The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[pauliewalnuts]

That's not quite right. When we started this discussion people were insisting that the "staff cost" figures had to represent the same things, that it was the law. The burger boys don't have a significant material impact on the overall wage bill but they show by virtue of the fact we include them and Spurs don't, that the "staff cost" figures do not represent the same thing.

You're truly down at the level of semantics now.

Of course nobody thought they had to represent the same things - they're two different companies with different structures, they're never going to represent exactly the same thing

The point is, though, that you are now arguing your "not a like for like comparison" thing with respect to how many minimum wage burger flippers Spurs have got, having had the arguments vis a vis image rights and signing on fees proven incorrect beyond any doubt.

Maybe Spurs have done a much better job of handling their wage bill? Look at Modric signing on 25k a week when he joined versus Sidwell and his 40k, for example. It's not like that assumption requires a massive leap of imagination.

For the last four years we've purchased very nearly exclusively in the UK market, where players cost more, and are more accustomed to high wages. Over that period, lots of people on here argued that it made sense, the players didn't need to acclimatise, it is less risky that they won't settle etc etc, but there was barely any argument re the fact that they cost more.

Fair enough, if you think the buy British policy was sensible, but it seems a little bit hollow to be then raising an eyebrow at the cost. a bit like doing your weekly shopping at Harrods food hall, then when you get home, being surprised at how much it cost.

Why anyone is now surprised that we have a high wage bill which eats an insupportable percentage of our turnover is beyond me. It's not like we didn't ask for it.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Great thread, best since Laughing Gravity and the Holacaust. Carry on..

[Villa'Zawg]

You keep bringing up what I said at the beginning of last season in unrelated threads as if it is something I should be ashamed of. What I said was, I hoped we'd be able to get 70 points and that 70 points should be enough for 4th place if not 3rd.  I'm well aware that we fell 6 points short of my ambitious hope for 70 points, so what is the point you are trying to make? Is that I was wrong to hope for 70 points or I was wrong about what getting 70 points would mean or is it something else?

No, my point is that in making that prediction you clearly didn't think Spurs' finances would present any obstacle to us finishing 4th or 3rd.  And now you're saying it was, and was always going to be.

As for what is proven, I understand that the most indicative correlation is that the more you pay in salary, as opposed to the amount you spend on transfer fees, the higher you are likely to finish.  And as we spend more on player salaries than Spurs do, they are bucking the trend in that respect.

I did acknowledged Spurs and Man City's financial superiority at the time but I didn't think they would be able to gain the 20 points they needed to in one season. My stance before this summer was that I thought we were spending enough to be competitive, not that I wasn't concerned about how much more other teams were spending.

I'd be interested to see the analysis that separates spending on transfers fees and spending on wages if you want to point it out. Those Spurs accounts are the first example I have seen where spending on transfer fees and wages don't go hand in hand. And as I mention in an earlier post, the 2008/2009 wage figures been discussed on here, even if they were comparative,  relate to a season where we finished well ahead of Spurs. You'll have to wait a while to find out who spent the most on wages last season to see if any trends are being bucked.

[hilts_coolerking]

I'd be interested to see the analysis that separates spending on transfers fees and spending on wages if you want to point it out. Those Spurs accounts are the first example I have seen where spending on transfer fees and wages don't go hand in hand.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e4d69d50-ac87-11df-8582-00144feabdc0.html

The most relevant bit is:

"City’s total wage bill is now probably higher than Manchester United’s and Arsenal’s, and nearing Chelsea’s. That matters, because whereas transfers don’t predict success, wages do. My own favourite footballing wisdom comes from the sports economist Stefan Szymanski: averaged over a period of several years, in both England and Italy, the correlation between a club’s wage bill and its league position is about 90 per cent. Last season, for instance, Chelsea finished first in England, United second and Arsenal third. That just happened to be the ranking order of their wage bills. "

[Quiet Lion]

Maybe Spurs have done a much better job of handling their wage bill? Look at Modric signing on 25k a week when he joined versus Sidwell and his 40k, for example. It's not like that assumption requires a massive leap of imagination.

The thing is I have always thought Spurs wage bill was far to small in comparison to their playing staff.

The Modric example always brings it home. They signed a player who was in demand throughout Europe. They paid 16.5 million pounds for him and they got him on 25k a week ?

Now there must be a correlation between transfer fee paid and wages. This doesn't seem right to me

[KevinGage]

You and VD.

If Modric was coming from one of the top clubs on the continent, with an established reputation I dare say he could have commanded more than 25k. However he was very much in the 'one to watch' category.

He has since enjoyed a level of success at Spurs and is now -according to reports- on a deal far more in keeping with the Premierships best.

Go though that Tottenham line up:

*Gomez
*Assou Ekotto
*Dawson
*King
*Corluka

*Bale
*Huddlestone
*Lennon
*Modric

*Crouch
*Defoe

I readily accept that the above line-up doesn't include the likes of Palacios, Kaboul, Bassong and co but the players I've listed tend to play more often than not in the first XI.

How many of them were signed from other Prem clubs?
I make it 3, of their typical line-up (though I appreciate it can fluctuate).

Now how many of our lot were signed from other Prem clubs?

This is not assuming that just because Tottenham sign players from the continent and the lower leagues that said players stay on sub- Premier league wages for time immemorial. But it does explain why at different stages they have had what looks like a talented squad of players on less combined than we pay with our policy.

I genuinely find it difficult to comprehend why anyone would have an issue with the notion that players wages in any 'staff costs' is going to make up the bulk of the charges.

Unless they believe that we're paying stewards and burger staff wages more in keeping with our playing staff.

[Villa'Zawg]

That's not quite right. When we started this discussion people were insisting that the "staff cost" figures had to represent the same things, that it was the law. The burger boys don't have a significant material impact on the overall wage bill but they show by virtue of the fact we include them and Spurs don't, that the "staff cost" figures do not represent the same thing.

You're truly down at the level of semantics now.

Of course nobody thought they had to represent the same things - they're two different companies with different structures, they're never going to represent exactly the same thing

The point is, though, that you are now arguing your "not a like for like comparison" thing with respect to how many minimum wage burger flippers Spurs have got, having had the arguments vis a vis image rights and signing on fees proven incorrect beyond any doubt.

Maybe Spurs have done a much better job of handling their wage bill? Look at Modric signing on 25k a week when he joined versus Sidwell and his 40k, for example. It's not like that assumption requires a massive leap of imagination.

For the last four years we've purchased very nearly exclusively in the UK market, where players cost more, and are more accustomed to high wages. Over that period, lots of people on here argued that it made sense, the players didn't need to acclimatise, it is less risky that they won't settle etc etc, but there was barely any argument re the fact that they cost more.

Fair enough, if you think the buy British policy was sensible, but it seems a little bit hollow to be then raising an eyebrow at the cost. a bit like doing your weekly shopping at Harrods food hall, then when you get home, being surprised at how much it cost.

Why anyone is now surprised that we have a high wage bill which eats an insupportable percentage of our turnover is beyond me. It's not like we didn't ask for it.

Hang on a second. I’m pretty sure you were one of the ones that initially insisted that “Staff Costs” in the accounts was precisely a like for like comparison i.e. all staff, all costs. Are you sure you didn’t?

The category of employee you refer to as “burger flippers” and I refer to as non-playing staff will likely account for about 25-30% of the difference but it is the additional 173 full-time non-playing staff that we have who make up the bulk of it rather than the part-timers.

I am grateful to Risso for his explanation regarding signing on fees. I’m loathe to say it but I don’t recall what he said about image rights that definitely excluded them as a route for Spurs to pay players outside of the “Staff costs” category. I don’t want to go thee again so I’ll accept your assurance that he dealt with it categorically.

I’m not at all convinced by the “cheap foreigners” argument being the answer to the discrepancy for a couple of reasons. The first is that Spurs haven’t been going out and finding hidden gems to be plucked from nowhere, they have been paying top whack for their foreign players, almost all of whom were already full internationals. Modric’s wages were a relative bargain at £25k (750K a year less than Sidwell in wages but £10m+ more in transfer fee) but he is now apparently on £70k per week after only two seasons. Do you have any other examples of them signing good foreign players on very low wages?

The second reason for my caution on "foreigners" being a valid reason for Spurs low wages is that in addition to their foreigners, Spurs also have an awful lot of very expensive and very well paid UK bought players, probably as many players as we have bought and for much bigger fees than ours.

[dave.woodhall]

This is getting ridiculous. You've had hard evidence and facts put in front of you and you refuse to believe them. They can't be right because you say they can't. Nothing concrete, just you say. How about stepping back and admitting defeat gracefully?