Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: spud1950 on August 10, 2012, 11:37:29 AM
-
On sunday after the game 12 long term staff have been made reduntant .Some have been their over twenty years .Some of the chefs etc have won awards and cooked for randy.But no one is safe while they need to claw money back.There will be others in the near future .
-
That's a shame.
-
Are they full-time employed by the club? Agency staff? Part-time etc?
-
Commiserations to anyone losing their job and presumably worrying times for remaining employees. It's also a reality check for anyone suggesting that the financial restrictions were about to be lifted. Money might be made available for transfer fees but wages will still need to be strictly controlled.
-
Are they full-time employed by the club? Agency staff? Part-time etc?
You can't make agency staff redundant.
-
Are they full-time employed by the club? Agency staff? Part-time etc?
You can't make agency staff redundant.
you just call the agency and ask them not to send them again :)
-
a lot of companies are still feeling the hard times. It's crap.
-
If they are losing money at rate stated, it is not really suprising aston villa are not a charity
-
Makes me wonder if we were a little bit bloated staff wise before?
Don't like to see people losing their jobs though.
-
Makes me wonder if we were a little bit bloated staff wise before?
Don't like to see people losing their jobs though.
Possibly, but in the grand scale of things, 12 people earning an average £20,000 a year isn't very much when it comes to a Premier League fooball club. It's probably one month's wages for Emile Heskey to put it into perspective. I think anybody thinking that the sale of The Browns is going to lead to better things financially for us is barking up the wrong tree. I'm only guessing, but I reckon it was maybe a case of having to sell, rather than wanting to.
-
About agency staff - that's my point.
-
Makes me wonder if we were a little bit bloated staff wise before?
Don't like to see people losing their jobs though.
Possibly, but in the grand scale of things, 12 people earning an average £20,000 a year isn't very much when it comes to a Premier League fooball club. It's probably one month's wages for Emile Heskey to put it into perspective. I think anybody thinking that the sale of The Browns is going to lead to better things financially for us is barking up the wrong tree. I'm only guessing, but I reckon it was maybe a case of having to sell, rather than wanting to.
You are definitely wrong there. Randy didn't sell the Browns because he had to financially, he sold them because ultimately this was his first chance too as he didn't want to ever own them. He was just obliged too.
He just wants to be a fan..
-
Makes me wonder if we were a little bit bloated staff wise before?
Don't like to see people losing their jobs though.
Possibly, but in the grand scale of things, 12 people earning an average £20,000 a year isn't very much when it comes to a Premier League fooball club. It's probably one month's wages for Emile Heskey to put it into perspective. I think anybody thinking that the sale of The Browns is going to lead to better things financially for us is barking up the wrong tree. I'm only guessing, but I reckon it was maybe a case of having to sell, rather than wanting to.
I agree.
Dream like mantras about us spending big again are wide of the mark.
Faulkner also stated that the Browns sale would make zero diffrence to Villa, good or bad.
-
Awaard winning hospitality staff will not be out of work for long.
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
-
All MON fault :-X
-
Makes me wonder if we were a little bit bloated staff wise before?
Don't like to see people losing their jobs though.
I maybe wrong, but I can recall seeing in a report that there were something like 1700 employees on the non-playing staff at Aston Villa. I'm not sure who was included in that number (part-time matchday staff etc.), but I remember thinking the number seemed high.
Agree that it is not nice to see people lose jobs though.
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.
-
It's never pleasant to hear of job losses, but at least there's one positive. With all the increased stress created by the redundancies, at least the local chubby lasses will be getting some soon, if other reports are to be believed..............
-
It's never pleasant to hear of job losses, but at least there's one positive. With all the increased stress created by the redundancies, at least the local chubby lasses will be getting some soon, if other reports are to be believed..............
Hilarious.
-
Commiserations for those who have lost their jobs, having been made redundant in the past I know how hard it is. Unfortunately though that's the reality of the climate at the moment, people have been made redundant where I work and companies are reviewing their work force. It's not nice, but it's how things are.
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.
even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation to performance and productivity.
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.
even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation of performance and productivity.
Hmmm, so it's just coincidence that we're cutting those costs at the same time as we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side; seems unlikely.
-
It's never pleasant to hear of job losses, but at least there's one positive. With all the increased stress created by the redundancies, at least the local chubby lasses will be getting some soon, if other reports are to be believed..............
Hilarious.
No, merely an attempt to make light of an all to common occurrence in the current financial climate, by associating it with an earlier topic.
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.
even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation of performance and productivity.
Hmmm, so it's just coincidence that we're cutting those costs at the same time as we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side; seems unlikely.
That's not what I said. I said it doesn't have to be exclusively to do with austerity as you seem to be suggesting. Companies make cuts and changes to their staff all the time and not only when things are going badly.
-
It's sad to see people lose there jobs let's hope they find something else asap.
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.
even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation to performance and productivity.
Paul Faulkner couldn't have written that any better.
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.
even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation to performance and productivity.
Paul Faulkner couldn't have written that any better.
so he's doing his job. Sometimes the consequeneces of doing your job isn't always fun. I'm sure there are plenty of people on here that at one time or another has had to let someone go. Unless the person is a total wanker it is never, ever easy.
-
It's sad to see people losing their jobs especially ones that have been with the club a long time. I am sure they have served the club much better than a few of the players that we can all name but are still on the books.
-
Makes me wonder if we were a little bit bloated staff wise before?
Don't like to see people losing their jobs though.
Possibly, but in the grand scale of things, 12 people earning an average £20,000 a year isn't very much when it comes to a Premier League fooball club. It's probably one month's wages for Emile Heskey to put it into perspective. I think anybody thinking that the sale of The Browns is going to lead to better things financially for us is barking up the wrong tree. I'm only guessing, but I reckon it was maybe a case of having to sell, rather than wanting to.
You are definitely wrong there. Randy didn't sell the Browns because he had to financially, he sold them because ultimately this was his first chance too as he didn't want to ever own them. He was just obliged too.
He just wants to be a fan..
Yeah, but you don't actually know that, do you?
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.
even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation of performance and productivity.
Hmmm, so it's just coincidence that we're cutting those costs at the same time as we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side; seems unlikely.
Thus far, we've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest that there's any change to the policy of financial fugality that we heard them talking about so much this last year or two. Having started to make this change, he's not really going to stop now.
In my opinion, the efforts we're making to get the wage bill (players wise) under control, efficiency savings like this, and given what he's done with the Browns recently, point to him getting things healthier in preparation to sell the club.
I think that is, at the very least, far more likely than the theory that he flogged the Browns because he loves Villa so much and wants to invest more money in the club.
-
Oh, and re selling the club - there's no guarantee that any future buyers are going to be Man City style gajillionaires, they might well be owners who don't want to run a club which is anything but self sufficient (which is what Faulkner has said we're after - the club has to look after itself financially).
In other words, much more like Everton (although even they lose money with their frugality) than Man City, I'm afraid.
-
Sad though it is for anyone to lose their job it's also a part of almost every business on the planet. It might not have anything directly to do with austerity measures. Villa pride themselves on their tremendous service and I'm sure they don't want to sacrifice that. However, businesses always look for ways of becoming more efficient and we don't know the background to this to understand this decision fully.
Crowds are falling and we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side too. I don't think we need Columbo to figure this one out.
even if attendances are where they should be and the wage bill was under control the club could still have made these cuts. It could very well be we can still offer the same level of service in those areas without that level of staffing. Creating efficiency isn't neccessarily a direct correlation of performance and productivity.
Hmmm, so it's just coincidence that we're cutting those costs at the same time as we're reducing the wage bill on the playing side; seems unlikely.
Thus far, we've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest that there's any change to the policy of financial fugality that we heard them talking about so much this last year or two. Having started to make this change, he's not really going to stop now.
In my opinion, the efforts we're making to get the wage bill (players wise) under control, efficiency savings like this, and given what he's done with the Browns recently, point to him getting things healthier in preparation to sell the club.
I think that is, at the very least, far more likely than the theory that he flogged the Browns because he loves Villa so much and wants to invest more money in the club.
or just getting the club to a point where it makes sense as a business as opposed to the disaster it had become. Maybe selling the Browns gives him an opportunity to concentrate on one sports team rather than two. I agree, that it doesn't mean that he'll invest one more penny into our club, but instead it just gives him a bit more time that he can now focus on us. If all of the measures taken mean that we run better as a business and subsequently as a football club then it will only help in the long term. Whether that long term involves him or not is something none of us truly know.
-
Oh, and re selling the club - there's no guarantee that any future buyers are going to be Man City style gajillionaires, they might well be owners who don't want to run a club which is anything but self sufficient (which is what Faulkner has said we're after - the club has to look after itself financially).
In other words, much more like Everton (although even they lose money with their frugality) than Man City, I'm afraid.
that's the one thing that I've never understood with people eager to see Randy sell. Selling up means that head into more uncertainty and Man City or PSG style owners that bank roll success simply don't grow on trees. Both of those clubs and Chelsea before them got massively lucky, but that's only 3 clubs that have been able to that anywhere. Most of the time takeovers give you much the same or more likely you end up in a worse position than before.
-
It's difficult to imagine there are potential owners out there who could have done a worse job over the last two years.
-
It's difficult to imagine there are potential owners out there who could have done a worse job over the last two years.
I think that's probably a slight exaggeration on how I'd put it, but you're right, they've had two piss poor years, there's no way to rewrite that chunk of history.
-
There are some redundancies, mostly voluntary and on the marketing side, mainly due to the downturn in non-matchday corporate business. I know the public sector use Villa Park a lot and they've obviously been affected by cuts.
-
Oh, and re selling the club - there's no guarantee that any future buyers are going to be Man City style gajillionaires, they might well be owners who don't want to run a club which is anything but self sufficient (which is what Faulkner has said we're after - the club has to look after itself financially).
In other words, much more like Everton (although even they lose money with their frugality) than Man City, I'm afraid.
that's the one thing that I've never understood with people eager to see Randy sell. Selling up means that head into more uncertainty and Man City or PSG style owners that bank roll success simply don't grow on trees. Both of those clubs and Chelsea before them got massively lucky, but that's only 3 clubs that have been able to that anywhere. Most of the time takeovers give you much the same or more likely you end up in a worse position than before.
It really depends. Obviously nobody would choose shysters as their new owners, but I think we're all expecting Randy to be a bit more sensible than that.
One thing I will say, though, is that if we're going to be entirely self sufficient, we'd better get used to the fact that we're not going to be spending big on players at all again for a very long time, if ever.
Ask Everton fans how much they enjoy scrimping around and trying to balance the books. They're lucky they've got a manager with the nack of making it work, and who has stuck around for ages.
I bet as soon as Moyes goes, they'll sink like a stone.
-
Let's hope so.
-
One of the key things if you're looking to run the club along austere lines is that on the occasions when the board have to choose a new manager they have to get it absolutely spot on or, as paulie says, the club could plummet. We've bollocksed it up twice but hopefully have finally made the right appointment in Lambert. Solksjaer might have been a more exciting option but I can't blame the board for going for a safer choice.
-
Oh, and re selling the club - there's no guarantee that any future buyers are going to be Man City style gajillionaires, they might well be owners who don't want to run a club which is anything but self sufficient (which is what Faulkner has said we're after - the club has to look after itself financially).
In other words, much more like Everton (although even they lose money with their frugality) than Man City, I'm afraid.
that's the one thing that I've never understood with people eager to see Randy sell. Selling up means that head into more uncertainty and Man City or PSG style owners that bank roll success simply don't grow on trees. Both of those clubs and Chelsea before them got massively lucky, but that's only 3 clubs that have been able to that anywhere. Most of the time takeovers give you much the same or more likely you end up in a worse position than before.
It really depends. Obviously nobody would choose shysters as their new owners, but I think we're all expecting Randy to be a bit more sensible than that.
One thing I will say, though, is that if we're going to be entirely self sufficient, we'd better get used to the fact that we're not going to be spending big on players at all again for a very long time, if ever.
Ask Everton fans how much they enjoy scrimping around and trying to balance the books. They're lucky they've got a manager with the nack of making it work, and who has stuck around for ages.
I bet as soon as Moyes goes, they'll sink like a stone.
Maybe it's the eternal optimist in me but I don't think we'll become Everton any time soon. I'm not going to completely agree on us not spending any large transfer fees again in the future. I am convinced that we won't be going down the MON road of signing players on a with a big transfer fee, large signing bonus and wages, a long term contract packaged neatly with a permanent place on the bench. I happen to think we'll be a lot more careful about how we identify players, better scouting and more emphasis on the academy. So instead of signing a 15m player, we'll sign him for a lot less and develop him so that if he does get sold we will be the ones to sell him for 15m or more.
-
Look at Malaga too, bought by Qatari investor, Abdullah bin Nasser bin Abdullah Al Ahmed Al Thani in 2010 (thanks wiki), signing loads of players and appointing Pellegrini as manager. He’s since lost interest and the club cannot afford to pay their players and they’re have a fire sale of their best players (Toulalan anyone?).
I think it’s vital that Randy/Faulkner run the business in a sustainable manner. This doesn’t mean penny pinching and never signing players but building strong foundations that the club can build from with certainty that the club does not need Randy’s money.
-
I think that's right. There's nothing wrong with spending big on a player; it just has to be the right player under the right conditions which means having a top class scouting network. Spending £12M+ on Steven Fletcher is an example of how not to do it.
-
Maybe it's the eternal optimist in me but I don't think we'll become Everton any time soon. I'm not going to completely agree on us not spending any large transfer fees again in the future. I am convinced that we won't be going down the MON road of signing players on a with a big transfer fee, large signing bonus and wages, a long term contract packaged neatly with a permanent place on the bench. I happen to think we'll be a lot more careful about how we identify players, better scouting and more emphasis on the academy. So instead of signing a 15m player, we'll sign him for a lot less and develop him so that if he does get sold we will be the ones to sell him for 15m or more.
Mind you, how often do we finish above Everton? Faulkner said the club has to pay for itself, several times. They've made that pretty clear, it's hard to see how they could have done much more to do so, in fact.
Obviously, I want us to get excellent players for value prices, but the thing about selling them for 15m or more, is that is what we did with Milner, Downing and Young, which went down like a fart in a crowded lift at the time.
If we consistently flog off our better players, it's hard to see how we're ever going to move beyond where our squad pegs us at now - mid table.
I think you're right, going down the MON route is definitely off the menu, and that makes sense, but that doesn't really change anything re the self sufficiency thing. We all probably have our own standpoints on what we think of that, but whatever our opinions, there hasn't actually been any evidence to suggest that policy has changed. We've lost a few players from a skimpy squad, we've signed, what, two players this window? Vlaar and Lowton - actually am I forgetting someone (who isn't Holman)? Ah, yes, KEA.
It all points at the same financial realities as last season, and I think anyone thinking that's going to change suddenly, be it because of the Browns sale or whatever reason, is going to be disappointed.
-
Blimey that isn't good news, I thought this was a blose thread at first.
-
If we consistently flog off our better players, it's hard to see how we're ever going to move beyond where our squad pegs us at now - mid table.
I know it's somewhat a tired comparison but Newcastle last year and Spurs for a few seasons now have shown that you can be inventive in the market despite selling key players. I think the "selling club" thing is all a bit of a myth and way overplayed. Every club sells, you just have to do it more often than not when it suits you. For us, we need to have layers in place whereby when we do sell, the next (replacement) James Milner or Ashley Young isn't far off because of the system we have established and have in place. Be it in our own ranks or because our scouts have identified the replacement and the transition would be relatively seamless. Instead when it happened to us we were left with this massive hole that we still haven't filled. My feeling is long term that's the road that we need to go down is that we make more intelligent decisions as opposed to rash reactionary ones that are expensive and have serious long term implications.
-
The selling club thing depends not so much on how often you do it, but on what you do with the money you get from those sales. Newcastle copped a gigantic windfall for Carroll so they're an exaggerated case. However, Newcastle spent a fair bit of money, and Spurs have consistently reinvested the money they get from sales plus have a much higher income than we do, too. Whereas we have largely pocketed the proceeds from our last big sales.
If we sold Darren Bent tomorrow for (say) £20m, for example, the way things are currently, how much of that do we think we'd reinvest on players?
What kind of system can we put in place to guarantee there's another Milner or Young not far off? Is that even possible to systemise? If it's just a matter of putting a system in place, why isn't everyone doing it? Also, having a system whereby you consistently find decent players cheap with the aim of flogging them for 10-15m, isn't that what Wigan do?
It's pretty difficult to find players like those. It's also then much harder to keep them if you're bobbing around mid table. I'm sure Young would have done one earlier had we not been top six for three seasons.
I totally take your point about intelligent decisions etc etc, but it's much easier said than done, and over-reliance on it is dangerous.
It's like over reliance on youth products. Yes, use your academy and grow as many of your own as you can. That's fine, but do not assume they're going to produce the goods, and don't over rely on them.
Faulkner has said he wants the Ajax model where they create their own and also buy some in. The problem with that is that it works fine for Ajax because they're the biggest club in the country - so can attract the best kids in the first place - and can hold on to them for longer if they show promise because they can offer constant CL football.
We can't do either of these things.
Our problem was that we never moved on from sixth. If we're now not investing to prosper but living on our income, and sixth is a much harder ask than it was three years ago given the changed financial landscape of the league, then aren't we just going to have the same problem we had when we lost those good players, except further down the table, and they'll want out earlier?
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is all gloom and doom, but anyone who thinks we're going to snap back into big spending mode, or that we've hit on some magic formula whereby you don't actually need to spend more than you earn to move forward, is really going to have a nasty shock, I fear.
-
Fuck sake paulie, I was really looking forward to the new season before reading that....think I'll just enjoy watching the Villa stars of yesteryear pay tribute to Eamonn Deacy next weekend in Galway and then draw the curtains on 2012/13 barely after it's begun.
-
Fuck sake paulie, I was really looking forward to the new season before reading that....think I'll just enjoy watching the Villa stars of yesteryear pay tribute to Eamonn Deacy next weekend in Galway and then draw the curtains on 2012/13 barely after it's begun.
You're such a doom merchant, eamonn. Strap one on / man up / borrow a pair etc etc ;-)
That's the thing, see, I'm not at all gloomy, I can't wait for the new season. We've got a progressive, forward thinking manager in place where last year we had a clueless, doomish, negative abberation calling the shots.
It's just the "pretend we're not cutting back any more" stuff that I find a bit bewidlering, as it doesn't bear any comparison to actual reality. If you accept that, it gets a lot easier. as you're going to be a lot less disappointed. That and the belief some have that he's sold the Browns so he can focus his attention and money on us.
-
Fuck sake paulie, I was really looking forward to the new season before reading that....think I'll just enjoy watching the Villa stars of yesteryear pay tribute to Eamonn Deacy next weekend in Galway and then draw the curtains on 2012/13 barely after it's begun.
You're such a doom merchant, eamonn. Strap one on / man up / borrow a pair etc etc ;-)
I've seen it all now. Poor Eamonn getting bitch slapped by last season's drama queen finalist.
Good work, girls. *winky*
-
There are some redundancies, mostly voluntary and on the marketing side, mainly due to the downturn in non-matchday corporate business. I know the public sector use Villa Park a lot and they've obviously been affected by cuts.
Christ, what possible reason could the public sector have to use expensive corporate hospitality facilities?
-
There are some redundancies, mostly voluntary and on the marketing side, mainly due to the downturn in non-matchday corporate business. I know the public sector use Villa Park a lot and they've obviously been affected by cuts.
Christ, what possible reason could the public sector have to use expensive corporate hospitality facilities?
It's not hospitality, it's weekday events such as conferences and exhibitions. Villa Park is cheaper than most, easily accessible for travellers from afar and situated in the local community.
-
There are some redundancies, mostly voluntary and on the marketing side, mainly due to the downturn in non-matchday corporate business. I know the public sector use Villa Park a lot and they've obviously been affected by cuts.
Christ, what possible reason could the public sector have to use expensive corporate hospitality facilities?
I've been to a few such events and when you want to get a lot of people together from all over the country there aren't that many places available that cater for those sort of numbers. It's to ensure that a consistent message is delivered to a wide range of people. I have to say though that it's a thing of the past, in these austere times there is no money for travel let alone hiring of corporate facilities.
-
It's difficult to imagine there are potential owners out there who could have done a worse job over the last two years.
The hairdresser down the road?
-
Why would the public sector need to villa park when council own Icc , talk about pissing money away!!
-
Why would the public sector need to villa park when council own Icc , talk about pissing money away!!
Not all the public sector is the council, they don't own the ICC, it's impractical for most of the events Villa Park host, it's inconvenient for a myriad of reasons. Minor details like that.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/nuxFs.jpg)
-
I think it’s fair to say that we have not got value for money from that spending.
-
Villa v Stoke Champions League final...the world would turn off.
-
It's the Stoke one that surprises me the most. Where the hell have they managed to spend 60 million?
But back on topic, maybe if we didn't spend so much money, and then 40k a week for the likes of Habib Beye and Wayne Routledge to sit on the bench then perhaps those who are now redundant and provided much more for the club might still have a job.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/nuxFs.jpg)
What's the source for those figures?
A quick Google comes up with this lot:
Here is the Premier League table alternate top 10, by net spend, for figures over the past five seasons, from 2007/08 to 2011/12.
Manchester City: £430.77 million
Chelsea: £159.7 million
Liverpool: £99.25 million
Sunderland: £57.6 million
Tottenham Hotspur: £49.4 million
Manchester United: £47.25 million
Swansea City: £8.25 million
Everton: £5 million
Newcastle United: -£30.25 million
Arsenal: -£31.3 million
Source: From here (http://hereisthecity.com/2012/03/29/the-staggering-disparities-of-the-premier-league-top-10-by-net-s/)
Via: Here (http://transferleague.co.uk/)
No idea of the accuracy, but a different story.
-
It aired on Sky Sports News recently, I'm just assuming what they're saying is correct.
-
Looking at the bottom of that Skysports screenshot, they're using the same source as you, Nick
-
And digging deeper into transferleague.co.uk I can see the same figures Chipstick published! They still look a bit odd though.
I give up! (http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html)
-
It's the Stoke one that surprises me the most. Where the hell have they managed to spend 60 million?
But back on topic, maybe if we didn't spend so much money, and then 40k a week for the likes of Habib Beye and Wayne Routledge to sit on the bench then perhaps those who are now redundant and provided much more for the club might still have a job.
It's nothing to do with football. Non-matchday income has fallen and that's where the losses are.
-
There are some redundancies, mostly voluntary and on the marketing side, mainly due to the downturn in non-matchday corporate business. I know the public sector use Villa Park a lot and they've obviously been by cuts.
Christ, what possible reason could the public sector have to use expensive corporate hospitality facilities?
My Mrs works in the public sector and often has to attend things with hundreds of attendees.
I'd imagine somewhere like Villa Park might be appealing because it is right off the motorway network in the middle of the country. I'd also imagine they have a range of packages for conferences and meetings, too, so it's really no big surprise they get used for stuff like that.
-
Why would the public sector need to villa park when council own Icc , talk about pissing money away!!
Apart from the fact they don't own the ICC, what do you think the costs are in using a venue like Villa Park versus the ICC? VP would be miles cheaper.
-
As far as I know VP prices for functions etc are pretty competitive. A friend had an anniversary bash there and another looked into it as a wedding reception venue and both said they offered good rooms at decent prices.
-
I work in the industry and people will pay what they want.
-
Ditto. With a downturn in our industry we just held a promotional party with free booze and food. It was at a fancy restaurant bar too. We needed to make a splash with the key people and frankly a back-of-the-pub job wont attract the folks that we targeted.
And we had to let a few folks go as well. The sales and marketing dept called it 'lose leader'.
It was a great party...
-
Maybe it is because our hospitality is second to non. Maybe it is because we are Aston Villa.?
-
Why would the public sector need to villa park when council own Icc , talk about pissing money away!!
Apart from the fact they don't own the ICC, what do you think the costs are in using a venue like Villa Park versus the ICC? VP would be miles cheaper.
I'm betting that Villa Park laid on Caviar and Peacocks tongues in aspic for all those public sector bastards.
Obviously the £200k per annum wages they receive isn't enough for them, not to mention that most of them only do a 20 hour week at most.
-
Why would the public sector need to villa park when council own Icc , talk about pissing money away!!
Apart from the fact they don't own the ICC, what do you think the costs are in using a venue like Villa Park versus the ICC? VP would be miles cheaper.
I'm betting that Villa Park laid on Caviar and Peacocks tongues in aspic for all those public sector bastards.
Obviously the £200k per annum wages they receive isn't enough for them, not to mention that most of them only do a 20 hour week at most.
And have a pension made from frozen unicorn tears or something.
-
Why would the public sector need to villa park when council own Icc , talk about pissing money away!!
Apart from the fact they don't own the ICC, what do you think the costs are in using a venue like Villa Park versus the ICC? VP would be miles cheaper.
Even if they did, the ICC would be run as an independent business and there would be no chance of facilities been given to areas of the public sector for free/cheap.
Having worked in a Birmingham hotel till the start of last year and I don't imagine things have changed too much but places are surviving on very fine margins. Meetings and conference facilities are so competitive some places are pretty much giving away the service which only ends up making it worse for everyone else as venues will be expected to match that rate, when often it is just not feasible. Staffing is at a bare mimimum, the amount of staff at my hotel when i started in 2007 was much greater than when I left, it wasn't redundencies but it just wasn't possible most of the time to replace people when they left.
We had conferences ranging in size for local education and NHS as well as the city council.
-
Why would the public sector need to villa park when council own Icc , talk about pissing money away!!
Apart from the fact they don't own the ICC, what do you think the costs are in using a venue like Villa Park versus the ICC? VP would be miles cheaper.
Even if they did, the ICC would be run as an independent business and there would be no chance of facilities been given to areas of the public sector for free/cheap.
Having worked in a Birmingham hotel till the start of last year and I don't imagine things have changed too much but places are surviving on very fine margins. Meetings and conference facilities are so competitive some places are pretty much giving away the service which only ends up making it worse for everyone else as venues will be expected to match that rate, when often it is just not feasible. Staffing is at a bare mimimum, the amount of staff at my hotel when i started in 2007 was much greater than when I left, it wasn't redundencies but it just wasn't possible most of the time to replace people when they left.
We had conferences ranging in size for local education and NHS as well as the city council.
I would guess as well that a hotel can run events as a loss-leader to get delegates to stay in their rooms/use the bar & restaurant whereas a football club doesn't have such facilities.
-
They do.
-
Indeed. I used to go to a lot of Science Fiction conventions with work, and even the fairly small ones could get the run of most of the hotel pretty cheap. Hotel rooms would be well below the usual price, conference rooms were dirt cheap and it was because of the bar takings.
-
Weddings are even worse where I work 2 grand all in.
-
Frozen unicorns' tears are only available for the 1%, if I remember correctly.
Public Sector 'golden pensions' have been dismembered to pay for some of the damage done by the investment banker terrorists.
This was a pubic service announcement.
-
Frozen unicorns' tears are only available for the 1%, if I remember correctly.
Public Sector 'golden pensions' have been dismembered to pay for some of the damage done by the investment banker terrorists.
This was a pubic service announcement.
Caling Ad@m, Calling Ad@m.
You are required on the redundancies thread.
Thank you.
-
Indeed. I used to go to a lot of Science Fiction conventions with work, and even the fairly small ones could get the run of most of the hotel pretty cheap. Hotel rooms would be well below the usual price, conference rooms were dirt cheap and it was because of the bar takings.
Did you ever do Starfury events? The bar takings would be huge.
-
Mysteryman posted this on Villatalk:
The wages to Turnover ratio has come right down its almost at 50 percent now . Club looking to break even this year operationally . Haven't got a clue what our budget is but like most of the clubs other than the usual suspects unlikely we are going to be doing anything like we did of the Bent magnitude.
Still see more high earners going out and replaced with hungrier something to prove types .
It's hard to see how we could possibly have reduced wages to turnover that much, that quickly.
-
Does seem a big fall, but we have to remember that over the last couple of years the likes of Young A, Downing, Heskey, Milner, NRC, Collins, Young L, Curtis, Sidwell, Carew, Big Brad, Carlos, Bouma, Shorey have all gone. That's probably a large percentage of our top earners in there.
I also wonder what happens with Stan's wages. I'm guessing insurance pays them? Not sure whether they would be included in the figures though.
-
Indeed. I used to go to a lot of Science Fiction conventions with work, and even the fairly small ones could get the run of most of the hotel pretty cheap. Hotel rooms would be well below the usual price, conference rooms were dirt cheap and it was because of the bar takings.
Did you ever do Starfury events? The bar takings would be huge.
No, by the time I worked there we didn't do media cons.
-
Mysteryman posted this on Villatalk:
The wages to Turnover ratio has come right down its almost at 50 percent now . Club looking to break even this year operationally . Haven't got a clue what our budget is but like most of the clubs other than the usual suspects unlikely we are going to be doing anything like we did of the Bent magnitude.
Still see more high earners going out and replaced with hungrier something to prove types .
It's hard to see how we could possibly have reduced wages to turnover that much, that quickly.
I'd be very surprised indeed if that was the case.
-
We have lost more players than we've gained over the past couple of seasons.
Someone could work out how many and their wages (approx) over the past 2 years and we could have a guess ;D
I'd imagine, Ireland, Bent, Dunne, Given and Agbonlahor are up there with our highest earners.
-
Mysteryman posted this on Villatalk:
The wages to Turnover ratio has come right down its almost at 50 percent now . Club looking to break even this year operationally . Haven't got a clue what our budget is but like most of the clubs other than the usual suspects unlikely we are going to be doing anything like we did of the Bent magnitude.
Still see more high earners going out and replaced with hungrier something to prove types .
It's hard to see how we could possibly have reduced wages to turnover that much, that quickly.
I'd be very surprised indeed if that was the case.
Sounds like utter bollocks to me.
-
Frozen unicorns' tears are only available for the 1%, if I remember correctly.
Public Sector 'golden pensions' have been dismembered to pay for some of the damage done by the investment banker terrorists.
This was a pubic service announcement.
Caling Ad@m, Calling Ad@m.
You are required on the redundancies thread.
Thank you.
I'm not biting.
I'd also concur with the comments on the wage-to-turnover ratio. Man United's is about 45% on revenue of over three times ours. 50% would have only them and Arsenal in a better position. Very hard to believe in such a short space of time given where our ratio had got to.
-
Does seem a big fall, but we have to remember that over the last couple of years the likes of Young A, Downing, Heskey, Milner, NRC, Collins, Young L, Curtis, Sidwell, Carew, Big Brad, Carlos, Bouma, Shorey have all gone. That's probably a large percentage of our top earners in there.
I also wonder what happens with Stan's wages. I'm guessing insurance pays them? Not sure whether they would be included in the figures though.
I'm not certain but I think insurance only pays up a contract is a player's career is ended. Otherwise I suppose you could have clubs claiming that players such as Beye who aren't getting a game were always 'injured'.
-
Does seem a big fall, but we have to remember that over the last couple of years the likes of Young A, Downing, Heskey, Milner, NRC, Collins, Young L, Curtis, Sidwell, Carew, Big Brad, Carlos, Bouma, Shorey have all gone. That's probably a large percentage of our top earners in there.
I also wonder what happens with Stan's wages. I'm guessing insurance pays them? Not sure whether they would be included in the figures though.
I'm not certain but I think insurance only pays up a contract is a player's career is ended. Otherwise I suppose you could have clubs claiming that players such as Beye who aren't getting a game were always 'injured'.
In Beye's case we should have taken out 'if player is lazy and shit insurance'.
-
Why would the public sector need to villa park when council own Icc , talk about pissing money away!!
Apart from the fact they don't own the ICC, what do you think the costs are in using a venue like Villa Park versus the ICC? VP would be miles cheaper.
Even if they did, the ICC would be run as an independent business and there would be no chance of facilities been given to areas of the public sector for free/cheap.
Having worked in a Birmingham hotel till the start of last year and I don't imagine things have changed too much but places are surviving on very fine margins. Meetings and conference facilities are so competitive some places are pretty much giving away the service which only ends up making it worse for everyone else as venues will be expected to match that rate, when often it is just not feasible. Staffing is at a bare mimimum, the amount of staff at my hotel when i started in 2007 was much greater than when I left, it wasn't redundencies but it just wasn't possible most of the time to replace people when they left.
We had conferences ranging in size for local education and NHS as well as the city council.
I would guess as well that a hotel can run events as a loss-leader to get delegates to stay in their rooms/use the bar & restaurant whereas a football club doesn't have such facilities.
Thats true, and does put Villa at a disadvantage, and they used the hotel I worked at for rooms sometimes. Although I did mean to say day delegate rates when I posted originally.