Curtis Davies

[ktvillan]

I'm a big supporter of Randy and Co. but I still think they made mistakes in allowing O'Neill to increase the wage bill to 85% of turnover. Back the manager on his football knowledge, fair enough, but why let him deal with financials when he has no qualifications to do so?  It was asking for trouble, and I'd be willing to bet most if not all of O'Neill's signings would have joined us even if lower wages were offered.  Lets' face it they were hardly world class superstars he was signing were they?

Davies is getting panned over the Vienna game when admittedly he cocked up badly but he was badly lacking in top level match practice.  I think he gets a raw deal from a lot of Villa fans.   Contrast with pie disposal unit Richard Dunne who commits error after error, looks slow and overweight,  and gets away with murder by comparison. 

[Dave]

I'm a big supporter of Randy and Co. but I still think they made mistakes in allowing O'Neill to increase the wage bill to 85% of turnover. Back the manager on his football knowledge, fair enough, but why let him deal with financials when he has no qualifications to do so?  It was asking for trouble, and I'd be willing to bet most if not all of O'Neill's signings would have joined us even if lower wages were offered.  Lets' face it they were hardly world class superstars he was signing were they?

So which member of the board should have made the decision as to what level of wages we should have offered?

If O'Neill had wanted to sign both Reo-Coker and Sneijder and offered both £80k per week, should they have backed him on one and not the other? Or neither? Or both?

It seems like you want demand the best of both worlds, all with the benefit of hindsight.

[brontebilly]

The board has made mistakes too and as supporters we should be questioning them on it. Not burying our heads in the sand blaming MON. Who gave MON the funds to spend - 45m-50m net in the 2008/09 season? Money the club could not afford and are now paying the price for?

Then ...

How tight is the money situation at Villa Park?

I can't work out what you're saying.

First you're criticising them for giving the manager too much to spend, then a few lines later, you're moaning about the lack of money to spend.

If the board had said no to some of the players MON wanted and their salaries, I've no doubt you'd be moaning about that, but now you're moaning that the board are to blame for paying big salaries.

And ...

insulted and abused? Hyperbole alert!!!!

Well, insulted might include you and your pathetic "Mr Krulak" arsey student routine the other day.

I'd prefer to know what the state of play is with finances at Villa Park. If we dont have it we shouldnt spend it but I'd prefer if the board were up front about it. The links to Benzema and then the refusal to bring back Curtis Davies dont quite add up.

Mr Krulak wasnt insulted about being called Mr Krulak so if I insulted the PC sensibilities of the highly offended brigade on here then I'm not too bothered.

It seems to me that Randy Lerner in the words of Peter Risdale chased the dream a bit. Only that some of that investment were in fact loans that have to be paid back by the club.

[dave.woodhall]

Calling someone 'PC' because they disagree with you is very tiresome. Almost as tiresome as your claim that the board aren't being upfront when directors have repeatedly answered your question about finances. And maybe, just maybe, the reason Curtis Davies is still at Leicester is because the manager doesn't want him back.

[KevinGage]

I'm a big supporter of Randy and Co. but I still think they made mistakes in allowing O'Neill to increase the wage bill to 85% of turnover. 

Perhaps they thought he would deliver and the success on the pitch with just a bit more backing? The knock on effect being increased revenue and a more even split re wages to turnover.

In fairness, if he was asking them to fork out for higher wages in the summer of 09 he'd have been arguing from a position of strength and would have been a hard man to refuse. We'd gone close to 4th the season before, so even if they had some doubts about certain aspects of his management it would be easy to reason that there was far more good than bad.

His habit for leaving deals late into the transfer window is probably a major factor in  average players being on extortionate wages too. That more than anything else had a killer impact on the wage bill.

Also, would the board really know the difference between a Sidwell, Beye or Heskey and a good player actually worth the wages that trio alone are on? Doubtful. So you can blame them for that if you wish but it seems harsh that we'd criticise a board for letting a football manager manage.

[Bosco81]

The board do have to be partly accountable for the wages spiralling, whether they forecasted more income than we achieved I don't know.

Surely MON was given a budget on transfers and wages, and it's up to the board to monitor that.

The fact they don't seem to interfere much is commendable but I can't see them signing cheques for £130M worth of transfers with a "I suppose you know what you're doing".

[KevinGage]

I really don't see a huge issue.

They gave him latitude when he looked capable of delivering but pulled back when 4th looked far less realistic. You could argue that not letting him spunk even more on wages would be part of the reason why CL became unrealistic but I'd say the emergence of Man City and Tottenham finally getting their act together were major factors in that too. 4th can still be the long term target, but we'll have to do it in a different way.

We probably don't give them the credit they deserve, in so far as how do we know for certain that their longstanding contingency wasn't to pull back on wages if a higher turnover wasn't achived by x date?

I read an interview with RL  a while back where he said it was always the intention to back the manager with a decent transfer pot in year one, invest heavily in year two,  spend big in year three but not as much as year two, as the thing should be more sustainable and so on. That's not to say that he wouldn't  invest after that point, but it was his hope by that stage that any gaps in re personnel and the squad would be covered and the club was in a better position  to generate income and trade on that basis.

[Mister E]

Comparing RL with Ridsdale is in itself insulting! It certainly insults my intelligence.

[ktvillan]

I'm a big supporter of Randy and Co. but I still think they made mistakes in allowing O'Neill to increase the wage bill to 85% of turnover. Back the manager on his football knowledge, fair enough, but why let him deal with financials when he has no qualifications to do so?  It was asking for trouble, and I'd be willing to bet most if not all of O'Neill's signings would have joined us even if lower wages were offered.  Lets' face it they were hardly world class superstars he was signing were they?

So which member of the board should have made the decision as to what level of wages we should have offered?

How about a Chief Executive, as happens in many other clubs?  Someone who actually might a) have a bit of knowledge and experience in contract negotiations and finance in general and b) also knows a bit about the football market and what various players are worth. Unfortunately we didn’t have anyone like that. 

If O'Neill had wanted to sign both Reo-Coker and Sneijder and offered both £80k per week, should they have backed him on one and not the other? Or neither? Or both?

Hmm, tricky one. Let's see, one is a world class international with one of the best national sides in the world, and the star player of the current European Champions, and the other is a decent, hard working but unremarkable PL player with questionable technique.  Tell you what, you work it out.

It seems like you want demand the best of both worlds, all with the benefit of hindsight.

Hindsight has nothing to do with it. If the wages ratio had been common knowledge at the time it was being increased, I’d have raised concerns at the time.   

[ktvillan]

I'm a big supporter of Randy and Co. but I still think they made mistakes in allowing O'Neill to increase the wage bill to 85% of turnover. 

Perhaps they thought he would deliver and the success on the pitch with just a bit more backing? The knock on effect being increased revenue and a more even split re wages to turnover.

In fairness, if he was asking them to fork out for higher wages in the summer of 09 he'd have been arguing from a position of strength and would have been a hard man to refuse. We'd gone close to 4th the season before, so even if they had some doubts about certain aspects of his management it would be easy to reason that there was far more good than bad.

His habit for leaving deals late into the transfer window is probably a major factor in  average players being on extortionate wages too. That more than anything else had a killer impact on the wage bill.

Also, would the board really know the difference between a Sidwell, Beye or Heskey and a good player actually worth the wages that trio alone are on? Doubtful. So you can blame them for that if you wish but it seems harsh that we'd criticise a board for letting a football manager manage.

I’m all for allowing the manager to manage and for the Board to back the manager, but don’t see why a team manager’s duties should include control of wages/contract negotiations.  I don’t see how playing professional football for 15 years (whilst having all your financial dealings handled by lawyers and agents) and then coaching for 20 years (whilst having all your financial dealings handled by lawyers and agents) would give anyone  the necessary skills and financial acumen to make a good job of it.  I can’t think of many other large businesses that would put an operational manager in sole charge of contract negotiations and remuneration.

In many clubs the players are identified by the manager, but contracts are negotiated by the Chief Exec or one of the Board members.  I believe David Dein used to handle the contract stuff at Arsenal for example, and I would think Kenyon would be involved at Chelsea.    Someone with a bit of experience in contractual matters but who also knows a fair bit about the football market, what players are worth, what other clubs are paying etc.  We were without anyone with that kind of background on the Board for much of O'Neill's reign and the result is a lot of players on 10-20k a week more than they are probably worth, and more than we could probably have got them for. 

[Ad@m]

Should this thread be retitled "MON vs the board"?

I clicked on it expecting to read something about Curtis Davies for some reason...

[KevinGage]

Sorry Ad@m.

I'm a big supporter of Randy and Co. but I still think they made mistakes in allowing O'Neill to increase the wage bill to 85% of turnover. 

Perhaps they thought he would deliver and the success on the pitch with just a bit more backing? The knock on effect being increased revenue and a more even split re wages to turnover.

In fairness, if he was asking them to fork out for higher wages in the summer of 09 he'd have been arguing from a position of strength and would have been a hard man to refuse. We'd gone close to 4th the season before, so even if they had some doubts about certain aspects of his management it would be easy to reason that there was far more good than bad.

His habit for leaving deals late into the transfer window is probably a major factor in  average players being on extortionate wages too. That more than anything else had a killer impact on the wage bill.

Also, would the board really know the difference between a Sidwell, Beye or Heskey and a good player actually worth the wages that trio alone are on? Doubtful. So you can blame them for that if you wish but it seems harsh that we'd criticise a board for letting a football manager manage.

I’m all for allowing the manager to manage and for the Board to back the manager, but don’t see why a team manager’s duties should include control of wages/contract negotiations.  I don’t see how playing professional football for 15 years (whilst having all your financial dealings handled by lawyers and agents) and then coaching for 20 years (whilst having all your financial dealings handled by lawyers and agents) would give anyone  the necessary skills and financial acumen to make a good job of it.  I can’t think of many other large businesses that would put an operational manager in sole charge of contract negotiations and remuneration.

In many clubs the players are identified by the manager, but contracts are negotiated by the Chief Exec or one of the Board members.  I believe David Dein used to handle the contract stuff at Arsenal for example, and I would think Kenyon would be involved at Chelsea.    Someone with a bit of experience in contractual matters but who also knows a fair bit about the football market, what players are worth, what other clubs are paying etc.  We were without anyone with that kind of background on the Board for much of O'Neill's reign and the result is a lot of players on 10-20k a week more than they are probably worth, and more than we could probably have got them for. 

I think every summer prior to 09 they were so happy to have MON as manager (as most were) and trusted him to deliver. They thought they had some maverick, someone who could pretty much guarantee some form of success by dint of his track record at most of the other clubs he'd managed.

Any conversations with him re: player purchases were probably along the lines of "let my know what you need to make this happen." Though not in a Man City way, obv.

A good chunk of his signings were in the low/medium priced bracket by modern football standards too, so they probably felt (initially at least) that he was prudent and could be trusted.

It was only when they clocked half a dozen players on big wages barely getting near the first team that alarm bells started ringing.

Enter Paul Faulkner. From summer 09 onwards MON seemed to have less control on certain aspects of transfers, mentioning Faulkner by name. This indicates the board were concerned or -at the very least- looking to reduce MON's workload in that area.

I don't think any other manager will enjoy the free reign he enjoyed between 2006-09. Probably for the best too.

[pauliewalnuts]

Enter Paul Faulkner. From summer 09 onwards MON seemed to have less control on certain aspects of transfers, mentioning Faulkner by name. This indicates the board were concerned or -at the very least- looking to reduce MON's workload in that area.

I don't think any other manager will enjoy the free reign he enjoyed between 2006-09. Probably for the best too.

Speculation, but maybe they sensed Martin's waning appetite for the job and realising how comprehensively all the footballing issues revolved around him, started to move certain elements away from him.

It makes sense, really, putting all your eggs in one basket, and then letting one member of staff hold the basket is risky.

I can see why they did it when they first arrived - not massively experienced in the workings of (our) football, having to learn fast, it was convenient to have a manager there who was was very much a "managing top to bottom" style man.

Like you said in your last line, I doubt we'll see a manager with that much freedom again. Not just here, either. I know Wenger and Ferguson run their clubs in that style, but they've been there for ages, and have a track record of proven success to point to. I don't think many top flight clubs would let one man have that much power these days.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'll admit it.

After tonight's evidence, we need options to replace the fecking useless Dunne, so perhaps we should be thinking about recalling him. He can't be any worse. Can he?

[itbrvilla]

I'll admit it.

After tonight's evidence, we need options to replace the fecking useless Dunne, so perhaps we should be thinking about recalling him. He can't be any worse. Can he?

Agree.  At times he has been superb, deserves a chance but suspect a contract issue is blocking him playing.