Selling the 'deadwood' and their 'high' wages

[Chris Smith]

If you have a squad of around 24 then inevitably some are going to play a lot of games, some a middling amount and some very few. Shorey has featured in about 30 games during his time here so falls in the mid range. It might have been more if he hadn't spent most of last season on loan and if he hadn't behaved like a spoiled brat at Fulham the season before last.

[pauliewalnuts]

He might have played for us more had the manager not sent him on loan for the season?

I guess that's undeniable.

[Chris Smith]

He might have played for us more had the manager not sent him on loan for the season?

I guess that's undeniable.

I'm glad the twat went out on loan but whether he was sent or asked to go is not something either of us are privy to.

What is undeniable is that the man keeping out of the side is twice the player he'll ever be.

[old man villa fan]

What annoys me is people not actually reading what people are saying before clambering onto their high horse and moaning about the posters who shout the loudest etc etc

Nobody said MON is the only manager to sign players on big contracts. He's the one were most bothered about though, as we're Aston Villa supporters and he's our manager.

And yes, we did need to build a squad four years ago, the issue isn't paying decent wages, it is paying them for players you then decide not to use.

Where, for example, was the sense in buying Beye to then make him third choice right back? What was the point of spending that money on Shorey then almost instantly binning him?

You might not agree that we have a problem with unused high earners but whingeing about people even talking about it seems a bit over the top.

Incidentally, to talk about the trouble English football is in and that the clubs aren't facing up to it, whilst defending our pay policy, doesnt really stack up, as - although not as bad as Portsmouth or West Ham, clearly - we currently pay approximately 85 percent of our turnover on players wages, one of the highest levels in the league, and way, way beyond what is considered a "sensible" level.

In that sense, we are one of the worst offenders.

You were obviously referring to my comments so I will respond.

You are annoyed because you think I had not read what another had said before 'clambering onto my high horse and moaning'.  Far from it, my comments were not aimed at anybody's comment in particular but the blinkered view of some on the transfer policy of our manager.  And yes, I have read all of the posts on this topic.  I always do because I do not engage my fingertips before putting my brain into gear.  There again, I could take your comment as being a response to our previous 'history' on this message board.

We are all more interested in Villa than other clubs but you cannot ignore what happens at other clubs and make believe it only happens at Villa and that it is solely due to the inadequacies of our manager.

A football club is based on a squad not a team.  You have a squad to cover for injuries and suspensions and maybe rotate for loss of form/freshness.  We cannot ignore the fact that we have been very lucky with injuries and suspensions over the last 2/3 years and MON has not had to bring in his squad players for this.  I think most people would agree on our best first 11 and it would generally be the 11 MON picks on a regular basis.  I would agree that MON does not change things at times when I feel he should but there again, it's a fine line and the closer we have got to the top four, the more conservative MON has become.  He belives that we have more chance with the first 11 than making changes.  His decisions are directly related to how long he stays in a job, whereas it is very easy to play manager over the internet

The Beye purchase was because he was available at a good price, was proven in the PL and he needed a right back if Young was going to play left as MON was having difficulties in prising Warnock away from Blackburn.  Shorey was bought due to the preseason injury to Bouma and was an emergency purchase.  At the time he looked a good player at Reading and had been on the verge of the England side (I suppose on reflection after the world cup that is not saying much).  As it turned out, his attacking qualities outshone his defensive capabilities, when what we needed was a better defensive fullback.  Hopefully, in the fullness of time Warnock will prove to be that player.

I am concerned with how much we pay our squad players but come the time of injuries and suspensions we need squad players.  As I have said, we have been very lucky with injuries etc..  I am not 'whingeing' about people even talking about it (perhaps you should go back and read what I said and not jump on YOUR high horse - pot, kettle and all that).  What does get me is the one sided view of things and ignoring of pertinent facts.

Who said I am defending our pay policy.  Randy has come in with a cetain budget to spend and only he knows how far he is willing to go compared with what he could recoup by selling the club.  There is very little comment that comes out of the club regarding finance and transfers.  Most comments are based on speculation and unfounded media stories.

Again, only Randy knows what a 'sensible level' of spending is on players wages.  Just because Platini says it should be x%, it doesn't mean that it is the same for every club.  For example, a club could be developing young players and sell them on a regular basis to fund the running of the club.  In this case, they could afford to pay more in wages as a % of income.

In fact, I think we should be more self sufficient by developing and selling young players rather than filling the squad with purchased players, even if this saw us not challenging the top four for a couple of seasons.  Others will not see it this way and still believe we should be able to compete with Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea.  It is not a level playing field and whereas Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are starting with a foot on the white line and Man City, Chelsea and Man Utd a metre in front of it, Villa and Everton seem to be starting two metres behind the line.  As for the others, they should not even bother to take part.

[ronshirt]

In fact, I think we should be more self sufficient by developing and selling young players rather than filling the squad with purchased players, even if this saw us not challenging the top four for a couple of seasons.  Others will not see it this way and still believe we should be able to compete with Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea.  It is not a level playing field and whereas Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are starting with a foot on the white line and Man City, Chelsea and Man Utd a metre in front of it, Villa and Everton seem to be starting two metres behind the line.  As for the others, they should not even bother to take part.

Have you nothing better to do on a Saturday night than be sensible? Shame on you, Sir.

[pauliewalnuts]

We are all more interested in Villa than other clubs but you cannot ignore what happens at other clubs and make believe it only happens at Villa and that it is solely due to the inadequacies of our manager..

That's what I mean by stepping in without actually bothering to read what people are saying.

Nobody is saying it does only happen at Villa, so I don't know why you got the hump over it in the first place.

I am not 'whingeing' about people even talking about it (perhaps you should go back and read what I said and not jump on YOUR high horse - pot, kettle and all that). What does get me is the one sided view of things and ignoring of pertinent facts.

No, of course not:

The manager has made mistakes, every manager has but the way some people go on, I find it extremely annoying when I think it is not warranted to the extreme comments but forward by some posters.  I suppose, however, in todays society some people think they have to shout the loudest to get listened to.

And, as I said, nobody is moaning about "the giving out of contracts of 40k a week", it is the way those players are then used or not used they're moaning about.

What I really don't understand is that you argue that position, then ultimately say the the game is going to hell in a handcart (which I agree, it is) financially, and that more prudence is needed - two standpoints which seem diametrically opposed.

As I said before, if you are looking for paragons of financial good sense in the game, it certainly is not us with our wages to turnover ratio. Are we the only club in that position? Far from it. But we're still in that position.

You're right, West Ham and their 75k for Lucas Neill and Portsmouth and their 80k a week for John Utaka (even worse) are much worse than anything we've ever done, but the point still remains, we've a finite budget to spend on players - transfer fees and wages - we can't just go and scoop up some more from the money pit.

Given that, if you look at people like Beye with his 40k a week to do nothing (and no matter the reasons why, he is still doing nothing), or Heskey, a 3.5 year big money contract for a 31 year old, or Shorey, or Sidwell with his 15 minute cameos, regardless of whether other managers make similiar mistakes, you really have to have a cavalier disregard for financial matters to shrug those off.

If the English game is going to a bad place (and, you're right, no doubt about it, it is), it is not so much about the big name players getting big money, it is about the average players getting big money - there are far more of them, and they contribute a lot less.

[KevinGage]

Now people are intimating that we were wrong to sign players on contracts of £40k per week.  We had a squad to build and had to persuade players to come to us.  Although we consider ourselves to be an attractive club, modern footballers do not seem to see it the same way.

That might be true if you were talking about top players.

But the likes of Harewood, Sidwell, Shorey, Beye, Heskey and co would be on a par (possibly even a notch or two down) with our purchases pre Lerner, at the back end of the HDE years.

[sfx412]

I often wonder whether people who post on here have selective memories to suit their argument or just forget situations in the past.

very true and you are a prime example of exactly that.
No one I've read is suggesting Mon is the only one who wastes money, but he's the only one managing Villa, he's the only one who has near topped the transfer monies in Europe in the PL for 2 seasons, despite your affirmation that Chelsea, Man City, Utd etc spend more.

He did need to build the squad after he removed so many from it without a second thought. Were many of those poorer players than Harewood, Knight, Maloney, Beye, SALIFOU, Heskey, Shorey, Routledge. and so on, not for me.
 4 seasons in, huge sums spent, 6th remains the epiphany. good enough ? For the spend he's had, the waste on the books, at such big wages, from players he never uses, or can't use because they are so poor, because his ability to pick players is so poor is not good enough.

Not for me .

If he had not spent and wasted so much most of your arguments would be justifiable. Had he gained a trophy even, had a good run in Europe, which is allegedly our aim, maybe fine, but he's spent big, despite your denials, and is failing to achieve, and has a load of crap he can't unload that is crippling our, meaning Aston Villa's, wage bill. True?

[Dave Cooper please]

If the English game is going to a bad place (and, you're right, no doubt about it, it is), it is not so much about the big name players getting big money, it is about the average players getting big money - there are far more of them, and they contribute a lot less.

If there was ever a "in the nutshell" sentence better than this about the state of the game at the moment then I have yet to see it.

[old man villa fan]

very true and you are a prime example of exactly that.

Please do elaborate.

What I meant was people talk about the worth to the club now of the 'Villa 6' but do not mention the reason why each of these players were bought and the transfer climate at the time of each purchase.

No one I've read is suggesting Mon is the only one who wastes money, but he's the only one managing Villa

By the way some go on about it, it seems that way.  Not many people give a balanced view to show how big an issue it is compared with other clubs in a similar position.  There again before anybody mentions it, this is a Villa site so why compare with other clubs.

despite your affirmation that Chelsea, Man City, Utd etc spend more.

Where did this one come from, I certainly didn't say that.  I commented that Man City and Chelsea were leading English football towards bankruptcy.

He did need to build the squad after he removed so many from it without a second thought. Were many of those poorer players than Harewood, Knight, Maloney, Beye, SALIFOU, Heskey, Shorey, Routledge. and so on, not for me.

Players released were either deemed not good enough or would not accept not being in the first team.  Who does not fit into these categories?

Had he gained a trophy even, had a good run in Europe, which is allegedly our aim, maybe fine, but he's spent big, despite your denials

Where have I denied that he has spent big.

I would be very interested to read your analysis of each players purchase as I outlined above.

[sfx412]

I would be very interested to read your analysis of each players purchase as I outlined above.

to achieve what perchance.

The manager sinks or swims by the way he acts, and that includes buying and selling players. The prevailing circumstances of those transfers have little credence as excuse paragraphs for his failures, just as they have little credence to the ones he has got right.

[Merv]

Why offer a left back, that you aren't sure about and think is too slow, £43k a week though?

It's nuts

Again, with hindsight it looks a rotten deal. At the time, it looked a perfectly good deal and a sound signing, given we had no fit left-back with the season a month away.

[MoetVillan]

Yes, and he had played well at Reading, and was called up for England, so arguably one of the best three English players in that position, and one that had Premier league experience under his belt.  It was a knee jerk buying decision, but not a panic buy.  A panic buy would be getting Robbie Savage to play in that position.  Old Man Villa Fan, you make some reasoned and educated points, memories are short and clouded and have the benefit of hindsight.  MON, or any manager does not have this, and makes the best decision he can.  If RL didnt believe in him or trust him, it wouldnt be a case of tightening his purse strings, he would be out.  Paying his severance would be much cheaper than backing further or continued purchases if he didnt trust him.

[sfx412]

Why offer a left back, that you aren't sure about and think is too slow, £43k a week though?

It's nuts

Again, with hindsight it looks a rotten deal. At the time, it looked a perfectly good deal and a sound signing, given we had no fit left-back with the season a month away.

Which alone is poor management, and a sign of no forward planning.

Last minute poorly thought out deals, most every time. That said the ones he buys early, Sidwell, Coker, rarely work out too :)

[Mostinho II]

This does all remind me of the JG era, or his legacy anyway. Over paid journey-men bought for substantial fees with little sell-on value. It's clear we need to loose a few of them.

I'd just like to see an exciting signing for once. Not necessarily foreign, young or old. Just someone a bit more exciting than the Habib Beyes or Nicky Shoreys of this world.

Someone like a JPA or Paul Merson. Not a Steve Stone or Hassan Kachloul.

And god forbid MON leaves and we have to sign a Mark Kinsella or Øyvind Leonhardsen.