AVFCforever1991 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 We pay more than a team with Modric, VDV, Parker and Bale in it? Modric's first contract for Spurs was for 25k a week. Around the same time we signed Sidwell on 40-50k a week. Omg what a **** joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Warnock and Dunne will hopefully be moved on this summer. Easier said than done of course. I would say Collins aswell but with Carlos leaving we'd have very little depth at centre half so Collins is worth keeping as back up/playing against physical long ball teams but not every single fecking game. # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesWithe Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Aston Villa FC have made literally hundreds of players and also agents very very rich men in the past 12 years. Its a a money train to ALL of them and nothing more.... What do we as the fans and lifeblood of the football club have to show for all this money spent on these so called top players representing us??....Not even one bloody cup win!! No wonder we are all so pissed off and have had enough eh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Oh my God, we're the new Newcastle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CannockVillan Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 is it that much of a surprise?...Really? We made a push for the big time when o'Neill came in and had to up the wages when we started buying better quality players. Coupled with the fact that we are not a London team and the added benefits that the comsopolitan life there has to offer. Due to this we have to pay a premium to attract the better players, more so than any london team would because we can't sell the club to players on the basis that we're only an hour or so from London. If Modric was on 25K a week at Spurs we would probavbly have had to tempt him with a much higher offer to come and live in the Midlands. That's a fact. We're not a top pull by any means (not even when we were fighting for fourth with O'Neill). O'neill and the board were certainly free (to say the least) with the cash and that's left us where we are but you can't compare apples with oranges. we're not in Norht London, or any other compass point of London. it shouldn't have been as high as it was (and that's the board and O'Neill's fault) but it was always gonna be higher to attract the names. We're in Brum and as much as we pride ourselves in that, let's face it everyone else thinks its a dive. We now need to start again from a solid foundation and build, but build sensibly and so everyone realises that we're not going to be a soft touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 the problem with the above post is that we didnt really sign "better players" for the most part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 MON made players better than they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 the problem with the above post is that we didnt really sign "better players" for the most part Agreed! I can't think of one player on the books either now or during MON's reign that we had to pay a premium for in order to prise him from the grasp of a London club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 8, 2012 Ashley Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanthemanisgod Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 We signed vastly better players than we had when MON took over, granted some of them were'nt anywhere near as good as hoped, but we had to spend our way through a regeneration. Look at City as the ultimate example of what we were attempting to do. They still have a batch of players from thei first wave of new money signings they can't get rid of, people like Santa Cruz and Bridge. City had the power to spend through their initial lack of success, whilst we didn't. Yes a differnt management team might have bought different players but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they would have been significantly cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanthemanisgod Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 the problem with the above post is that we didnt really sign "better players" for the most part Agreed! I can't think of one player on the books either now or during MON's reign that we had to pay a premium for in order to prise him from the grasp of a London club. The problem I have with this statement is we don't actually know who the players wesigned were in negotiations with when they signed for us, how do you know there wasn't other clubs offering them similar amounts when we negotiated terms? We also signed a number of London based players, or players from London clubs, Harewood, Young, Luke Young, NRC, Ashley Young, Sidwell just to name a few, granted not all of them turned out to be decent signings, but they still only cost what was needed to attract them tothe club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Anyone remember Luke Young turning down Liverpool because he didn't want to drop below £38,000 a week? How about paying Habib Beye £42,000 a week and never playing him. Heskey's rumoured £60,000 a week, Collins and Dunne both on £50,000. I imagine Warnock is probably somewhere in the mid 30s. Wasn't Sidwell rumoured to be on good wages? We lost a lot of players for a lot of money. Reo-Coker, Nickey Shorey, Curtis Davies, Sidwell, Habib Beye, John Carew, Zat Knight. MON had such an unsustainable transfer policy that even with the sales of Downing, Barry, Milner and Young we still faced a shortfall. We've had to live with his reckless spending for the past two seasons now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 is Due to this we have to pay a premium to attract the better players, more so than any london team would because we can't sell the club to players on the basis that we're only an hour or so from London. If Modric was on 25K a week at Spurs we would probavbly have had to tempt him with a much higher offer to come and live in the Midlands. That's a fact. I don't see how you can say 'That's a fact'. Arteta was at Everton for yonks, before he went to Arsenal. There are lots of good players in the Prem that have gone to 'lesser' teams instead of the lights of London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Yep this is what I was told on Saturday as I posted in the other thread. Average wage at AVFC is £45K actually it's a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Doesn`t matter what we think about the players o`neill signed. He was the manager using them and he got them to deliver. Not to mention the fact that managers don`t negotiate wages and contracts. As you can tell we are still paying silly wages to injured loan players two years on. O`neill said publicly before he left he was happy to work on budget. Anyone who thinks he had the cheque book and was signing off on these players wages must still be in spider man pyjamas. If you want to blame someone for the state of the finances blame the people who deal with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommybo Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Doesn`t matter what we think about the players o`neill signed. He was the manager using them and he got them to deliver. Not to mention the fact that managers don`t negotiate wages and contracts. As you can tell we are still paying silly wages to injured loan players two years on. O`neill said publicly before he left he was happy to work on budget. Anyone who thinks he had the cheque book and was signing off on these players wages must still be in spider man pyjamas. If you want to blame someone for the state of the finances blame the people who deal with them. I might be completely wrong but I thought MON had complete control over the running of the team (including transfer fees, wages and contracts). I think I remember hearing that he wanted complete control as one of his prerequisites (I'm impressed that I've used that word) for joining us in the first place. This would also tie in with not having a chief exec while he was here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 He was in total control, he signed players on high wages to get the best out of them. We all know he walked out because he was not happy to reduce costs, so he must have had a fair amount of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Doesn`t matter what we think about the players o`neill signed. He was the manager using them and he got them to deliver. Not to mention the fact that managers don`t negotiate wages and contracts. As you can tell we are still paying silly wages to injured loan players two years on. O`neill said publicly before he left he was happy to work on budget. Anyone who thinks he had the cheque book and was signing off on these players wages must still be in spider man pyjamas. If you want to blame someone for the state of the finances blame the people who deal with them. I might be completely wrong but I thought MON had complete control over the running of the team (including transfer fees, wages and contracts). I think I remember hearing that he wanted complete control as one of his prerequisites (I'm impressed that I've used that word) for joining us in the first place. This would also tie in with not having a chief exec while he was here. When O'Neill joined Doug was in charge and no way would Doug have given O'Neill complete control. The takeover was ongoing but there is always a possibility that these things can break down and if it did then Doug would have to stand by any conditions O'Neill was signed under. After O'Neill left General Krulak stated that all contracts are handled by an assortment of people in the club, not one person. O'Neill was almost certainly involved in the decisions over wages but there is no way it'd be down to him alone, or indeed that the final decision would be his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 He was in total control, he signed players on high wages to get the best out of them. We all know he walked out because he was not happy to reduce costs, so he must have had a fair amount of control. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/8200131.stm He was more than happy to work on budget. He just still had ambition for the club thats all. It is very entertaining that some people think martin o`neill was in charge of negotiating wages and contracts. Especially when nothing has changed and he has been gone for two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 He had a big input in salaries just maybe did'nt have the final decision. As for not wanting to bankrupt Villa, he did'nt no but he had a **** good try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts