In a week where two large clubs go into administration, Glasgow Rangers and Portsmouth, Aston Villa blogger Matthew Turvey asks if the pro-active approach taken by Villa in controlling finances is either clever planning, or a dangerous risk to the club’s Premier League future.

With Scottish club Glasgow Rangers, as well as Portsmouth going into administration this week, the spectre of what can happen with poor financial management has again reared its head.  Aston Villa, a club who have made no secret of their plans to resolve financial issues at the club, are one of only a few clubs who are heading in the direction of increased solvency.  But what does it mean for the club?

The primary issue with implementing cuts, especially in a period where many other clubs are leaving it late to make their moves, is that Villa appear to be going backwards.  After a period of consecutive sixth placed finishes, the club, or rather the club’s fans, have got a taste of success.

Like anyone who has managed to raise their standard of living, it is very difficult to accept a movement in the opposite direction.  After all, would you like it if you lost all the pay rises you had managed over four or five years?  I doubt you would, and this is not too far from how Villa fans invariably think about the club.

The only problem for Villa is that, like Rangers or Portsmouth, the club was spending money it couldn’t afford to.  Profits became losses, and player sales became needed simply just to keep the spending going.  As we’re aware, the sales of the likes of Gareth Barry and James Milner were both seen to indicate a backwards step for the club.  The same could be said for the sales of Ashley Young and Stewart Downing.

However, if Villa were of the opinion that continued spending was necessary, and certainly Martin O’Neill’s tenure indicated the club were moving in the right direction, then it had to work both ways.  For example, Villa aren’t a big enough club to just buy players who don’t play, or to pay players that fall out of favour with managers.

The likes of Curtis Davies at £10m, or Steve Sidwell at £5m, both created massive financial millstones around the necks of the club.  The issue for Villa wasn’t as simple as a lost £15m in fees by purchasing these players, it was the weekly wages they invariably commanded.  

It is one thing to suggest a player is bought, but time and time again players were purchased who either didn’t play, or who commanded starting XI wages, only to be sitting on the bench.

To remedy the situation, as we are all too aware, the balance had to be reset.  This season, it has meant less money available, a negative figure for our net transfer spend, and a fairly poor season of football and choices.

Take, for example, Alex McLeish.  In this situation, with the circumstances being what they are, McLeish found himself in line for the Villa job.  Had the finances been akin to how they were when O’Neill took charge, there would have been little chance that the unpopular Glaswegian would have even made a shortlist, never mind getting the post.

For the board, a gamble on McLeish, and it can be said to be little other than a gamble, may well have been something of a “no-lose” situation.  After all, should McLeish pull something out the hat and do well, then it would have been a board masterstroke.  Should McLeish fail, then given his comparatively small wage vs recent managerial appointments, getting rid wouldn’t be much of a problem.

The main issue though is that, in getting prepared for financial restrictions, Villa’s competitive edge has gone backwards, and that’s not even counting the fact that the club was hardly a steady ship under Gerard Houllier.

Last season, tensions were high, relationships were strained in the squad, and a man almost died because of the stress.  So adding in a cost-cutting exercise was probably going to be risking being the straw that broke the camel’s back.

So Villa may well have made bold steps to reign in their spending, and it may well set the club in good stead should financial restrictions hit home, but has it been done too quickly.  

So the question needs to be asked is if McLeish’s appointment, and subsequent failure to deliver stablity, will be a final nail in the coffin for a club both acting sensibly, but also dicing with danger when it comes to potentially risking relegation.

I don’t think Villa will go down this year, but if they do, then I can only imagine that next season’s attendances will make this season’s look like full houses.

You can follow Matt Turvey’s regular opinions at his own site, Aston Villa Life via http://www.astonvillalife.com or via his Twitter account @astonvillalife.