Record Losses....

[Dave Clark Five]

The very mention of O'Neill has the rose-tinted spectacles being dusted down again.

[Dante Lavelli]

MON was backed into a corner and felt he had no option but to walk, claiming constructive dismissal and won his case. It would seem that Randy had decided not to back his manager any longer. I can't help thinking that Paul Faulkner has a lot to answer in all this. Just before MON went Faulkner came in, and our financial decision making has been terrible ever since.  MON had his faults, but Faulkner seems to making some terrible decisions that threaten to drag us down. Was Faulkner the one who decided the Milner money should not be spent? That in my opinion was the start of the end.

Or Faulkner realised that the expenditure was unsustainable and action was needed? We don't know the facts....

Looking at the figures, it'd suggest the later.  We've wasted a lot since then, i.e. the 12m but that's only roughly a quarter of the loss.  Something had to change and it appears that it was not going to be MON.

[Doorbell]

What it says to me is football is just a mad world where normal rules of employment don't apply, either that or once you reach the £1m a year+ salary bracket you can afford lawyers good enough to unravel any employer and win a substantial payout for resigning....no wonder banks have to pay such big bonuses...

[KevinGage]

Aye Perc,

That's my understanding as well.

But who knows what curious conditions/ definitions were included within his terms of employment.   O'Neill, Lerner and that's probably about it.

I flagged the start date and end date as it does seem a wee bit odd to me.  And it did seem like he was unhappy far earlier into the summer.  It might be purely co-incidence, I agree.  But there is a school of thought that says he was 'waiting' to drop us in it.  Whether that was just waiting for the most inopportune moment from the clubs point of view, or for his new contract to kick in none of us really know.

Personally, I like to think the best about people (until they prove otherwise) and would genuinely hope that he wasn't sitting and waiting all that time to really drop us in it. My belief is things probably came to a head when he couldn't shift Luke Young and NRC off the wage bill (he quit a matter of days after moves for both fell through).  The thought of dealing with that pair, Steve Sidwell, Nicky Shorey and Curtis Davies - combined with not being able to bring in fresh blood until that lot had been cleared- killed any remaining enthusiasm he had for the job. After missing out on the Liverpool gig a few months previous.

The state of Richard Dunne can't have helped matters much either.  He must have known he was on a hiding to nothing that season.

[hawkeye]

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?

The only people that did not want it as public record were Faulkner and Lerner and that is why they signed the cheque. There can be no doubt now that the handling of the MON era was based on complete and utter incompetance on thier part.

[old man villa fan]

It has always puzzled me why it took the whole season to resolve the matter.  It was almost like he was on 'gardening leave' seeing out his contract i.e. he couldn't move to another club and the club had to pay up his contract.

[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?

The only people that did not want it as public record were Faulkner and Lerner and that is why they signed the cheque. There can be no doubt now that the handling of the MON era was based on complete and utter incompetance on thier part.

That's clearly not the case.

MON is not a pauper.

If he wanted his side of the story aired why accept a payoff?

I do accept he's ran rings around Lerner and Faulkner though - you only have to see how often the settlement is portrayed as a victory in his favour to see that.

[SashasGrandad]

Why do football managers have such contracts? In what other jobs does sacking for gross incompetence result in compensation?

Banking?

[cdward]

The very mention of O'Neill has the rose-tinted spectacles being dusted down again.

Probably because the the thoughts of 3 progressive seasons of improvement, cup finals and semi finals at Wembley, european football, signing top class young players and taking the game to and beating the sky darlings, as well as providing memorable victories over our local rivals and their useless manager, seem like a lifetime away right now.

[Shoody]

Heads should fucking roll for these figures.

[Ad@m]

We need the accounts before we can read to much in to this - the figures that have been released are next to nothing.  Given the team's year end is 31 May tomorrow is the last day for filing with Companies House before the fines kick in (although I'm sure the Villa can afford £100 - but it's the reputational issue).

One point to make though is that player trading and the effect it has on the accounts is not based on cash.  Players are considered to be assets and their transfer fees go to the balance sheet initially and don't form part of profit and loss.  The cost then goes to profit or loss over the length of their contract.  You could therefore have a slightly bizarre situation (to a non-accountant at least) where getting rid of players before the end of their contract for much less than we paid for them can actually increase the loss significantly, despite getting their wages off the books and not incurring any cash expenditure.  Until we see the accounts and the impact of player trading on them it's very difficult to judge exactly where the club is financially - these losses, whilst being the largest we've ever seen, could actually relate to money spent many years ago.

[glasses]

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.

Well, he would certainly have contributed. O'Neill would still have to take some for suggesting/asking/wanting players in the first place, such as Heskey and Beye, but being lumbered with them on massive contracts is perhaps the doing of Faulkner, and some fault would need to lie with him.

[David_Nab]

So in simple terms buying NRC for £8mil then him leaving for nothing would now show as a £8mil loss ?

[dave.woodhall]

MON was backed into a corner and felt he had no option but to walk,

Of course he had another option. He could have stayed doing the job he was ridiculously well paid to do, except that for the first time he might have had to work under a few restrictions, just like every other manager has to. We're not talking some young secretary being sexually harassed or an office junior getting bullied; this was an intelligent and driven man in one of the most high-powered professions in the country. I fail to see how anyone can excuse his behaviour.

[Sexual Ealing]

'Pube-Head' Vs H&V Received Wisdom

H&V Received  Wisdom: He's got a head of pubes

'Pube-Head': £6-12 million in compensation for constructive dismissal, Paul Faulkner, Alex McLeish, relegation battle