BG_Villa_Fan

In that sense, given that a player towards the top of our wage scale earns about £50,000 per week, to lose £380,000 per week is a nett loss of something like 7 reasonably top earners from the wage bill. We still have some way to go to achieve that, as I would speculate that we remain something like £150-175,000 per week too heavy wages wise despite recent sales.

Assuming the players wages represnt the lion's share of the total wages the club pays and that the numbers from the 'Wages & Revenue (sustainability )' thread are correct ( ish ), which I believe they are, then the total sum as things currently stand calculates to a number between 40 mil and 50 mil per year. That's not nearly 88% of the turnover, unless the Villa pays really big money to ordinary employees, i.e. non playing staff.

Well, I havent read that thread, I was merely basing my assumptions on what was on the article I linked to. As it is the BBC, one might assume it had some credibility. The 88% figure has been bandied about for quite a while too, since MON left anyway, so I dont think the Beeb just pulled it out of thin air, although i suppose you;d need to ask the journalist in question where he got his figures from. All I can do is the quote the BBC as my source and leave people to make their minds up about which source they prefer

I don't doubt the source, it's just that we don't know what exactly is included in that 'wages' number - is it only the players wages, what other staff's wages it includes, whether it includes payoffs, etc.

And most importantly - what percentage of that number the players wages are.

In that sense, given that a player towards the top of our wage scale earns about £50,000 per week, to lose £380,000 per week is a nett loss of something like 7 reasonably top earners from the wage bill. We still have some way to go to achieve that, as I would speculate that we remain something like £150-175,000 per week too heavy wages wise despite recent sales.

Assuming the players wages represnt the lion's share of the total wages the club pays and that the numbers from the 'Wages & Revenue (sustainability )' thread are correct ( ish ), which I believe they are, then the total sum as things currently stand calculates to a number between 40 mil and 50 mil per year. That's not nearly 88% of the turnover, unless the Villa pays really big money to ordinary employees, i.e. non playing staff.

Changing the target is fine as long as they let us know. We know the target is now survival, they know it and the players know it.

According to the general the aim is top 4 and next season Villa could be anywhere between 4th and 9th. Or something along these lines anyway.

Ability-wise I believe Given is the best possible GK we can attract at the moment. I also believe and hope his injuries will not be such a huge problem, I'd expect another Friedel-like effect - very solid for a couple of years, albeit unspectacular.

However, if the wages are indeed around 60K per week, that's definitely overpaying. I don't see how we're going to have a lower wage bill if we're replacing the left players' wages with the same or more expensive.

Given isn't a Friedel type.

Given is a spectacular 'keeper, makes stunning saves. Just hope his reflexes haven't diminished.

Wasn't talking about spectacular saves, but spectacular impact.

Ability-wise I believe Given is the best possible GK we can attract at the moment. I also believe and hope his injuries will not be such a huge problem, I'd expect another Friedel-like effect - very solid for a couple of years, albeit unspectacular.

However, if the wages are indeed around 60K per week, that's definitely overpaying. I don't see how we're going to have a lower wage bill if we're replacing the left players' wages with the same or more expensive.

So what has he done in the last 14 days that has been so impressive?

Well for a start he wasn't a complete PR distater in his first press conference and showed respect for the club and the fans, unlike the previous one.

Too little and basic, obviously, but these days you've got to be happy with little, otherwise you'd have to turn into a non-stop moaning machine, which doesn't help anything and anyone.

I didn't want him, but the sensible thing is to give him a chance. It's not his fault he's been put in a position, that no manager should ever be in.

I remember the times when discussing a potential target was about how good of a player he was and not about his potential wages or resale value or whether it's 3.5 mil or 3.75 mil.

Given is a very good keeper, who would make us better and we're not exactly in a position to be picky, remember the manager search... People will moan but people will do with whoever the club is able to get.

Obviously the wages are outrageous, but we're certainly not too good for Shay Given, he's a very good keeper for a team headed for 8th/10th. Foster's rumoured price is too steep and the other keepers we've been linked with aren't as good as Given.

There comes a time however, when continued backing of a manager is weak. For example, when you have given a manager the resources required to achieve a certain target, and he fails to achieve that target within a reasonable time frame.

So, according to you, the money MON got in his first 3 years have been enough to achieve Champions league and 3 years has been a reasonable time frame to get a club from 16th to 4th? I think you won't find many to agree with this.

So MON should have been sacked for not taking us from 16th to 4th in 3 seasons.

Then he should have been sacked after our best season in years

And houllier was a good appointment.

Classic!

Very much this. I strongly believe in time MON will be fully vindicated. Just my opinion, I know this is currently blasphemy in these boards. In due time.

The board have lost a lot of the fans already, would be interested if there's a poll how many of the fans they still have on their side.

Talking about Bent, I remember that interview with him, a couple of weeks ago, where he talked about Ancelotti, asked other players about him, etc. He seemed genuinely excited. Now, imagine how he feels about Big Eck? Ancelotti or Big Eck? Hmmmm...

Chaz, even your username is wrong.

Villain not Villan!

Look! Look! Let's all jump on the new guy because he's written something wrong. That'll show 'em how cool we are.

And failing miserably while being condescending...

lol Villain

The swiftness and effectiveness of Fulhum, a smaller club than ours, in appointing a manager like Jol dismisses any tired excuses the board may come out with regarding the availability of managers and the lengthy process required to get them in.

Fulham had the benefit of having met, interviewed, discussed terms and offered the job to Jol last summer. So the swiftness and effectiveness you speak of is a little bit disingenuous.

In fact, you could say that Fulham got their man 12 months later than they wanted because of their incompetence at agreeing a deal with Ajax for his release.

Imagine the uproar on here if a similar situation arose with AVFC and, for example, David Moyes.

Uproar if David Moyes, who may have been first choice last summer, is appointed this summer, a year later? No, won't be an uproar.

Now imagine if Fulham had signed AM ( I know we haven't yet ) there would have been a lot of funny remarks about them from a lot of our fans.

The statement on the OS yesterday said "Premiership Experianced"...This basically dosnt give us many options if managers like Ancelotti, Moyes, Benitez have all turned us down.. Its easy to see why we are interviewing McLeish..

The board need to change the search criteria to give us more options on the table.

How important is it to have Premiership Experianced do you think? Do you as a fan agree that it should play as an important part of our manager search?

I don't agree with the premiership experience thing,at least not as something that should be required first and foremost. Bu then I'm ( apparently ) one of the few who don't think the best managers of the world are piling up in front of Lerner's office asking to manage Villa for free because we've won the Champions Cup almost 30 years ago.

If I had to put money on it, I'd go for Simon Grayson. He'd be a very Dougesque appointment, but at least most fans would give him a fair chance, which can't and won't happen with AM.

So if the club do decide that its best NOT to appoint McLeish...Does it not worry you who else in on this shortlist?

Are we looking at lower level managers with Premierleague Experiance, Southgate and Curbishley maybe?

Can somebody find this guy advising the board that the manager needs to be Pre Experianced and shoot him.

The search needs to be broadened to a wider area than just Premiership managers surely?

No idea. I don't think he'd be offered the job at all because it makes no sense whatsoever. Even if he is, I don't think he'd accept it because that'd be managerial suicide.

Maybe they're just waiting for an answer from some of their original targets and are continuing the interviews in case it falls apart.

But Alex McLeish wasnt available.. So what have we been doing all this time?

He quits his job then immediately Villa show interest in him.. So whats been happening all this time? And how broad has the manager search been?

He wasn't available and as we know our board doesn't act behind any club's back and does things the right way, so if they'd been interested in him , they would have acted the way they did with Martinez.

Obvious conclusion is obvious : everyone from their original shortlist has turned the job down, so now they're going for people who have just become available and others not considered previously.

MON didn't "get his due compensation", they settled in the end.

Got a link to this story?

I'm glad someone brought this up. Can anyone explain to me why we had to pay anyone off if ..

1. O'Neill resigned as we've been told he did from the off.

2. Houllier wasn't fit enough to continue, as we've been told.

Surely neither of those situations require a payout ?

1. They bought MON's silence. Constructive dismissal or whatever. MON clearly got what he wanted out of this tribunal and no one has heard a thing about it.

2. Houllier was cleared to return by some of the doctors, he could have been advised by the club that they'd prefer to follow another route, so he got his compo too.

All IMO of course.

The club paid MON off to drop the constructive dissmissal claim rather than face publication of the full facts. The High Court has a nasty habbit of printing copies of judgements in such cases and i fear that would have been a greater embarassement.

MON obviously values his bank balance higher than his "principles"

Bullshit. The club did wrong by him and he got his due compensation. If he simply resigned for no reason then he wouldn't be entitled to a penny. The fact he keeps his mouth shut is because he's a respectable man.

I tend to agree with this. Not sure why he keeps his mouth shut as his stock has fallen because of this. The compo must've been good.

if mcleish does take it he has bigger balls than more of us thats for sure

Agree. It'd be some sort of a new-found admiration from me if he has the ball to take the job. Don't think he would though.

Don't believe he'd be offered the job either because no sane businessman would do it. I still consider Lerner sane.

I'm glad someone brought this up. Can anyone explain to me why we had to pay anyone off if ..

1. O'Neill resigned as we've been told he did from the off.

2. Houllier wasn't fit enough to continue, as we've been told.

Surely neither of those situations require a payout ?

1. They bought MON's silence. Constructive dismissal or whatever. MON clearly got what he wanted out of this tribunal and no one has heard a thing about it.

2. Houllier was cleared to return by some of the doctors, he could have been advised by the club that they'd prefer to follow another route, so he got his compo too.

All IMO of course.

How about there's no bloody way we'd appoint McGinger regardless of any of the other reasons posted

a) he's shit

he was manager of the shite

c) he resigned (not something RL would like)

d) he's still shit

e) he's possibly a bit more shit than that too

If RL ever tried to employ him, he would face a shit storm and he knows it. And I don't for one minute think RL ever considered him, even for a nano-second

So ... not a fan then?

Think for a second. Who was the last Villa manager who went onto good things AFTER he left Villa.

Noooo not Mcleish! @ Ponky

If he turns us down that'd be epic. Would be a very telling sign.

TBH I don't mind Martinez as I don't really expect Villa to aim for top 4 any time soon. He's a decent manager.

Avram Grant has also won plenty of silverware.

Catch my drift?

No he hasn't really. A couple of cups in Israel 10+ years ago don't impress.