Statement this morning

[Hammer]

The Mat Kendrick story in the Mail today said that they want to reduce wages to 60% of turnover. That will have a profound effect on our stated ambitions.

Not necessarily, if that's 60% of an ever increasing turnover.

Do you want to put that into context and explain how you think we might do that?

Well, one obvious way would be by extending the North Stand, raising the capacity by 10,000.

The other would be by building a team that plays attractive football, thus putting the bums on the seats.

[paul_e]

The Mat Kendrick story in the Mail today said that they want to reduce wages to 60% of turnover. That will have a profound effect on our stated ambitions.

Not necessarily, if that's 60% of an ever increasing turnover.

Exactly right, as I put on another thread, changing that percentage means either reducing wages or increasing income, do a bit of both for now (which we've started with the current departures and with the new sponsors) and then keep the income rising is the sensible approach here and is how any decent business is run.  This is what the general has been saying on the site for months.  The 40% excess year on year pays to push us on, therefore increasing income and allowing us to push on further.

[Ads]

Well turnover for the next accounts will be at least 90 million given the sponsorship- not taking into account the cup runs and prize money.

[VillaAlways]

I'm going to be really disappointed if we are not going to get Ireland in the deal for Milner especislly as it looks the Milner money isn't being put into the transfer pot.How are we going to buy Keane without shifting the deadwood ??

[Chris Smith]

It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue. 

Where's the issue?  We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.

The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.

Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.

If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.

Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.

If we can't sell them and you want to continue with the blame game then it doesn't reflect well on any of them, Randy was the man signing the cheques. I tend to think it is more to do with the changed economic climate and clubs now trying to do what we're aiiming to do with wages where in the past players such as Young, Sidwell and Reo Coker would have found a home at another PL club without too much difficulty.

[Chico Hamilton III]

I'm going to be really disappointed if we are not going to get Ireland in the deal for Milner especislly as it looks the Milner money isn't being put into the transfer pot.How are we going to buy Keane without shifting the deadwood ??

I've just said this in the transfer thread, but we are managerless, so who will be negotiating these deals for new players that, for all we know, our new manager may not want to play.

And who decides which players to sell?

I'll bet we buy nobody in the transer window

[Toronto Villa]

It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue. 

Where's the issue?  We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.

The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.

Chris, I cannot imagine that being financially responsible wasn't the plan all along, and it simply got out of hand. Or that the investments made haven't given the required or desired return. I don't think Lerner has a problem with a new manager spending money, but there needs to be a framework which everyone agrees to. If by shifting out some of the players who haven't performed and supplementing the club with new players that will actually contribute as part of a squad, then they have a system whereby each asset is providing some return. With some of the kids also coming through it would be a more sustainable plan.

I still think it is a complete myth that the new manager won't have money to spoend, but it won't be predicated on having to sell first. But we will have to sell players that the new manager deems expendable.

[PhilGibson]

Thought this was the appropriate place to post this.

It is now time to move on from Martin O'Neill and look to the future.
He deserves credit for elements in which he has done well the signings of Ashley Young, Milner and Dunne being just a few.
I thank him for achieving 3 consecutive 6th place finishes and 2 Wembley appearances.

The owner of the club has decided that our wages are not sustainable based on our revenue, the wages to turnover in the latest accounts could be over 100%, is this sustainable? No chance.

The club has this summer accelerated the drive to get in further money through sponsorships, partnerships and corporate entertainment. This needs to happen we need to maximise income as much as possible. It is a two pronged approach bring in more money on the one hand and reduce costs on the other, more players will leave but we need to be able to exist as a club in the future, if we continued down the path of excessive wages to turnover then we would be well on our way to doing a Portsmouth, this might sound like Doug Ellis in disguise but the reality is do you want a club to support if Randy Lerner was to leave tomorrow.

We need to cut our cloth accordingly, other clubs are doing it, Everton under Moyes seem to manage. Our accounts last year did not make a pretty picture and as for this year I dread to think how bad the loss could be. Randy knew this when he bought the club that there would need to be a period of investment and potential losses, what I guess he did not bank on was Man City and financial crisis all over the world, I am sure it has affected his outlook in the short term.

Take Man City out of the equation this summer, and have clubs in the premier league been spending any money? I truly believe the situation with Portsmouth has made many owner or board take a long hard look at the finances and tighten the purse strings. We are not alone and the thought that managers wont arrive because we do not have the funds to spend is a concerning one.

I think its a case of wait and see now, the owner is trying to do right by the club and I am dam sure he is not going to jeopardise a quarter of a billion pound investment so far by making rash decisions that do not benefit him or the club.

[Concrete John]

Lets not forget that Young and Sidwell almost left.  If they had, along with the Shorey deal and Harewood and Bouma coming off the wage bill, it's very conceivable that the issue would be largely resolved and Martin would still be our manager.

[Villa'Zawg]

It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue. 

Where's the issue?  We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.

The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.

Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.

If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.

Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.

If we can't sell them and you want to continue with the blame game then it doesn't reflect well on any of them, Randy was the man signing the cheques. I tend to think it is more to do with the changed economic climate and clubs now trying to do what we're aiiming to do with wages where in the past players such as Young, Sidwell and Reo Coker would have found a home at another PL club without too much difficulty.

and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?

[Toronto Villa]

It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue. 

Where's the issue?  We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.

The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.

Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.

If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.

Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.

If we can't sell them and you want to continue with the blame game then it doesn't reflect well on any of them, Randy was the man signing the cheques. I tend to think it is more to do with the changed economic climate and clubs now trying to do what we're aiiming to do with wages where in the past players such as Young, Sidwell and Reo Coker would have found a home at another PL club without too much difficulty.

and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?

I hope you're not counting appearances that constitute 5 minutes at the end of game.

[pauliewalnuts]

and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?

Reserves and youth team players for starters.

There's no point having someone like Habib Beye hosing out 40k a week to do nothing - no 30 games a season there, I note.  Why not use Lichaj?  Or get someone who'll do the job for 20k a week?

Incidentally, "appearances" doesn't tell the story.

Sidwell has started a total of 23 league games in two years. I appreciate that there were also 18 lots of 10 minute cameos, but that hardly suggests a player used much.

Reo-Coker has started 61 league games in three years, but how many of those were last year?

Is it wise to have a 9m transfer fee and high wages tied up in our third/fourth choice centre back?

We have a budget to work to, there isn't a never ending supply of money, it seems sensible that, when wages to turnover is so worryingly high, we might want to look at getting more value out of our assets or whether we're allocating our resources particularly well.

[pauliewalnuts]

I hope you're not counting appearances that constitute 5 minutes at the end of game.

Of course he is.

He's also taking an average over three years rather than look closer at the appearances said players have made recently.

[Villa'Zawg]

It's the part where he ties competitiveness to resources where I see a potential issue. 

Where's the issue?  We can't compete with City on a financial level, it's obvious.

The fact that he said it is the only issue. There was no need for it but he wanted to make the point that we are working under different circumstances now. I have a real fear that if they cannot sell the players previously identified then they'll sell others who we'd be less happy to see go in order to achieve their aim of cutting the wage bill. I hope I'm wrong, time will tell.

Those lesser players we can't shift - whether it be because nobody wants them, nobody can afford their wages, or they don't want to take a pay cut to leave - are players bought by MON.

If we end up having to sell players at the top end instead, then it shows the folly of some of those signings.

Furthermore, if - if - the situation is that serious, it also shows the manager was lacking in stomach for the fight if he walked at the slightest hint he'd need to play his part.

If we can't sell them and you want to continue with the blame game then it doesn't reflect well on any of them, Randy was the man signing the cheques. I tend to think it is more to do with the changed economic climate and clubs now trying to do what we're aiiming to do with wages where in the past players such as Young, Sidwell and Reo Coker would have found a home at another PL club without too much difficulty.

and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?

I hope you're not counting appearances that constitute 5 minutes at the end of game.

I'm counting all the times they have played for Villa. The fact is that each of them started as a first choice player when they joined. We replaced them in the first team with better players last season and they were relegated to the subs bench in exactly the way that every club would wish to improve their team. When we ship those players out, who takes their place on the bench? Collins, Petrov and Downing? It probably should be but its not going to be now is it?

[Risso]

and remind me, which players are going to replace the average 30 1st team appearances a season that those 3 have since they joined? Ones willing to join and play for free presumably?

*gregpalm*

Truly desperate usage of stats there.  NRC started 6 games last season.