agreeing to stupidly lucrative contracts (Beye and Heskey at knocking on 32, for example) for them.
Lerner's problem was that he blindly did what MON asked of him for far too long, to the point at which we'd effectively spent ourselves into a very tricky situation financially.
We're now discovering that another of Lerner's problems is that, without a manager who is happy to run great swathes of the club, and forced to run it himself, he hasn't got a frigging clue.
-
We appear to be seeping cash, I do not see anything else but more cuts, we appear on headlines eating 300k of cash a week, that not sustainable.
Where do you get this from? The figures released show bank borrowings have fallen by £8.3m which suggests cash has improved significantly.
Yes by Lerner putting further 25m in which equals 17m outflow
I'd imagine the £25m was spent on Bent's transfer fee. Hardly an example of a club seeping cash at a rate of £300k per week.
As for your other point about Randy calling in the debt and putting us in administration - well a large proportion of his investment is in shares so he can't just call it in. In any event, why would he? It's not going to be the best way to get his money back.
With trading losses of circa 40m you going to be seeping cash, I manage working capital of SME business for a job and losses equate to cash in medium term
Absolute nonsense. That's why companies present a cashflow statement in their annual accounts - if losses represented cash they would only have to present a profit and loss account.
How do you know those 'trading losses' aren't entirely a result of amortisation and depreciation - neither of which are cash items and both relate to historic expenditure so don't affect future cash generation. Companies can make profits and go bust just like they can make losses and be fine.
Adam a trading loss to take 48m of amorisation and depreciation, sorry that would mean a huge write down on value of business or its assets . I have not seen the accounts in detail but business has had 25 million cash injection, regardless of what for and secondly lost 48m some how. It is in trouble that why we are slashing costs and sitting 15th in the table
What do you do as a job? It is only my view, but having done this job for 15 years , I would assume losses in cash flow lead to a cash outflow, they always have done unless there is a cash injection from somewhere, there is a direct corrolation to cash and profit .
-
Thought it was significant, and worrying if you are a Sunderland fan, that Quinn left the club a couple of weeks back. Martin is compelling, and a man who knows about football on the board is not something that goes well with his methods of handling things. The biggest mistake our board made was not reigning in his very erratic methods in the transfer markets and the contracts handed out. When you look at the 53 million loss, you have to wonder what the hell we are paying to some of the players still here.
MON doesn't share power with anyone, hence the short tenures of FitzGerald and Cunnah.
This was told to me by someone who I have worked with, and who was running said company when it sponsored us, and is also a close acquaintance of one of the men mentioned above.
-
This man recommended Heskey at £60k p/w for 5 years as good business amongst other similarly fantastic bargains, then left us on the eve of a season with all his own mess strewn across our lawn. Far from winning a court case against the club, he should be dragged through the streets of Birmingham, whipped with stinging nettles as he goes before being scourged and crucified on Hodge Hill.
Are you for real? lets go of MON hatred, we had two shit managers since appointed by a CEO running up losses of 40m per season, fucks sake MON left 18 months ago move on. Your be blaming him for next.
When we are championship skint in 18 months, who fault will it be then .
Lerner and Faulkner appoint the managers, sign the contracts and balance the books, not some Irishman who fucked off 18 months ago.
Remember under the silent one it was champions league footy in 5 years not champonship in 6
Sorry Richard, you're missing the point there. The current financial problems are at least in (large) part a legacy of the awful contracts MON set up for the likes of Beye, Heskey, Sidwell etc. He may have left 18 months ago but it's that legacy that is dragging us down now. Not entirely his fault, for someone who runs and owns a bank, Randy has displayed some remarkable laxity in managing the club's finances. As for Faulkner while he seems useless as a football man, the deals with Genting and Macron would seem to indicate he's not as bad at the commerical side as some would make out.
-
Paulie I hold MON accountable up to point he left but he is not the devil. I hold Lerner totally accountable and Faulkner , god knows what he is doing
-
Adam well do understanding working capital and impact losses have on this?
Is that even a sentence?!
Anyway, if we're sharing work experience to give some weight to our arguments, I'm involved in much more than just the working capital of lots of very significant businesses so I have a pretty thorough understanding of working capital, cashflow, and the accruals concept. All of which are relevant to this subject - not just the fact the Villa have made record losses; a statement which is bordering on meaningless without understanding the numbers behind it.
-
This man recommended Heskey at £60k p/w for 5 years as good business amongst other similarly fantastic bargains, then left us on the eve of a season with all his own mess strewn across our lawn. Far from winning a court case against the club, he should be dragged through the streets of Birmingham, whipped with stinging nettles as he goes before being scourged and crucified on Hodge Hill.
Are you for real? lets go of MON hatred, we had two shit managers since appointed by a CEO running up losses of 40m per season, fucks sake MON left 18 months ago move on. Your be blaming him for next.
When we are championship skint in 18 months, who fault will it be then .
Lerner and Faulkner appoint the managers, sign the contracts and balance the books, not some Irishman who fucked off 18 months ago.
Remember under the silent one it was champions league footy in 5 years not champonship in 6
So, the current wage bill is nothing to do with a manager who left 18 months ago?
Not quite sure how you work that one out, when players often have contracts up to five years long.
I think its a bit unfair to level the blame for wages totally on MON (aware thats not what your doing).
The vast majority of managers, if given the same free reign that Lerner gave MON, wouldn't give a singular toss about how the high wages were hurting the club.
-
Paulie I hold MON accountable up to point he left but he is not the devil. I hold Lerner totally accountable and Faulkner , god knows what he is doing
Bringing in record commercial deals?
Now, how do you hold Randy totally accountable?
-
Our record loss was 7-0.
-
Or 8-1 if you include the Cup
-
Adam a trading loss to take 48m of amorisation and depreciation, sorry that would mean a huge write down on value of business or its assets . I have not seen the accounts in detail but business has had 25 million cash injection, regardless of what for and secondly lost 48m some how. It is in trouble that why we are slashing costs and sitting 15th in the table
Where has this £48m loss come from? You said £40m just.
Anyway this isn't your run of the mill manufacturing company. A football club's major assets are its players and big changes in the playing staff (as we've seen over the past couple of years) can have a very significant impact on profit or loss which is completely different to how the cash moves. We're cutting wages because they were too high. That is all. Young and Downing were sold to balance the books because we hadn't been able to cut wages quick enough and to cover the outlay on Bent.
What do you do as a job? It is only my view, but having done this job for 15 years , I would assume losses in cash flow lead to a cash outflow, they always have done unless there is a cash injection from somewhere, there is a direct corrolation to cash and profit .
I'm a senior manager for one of the largest accountancy firms in the world so I think I know a bit about finance. Profit and cash movement are not as directly related as you might think, which is exactly why it is a requirement for companies which aren't small to present a cashflow statement which generally covers an entire page of A4 plus accompanying notes to explain the reconciliation between the two.
Bottom line is, until we see the accounts there's not a lot we can draw from this. Reaching for the shotgun is premature to say the least.
-
This man recommended Heskey at £60k p/w for 5 years as good business amongst other similarly fantastic bargains, then left us on the eve of a season with all his own mess strewn across our lawn. Far from winning a court case against the club, he should be dragged through the streets of Birmingham, whipped with stinging nettles as he goes before being scourged and crucified on Hodge Hill.
Are you for real? lets go of MON hatred, we had two shit managers since appointed by a CEO running up losses of 40m per season, fucks sake MON left 18 months ago move on. Your be blaming him for next.
When we are championship skint in 18 months, who fault will it be then .
Lerner and Faulkner appoint the managers, sign the contracts and balance the books, not some Irishman who fucked off 18 months ago.
Remember under the silent one it was champions league footy in 5 years not champonship in 6
So, the current wage bill is nothing to do with a manager who left 18 months ago?
Not quite sure how you work that one out, when players often have contracts up to five years long.
I think its a bit unfair to level the blame for wages totally on MON (aware thats not what your doing).
The vast majority of managers, if given the same free reign that Lerner gave MON, wouldn't give a singular toss about how the high wages were hurting the club.
People will blame MON whatever counter arguments are raised due to the nature of his departure and then the compensation we gave him. The truth being that he is responsible for a lot of our 'wasted' wages since he left, but he'd also be responsible for us getting a lot more out of the players if he was still here.
-
Adam well do understanding working capital and impact losses have on this?
Is that even a sentence?!
It is if you're Yoda.
-
For the record, Mr Hubbard, I do hold Randy and Faulkner partly responsible for the mess we're in but at least they're still here trying to make it right. I don't recall them sailing off into the night like a champ on the eve of battle after years of fan adoration and huge financial backing.
It's still Randy's fault for giving MON dictatorial powers and if I have a gripe with Faulkner it's that he's too invisible as a CEO and his general communication with the fans is appalling. But I can forgive incompetence.
Treachery and cowardice, not so much.
And he couldn't just leave, he had to come back and take his pound of flesh too. So fuck that bloke.
I'll 'get over it' when all unfortunate traces of his rule have left this great club once and for all.
-
Hard to disagree Maz. I was in hindsight one of the foolish ones that made his way to VP when the rumours of the messiah joining arose.
I now look on him with contempt. Yes it was foolish of the Board to not keep a grip on expenditure but at the same time they had backed the manager. Gambled and lost.
At least plans are in place to resolve the financial problems and I guess "we are now in it together" as the austerity measures bite.
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
-
Companies House is showing the accounts as having been filed however they haven't yet scanned them in for inspection.
Ooooh, the tension!!!!
-
I cant wait till April 21st so i can thank Martin for his efforts..
-
RL et al have to shoulder a large part of the blame for the situation we are in right now.
We can blame MON for signing the shit he did but he was given the cash to do it.
The board should have had some kind of supervision over what was going on, if they didnt then thats there fault!
As for some comments about MON going and RL staying to sort it out, well MON was only an employee and RL does own the company! Managers come and go, they know the risks they take when joining a club there position is only tenable so long as the owners allows it to be. RL could for instance sack McL today if he wanted to.
So back to my point:
Is MON to blame for signing the players and agreeing the wages he did... YES
Is the board to blame for allowing MON to do what he wanted? YES
The buck stops with the owner on this one I'm affraid
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
He pissed off because he couldn't get his own way and was totally unused to being told what to do, something he hadn't experienced since Cloughie in the 70's.
My ex-manager knew him reasonably well at social functions from his time at Leicester.
I asked her what she thought of him.
'Very opinionated, never wrong and refuses to take anybody else's point of view on board.'
I understand how he polarises opinions though, a friend of mine who I drink with post matches approaches the realms of violence if you dare to say anything negative about him.
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
What the fuck are you babbling on about? Perfectly fine? I said Faulkner and Lerner share the blame did I not? I couldn't have been more explicit.
Your gripe is about running up huge losses. Well who chose the players that have cost so much? Who was the visionary that spent so much on average players he hardly used on massive contracts? Many of whom still haunt us or have proved expensive to rid ourselves of and with little return.
Sixth, big fucking deal. It should have been better with his resources.
Even then, you just have to accept he wasn't up to it and that's life but if you're happy with the way he left, at the worst possible moment, taking his staff and coming back to drag the club who backed him so luxuriously through the courts, that's up to you. I am not. He made a mess and saw no profit in staying and cleaning it up. So he ran away like a bitch.
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
Put simply, the bits that faulkner can control such as sponsorship, kit deals etc have improved significantly since he joined. I'm not sure he should be held accountable for contracts that were signed before he was promoted.
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
Put simply, the bits that faulkner can control such as sponsorship, kit deals etc have improved significantly since he joined. I'm not sure he should be held accountable for contracts that were signed before he was promoted.
Didn't someone say yesterday that his previous job at the club was specifically involved with agreeing contracts?
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
What the fuck are you babbling on about? Perfectly fine? I said Faulkner and Lerner share the balme did I not? I couldn't have been more explicit.
Your gripe is about running up huge losses. Well who chose the players that have cost so much? Who was the visionary that spent so much on average players he hardly used on massive contracts? Many of whom still haunt us or have proved expensive to rid ourselves of and with little return.
MON wanted them, the board told him he could have them
My son wants every toy he sees on TV, if I get them for him and he turns into a spoilt brat and screams "You dont love me anymore" if I then refused him another toy, then who is to blame? me or my son?
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
What the fuck are you babbling on about? Perfectly fine? I said Faulkner and Lerner share the balme did I not? I couldn't have been more explicit.
Your gripe is about running up huge losses. Well who chose the players that have cost so much? Who was the visionary that spent so much on average players he hardly used on massive contracts? Many of whom still haunt us or have proved expensive to rid ourselves of and with little return.
MON wanted them, the board told him he could have them
My son wants every toy he sees on TV, if I get them for him and he turns into a spoilt brat and screams "You dont love me anymore" if I then refused him another toy, then who is to blame? me or my son?
And look what happened the first time they tried to stop him.
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
He pissed off because he couldn't get his own way and was totally unused to being told what to do, something he hadn't experienced since Cloughie in the 70's.
My ex-manager knew him reasonably well at social functions from his time at Leicester.
I asked her what she thought of him.
'Very opinionated, never wrong and refuses to take anybody else's point of view on board.'
I understand how he polarises opinions though, a friend of mine who I drink with post matches approaches the realms of violence if you dare to say anything negative about him.
Tell him I said O'Neill is a poof's drink.
-
I agree with Mark that the board freely let him sign any old arse wipe on huge contracts, that was rank stupidity.
O'Neill still has to take some of the blame for the whole sorry mess, his transfer record is pretty woeful.
-
if you dont drink or eat you die in due coarse
so taking anything except cash,cards to tesco(no gold or football clubs ect.)is a waste of time
if R.L.could find a buyer he would be gone, now that the oil money has changed the road map
still it would be like steven segal winning an oscar forR.L.to get his money back
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
He pissed off because he couldn't get his own way and was totally unused to being told what to do, something he hadn't experienced since Cloughie in the 70's.
My ex-manager knew him reasonably well at social functions from his time at Leicester.
I asked her what she thought of him.
'Very opinionated, never wrong and refuses to take anybody else's point of view on board.'
I understand how he polarises opinions though, a friend of mine who I drink with post matches approaches the realms of violence if you dare to say anything negative about him.
Tell him I said O'Neill is a poof's drink.
Will do
My ex-manager hasn't seen DOh'Neill since the Leicester days, she knows fuck all about football and didn't even know he'd managed Villa.
Gandalf who sits in front me at VP would crawl 100 miles over broken glass to wank over O'Neill's shadow.
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
Put simply, the bits that faulkner can control such as sponsorship, kit deals etc have improved significantly since he joined. I'm not sure he should be held accountable for contracts that were signed before he was promoted.
Didn't someone say yesterday that his previous job at the club was specifically involved with agreeing contracts?
I'm not sure. I thought someone said that when he was promoted he became "director of football" and started to negotiate the contracts thereby justifying the constructive dismal theory. That happened in May, whereas MON quit in August.
-
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
What the fuck are you babbling on about? Perfectly fine? I said Faulkner and Lerner share the balme did I not? I couldn't have been more explicit.
Your gripe is about running up huge losses. Well who chose the players that have cost so much? Who was the visionary that spent so much on average players he hardly used on massive contracts? Many of whom still haunt us or have proved expensive to rid ourselves of and with little return.
MON wanted them, the board told him he could have them
My son wants every toy he sees on TV, if I get them for him and he turns into a spoilt brat and screams "You dont love me anymore" if I then refused him another toy, then who is to blame? me or my son?
And look what happened the first time they tried to stop him.
He screamed 'You dont love me anymore' and pissed off.
I don't think MON did the right thing by us or the club.
But he is not totally to blame for the debts and huge player wages etc... just cus he wanted them doesnt mean that the board had to give them to him
-
I dont know one person who has said MON is/was solely to blame.
-
We need to stop moaning about Martin Nodeal and worry about the situation we find ourselves in. I blame Ellis for ripping apart the European Champions but I had to let it go. Were in a mess this season and need to get to 37pts asap or we really will have something to moan about.
-
Maz my point that was 18 months ago, you want to burn at the stake that was your bravado comment
-
Maz my point that was 18 months ago, you want to burn at the stake that was your bravado comment
I genuinely don't understand this.
-
Maz my point that was 18 months ago, you want to burn at the stake that was your bravado comment
I genuinely don't understand this.
He's referring to the time you were moaning about the burnt steak you had in a Berni Inns 18 years ago.
-
....
Well, I think he's following the third option - batten down the hatches and try and tough out the current financial shit-storm in the hope that the FFP rules will level out the playing field a little.
In the end I think he will sell up, but I'm not sure it's going to happen soon.
The really sad thing is that you could have written almost exactly that 10 years ago.
It really has been a waste of time.
-
....
Well, I think he's following the third option - batten down the hatches and try and tough out the current financial shit-storm in the hope that the FFP rules will level out the playing field a little.
In the end I think he will sell up, but I'm not sure it's going to happen soon.
The really sad thing is that you could have written almost exactly that 10 years ago.
It really has been a waste of time.
You could say that about virtually every club.
-
Faulkner was at the club when Villa played Litex in the Uefa Cup in 2008. He was employed by the club, but not CEO at that time. In a meeting with someone I know, he told them his job was to speak with players agents and arrange contracts. He told them he was a Director of Football. He was apparently a very nice bloke. He also stated that he was Randy's right hand man, and they were very close. These things I have been told
I personally think that the issue O'Neill had was with Faulkner, not Randy and not Villa as a whole. I think that there was a massive breakdown in their relationship, leading to O'Neill walking.
Arranging player contracts? So would it be his fault that we have suffered from so much overpaid dross.
Well, he would certainly have contributed. O'Neill would still have to take some for suggesting/asking/wanting players in the first place, such as Heskey and Beye, but being lumbered with them on massive contracts is perhaps the doing of Faulkner, and some fault would need to lie with him.
Sorry I am wrong , MON a cowadice traitor for take us to sixth and pissing off when he is unhappy.
Burn him at the gates of hell
Lerner and Faulkner are perfectly fine was running up huge losses year on year .
All is well with the villa hierachy.
Would Faulkner be in charge of say Tesco's if they had multi million pound losses on his patch? if he was in charge
Put simply, the bits that faulkner can control such as sponsorship, kit deals etc have improved significantly since he joined. I'm not sure he should be held accountable for contracts that were signed before he was promoted.
Didn't someone say yesterday that his previous job at the club was specifically involved with agreeing contracts?
That would be me. To be clear, the person I know met Faulkner around the time we played Litex in the Uefa cup. That was when he said to him, he was employed as a DOF and was involved in negotiating with agents.
He was promoted to CEO in May 2010 I beleive?
-
It's compounding the error. Like putting out a fire with Kerosene.
You dont get Frank Spencer to drive your £2m F1 car because Reubens Barichello took you to the cleaners.
Ooooh Betty, the cat's done a huge shit in my helmet.
You have the best name ever! I hope that being a member of the house of lords, David Cameron orders an inquiry which you head up, into this whole debate.
-
It's compounding the error. Like putting out a fire with Kerosene.
You dont get Frank Spencer to drive your £2m F1 car because Reubens Barichello took you to the cleaners.
Ooooh Betty, the cat's done a huge shit in my helmet.
You have the best name ever! I hope that being a member of the house of lords, David Cameron orders an inquiry which you head up, into this whole debate.
frank never swore , it was woopsy , get on the naughty step
-
....
Well, I think he's following the third option - batten down the hatches and try and tough out the current financial shit-storm in the hope that the FFP rules will level out the playing field a little.
In the end I think he will sell up, but I'm not sure it's going to happen soon.
The really sad thing is that you could have written almost exactly that 10 years ago.
It really has been a waste of time.
You could say that about virtually every club.
Except we're the biggest club in the second city, and as such should aspire to so much more than we have achieved.
-
....
Well, I think he's following the third option - batten down the hatches and try and tough out the current financial shit-storm in the hope that the FFP rules will level out the playing field a little.
In the end I think he will sell up, but I'm not sure it's going to happen soon.
The really sad thing is that you could have written almost exactly that 10 years ago.
It really has been a waste of time.
You could say that about virtually every club.
But very few clubs have been bought by a billionare and had a couple of hundred million spent on them, only to find themselves back where they started in pretty short order. Not Man City money, for sure, but then I didn't expect to win the league either.
-
Dave makes a good point though.
....
Well, I think he's following the third option - batten down the hatches and try and tough out the current financial shit-storm in the hope that the FFP rules will level out the playing field a little.
In the end I think he will sell up, but I'm not sure it's going to happen soon.
The really sad thing is that you could have written almost exactly that 10 years ago.
It really has been a waste of time.
You could say that about virtually every club.
But very few clubs have been bought by a billionare and had a couple of hundred million spent on them, only to find themselves back where they started in pretty short order. Not Man City money, for sure, but then I didn't expect to win the league either.
I'm with Dave on this. I read this morning that Al Jazeera are thinking of bidding for the UK TV rights and this will mean another huge increase in revenues for the clubs. But all it will mean is players getting even more money and nothing else changing. I cant get excited about xxxmillions being spent or lost because it has no value in the real world. Football money exists in a parallel universe and every club has the same issues.
-
....
Well, I think he's following the third option - batten down the hatches and try and tough out the current financial shit-storm in the hope that the FFP rules will level out the playing field a little.
In the end I think he will sell up, but I'm not sure it's going to happen soon.
The really sad thing is that you could have written almost exactly that 10 years ago.
It really has been a waste of time.
You could say that about virtually every club.
Not many have had the chance to do things differently. We have, but for whatever reason it has gained us very little.
-
I had a record loss once. I reckon my mate Dave nicked it. Guns n Roses picture disc it was. Bastard.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/28/aston-villa-losses
David Conn who wrote this in the guardian was just interviewed on TalkSport.
Really interesting. About how many owners were known to general fans and the public even beyond the local fans about 10-15 years ago (hardly anybody) and how many, now. (loads in the PL and in the Cjhampionship if they have made major mistakes!)
Also, about how many owners would turn up, week after week, to watch the match. Yes, even in the good ol days before the russians and the sheiks. Hardly anybody apart from Deadly, of course. So nowadays is not that different, was his argument. They may be thousands of miles overseas right now, but back then some owners were a lot nearer and sat on the yacht or in the garden on a saturday afternoon.
Also spoke about how Villa were built up by Randy, and then; did not mention MON exiting by name but apparently it was absolutely obvious (to all in the football stratosphere that he inhabits) that this had a major effect financially on the club - like, downwards. Also referred to the need to reduce wages and outgoings leading to selling major players and how good an owner RL has been but ultimately, not rich enough to spend another £200million.
Because that's what he actually has spent. £200million.
I'm not surprised he wants to retrench a bit!
Quite, Louise.
But we still come back to the manner of MON's departure: the spiteful and vindictive timing, followed up by a protracted legal dispute, has knocked the stufffing out of Lerner as well as stripped the cash cupboard somewhat.
You'll get no argument from me about MON's flounce and its effect on our lovely club, or indeed on RL's unwillingness to back another sweet-talkin' big name big spender last summer.
Just hope that when I read RL's interview a couple of months or so ago, that his long-term plan to rebuild is still going the way he thought it would. The current fallout from retrenchment (disappointment of faithful fans), not to mention long-term injuries to key players may have been things he had planned for in the short term, but I wonder, did he realistically expect the club to be in this situation at this stage of the season?
No matter how well the books are balancing, it's a bit too close to the wire to be comfortable as a 'transitional season' for most of us, I suspect.
Oh, and then there's the football...(!)
-
Not that it matters much now, but the Daily Mirror report on this issue declares openly that Villa paid dablues compensation for poaching the manager.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manager-changes-leave-Aston-Villa-posting-losses-of-54million-article872154.html
-
Not that it matters much now, but the Daily Mirror report on this issue declares openly that Villa paid dablues compensation for poaching the manager.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manager-changes-leave-Aston-Villa-posting-losses-of-54million-article872154.html
That £12m can't include compensation to Blues. We installed Eck as manager after 31st May 2011, the date up to which the accounts are made up to.
And, the article states that Houllier left in June 2010. He hadn't even started then! Great journalism that.
-
Not that it matters much now, but the Daily Mirror report on this issue declares openly that Villa paid dablues compensation for poaching the manager.
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manager-changes-leave-Aston-Villa-posting-losses-of-54million-article872154.html
That £12m can't include compensation to Blues. We installed Eck as manager after 31st May 2011, the date up to which the accounts are made up to.
And, the article states that Houllier left in June 2010. He hadn't even started then! Great journalism that.
All true, but the fact it is basically accepted we poached our manager flies in the face of everything the club stated at the time.
-
[/quote]
He pissed off because he couldn't get his own way and was totally unused to being told what to do, something he hadn't experienced since Cloughie in the 70's.
My ex-manager knew him reasonably well at social functions from his time at Leicester.
I asked her what she thought of him.
'Very opinionated, never wrong and refuses to take anybody else's point of view on board.'
[/quote]
Yeah, but does she really know what went on? In a sense, it doesn't matter - there are several truths.
My girlfriend and I are in the process of splitting up. Ask her why, then ask me, you'll get two very different answers, both as legitimate as each other.
Ask my sister and you'll have another answer - she knows us both but hasn't got a clue what's happening in this regard. But she knows us, so has the inside track.
-
MON spent a lot of money but a lot on the wrong players. All you can blame Randy for is backing a manager 100% with a lot of money and getting not a lot back.
MON did what was best for MON, Be intresting if things follow the same path at Sunderland?
-
It still beggars belief that we poached a manager, and paid millions in compensation in the process, to a team that had just been relegated by said manager, for the second time. Just what exactly were these people who have introduced subsequent austerity measures for our club, did they think they were getting.
That appointment will turn out to be the biggest waste of money Randy/Faulkner has ever sanctioned.
-
I think you'd be a fool not to lay the blame partly at Lerners door, but by the same token just because the manager left two years ago doesn't mean the decisions he made aren't still affecting the club and will continue to affect the club. Such a complete foul up was made of the finances that its taken two years to stop the Titanic dead in the water, and probably another two to turn it away from the iceberg.
My reasoning is yes, Lerner shouldn't have allowed MON to spend so much, but then you have to ask why? Either Lerner is a complete fuckwit with money, has no concept of profit and loss, and just gave MON money willy-nilly, OR he was made promises on what the spending would achieve and when. as soon as it became obvious that the CL target wasn't going to be met he reigned in the spending and MON walked. I'd say the latter is more likely.
-
It still beggars belief that we poached a manager, and paid millions in compensation in the process, to a team that had just been relegated by said manager, for the second time. Just what exactly were these people who have introduced subsequent austerity measures for our club, did they think they were getting.
That appointment will turn out to be the biggest waste of money Randy/Faulkner has ever sanctioned.
There is an insidious sub-text to all of this.
The terms of football maangers emloyment are now being set by a new breed of CEO in whose interest it is to inflate packages- to justify their own.
Portsmouth, AFTER their first administration, have just sacked their CEO who was earning £1m a year in the Champ. The FA have done this for years (Capello/Sven) to justfiy their own gotesque self determined remuneration.
McLeish didnt need to be "lured", nor did he need his salary increased. What was Faulkner (whose crdentials for his job are unclear) thinking?
Whether McLeish was the best footballing option is Randy's call, but the money side made no sense whatsoever.
-
Accounts now available on Companies House website! Will digest the information over the weekend!
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2108657/I-Aston-Villas-waste--The-Midlander.html#ixzz1nxK1RAiq
Just picked this up from yesterday. Not a massive fan of Mr Moxley, but I can't argue with much he has written here. I have long said that Randy's biggest mistake was letting Steve Stride walk out of the door.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2108657/I-Aston-Villas-waste--The-Midlander.html#ixzz1nxK1RAiq
Just picked this up from yesterday. Not a massive fan of Mr Moxley, but I can't argue with much he has written here. I have long said that Randy's biggest mistake was letting Steve Stride walk out of the door.
Yep read that yesterday and thought it was quite well written. Hit the nail on the head by stating that most of our problems are down to inexperience in the company. Randy needs to wise up, admit he was wrong in not getting someone with experience and get at the very least a decent scouting network going. Good job we have a half decent academy.
-
Some journo has tweeted that the accounts say "the directors have recieved confirmation that the owner intends to support the group for at least one year" the group being Reform Aquisitions Ltd I think? Is that industry speak? Or is that an admission that he is looking to sell in a year?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2108657/I-Aston-Villas-waste--The-Midlander.html#ixzz1nxK1RAiq
Just picked this up from yesterday. Not a massive fan of Mr Moxley, but I can't argue with much he has written here. I have long said that Randy's biggest mistake was letting Steve Stride walk out of the door.
Steve left of his own accord and could not have been persuaded otherwise.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2108657/I-Aston-Villas-waste--The-Midlander.html#ixzz1nxK1RAiq
Just picked this up from yesterday. Not a massive fan of Mr Moxley, but I can't argue with much he has written here. I have long said that Randy's biggest mistake was letting Steve Stride walk out of the door.
Steve left of his own accord and could not have been persuaded otherwise.
Wish he was still here.
He at least had a footballing brain.
-
Some journo has tweeted that the accounts say "the directors have recieved confirmation that the owner intends to support the group for at least one year" the group being Reform Aquisitions Ltd I think? Is that industry speak? Or is that an admission that he is looking to sell in a year?
That supports my comment that if Lerner pulled out there is a risk of adminstration. Without his financial support we would not be a going concern.
I have looked at the balance sheet and the trading arm Aston Villa has negative net worth and is getting worse.
The holding company which lends to Aston Villa has the share equity.
I am not suggesting we are going to admin , but they are not pretty reading
-
Some journo has tweeted that the accounts say "the directors have recieved confirmation that the owner intends to support the group for at least one year" the group being Reform Aquisitions Ltd I think? Is that industry speak? Or is that an admission that he is looking to sell in a year?
Industry speak only!
-
I think you'd be a fool not to lay the blame partly at Lerners door, but by the same token just because the manager left two years ago doesn't mean the decisions he made aren't still affecting the club and will continue to affect the club. Such a complete foul up was made of the finances that its taken two years to stop the Titanic dead in the water, and probably another two to turn it away from the iceberg.
My reasoning is yes, Lerner shouldn't have allowed MON to spend so much, but then you have to ask why? Either Lerner is a complete fuckwit with money, has no concept of profit and loss, and just gave MON money willy-nilly, OR he was made promises on what the spending would achieve and when. as soon as it became obvious that the CL target wasn't going to be met he reigned in the spending and MON walked. I'd say the latter is more likely.
I'd say that Lerner shouldn't have allowed Faulkner to sign the cheques and agree contracts with agents on O'Neills behalf, and a more qualified person be put in charge of such negotiations.
O'Neill shouldn't have chosen Beye and Heskey as his targets, regardless who was agreeing the contracts.
I beleive it is Faulkner who has saddled the club with the big contracts, not O'Neill.
Although, it's easier to beleive it was O'Neill, as the way he left left a bitter taste.
-
I think you'd be a fool not to lay the blame partly at Lerners door, but by the same token just because the manager left two years ago doesn't mean the decisions he made aren't still affecting the club and will continue to affect the club. Such a complete foul up was made of the finances that its taken two years to stop the Titanic dead in the water, and probably another two to turn it away from the iceberg.
My reasoning is yes, Lerner shouldn't have allowed MON to spend so much, but then you have to ask why? Either Lerner is a complete fuckwit with money, has no concept of profit and loss, and just gave MON money willy-nilly, OR he was made promises on what the spending would achieve and when. as soon as it became obvious that the CL target wasn't going to be met he reigned in the spending and MON walked. I'd say the latter is more likely.
I'd say that Lerner shouldn't have allowed Faulkner to sign the cheques and agree contracts with agents on O'Neills behalf, and a more qualified person be put in charge of such negotiations.
O'Neill shouldn't have chosen Beye and Heskey as his targets, regardless who was agreeing the contracts.
I beleive it is Faulkner who has saddled the club with the big contracts, not O'Neill.
Although, it's easier to beleive it was O'Neill, as the way he left left a bitter taste.
thing is, at the time faulkner was promoted he was seen as very much MON's yes man and he was in a subordinate role before hand so frankly unless he was asked to by Lerner he wouldn't have questioned who MON signed or what they were paid. You only have to look at MON's public utterances at the time to see that he at least, thought he was in total control as regards what would be paid for players. The final say must have been Lerners for those expensive contracts, but whether they were on the proviso that MON got us in the CL, or rather that Lerner was infected with the same devotional "Martin knows best" hysteria that enveloped this place at the time, i guess we'll never know.
-
According to the notes to the accounts looks like Randy put another £10million in to the club in December 2011!
And the loan notes repayment schedule looks horrendous even on the few bits of info disclosed in the accounts!
-
Some journo has tweeted that the accounts say "the directors have recieved confirmation that the owner intends to support the group for at least one year" the group being Reform Aquisitions Ltd I think? Is that industry speak? Or is that an admission that he is looking to sell in a year?
Industry speak only!
Exactly. Due to the poor state of our accounts, I think the auditors have to get a confirmation that although we are technically insolvent, the owner will cover the debts. My concern is how we'll ever manage to pay off the debt.
-
Interest burden is huge on our debtts
-
So what will this mean for us say over the next 5-10 years? Are we in danger of going tits up?
-
The danger would be if we got into a situation where Lerner didn't want to continue taking heavy losses. He could sell Villa to the first Carsten Yeung/Craig Whyte/Gaydamak that showed up, who could then asset strip us, sell the stadium/training grounds and leave us potless.
That's if Lerner hasn't already separated the club from the property assets.
-
Do we're in a big mess then?
-
So what will this mean for us say over the next 5-10 years? Are we in danger of going tits up?
I can't see us having too much to spend, if anything, come the summer and with nobody left to sell of any real value, it's going to be a very tough few years.
-
Would it be fair to compare our situation with Everton's?
Except that they've got a better ginger weegie in charge
-
So what will this mean for us say over the next 5-10 years? Are we in danger of going tits up?
There is a great danger of us doing a Sheffield Wednesday.
-
Well if we can one selling best players , we are going to asset strip.
Depends on Lerner approach, if he is prepared to keep funding losses then , we may be ok.
If get relegated, we still have debt burden and reduced revenues and cashflows.He may lose interest and the out come could be a doom day scenario would be adminstration.
Don't for anyone reason think this does not happen. I worked for 3 business to either during my time or I joined after they had an issue and if you cannot cover your debt burden , the banks will pull support and adminstration is a formality if so.
The auditors signed those accounts with a statement on them that Lerner will support the debt over next 12 months. Nothing unusual BUT without that it we would not trade.
-
At least we have published our accounts - Small Heath and Coventry have been stopped signing new players as they haven't filed theirs.
Things have gone very quiet over there - no news about Wishy Washy from the depths of Hong Kong's under class.
-
At least we have published our accounts - Small Heath and Coventry have been stopped signing new players as they haven't filed theirs.
Things have gone very quiet over there - no news about Wishy Washy from the depths of Hong Kong's under class.
No news is good news - if you're a Villa fan.
-
At least we have published our accounts - Small Heath and Coventry have been stopped signing new players as they haven't filed theirs.
Things have gone very quiet over there - no news about Wishy Washy from the depths of Hong Kong's under class.
No news is good news - if you're a Villa fan.
I was hoping they'ed go into administration and lose 10 pts.
-
At least we have published our accounts - Small Heath and Coventry have been stopped signing new players as they haven't filed theirs.
Things have gone very quiet over there - no news about Wishy Washy from the depths of Hong Kong's under class.
No news is good news - if you're a Villa fan.
I was hoping they'ed go into administration and lose 10 pts.
to be honest if they go into admin lose 10 points and not come up, they will still be happier than us because they believe in their coach and believe in what he is doing it makes hell of a difference to a club
-
These losses are an embarrassment. Too many poor players have been bought on good contracts. We could easily have a squad of a similar quality and not be making losses at all.
-
Should we reset the Poll after todays game?
-
So what will this mean for us say over the next 5-10 years? Are we in danger of going tits up?
There is a great danger of us doing a Sheffield Wednesday
Can you explain this. seems bit ott to me
.
-
Should we reset the Poll after todays game?
What poll? The McLeish sacked one?
-
These losses are an embarrassment. Too many poor players have been bought on good contracts. We could easily have a squad of a similar quality and not be making losses at all.
that is the scary thing. if MON had just bought his first team then its very likely we'd have finished top6 or there abouts for a fraction of the cost as he rarely played the rest anyway.
So you'd have Barry, Gabby, Laursen, olof, Bouma
Carew £0
Freidal £4m
Milner £12m
Young £9
Young £5m
Petrov £7m
total cost = 40m
He could have kept some of the reserves like Davis, Cahill, whittingham etc. for back-up and replaced the likes of Barry, laursen when they got tapped up/injured with the fee's we received or the 40 odd million we hadn't spent.
-
Should we reset the Poll after todays game?
What poll? The McLeish sacked one?
Yea, posted this comment in the wrong thread.
-
I've just downloaded the accounts and there are a few points of interest (not including those already covered above):
- Loss after tax but before player amortisation of £22m (£7m loss in 2010) - the main movement year-on-year is the £12m compensation on managerial changes;
- Group balance sheet is technically insolvent - ie total liabilities are now £20m greater than the "value" of our assets (£22m the other way in 2010) - this is not as bad as it seems however. Any players who have come through the youth team will not have a value attributed to them and the liabilities mostly consist of very long term loans from Randy (more below);
- Operating cashflows were positive to the tune of £4.1m (£18m negative in 2010) although this does include £24m put in to the club by Randy's US company;
- £40.3m spent on player acquisitions (£40.5m in 2010) - Bent, Ireland and Makoun;
- £22.1m received on player sales (£21.6m in 2010) for players who originally cost us £39m - Milner mainly;
- Matchday income down to £21.4m (£24.4m in 2010) - average attendances fell by 1,400 and we had fewer home cup games:
- Commercial income up to £16.7m (£14.4m in 2010) - includes sponsorship deals;
- Full time staff numbers up to 551 (515 in 2010);
- Total wages and salaries of £74m (£71m in 2010) - not just players, but all staff from the directors to the matchday stewards;
- Total liabilities of £216m - including £127m owed to Randy (£90m in 2010), £12m to the bank (£21m in 2010) and £9m to the tax man (£9m in 2010);
- Of these liabilities, £11m was due for repayment in the year to May 2012, £102m isn't due for repayment until at least May 2016;
- The club could have to pay a further £4.7m in transfer fees if certain (undisclosed) clauses are triggered;
- Since May 2011, £35m has been raised in player sales and £18m has been spent on player acquisitions.
So what does this mean?
Well it's clearly not great but equally it's not a Rangers-style disaster. The big problem with these figures is that they're already 9 months out of date. Wages are still too high for the level of turnover we have and that is covered in another thread on here about the summer clear out. Although we have a lot of debt, it's long-term and gives the club breathing space to sort the books out.
I think Randy has seen that the scope for increasing the revenue is limited so that has been the driver for the sensible cost-cutting. Matchday revenues are under major pressure due to reducing attendances and price-pressure from us fans. Media revenues are also probably unlikely to grow massively unless the Al Jazeera rights story really takes off and creates a bidding war. Commercial income is probably the only place the club can seriously grow income and hopefully the Genting deal is much better than the FxPro one was.
It all goes some way towards explaining the current goings on in B6 - I think the days of us splashing £50m a summer are long gone unfortunately...
-
Thanks Adam, I think that paints a fair picture. It makes you wonder about the finances of the Likes of Fulham, Everton etc?
-
They probably weren't woefully mismanaged like we were by O'Neill, Lerner and Bradley from East Enders.
-
Yes, thanks Adam. You have made me miss Risso a little bit less. Still waiting to hear what happened to my favourite Tory BTW, if anyone would be so kind.
-
He's taking a brief sabbatical.
-
Ta Lee. Voluntarily or enforced?
-
Totally of his own choice. He assures me it is only temporary. He still reads the threads.
-
Thanks Adam, I think that paints a fair picture. It makes you wonder about the finances of the Likes of Fulham, Everton etc?
Based on an article the Guardian published last year (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/19/premier-league-finances-black-hole) Fulham and Everton both have significantly better wage bills than us but much lower revenues - both clubs undoubtedly being hamstrung by their stadia. Both clubs lose millions every year (although not £54m granted!).
Fulham also have outrageous debts as although Al Fayed hasn't invested as much as Randy he's done it all in the way of loans which the club has to repay, whilst Randy has put half of his money in as share capital.