Selling the 'deadwood' and their 'high' wages

[Concrete John]

Thing is, Davies, Shorey, etc weren't signed as reserve players. They weren't handed £40k a week to play in the reserves, they were first team players. It's just now they've fallen down the pecking order, which is why we're trying to offload them.

A very good point!

Somewhat ruined by the fact that MON never really rated Shorey and only signed him as a short term solution to the problem of Bouma's injury.

Shorey was signed to play in the 1st team when Bouma got injured.  It wasn't short term as much as it was as close to a panic buy as MON will ever get.

[TheSandman]

The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.

Funny how that's only a rule for us. I can't imagine why.

Are you saying other clubs would sign Keane and get away with paying him less?

I believe he is suggesting that if we signed another striker of similar quality from abroad where pay is often lower we could offer them less money.

That is possibly why Tottenham were only paying Modric £25K per week.

[Merv]

I don't think there was anything short term about Bouma's injury, was there?

Even without the benefit of hindsight (two years out, then being released), we all knew Bouma would be out for the full season, so MON didn't sign Shorey as cover, or as a squad player. He was in as first-choice left-back when signed. Just panned out that he didn't make the grade (in O'Neill's opinion).

[Concrete John]

Possibly, but I'd back Keane to score more than any striker new to the PL next season, other than top players bought in on massive wages.

[cheltenhamlion]

I don't think there was anything short term about Bouma's injury, was there?

Even without the benefit of hindsight (two years out, then being released), we all knew Bouma would be out for the full season, so MON didn't sign Shorey as cover, or as a squad player. He was in as first-choice left-back when signed. Just panned out that he didn't make the grade (in O'Neill's opinion).

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

It's nuts

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The thing is, any striker we get that is good enough would have wages at least what Keane's are.

Funny how that's only a rule for us. I can't imagine why.

Are you saying other clubs would sign Keane and get away with paying him less?

No John, other clubs tend to look a little bit further afield than ourselves. But let's just imagine we decided to withdraw our interest in Keane, what next? Spurs want rid, Keane wants to play first team football, something would have to give. Sunderland, Blackburn, even the Rags might be interested but unlikely on the same wages.

As Randy I'm sure is finding out, it's a very expensive game just to stand still. MON inherited a small squad and had to buy a lot of potential deadwood just to make the first steps. Four years in, we really should no longer be in the same position of buying for a quick fix.

[sfx412]

I don't think there was anything short term about Bouma's injury, was there?

I seem to remember several learned 'fans' picking flies out of my suggestion Bouma's injury was likely to be career threatening and certainly not the sort that would get him back in 10 weeks as some said.

That said Shorey did seem to be a another panic buy, and another under utilised if over paid older player.

I also don't think he's as bad as some propagate, but then I thought Ian Wright did OK

[old man villa fan]

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

When Randy came in we were only able to bring in one player before that transfer window closed.  By the time his money became effective and available to buy players West Ham had the Icelandic owners and Man City had Thaksin come in and instantly we had competition to sign the type of players that the top four would not consider but were needed to take mid-table teams to Euro chasing teams.  Posters talk about how much we offered players to get them here but this was nowhere near what West Ham were offering to the likes of Lucas Neill - £75k a week!  The same was happening at Man City.

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

You cannot run a PL club without paying wages or signing new players if you want to compete.  You have to spend vast sums just to stand still.  Very basic calculations show that gate income and Sky money just about pays the club staff.  Transfer fees have to be funded by other commercial activities and investment by owners or money from cup runs, although the latter is taken up to some extent by players' bonus payments.

As another poster has mentioned, clubs like Portsmouth are showing the true state of English football.  Chelsea and now Man City are bankrupting English football.  These clubs are paying over the top for top players in both transfer fees and more importantly, wages.  Even these two clubs have to pay over the top for players as South American Johnny Foreigner would rather play in Spain or Italy than turn out on a cold and wet night in Manchester.  Football as we know it is in trouble and spiralling out of control but people do not want to face up to it.

To make believe that MON is the only manager that signed players on excessive contracts is, as I said above, using a selective memory and 20/20 hindsight vision to have a dig at the manager.  The manager has made mistakes, every manager has but the way some people go on, I find it extremely annoying when I think it is not warranted to the extreme comments but forward by some posters.  I suppose, however, in todays society some people think they have to shout the loudest to get listened to.

[Greg N'Ash]

I'm not really bothered about other clubs. In West Ham's case, the manager got the bullet and the owner lost his shirt. Good.

What does bother me, is we've let two players go for nothing or a pittance who only a couple of years ago were worth 10m, They had no noticable influence on the team during their employment, and the 20m they cost in fee's and wages would have probably gone a good way to funding our transfer dealings this summer. We're not Man C, so every penny we waste will have a knock on effect to the money we have to spend

[old man villa fan]

I'm not really bothered about other clubs. In West Ham's case, the manager got the bullet and the owner lost his shirt. Good.

What does bother me, is we've let two players go for nothing or a pittance who only a couple of years ago were worth 10m, They had no noticable influence on the team during their employment, and the 20m they cost in fee's and wages would have probably gone a good way to funding our transfer dealings this summer. We're not Man C, so every penny we waste will have a knock on effect to the money we have to spend

Ignoring reality again to suit your arguement.

Your comments at times do amaze me.

[PaulTheVillan]

Gregs last comment is pretty correct.

[Greg N'Ash]

i'd say that was totally realistic. i don't think Lerner came to this club aiming to shower it with money for no return for the next decade. if you think differently i'd say you're the one not being realistic

[old man villa fan]

Gregs last comment is pretty correct.

Out of context, yes it is valid.  In the context of the situation at the time it didn't seem so unreasonable.

Were you one of the posters that has said "I don't care, it's Randy's money not mine" when talking hypothetically about buying players that would never come to Villa Park.

[TheSandman]

I'm not really bothered about other clubs. In West Ham's case, the manager got the bullet and the owner lost his shirt. Good.

What does bother me, is we've let two players go for nothing or a pittance who only a couple of years ago were worth 10m, They had no noticable influence on the team during their employment, and the 20m they cost in fee's and wages would have probably gone a good way to funding our transfer dealings this summer. We're not Man C, so every penny we waste will have a knock on effect to the money we have to spend

Ignoring reality again to suit your arguement.

Your comments at times do amaze me.

Ignoring reality? I seldom feel Greg is right and frequently think he ignores reality but in this case everything he says reflects reality.

Have we wasted a lot of money on players who don't play and who will sell for less than we paid for them? Yes. Sidwell, Shorey, L. Young, Reo-Coker, Harewood, Davies, Heskey and Beye is quite some role call in that regard especially considering most of them are on at least £40K a week, most of them excepting Heskey have hardly ever played and most of them could well have actually played from time to time last season.

It's not just that these players have cost us a fortune in fees and wages. It is the fact that they have got it for sitting on their hands last season.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.