Record Losses....

[hawkeye]

I am no accountant but clearly plenty of you are.   I would ask you a question.   How different do you think these figures would be if the little rat had not walked out but stayed and kept us hovering sixth-ish?

based on it cost us £12mil to move him on and the extra TV place money between £15 and £20mil that is a guess without being an accountant and not anylising the numbers

[Dave Clark Five]

No matter what the topic is, it always comes back to the Poison Dwarf.

[KevinGage]

Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.

It seems pretty obvious to me.

They were caught flat footed when he bailed (to the extent that Lerner, having been in the UK for a few days prior, quickly had to fly back) and the thought of paying the little twerp anything was like salt in the axe wound.   Even if he was entitled to it.

Whether that money was due to him because of image rights, meeting targets (European qualification/ cup final/ cup semi) we can only speculate.  He also quit early August - mirroring the time he joined us in 2006.  So maybe his rolling contract had just started. Whereas if he'd walked in July he'd have been entitled to nowt.  Whatever it was, there seems there was enough ambiguity for the club to believe they could get away with not paying it.  Or maybe they didn't.  Perhaps all they ever wanted to do was not pay him the full whack he was requesting, and arbitration helped them in this regard. 

Regardless, if he had been truly wronged in the Curbishley sense -players sold from under him and all the rest of it- and if he knew  he was on solid ground, why not proceed with the claim?  Surely -in that instance-  it would have been better to have it all out there, indisputable - as a matter of public record?

[rob_bridge]

I am no accountant but clearly plenty of you are.   I would ask you a question.   How different do you think these figures would be if the little rat had not walked out but stayed and kept us hovering sixth-ish?

================================
It depends had he been allowed to 'not redue the wage bill' then about the same / slightly better but 11-12 figures would have been a lot worse.

Faulkner has a lot to answer for post O'Neill. I suspect that the O'Neill used PF 'elevation' maybe as his direct boss as the grounds for legal challenge. Whatever O'Neill's faults, PF has proved to be way out of his depth in his role of replacing him - one piss poor ill has been appointment and one even worse.

[DB]

Proud history, bright future......does anyone have 50p for the meter?

[villan1975]

Robin Russell, Villa's chief financial officer, said: "The board is confident that the actions taken since the end of the 2010-11 financial year have galvanised the longer-term sustainability of the club and have given us a better financial platform on which to build for future success."

Or to put that another way, "we're skint and you'd better get used to it".

full text in the Guardian here

                                     
That may well have been the case had they made a reasonable choice for a manager.What they have done by signing Mcleish on a huge contract has compounded the situation and will see the figures for all forms of revenue drop considerabley next season.
On the MON situation they should have fought to clear their name and should now come forward and tell their side as it does look even more as though they have something to hide.

[Dave Clark Five]

O'Neill must have been sacked.

[KevinGage]

One thing Pat Murphy did allude to was part of the issue in the latter part of the MON era was that RL was 'not just down the corridor.'   

This wasn't an issue in previous years, but might have been when Faulkner was made Chief Exec in May 2010.  Essentially meaning MON couldn't go above Faulkner's head anymore if he didn't get his own way, or the answers he was looking for.

[TheSandman]

Faulkner was at the club when Villa played Litex in the Uefa Cup in 2008. He was employed by the club, but not CEO at that time. In a meeting with someone I know, he told them his job was to speak with players agents and arrange contracts. He told them he was a Director of Football. He was apparently a very nice bloke. He also stated that he was Randy's right hand man, and they were very close. These things I have been told

I personally think that the issue O'Neill had was with Faulkner, not Randy and not Villa as a whole. I think that there was a massive breakdown in their relationship, leading to O'Neill walking.

Arranging player contracts? So would it be his fault that we have suffered from so much overpaid dross.

[Jimmy Smash]

O'Neill must have been sacked.

Constructive dismissal mate. Randy and PF must have been dumb to walk into that one. How can a man on a one year rolling contract be constructively dismissed? It beggars belief. I'm starting to rue the day this idiot savant second generation Ivy League playboy ever cast eyes on us.

[rob_bridge]

Still dont get the pay off, if MON walked without justification then there would be no pay off, this was an out of court settlement which meant they new they were going to lose and or the damage they would have sustaind at a hearing would have been worse.

It seems pretty obvious to me.

They were caught flat footed when he bailed (to the extent that Lerner, having been in the UK for a few days prior, quickly had to fly back) and the thought of paying the little twerp anything was like salt in the axe wound.   Even if he was entitled to it.

Whether that money was due to him because of image rights, meeting targets (European qualification/ cup final/ cup semi) we can only speculate.  He also quit early August - mirroring the time he joined us in 2006.  So maybe his rolling contract had just started. Whereas if he'd walked in July he'd have been entitled to nowt.  Whatever it was, there seems there was enough ambiguity for the club to believe they could get away with not paying it.  Or maybe they didn't.  Perhaps all they ever wanted to do was not pay him the full whack he was requesting, and arbitration helped them in this regard. 

Regardless, if he had been truly wronged in the Curbishley sense -players sold from under him and all the rest of it- and if he knew  he was on solid ground, why not proceed with the claim?  Surely -in that instance-  it would have been better to have it all out there, indisputable - as a matter of public record?

Gagey you and me may be like that. I would take a reduced 'settlement' if  it meant some e.g tabloid weasel had to apologise to me and my family and my hamster etc in public... O'Neill thought the deck was stacked in his  favour and settled for e.g. £5m and his good name not tarnished as opposed to £3m and his name in lights. Lerner thought the 'extra' £2m not worth the legal battle/dragging Villa through the mud. Maybe - who knows it's all supposition. But O'Neill was on solid ground from a legal employment point of view.

Why the fuck football doesn't have a form of performance related pay for all playing and coaching staff is beyond me as results are transparent and obvious. They used to - nowadays they are paid huge sums regardless

[Percy McCarthy]

Kevin: as I understand it, a 12-month rolling contract means you always have 12 months left on your contract, whether you leave in July or August. Ron Saunders resigned when Bendall told him that his three-year rolling contract had been ripped up which meant he was entering the last three years of a standard one.

[Jimmy Smash]

PF? Drector of Football? You couldn't make it up.

[Louzie0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/28/aston-villa-losses

David Conn who wrote this in the guardian was just interviewed on TalkSport. 
Really interesting.  About how many owners were known to general fans and the public even beyond the local fans about 10-15 years ago (hardly anybody) and how many, now.  (loads in the PL and in the Cjhampionship if they have made major mistakes!)

Also, about how many owners would turn up, week after week, to watch the match.  Yes, even in the good ol days before the russians and the sheiks. Hardly anybody apart from Deadly, of course.  So nowadays is not that different, was his argument.  They may be thousands of miles overseas right now, but back then some owners were a lot nearer and sat on the yacht or in the garden on a saturday afternoon.

Also spoke about how Villa were built up by Randy, and then; did not mention MON exiting by name but apparently it was absolutely obvious (to all in the football stratosphere that he inhabits) that this had a major effect financially on the club - like, downwards.  Also referred to the need to reduce wages and outgoings leading to selling major players and how good an owner RL has been but ultimately, not rich enough to spend another £200million.

Because that's what he actually has spent.  £200million.

I'm not surprised he wants to retrench a bit!

[Whiney MacWhineface]

Fuck O'Neill.

Made me think of "Up yours, up mine, but up everybody's, that takes time. But they're working on it..." And yes I've misquoted it.