Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Concrete John on August 24, 2010, 01:52:28 PM
-
At the moment, views on his tenure as our manager are clouded by the recentness of his resignation and the questions still surrounding the exact reasons. However, were we to fast forward a couple of years, what will we be thinking of his time here when we can view things with a little less emotion swaying us one way or another?
Will we be saying "Was a fantastic manager and did a great job for us" or "Good consistent manager, but was a 'nearly man' who with a little more luck would have won us a trophy and/or cracked the top 4" or "Held us back for years and wasted a great opportunity for the club"? A lot of that may be decided by who we get next and what they do, but even if they were to better his record there would be an argument that MON built the foundations in the same way Jol did for Spurs and Redknapp finished the job off.
I think he'll forever be remembered and debated over his transfer dealings, and the two sides of that argument will never agree, but were we to go up a level the basis of the side would still likely be players he signed and/or nurtured, like Ash, Gabby and Delph. If we're playing CL football in two or three years time, how many of that side will be players he left with us?
My own feeling is that he'll be seen as the nearly man, but the extra bit that was needed was probably beyond him. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on were we go from here, as it will either be a case of our best chance watsed or, should we get a top man in and Randy provides the cash, the transitional period between a struggling and a truely successful side.
In truth I can see us still having the same pro/anti MON arguments for years to come, but from a neutral perspective I think he'll be viewed as having done a good job and left us in a strong position (timing aside) to get to where we want to go.
-
For me, his legacy is tarnished by his exit. I agree with a lot of what you have said. I was pro-MON for the great majority of his time here, and stand by my view that he did far more good for the club than bad. But things clearly were turning sour in the last 9 months leading up to his exit. It's a shame that many of us will primarily remember his exit and dismiss some of the good things he did for us, but that's a right we all have and quite honestly something he brought on himself.
I'm looking forward now anyway to bigger and better things.
-
I agree that his reputation with the support by his exit.
He was the nearly man yes but he gave us a solid base. I think the problem was that he lingered too long. If you look at the improvement over the first three seasons where we went from the cusp of relegation (albeit with an incompetent wanker as a manager) to challenging the top four. Had he left at the end of season 2008/09 his tenure would be viewed as a great period of improvement and consolidation. The clubs stock would have been high and we had a promising base of a squad which would have been a great draw for the new manager. Last season we improved, make no mistake, but it was very much the same again like a soap opera long overdue for cancellation, the foibles and flaws that had been overlooked began to grate with some of us and that began to damage the legacy.
The problem of high earning, seldom playing squad players is also a big one. Curtis Davies, Habib Beye, Nigel Reo-Coker, Emile Heskey, Luke Young and Steve Sidwell are by no means all bad players but because they didn't play their stock is low and hence we have struggled to sell them. It could come to the point where some amongst those ironically the players we least want to keep we will be stuck with until their contracts expire. This will have an absolutely chronic effect upon the club's finances. We are not Man City and we simply cannot afford these players' wages AND the new players needed most to take us forward together.
Also, the idea of the solid base and the man who built the foundations of a successful Villa side is nearly repudiated by the way he left at the time that was most damaging to the club. I'm not sure it is the act of an embittered and vindictive man or if he just felt it was for the best that he left as he lacked the desire to go on or indeed if he could not feel he could deliver with some of the financial constraints alleged in some quarters (I still believe this is a myth peddled by the press).
But, no. For me I respect the solid base and whilst I am a little concerned with the wage issue and the current situation at the club I look to him as the nearly man. Nearly finishing fourth, nearly winning the league cup and getting within one match of competing in the final of the big one. Nearly. Nearly. Nearly.
I just feel had he left having built that solid base and had we got a manager who whilst not necessarily better but who had a different ethos we could have done more and he could be the man who built the foundations of a successful Villa team. Instead he is the nearly man and even then a nearly man who has left what could be a bitter rather than bountiful harvest.
-
Everything he did has to be looked at in the context of having perfect working conditions. A board who didn't interfere, a lot of money to spend, a supporter base that bordered on idolatry and an uncritical press. For the only time in my Villa-supporting life everyone was on the same side and working towards a common goal. Optimism was at record levels and the sky really did seem the limit.
-
It's a shame that he will be remember'd for the way he left us and not what he did for us improved season on season at least i can remember the good times.
-
I started haveing doubts during his second season, having been excited by his appointment and the changes that he made, it felt like we were a force again.
He did give us some great performances, Old Trafford, Emirates, Goddison.
I think he wasted our best opportunity to break into the top 4 through stuborness, one dimensional playing style and some awfully bad decisions in the transfer market.
He leaves us with an unsustainable wage structure and a number of players that are not good enough and will continue to hold the club back.
-
A bit like BFRs reign for me.
An exciting appointment, lifted the club, lifted the crowd, attracted good players who would not normally have come to us.Tapered off over time, but unlike BFR, MON left a much better squad.
For all his faults, and he had a few, he left us with some really top quality players, the next appointment has a great opportunity, much better than BL had when he took over BFR.
So overall a 7.5/10 for me.
-
here is a MON team
Carson
Beye
Davies
Shorey
NRC
Salifou
Sidwell
Downing
Routledge
Harewood
Heskey
I reckon that has cost about £80 to £100 million in fees wages and transfers.
This team would get relegated
-
You forgot to put some of the players out of position!
-
here is a MON team
Carson
Beye
Davies
Shorey
NRC
Salifou
Sidwell
Downing
Routledge
Harewood
Heskey
I reckon that has cost about £80 to £100 million in fees wages and transfers.
This team would get relegated
It would with only one recognised centre back, but then playing players out of position was something of a MON hallmark.
-
You forgot to put some of the players out of position!
obviously i have carson up front and harewood in goal
-
here is a MON team
Carson
Beye
Davies
Shorey
NRC
Salifou
Sidwell
Downing
Routledge
Harewood
Heskey
I reckon that has cost about £80 to £100 million in fees wages and transfers.
This team would get relegated
You know, you could try and pick a side that didn't have all the worst players he bought if you liked. How many sides 2nd 11 would be able to survive in the PL? Only 3 or 4, IMO.
-
I think we will view him as a good manager. However, both in 2009 and 2010 we had a very good chance of qualifying for Champions League but didn't. In 2009 because of an extraordinary loss of form at the end of the season. In 2010 because of too many home draws (some will say negative tactics). When there was no more money to spend, he ran out of ideas of how to improve the team.
The manner and timing of his leaving will taint his reputation. Also, it seems that he has left some skeletons behind in the closet. He alienated a lot of the players he signed (Reo-Coker, Davies etc), and had given a lot of average players long-term contracts on high salaries -- leaving us in a less than ideal situation financially.
-
He certainly didn't live up to the continual billing his fans like the author of the thread propagated, his exit was a disgrace, and typical of the selfish egotist he is.
As Dave said he had ideal conditions and achieved at best a 6th place finish which for the total spend he had was disappointing at best and failure at worst.
The timing of his departure whatever the reason could be very detrimental to the short, possibly medium term future of the club, so even assuming he achieved something and he did, its all water under the bridge and murky smelly water at that.
In the end all his promises meant nothing, all the support he was given was thrown back in his supporters faces, and still they cling on.
Water under the bridge time to move on I'm repeatedly told, does that only apply if you feel the need to criticise his departure and the manner of it, seems so.
Its now all about damage limitation, here's hoping Randy makes the right choice, he seems to me to have Villa's future at heart, unlike O'Neill who has one thing at heart.
O'Neill.
-
He certainly didn't live up to the continual billing his fans like the author of the thread propagated
Sorry, feeding times over for today!
-
A bit like BFRs reign for me.
An exciting appointment, lifted the club, lifted the crowd, attracted good players who would not normally have come to us.
What players came to the club that wouldn't have if he wasn't in charge?
-
A bit like BFRs reign for me.
An exciting appointment, lifted the club, lifted the crowd, attracted good players who would not normally have come to us.
What players came to the club that wouldn't have if he wasn't in charge?
Heskey.
-
A bit like BFRs reign for me.
An exciting appointment, lifted the club, lifted the crowd, attracted good players who would not normally have come to us.
What players came to the club that wouldn't have if he wasn't in charge?
Heskey.
Smart arse! As you know I was looking for good positive signings that wouldn't have usually come to us.
-
I started haveing doubts during his second season, having been excited by his appointment and the changes that he made, it felt like we were a force again.
For me it was the third season, West Ham at home to be exact.
Forget the earlier stuff, the Moscow fiasco, Stoke, Heskey et.c. I could reason all that away. I disagreed with Moscow, but understood the reasons. Stoke was karma, the footballing Gods saying 'Oh no you don't.' And I think -deep down- we all knew we weren't going to get fourth anyway. We enjoyed some incredible luck between Nov -Jan.
But West Ham at our place brought it all home to me. Soft opponents, we started well but they upped the tempo and we didn't respond. You could see an equalizer coming long before it actually did. And MON did nowt, just stood on the touchline looking confused. You don't need to wait until you actually concede before making changes, the flow of the game should tell you that something needs to be done. But nothing, nada.
I'd probably seen similar in other games, so I'm not sure why that was the tipping point for me. But that's when my major doubts started and they never fully went away. I tried to be balanced though, and in the following season the defence did improve for one thing. We made some very solid signings in 09/10 too, and of course the final and FA Cup semi.
But at the back of it all I thought his limitations would prohibit us from making that final leap. I wanted so much to be wrong though, to say to mates of mine with whom I'd had many an argument on the subject "fair play, you never doubted him and he's come through." But he didn't.
Nearly man is right.
-
The luckiest Villa manager I've even known.
-
From a club that had just finished 16th he's built an established top 6 side on a net spend over 4 years of £80m. For the amount spent that is all that could be reasonably expected. However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
-
Chris i guess you are counting the Milner money? He sold our 2 best players and left us with a wage bill 85% of revenue. His job was to get us a cL place, he failed.
Yet if he had only been a bit more cany in the transfer market, had used the players he had better and not been so pig headed he could have done it. Nearly man is right.
-
Chris i guess you are counting the Milner money? He sold our 2 best players and left us with a wage bill 85% of revenue. His job was to get us a cL place, he failed.
Yet if he had only been a bit more cany in the transfer market, had used the players he had better and not been so pig headed he could have done it. Nearly man is right.
No, about a month ago I saw published figure of a net spend of £80m. That's nowhere near enough to guarantee a CL place. Spurs have been spending at that level for twice as long and have only just managed it, Man City have spent 5 times as much and haven't got there.
-
Came in to what some would say a mess though you could argue it was a perfect scenario for him. Modern football's intelligent, minor miracle-worker. At a big club, though for long a sleeping giant, who had grossly under-achieved the previous season but were now under new ownership who were only too happy to support O'Neill in every way they could.
''I am the custodian of this club and my rules apply'' he said a year ago, with just a hint of self-importance. He will never have as good working conditions with a big club. Three 6th positions were solid, in line with minimum expectations I felt given the fawning over his appointment and the reputation that precedes him. The often turgid football at home, the reliance on pace, power, counter-attacks and set-pieces became all too frustrating (though admittedly more often than not worked to great effect away from home) and in the end maybe a parting of the ways was best. Good enough for what we're traditionally used to, not good enough to make us better.
-
Probably Carew, Dunne, AYoung, Friedel.
Players who probably would'nt come for a Bob Bradley if you like.
You don't like MON/rate him, thats fine, under him we continually finished in the top 6, beat those above us on a more regular basis than previously, look at JG and BLs reign, and looked like winning a cup on one or two occasions.More than anything else he gave us hope and expectations, hope to finish in the top 4, owr win a cup, he did'nt, i'm not sure there are many who could tbh.
I hope you are all right, that he was shit, and the next incumbent will get us into the top4, i'm not convinced we are in a better position now because of his departure.
-
Came in to what some would say a mess though you could argue it was a perfect scenario for him. Modern football's intelligent, minor miracle-worker. At a big club, though for long a sleeping giant, who had grossly under-achieved the previous season but were now under new ownership who were only too happy to support O'Neill in every way they could.
''I am the custodian of this club and my rules apply'' he said a year ago, with just a hint of self-importance. He will never have as good working conditions with a big club. Three 6th positions were solid, in line with minimum expectations I felt given the fawning over his appointment and the reputation that precedes him. The often turgid football at home, the reliance on pace, power, counter-attacks and set-pieces became all too frustrating (though admittedly more often than not worked to great effect away from home) and in the end maybe a parting of the ways was best. Good enough for what we're traditionally used to, not good enough to make us better.
I think that's spot on Eamonn.
If I was being really unkind I could say that his legacy is a shortfall in the striking department. In four years he only spent money on two -Harewood and Heskey.
That is not behaviour consistent with a guy looking to secure Champions League football -particularly with the finance and level of backing he received.
Kevin Mac took stick for bringing Heskey on on Sunday, but what depth of options did he have in that department? That too is part of a legacy that will live on for a while after MON has gone - and will probably take a fair bit of spending to rectify.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
One thing is for sure, O’Neill certainly threw in the towel and that will ultimately be his legacy here at B6, a quitter and a bottler.
-
From a club that had just finished 16th he's built an established top 6 side on a net spend over 4 years of £80m. For the amount spent that is all that could be reasonably expected.
It wasn't a lack of money that prevented us from getting into the top 4 in the last two seasons. It was one-dimensional and inflexible tactics, predictable substitutions, and a baffling refusal to utilise the squad. As much as Martin's approach was responsible for getting us into the top 6, ultimately it was also responsible for us getting no higher. The bottom line is that he wasn't quite good enough.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
The quotes they are coming out with of late are neither as bold or aggressive as they used to be.
Randy has thrown £120mil in but is he getting intrest on this?
If he were to sell up tomorrow,he would walk away with a big profit as the debt owed to him would have to be re-paid.
The only clubs with ambition are the ones who are throwing the odd £120mil in here & there-OK we are not in that league but then lets cut all this "5 year plan" crap.Lets be honest,we are just making the numbers up so that the real players can get on with challenging for honours.
-
I posted this yesterday on another thread related to the defeat on Sunday.
The legacy of Martin O'Neill's team - a team without a spine when things start to go wrong.
If we are going to blood young players, you need a very strong player in the middle to help them out when things get tough. Petrov is not that player, Reo Coker is not that player, Sidwell is not that player, Barry was not that player. So after 4 years of MON, where is that player in our team. This in my opinion was the major failing of our previous manager.
We are very good at times going forward and show that we can play football when things go for us. Being good on the counter attack usually shows that you are unable to dominate the opposition. So, why after 4 years are we still seen as a counter attacking team if we had ambitions of top 4.
Somebody else raised the fact that we have no attacking options. The fact is, other than MON's 1st team, what other options did we have all over the pitch. This can only be viewed as an average return on the money he spent. I just think he ran out of ideas of how to progress once he had reached 6th place and ended up strenghtening one part of the team (the defence) at the expense of other parts of the team and at the same time still spending heavily.
Don't get me wrong, he was just the manager we needed at the time but his final 6 months started to show that we were not going to progress unless he changed his ways.
I do not know what sort of relationship he had with his two coaches but it never seemed as though he was getting much help from them on how to change things around. Or was it that he never listened anyway, I don't know.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
I know that it isn't going to happen, however, it looks like we're going to make a profit in this transfer window. You said it yourself that perhaps they're settling for mid table this season - if that's the case then be honest with us so that we can get used to Ashley and Gabby moving on in the near future.
-
O'Neill will be remembered by me by association with the kiddy story 'The King Clothes'
For those under the age of half a century it was about a King who everyone adored but were
brainwashed into saying had fantastic clothes, but the truth of the matter was he was in the buff-
One day a stranger came into his kingdom and told it as it was - the gradually everyone saw him
for what he was -
Similarly it appeared that supporters and media alike thought O'Neill was the 'messiah' and
could do no wrong, but gradually in time he made mistakes that he wouldn't admit to or learn from
and supporters began to question him -
I don't think that kiddy story is told anymore, it certainly isn't in any of the books I've bought
since my grand daughter was born 10 weeks ago -
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
I know that it isn't going to happen, however, it looks like we're going to make a profit in this transfer window. You said it yourself that perhaps they're settling for mid table this season - if that's the case then be honest with us so that we can get used to Ashley and Gabby moving on in the near future.
Chris, the last bit is hard to determine. Ok, so the chances of us blowing 30 mil in the next 7 days is slim. But if the managerial appointment is correct, and we consolidate our position this year, which would involve wisely investing in January, then why couldn't we provide Ash and Gabby the right environment to succeed? For me, above all is the managerial decision. Get a top manager in, and everything changes very quickly.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
I know that it isn't going to happen, however, it looks like we're going to make a profit in this transfer window. You said it yourself that perhaps they're settling for mid table this season - if that's the case then be honest with us so that we can get used to Ashley and Gabby moving on in the near future.
Chris, the last bit is hard to determine. Ok, so the chances of us blowing 30 mil in the next 7 days is slim. But if the managerial appointment is correct, and we consolidate our position this year, which would involve wisely investing in January, then why couldn't we provide Ash and Gabby the right environment to succeed? For me, above all is the managerial decision. Get a top manager in, and everything changes very quickly.
I don't expect to see a top managerial appointment. I can't see those sort of people being attracted by trimming the wage bill. Like O'Neill they'll say that if the board have ambitions to get into the CL or even to try to win something then they'll expect money to be made available for transfers and the wages that come with it. Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic but the mood music from Villa Park is far from encouraging.
-
His main pluses were getting us back in the big league like we were in the mid 90s e.g. regular
top 6 finishes, cup final appearences and also getting us some very good results home and away
to the top teams as when he took over we pretty much always rolled over to them. So in short
making us belive again we could compete and beat the elite.
However just like Little's years, there will always be a nagging sense of what if, particularly in the
league especially the opportunities we had in 08/09 and last season to finish top 4.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
I know that it isn't going to happen, however, it looks like we're going to make a profit in this transfer window. You said it yourself that perhaps they're settling for mid table this season - if that's the case then be honest with us so that we can get used to Ashley and Gabby moving on in the near future.
Chris, the last bit is hard to determine. Ok, so the chances of us blowing 30 mil in the next 7 days is slim. But if the managerial appointment is correct, and we consolidate our position this year, which would involve wisely investing in January, then why couldn't we provide Ash and Gabby the right environment to succeed? For me, above all is the managerial decision. Get a top manager in, and everything changes very quickly.
I don't expect to see a top managerial appointment. I can't see those sort of people being attracted by trimming the wage bill. Like O'Neill they'll say that if the board have ambitions to get into the CL or even to try to win something then they'll expect money to be made available for transfers and the wages that come with it. Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic but the mood music from Villa Park is far from encouraging.
But there's a difference between NOT giving MON money until he has cut wages and attracting a new manager with money to spend while still having a mandate of reducing overall expenditure. Your absolutely right. What manager would come to Villa with the chat up line "Come manage us but we're not giving you anything to spend and you have to cut wages". Nobody, which is why they won't be using it.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
I know that it isn't going to happen, however, it looks like we're going to make a profit in this transfer window. You said it yourself that perhaps they're settling for mid table this season - if that's the case then be honest with us so that we can get used to Ashley and Gabby moving on in the near future.
Chris, the last bit is hard to determine. Ok, so the chances of us blowing 30 mil in the next 7 days is slim. But if the managerial appointment is correct, and we consolidate our position this year, which would involve wisely investing in January, then why couldn't we provide Ash and Gabby the right environment to succeed? For me, above all is the managerial decision. Get a top manager in, and everything changes very quickly.
I don't expect to see a top managerial appointment. I can't see those sort of people being attracted by trimming the wage bill. Like O'Neill they'll say that if the board have ambitions to get into the CL or even to try to win something then they'll expect money to be made available for transfers and the wages that come with it. Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic but the mood music from Villa Park is far from encouraging.
But there's a difference between NOT giving MON money until he has cut wages and attracting a new manager with money to spend while still having a mandate of reducing overall expenditure. Your absolutely right. What manager would come to Villa with the chat up line "Come manage us but we're not giving you anything to spend and you have to cut wages". Nobody, which is why they won't be using it.
I hope you're right and that I'm very wrong.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
It's what Spurs did when they appointed Harry. It's what Man City are doing every summer. But I don't think we needed another £120m to maintain our forward momentum.
I would have had him tell Man City to feck off this summer and given the manager £10m plus whatever Faulkner manages to raise from selling some of the 6 players identified as potential sales.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
It's what Spurs did when they appointed Harry. It's what Man City are doing every summer. But I don't think we needed another £120m to maintain our forward momentum.
I would have had him tell Man City to feck off this summer and given the manager £10m plus whatever Faulkner manages to raise from selling some of the 6 players identified as potential sales.
Of course you would. It's all so easy when it's not your money and it's not your decisions.
-
According to this our squad is worth £131m
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/de/premier-league/startseite/wettbewerb_GB1.html
its in german but you can soon work it out
Everton's squad is worth more than ours-Fallaini is worth £17m!
Also all figures are debatable -you wouldn't sell Albrighton to what he is listed here!
But it is a 'guide' for all you budding cyber managers out there
Also you can search for a player and it will tell you who their agent is(for the journalistic types)
and lists all the players moves and for how much-settle all those arguements about what we paid and got for whoever
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
It's what Spurs did when they appointed Harry. It's what Man City are doing every summer. But I don't think we needed another £120m to maintain our forward momentum.
I would have had him tell Man City to feck off this summer and given the manager £10m plus whatever Faulkner manages to raise from selling some of the 6 players identified as potential sales.
Of course you would. It's all so easy when it's not your money and it's not your decisions.
It's probably best not to pose those particular type of questions if you've already decided that Lerner's answer is the only valid one.
-
It's probably best not to pose those particular type of questions if you've already decided that Lerner's answer is the only valid one.
What are you on about now?
-
It's probably best not to pose those particular type of questions if you've already decided that Lerner's answer is the only valid one.
What are you on about now?
If you are going to criticise my answer on the grounds it isn't my money and my decision, why bother asking "what more would you want them to do?"
What type of answer are you hoping for to that question?
-
According to this our squad is worth £131m
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/de/premier-league/startseite/wettbewerb_GB1.html
its in german but you can soon work it out
Everton's squad is worth more than ours-Fallaini is worth £17m!
Also all figures are debatable -you wouldn't sell Albrighton to what he is listed here!
But it is a 'guide' for all you budding cyber managers out there
Also you can search for a player and it will tell you who their agent is(for the journalistic types)
and lists all the players moves and for how much-settle all those arguements about what we paid and got for whoever
It's a cracking website and there's a British version button near the top right hand corner.
-
Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option.
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
It's what Spurs did when they appointed Harry. It's what Man City are doing every summer. But I don't think we needed another £120m to maintain our forward momentum.
I would have had him tell Man City to feck off this summer and given the manager £10m plus whatever Faulkner manages to raise from selling some of the 6 players identified as potential sales.
So the responsibility lies with Faulkner to shift the deadwood now, absolving MON of all blame in that key area. How convenient.
Dunno where you got the figures for Tottenham's transfer dealing since 'arry has been in charge either.
Lets see:
* Palacios-------- £12 -15 million
* Cudicini---------Free
* Defoe----------- £15 million
* Keane-----------£12 -16 million
* Naughton------
* Walker----------£8 million for both
* Crouch ---------£10 million
* Bassong--------£8 million
* Krankjar--------£2.5 million
* Kaboul----------£6.5 million
* Sandro---------£7 million
So only about £40 million out, VD. Or did I not carry the 1?
-
Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option.
Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.
I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.
In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?
-
However, I fear that the board have now thrown in the towel and that's as good as it is going to get.
Okay, so what more would you want them to do? Another £120 million?
It's what Spurs did when they appointed Harry. It's what Man City are doing every summer. But I don't think we needed another £120m to maintain our forward momentum.
I would have had him tell Man City to feck off this summer and given the manager £10m plus whatever Faulkner manages to raise from selling some of the 6 players identified as potential sales.
So the responsibility lies with Faulkner to shift the deadwood now, absolving MON of all blame in that key area. How convenient.
Dunno where you got the figures for Tottenham's transfer dealing since 'arry has been in charge either.
Lets see:
* Palacios-------- £12 -15 million
* Cudicini---------Free
* Defoe----------- £15 million
* Keane-----------£12 -16 million
* Naughton------
* Walker----------£8 million for both
* Crouch ---------£10 million
* Bassong--------£8 million
* Krankjar--------£2.5 million
* Kaboul----------£6.5 million
* Sandro---------£7 million
So only about £40 million out, VD. Or did I not carry the 1?
I'm sorry you are right, he has only spent approx. £80m since last January. I included the £40m worth of players who arrived during the 3 months before Redknapp did.
-
I feel that this word "legacy" is being over used...
-
Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option.
Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.
I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.
In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?
Yes, of course we could have kept a player who didn't want to be here and for whom another club were offering a ridiculous price. It happens all the time. How di you know the manager wasn't given a transfer budget?
-
What legacy? He spent more money that any other manager outside of the top four and Spurs and achieved the position that kind of spend demanded. What are we left with? A core of players that will keep us safely in mid table and a lot of overpaid underused players that at the moment we can't get rid of.
-
Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option.
Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.
I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.
In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?
Yes, of course we could have kept a player who didn't want to be here and for whom another club were offering a ridiculous price. It happens all the time. How di you know the manager wasn't given a transfer budget?
Being offered by a club that Jose Mourinho has said has complete control over the transfer market and no one else can compete with - he is the european cup winning manager and is managing arguably the biggest side in world football. Milner was going. Whether Villa had a choice or not.
-
Exactly.
The only way we might have persuaded him to stay was if we'd made significant enough progress ourselves in the past few years. Had we cracked 4th when the opportunity was there he (and Barry) might have been content enough to believe they could achieve their goals and ambitions with us.
The above scenario would have required more nous in the transfer market, better use of resources and tactical flexibility at crucial times though. Which brings us neatly back to MON...
-
What legacy? He spent more money that any other manager outside of the top four and Spurs and achieved the position that kind of spend demanded. What are we left with? A core of players that will keep us safely in mid table and a lot of overpaid underused players that at the moment we can't get rid of.
Can't really disagree with this too much.
Martin was perfect for us at the time of his appointment, and the years that followed saw us progress a lot as a club, but, only to where we should have always been. I feel I must credit Martin for that, he developed some of our players and achieved a lot of good things, on the other hand, a lot of what I would call basics for an established manager with a good experience went wrong. No point in me listing them, we all know what they were/are. The only way we'll know if Martin leaving was the right thing or not will be the legacy of the next manager.
-
The fact is, other than MON's 1st team, what other options did we have all over the pitch. This can only be viewed as an average return on the money he spent.
I just can't agree with the frame of mind that sees our opinions of his squad options as a return for the money spent. The return is the W/D/L figures, league position and any trophies.
Some interesting points have been raised, mainly around the transfer record, which I'm afraid will be debated until rapture with one side focusing on the Harewoods and Heskeys and the other on the Youngs and Milners. Spending is comparative and we were competitive in that context, but we did NOT spend the sort of money where CL football could be viewed as where we should be. I think it's a case of the view that he should have got 6th with what he had to spend is right, but then so is the fact that the next manager will do extremely well to match or better that with less, if that's what happens.
I also agree with Chris Smith's point that if Martin walked as he couldn't achieve 4th with the forthcoming budget, we won't attract a top manager, who will have the same ambitions, without Randy having a rethink.
-
Chris I'm not sure what 'mood music' you listen to, but the latest song I read from General k gave me the impression RL's commitment was no less than before.
I appreciate its a convenient Mon exit excuse but what justification is there to suggest there is no backing for new managers. Do you know something no one else does, share your insight please.
-
Chris I'm not sure what 'mood music' you listen to, but the latest song I read from General k gave me the impression RL's commitment was no less than before.
I appreciate its a convenient Mon exit excuse but what justification is there to suggest there is no backing for new managers. Do you know something no one else does, share your insight please.
That we're not going to make a quick appointment suggests we'll not spend anything else this summer. January is always a difficult time to buy; whether by accident or design we're likely to make a profit on transfers this season.
-
Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option.
Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.
I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.
In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?
VD, I can see your way of thinking here. Milner makes such a huge difference to our team. You only have to look at the Newcastle match to realise this. With him, we're not half bad. Without him, we're going to be decidedly average. What's the cost of that in terms of league position, season ticket sales, merchandise sales, potential loss of 4th spot, cup runs, etc? It's huge.
But Man City tapped Milner up. I've heard rumours of over 200k a week! Even if half of that is right (and I suspect it's somewhere in between), who would say no? Imagine if you, being a Villa supporter, playing for, say, Sunderland and Man City come in for you. Do you really give that much of a fuck about Sunderland? No. Do you give that much of a fuck about all that extra shiny money? Oh yes. So you tell your boss you want out (don't worry, he's being paid double, too). Your head is gone. You're already somewhere else.
Now we all know how Milner played against West Ham but I suspect he knew that te deal was done and that it was his last hurrah in the claret and blue. Would he have been like that game in, game out if we'd pulled the rug out from under him? I dunno.
Randy did what he could.
As for MoN.....to echo others, a nearly man. Which, given his working environment, is a great shame.
-
Something based on reality perhaps? Taking into account the fact that we were offered way above Milner's market value, the alternative to selling him was keeping an unhappy player, there doesn't seem a lot of interest in our cast-offs and Randy Lerner does not have a bottomless well of money so Carry on Spending isn't an option.
Milner was less than halfway through his initial contract. We could have told Man City he wasn't for sale. It really isn't beyond the realms of possibility for us to have said to Man City and James Milner that he wasn't for sale this summer.
I didn't advocate a bottomless well of money, I suggested he could have given the manager a much more reasonable £10m transfer budget.
In fact those two suggestions are just about what Randy Lerner himself was saying 2 months ago. What has really changed?
VD, I can see your way of thinking here. Milner makes such a huge difference to our team. You only have to look at the Newcastle match to realise this. With him, we're not half bad. Without him, we're going to be decidedly average. What's the cost of that in terms of league position, season ticket sales, merchandise sales, potential loss of 4th spot, cup runs, etc? It's huge.
But Man City tapped Milner up. I've heard rumours of over 200k a week! Even if half of that is right (and I suspect it's somewhere in between), who would say no? Imagine if you, being a Villa supporter, playing for, say, Sunderland and Man City come in for you. Do you really give that much of a fuck about Sunderland? No. Do you give that much of a fuck about all that extra shiny money? Oh yes. So you tell your boss you want out (don't worry, he's being paid double, too). Your head is gone. You're already somewhere else.
Now we all know how Milner played against West Ham but I suspect he knew that te deal was done and that it was his last hurrah in the claret and blue. Would he have been like that game in, game out if we'd pulled the rug out from under him? I dunno.
Randy did what he could.
As for MoN.....to echo others, a nearly man. Which, given his working environment, is a great shame.
I understand the argument, the same things were said recently about Barry to Liverpool, Ronaldo, Fabregas, Alonso, Gerrard etc... Not a single one of them went on strike, played worse or left before the club agreed to sell them.
With Milner it isn't just the difference he made to our team, it's the difference he is going to make to the team that finished 3 points ahead of us last season.
Edit: I've just seen Milner's own explanation of his position.
"When things are being said every day in the paper and wherever you go out and people are asking you what's happening and you don't know yourself, there's only one thing you can do, just concentrate on your football and that's all I did.
"I just kept doing as well as I could at Aston Villa and see what happened."
-
The fact is, other than MON's 1st team, what other options did we have all over the pitch. This can only be viewed as an average return on the money he spent.
I just can't agree with the frame of mind that sees our opinions of his squad options as a return for the money spent. The return is the W/D/L figures, league position and any trophies.
John, you have taken my comment out of context, the topic is 'The legacy of Martin O'Neill'. My comment was about what he has left for his successor, not what his achievements were.
I stand by my comment that other than his 1st team we are looking short of quality and options and, as seen in the last two matches, we are looking spineless because after 4 years we are still lacking a strong midfield leader. Granted we have just received £25m for Milner but that was a 'right time, right place' transfer when his true value was probably about £6m up on what we paid for him.
I still believe that what MON has left for the next manager in the form of the squad is only an average return on the money spent. Money spent is not just for today i.e. short term results but also for the future in continuing and improving the team/squad.
-
The fact is, other than MON's 1st team, what other options did we have all over the pitch. This can only be viewed as an average return on the money he spent.
I just can't agree with the frame of mind that sees our opinions of his squad options as a return for the money spent. The return is the W/D/L figures, league position and any trophies.
Granted we have just received £25m for Milner but that was a 'right time, right place' transfer when his true value was probably about £6m up on what we paid for him.
You see, I can't get on board with this.
£6m up on what we paid is what Man Utd paid individually for Nani, Anderson and Carrick. I'd rather have Milner than all three of them.
Player values are absolutely ridiculous, but if the likes of the three above are going for what is the going market rate I don't think Milner was undervalued at all.
-
The fact is, other than MON's 1st team, what other options did we have all over the pitch. This can only be viewed as an average return on the money he spent.
I just can't agree with the frame of mind that sees our opinions of his squad options as a return for the money spent. The return is the W/D/L figures, league position and any trophies.
Granted we have just received £25m for Milner but that was a 'right time, right place' transfer when his true value was probably about £6m up on what we paid for him.
You see, I can't get on board with this.
£6m up on what we paid is what Man Utd paid individually for Nani, Anderson and Carrick. I'd rather have Milner than all three of them.
Player values are absolutely ridiculous, but if the likes of the three above are going for what is the going market rate I don't think Milner was undervalued at all.
And Ozil and Khedira?
What would any other team have paid for Milner?
Anyway, to save the arguement, let's split the difference, say £10m over what we paid. Again, that is not the main point of my original comment and that is the legacy of the playing staff left by MON (plus the profit on Milner!)
-
MON got some of his signings very, very right - Ashley Young and James Milner being the obvious two. Then there were quite a few decent ones - Carew, Collins, Dunne and others. Then there ok ones, such as Friedel, Luke Young, Warnock. Then there were some really, really shit ones - Harewood, Heskey, Sidwell et al.
In that respect he is like all managers, gets some wrong, gets some right, and I guess we will all have differing views on how in the black his "transfer credit" was.
What I do think caught up with him was his insistence on buying pretty much exclusively players already playing in Britain. I never really understood that. I take on board the argument that they are less likely not to settle, but it is an incredibly over-inflated market (fees AND salaries) to be operating in, and to operate in it exclusively is baffling.
If you look at the squad now, and the wider "reduce the wage bill" issue, you can see the negative part of his legacy - and one which was flagged up on here by various people - that we had an imbalance of expensive, British bought, high earning, relatively unused players, and that some of these were on big contracts and really weren't up to much. I understand that is how he left Celtic as well.
I don't really know why he found it so unacceptable to be asked to do something about the wage bill - all managers have to juggle resources, that is one of the things that sorts the really good ones from the rest, their ability to make things work - to "manage". One thing that does strike me, though, is that if he'd gone shopping abroad more often, where you get more bang for your buck and players will take lower wages, maybe we wouldn't be left with the likes of Heskey, Davies, Beye, Sidwell et all hosing down huge amounts in salary for very little return.
-
Not sure if what I have got to say has been covered previously because I can't be arsed to read the five pages, i was talking to a Leicester fan today who put forward the theory that when MON leaves a club they go into decline and he cited both Leicester and Celtic as examples. This theory was backed up by a Sunderland fan with no axe to grind. I think there is pain to be had before the gain is realised!
-
maybe...but doesn't that say more about him...when any manager leaves a company, their true colours are revealed...if they care about the place, they will do the right thing, give the appropriate time for the company to find a replacement, help in the handover etc.. and then there are those managers who want the replacement to fail, so that their own reputation is enhanced and they are even more revered...
personally, if we are 6-0 down again this weekend, I'd like someone to hold up a sign with the words "but we still don't want you back" written on it.
-
maybe...but doesn't that say more about him...when any manager leaves a company, their true colours are revealed...if they care about the place, they will do the right thing, give the appropriate time for the company to find a replacement, help in the handover etc.. and then there are those managers who want the replacement to fail, so that their own reputation is enhanced and they are even more revered...
personally, if we are 6-0 down again this weekend, I'd like someone to hold up a sign with the words "but we still don't want you back" written on it.
The way O'Neill left the club definitely does say something about him but there are also people who leave their job immediately because they find themselves placed in an untenable position. If he left in the way he did because he was finding it difficult to cope with agreed budget cuts, then he's a loser. If it was because of firm promises being broken or having his decision making responsibilities over-ridden, then he may have been justified.
-
Nearly man. Close but no cigar. Highest spending villa manager. In years to come he won't be one of the best remembered villa managers as we didn't win a trophy under him.
-
when MON leaves a club they go into decline and he cited both Leicester and Celtic as examples.
Celtic won the league for 3 seasons in a row for the first time since the Jock Stein era in the seasons immediately after MON left so I'm not sure about going into decline.
-
when MON leaves a club they go into decline and he cited both Leicester and Celtic as examples.
Celtic won the league for 3 seasons in a row for the first time since the Jock Stein era in the seasons immediately after MON left so I'm not sure about going into decline.
And Strachan got them playing good football for the first time in years.
-
Strachan also weeded out all the high earning players he was stuck with. It did take him four years to get rid of Bobo Balde mind.
My Uncle had a Legacy. It leaked oil and burned the mechanics bald head when it was getting a service!
-
maybe...but doesn't that say more about him...when any manager leaves a company, their true colours are revealed...if they care about the place, they will do the right thing, give the appropriate time for the company to find a replacement, help in the handover etc.. and then there are those managers who want the replacement to fail, so that their own reputation is enhanced and they are even more revered...
personally, if we are 6-0 down again this weekend, I'd like someone to hold up a sign with the words "but we still don't want you back" written on it.
The way O'Neill left the club definitely does say something about him but there are also people who leave their job immediately because they find themselves placed in an untenable position.
Agreed. Nick Leeson for one. (winky)
-
I hope we go into the same decline Celtic did. Considering they were spent out had Strachan in charge and too many over paid players at the end of their careers that needed shifting at huge losses Strachan did ok to win more than Mon did.
We should be fine if Randy gets in someone better than Strachan and lets face it, that shouldn't be hard even for someone who allegedly knows nothing about football.
Mon knew he'd been found out, he knew he couldn't keep spending his way out of the problems his limitations caused and he ran at the first chance he got.
Now even the interim manager admits there were plenty of disgruntled players thankful for his exit was the thought of more player revolts too much for his ego.
He did an average job for a huge spend what remains as his legacy is a club in need of TLC and a wise experienced head. Even then I doubt it will be easy.
-
What's Strachan doing now?
-
Manager of middlesbrough
-
Boro were booed off yesterday. Again.
-
Boro were booed off yesterday. Again.
It's all Southgate's fault.
-
Well it can't be Strachan's he's won Title after title with Celtic, more than Mon did and we all know how highly Mon was rated on his Celtic record
-
I'm actually coming round to the idea that MON was bigger than the club. Reading different forums MON's followers are still kicking up a fuss despite MON so obviously leaving us in the shit. Attacking the owners, fans and CLUB to defend him. For this alone in my own mind i'm glad he's well away from the club.
-
My Uncle had a Legacy. It leaked oil and burned the mechanics bald head when it was getting a service!
I roared at this. Brilliant!
-
Martin Keown on MOTD2 seemed to think that O'Neill had the Villa punching above their weight, that his departure will herald a decline, and that `there is something not right behind the scenes.'
They just make it up as they go along. I want to do well this season just to shut them up
-
Perry Groves on Sky said O'Neill had made Stuart Downing a better player.
-
Martin Keown on MOTD2 seemed to think that O'Neill had the Villa punching above their weight, that his departure will herald a decline, and that `there is something not right behind the scenes.'
They just make it up as they go along. I want to do well this season just to shut them up
If we were punching above our weight, that would mean that MON spent a considerable amount on ordinary players. Even more than what some supporters think. So, on the one hand you have the brilliance of MON getting the best out of average players but on the other hand, hadn't got a clue in the transfer market and thus not a brillinat manager. You cannot have it both ways. The truth is, somewhere between the two.
-
I suppose Downing was on crutches when he arrived, and can now walk. That makes O'Neill the footballing equivalent of Jesus Christ
-
Perry Groves on Sky said O'Neill had made Stuart Downing a better player.
The Stuart Downing I have seen playing for us is not a patch on his best for Boro. MON may have improved certain aspects of his game but at the detriment of other parts.
-
The effort and commitment yesterday was certainly a legacy of the MON rein, something I thought we'd lost against Newcastle.
Say what you want about MON's style of football but his teams always gave 100% and had a never say die attitude. For that we should be grateful.
-
I suppose Downing was on crutches when he arrived, and can now walk. That makes O'Neill the footballing equivalent of Jesus Christ
Didn't do much for the lepers in the squad.
-
Agreed. Nick Leeson for one. (winky)
Current CEO of my local club.
-
Martin Keown on MOTD2 seemed to think that O'Neill had the Villa punching above their weight, that his departure will herald a decline, and that `there is something not right behind the scenes.'
They just make it up as they go along. I want to do well this season just to shut them up
I think that's the perception that most people have; they see reports of sell to buy, of wages being trimmed, they see a well liked manager walking out, they see us getting tonked by a just promoted team then going out of Europe at the first hurdle in embarrassing fashion and apparently dithering over appointing a new manager. It is little surprise that they think something is not right.
It doesn't mean that they're right but you can see why they might think it.
-
It doesn't mean that they're right but you can see why they might think it.
As ever, my favourite thing. People saying the first thing that occurs to them because they can't acknowledge that they haven't got a clue.
-
Martin Keown on MOTD2 seemed to think that O'Neill had the Villa punching above their weight, that his departure will herald a decline, and that `there is something not right behind the scenes.'
They just make it up as they go along. I want to do well this season just to shut them up
I think that's the perception that most people have; they see reports of sell to buy, of wages being trimmed, they see a well liked manager walking out, they see us getting tonked by a just promoted team then going out of Europe at the first hurdle in embarrassing fashion and apparently dithering over appointing a new manager. It is little surprise that they think something is not right.
It doesn't mean that they're right but you can see why they might think it.
the easy option is always the quickest route for those that lack the brain capacity to think for themselves...
-
The legacy of MON will be Fabian Delph.
If he comes back as good as before he got injured, he will be up there with Macca.
-
Fingers crossed he'll come back as good a player, but it's way too early to be putting him in that bracket i think.
-
Apparently Lerner had first option on Christiano Ronaldo, then withdrew after discovering he was two footed, as there was no point in buying a footballer that O'Neill couldn't play out of position.
-
How come everyone is convinced Delph is going to be amazing? He seemed ok but I think it really was too early to tell. He can't tackle for shit I know that
-
How come everyone is convinced Delph is going to be amazing? He seemed ok but I think it really was too early to tell. He can't tackle for shit I know that
A new manager will be a great opportunity for him to prove a point. I look forward to his return.
-
How come everyone is convinced Delph is going to be amazing? He seemed ok but I think it really was too early to tell. He can't tackle for shit I know that
Attacking midfielders and wingers are not usually known for their tackling ability. Whenever MON played him, he played him in the wrong position... but that's not really a surprise.
-
How come everyone is convinced Delph is going to be amazing? He seemed ok but I think it really was too early to tell. He can't tackle for shit I know that
Nor can Paul Scholes.
I thought he looked the most naturally gifted midfielders we've had in recent times. No guarantee of him being any good in the long run mind.
-
I mean I want him to be, I hope he comes good but people just seem so sure
-
Three consecutive finishes in 6th place. A cup final, which we probably would have won if it wasn't for that awful referee.
As for his exit, meh. It still annoys me tremendously.
-
Three consecutive finishes in 6th place. A cup final, which we probably would have won if it wasn't for that awful referee.
As for his exit, meh. It still annoys me tremendously.
To be honest, although the referee fucked it up, there's still no guarantee - far from it - that we'd have won that game.
We played twice at Wembley last season, and although I had a lovely day both times, we must have managed 3 shots on goal across the entire 180 minutes, and one of those was a penalty.
-
For all the advancement we made under MON it was based solely upon Randy continuing to blindly invest in the club. Once that stopped MON self interest took over, can't forgive or forget that he walked out leaving the club in the shit.
Will be remembered for being a manager of limited ability but maximum hype.
-
The legacy of MON will be Fabian Delph.
If he comes back as good as before he got injured, he will be up there with....
...James Milner and Gareth Barry.
-
Three consecutive finishes in 6th place. A cup final, which we probably would have won if it wasn't for that awful referee.
As for his exit, meh. It still annoys me tremendously.
To be honest, although the referee fucked it up, there's still no guarantee - far from it - that we'd have won that game.
We played twice at Wembley last season, and although I had a lovely day both times, we must have managed 3 shots on goal across the entire 180 minutes, and one of those was a penalty.
Of course there is no guarantee, that's why I said probably and didn't give a conclusive answer. :p
-
Three consecutive finishes in 6th place. A cup final, which we probably would have won if it wasn't for that awful referee.
As for his exit, meh. It still annoys me tremendously.
To be honest, although the referee fucked it up, there's still no guarantee - far from it - that we'd have won that game.
We played twice at Wembley last season, and although I had a lovely day both times, we must have managed 3 shots on goal across the entire 180 minutes, and one of those was a penalty.
Of course there is no guarantee, that's why I said probably and didn't give a conclusive answer. :p
Alright, I'll adjust my response to say "we probably still wouldn't have won it"
*wink*
-
For all the advancement we made under MON it was based solely upon Randy continuing to blindly invest in the club. Once that stopped MON self interest took over
A good point and one I'll be stealing.
-
Three consecutive finishes in 6th place. A cup final, which we probably would have won if it wasn't for that awful referee.
As for his exit, meh. It still annoys me tremendously.
To be honest, although the referee fucked it up, there's still no guarantee - far from it - that we'd have won that game.
We played twice at Wembley last season, and although I had a lovely day both times, we must have managed 3 shots on goal across the entire 180 minutes, and one of those was a penalty.
Of course there is no guarantee, that's why I said probably and didn't give a conclusive answer. :p
Alright, I'll adjust my response to say "we probably still wouldn't have won it"
*wink*
We can only dream. Although I do agree with our lack of chances in front of goal.
-
Once upon a time, I think Martin O'Neill's biggest legacy would have been that he got our hopes and expectation back in the proper place and that is to compete for honours and make a run to the top of the table. But then he fucked off and quit. The end.
-
The legacy of MON - It's his fault that Spurs are ahead of us.
-
Presumably Gerard will wonder into the manager's office at BH today and find the a dusty copy of the Rothmans Guide to Mediocre British Players; 2008 edition, a calendar with only the 31 of August mysteriously circled and a large map of the UK.
-
Presumably Gerard will wonder into the manager's office at BH today and find the a dusty copy of the Rothmans Guide to Mediocre British Players; 2008 edition, a calendar with only the 31 of August mysteriously circled and a large map of the UK
That's quite funny. Houlier will probably find a few back issues of The Lawyer in the desk draw, a couple of Bachelors lps on the Dancette in the corner and the blackmail letter from Heskey, which threatens to publish the negatives if O'Neill dosent play him in every game.
-
The lagacy of MON is a pretty decent squad, a good team spirit, 2 consecutives seasons of getting close to the top 4 with no cigar and a new attitude of not taking European competition as seriously as we could or should.
-
gary cahill.
i watched him play for england the other night, and that lad should still be at our club.
he isn't, and we all know why.
MON did not give players a fair crack of the whip.
looking forward to a new era.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
-
The legacy of Martin O'Neill is our football club left completely in the lurch, Managerless with 5 days to go before the season started.
-
The legacy of Martin O'Neill is our football club left completely in the lurch, Managerless with 5 days to go before the season started.
No, that will be what he's remembered for. His legacy will be what happens from now and how many of the players he brought in are regulars if we were to break 4th.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.
-
No, that will be what he's remembered for. His legacy will be what happens from now and how many of the players he brought in are regulars if we were to break 4th.
His legacy is a decent squad, but one that has too many over-paid average footballers with no sell-on value of worth, no (first team) coaching set up, and absolutely no scouting network. What happens from now will be down to Houllier, not O'Neill.
-
No, that will be what he's remembered for. His legacy will be what happens from now and how many of the players he brought in are regulars if we were to break 4th.
His legacy is a decent squad, but one that has too many over-paid average footballers with no sell-on value of worth, no (first team) coaching set up, and absolutely no scouting network. What happens from now will be down to Houllier, not O'Neill.
If he has to rebuild from scratch thne yes it will. If he just adds to what we already have then we need to acknowledge the foundations MON laid down.
-
What happens from now will be down to Houllier, not O'Neill
Unless we start losing games. Then it'll be O'Neill's fault
-
If he has to rebuild from scratch thne yes it will. If he just adds to what we already have then we need to acknowledge the foundations MON laid down.
Hence the decent squad comment. It is decent, good even, but I don't think anyone could say it's anything more than that. Every manager is going to try and stamp their mark over the squad, so can see quite a few comings and goings over the next 18 months or so, particularly left back, goalkeeper (which would have to happen sooner or later anyway), and up front.
His legacy outside of the first team is much much poorer, for the reasons outlined already.
-
If he has to rebuild from scratch thne yes it will. If he just adds to what we already have then we need to acknowledge the foundations MON laid down.
Hence the decent squad comment. It is decent, good even, but I don't think anyone could say it's anything more than that. Every manager is going to try and stamp their mark over the squad, so can see quite a few comings and goings over the next 18 months or so, particularly left back, goalkeeper (which would have to happen sooner or later anyway), and up front.
His legacy outside of the first team is much much poorer, for the reasons outlined already.
Coaching and scouting will change, that I would not argue. However these are extensions of any managers style and the people he likes around him, so whether good, bad or indifferent would change anyway. I think the team that takes the field, which is what it's all directed towards, is the real measure. And as you say that's pretty good right now!
-
Coaching and scouting will change, that I would not argue. However these are extensions of any managers style and the people he likes around him, so whether good, bad or indifferent would change anyway. I think the team that takes the field, which is what it's all directed towards, is the real measure. And as you say that's pretty good right now!
Pretty good is a bit underwhelming considering the money paid.
-
Coaching and scouting will change, that I would not argue. However these are extensions of any managers style and the people he likes around him, so whether good, bad or indifferent would change anyway. I think the team that takes the field, which is what it's all directed towards, is the real measure. And as you say that's pretty good right now!
Pretty good is a bit underwhelming considering the money paid.
My issue wasn't that the players he bought were all rubbish, they weren't.
It was that frequently, we made such decent players look so crap by the style of football we played.
-
Mark Kelly:
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I wish more fans had that winning mentality. There are far too many these days who don't understand the difference between a football club and a soap opera, or dare I say a Portuguese novela.
-
All of us now want and expect a level of results that improve year on year, that we give the likes of Manure, Chelski a run for their money, we improve our points total, that we qualify for Europe, and a quite reasonable expectation that we can win a trophy or two a season as well. Pro MON or anti MON, collectively Villa fans have probably never had those "realistic" expectations before, so that is MON's legacy, in short he has raised the bar at Aston Villa Football Club. Which is what all successful managers at all clubs do.
-
Mark Kelly:
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I wish more fans had that winning mentality. There are far too many these days who don't understand the difference between a football club and a soap opera, or dare I say a Portuguese novela.
It isn't all about winning, though, is it? It needs to be entertaining, too.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.
Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
as opposed to the "getting hammered 6-0 away at Newcastle any old shit"
I know which one i prefer.
-
the legacy of MON is our best league placings since WWII. After all the gripes about right-backs, etc have long been forgotton this is what will remain. Let's hope Houllier can go a step better but it'll be a tough call.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
as opposed to the "getting hammered 6-0 away at Newcastle any old shit"
I know which one i prefer.
I'd agree with you if it was the norm rather than the exception.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.
Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.
Exactly. The idea that somehow winning football and attractive football need to be different is exactly the attitude that has held England back for generations. From Hungary in '53 to the Germans in '10, English football has suffered from exactly the same deficiencies. Any notion that somehow possession is too risky a strategy to be a good one for winning, or that it's preferable to put in endless crosses in the vain hope that something will happen rather than crafting a move with a definite purpose, or that defenders should always hack it as far away as possible from their goal because passing is such a dangerous luxury - these notions were never right and now they're just laughable.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.
Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.
Not at all, my argument is that, like most football fans, I'll take "any old shit provided we win". Your posts suggests the opposite. I won't accept any old shit if we lose but winning always comes first.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.
Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.
Exactly. The idea that somehow winning football and attractive football need to be different is exactly the attitude that has held England back for generations. From Hungary in '53 to the Germans in '10, English football has suffered from exactly the same deficiencies. Any notion that somehow possession is too risky a strategy to be a good one for winning, or that it's preferable to put in endless crosses in the vain hope that something will happen rather than crafting a move with a definite purpose, or that defenders should always hack it as far away as possible from their goal because passing is such a dangerous luxury - these notions were never right and now they're just laughable.
Except that isn't what Mark said. He suggested that Villa fans were somehow unique for putting a winning team ahead of a pretty team. Which is total bolloocks.
We all like to see great football but we prefer to see winning football.
-
If the options are playing well and losing or playing poorly and winning, I'd take the latter everytime.
Playing well and winning should always be the goals.
But if you said to me we'll play a certain attractive way and win 3 out of 5 or play a less attractive way and win 4 out of 5, I'd again take the latter option!
-
Au Revoir Mr Dummy Spitter! :)
The biggest thing at the club was your ego.
-
Au Revoir Mr Dummy Spitter! :)
The biggest thing at the club was your ego.
He left about a month ago.
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
Probably, like I said... I only ever remember Risso saying things along those lines too.
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
I don't think there were loads who wanted him out.
Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher.
There were plenty who didn't rate his football or think he'd take us any further, but acknowledged that he'd earned the right to try again.
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
I don't think there were loads who wanted him out.
Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher.
There were plenty who didn't rate his football or think he'd take us any further, but acknowledged that he'd earned the right to try again.
Agree, not too many actually wanted him out, more so, to change the way the team played, not to alienate relativley expensive players and to act more in the transfer windows.
He was incredibly frustrating, but most took that as the way he was.
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
I don't think there were loads who wanted him out.
Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher.
There were plenty who didn't rate his football or think he'd take us any further, but acknowledged that he'd earned the right to try again.
I agree. I was supporter of MON for the majority of his time here, but the last 6-9 months things became stale. I stated as you have indicated there, that like many I wasn't convinced anymore that he was the man to take us to that next level, but I will stand by my assertion he was exactly the right man to get us out of an almighty jam in 2006. He did a lot of good things at Villa, but he's soiled the sheets by the manner of his departure. I care about Villa much more than I will ever care about MON.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.
Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.
Exactly. The idea that somehow winning football and attractive football need to be different is exactly the attitude that has held England back for generations. From Hungary in '53 to the Germans in '10, English football has suffered from exactly the same deficiencies. Any notion that somehow possession is too risky a strategy to be a good one for winning, or that it's preferable to put in endless crosses in the vain hope that something will happen rather than crafting a move with a definite purpose, or that defenders should always hack it as far away as possible from their goal because passing is such a dangerous luxury - these notions were never right and now they're just laughable.
Except that isn't what Mark said. He suggested that Villa fans were somehow unique for putting a winning team ahead of a pretty team. Which is total bolloocks.
We all like to see great football but we prefer to see winning football.
What's total 'bolloocks' Chris, is your comment. Where did I mention us being unique? There was a time, not so long ago, when Villa fans would want to see both entertaining and winning football. Maybe the likes of the Rags, Stoke, Leicester and Bolton are willing to accept a win at any cost but I'd never have put Villa in that group.
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
Ahem.
-
Does the fact that most of us are glad he left (if not the timing), have a touch of hatred towards him and are (in general) happy to welcome Gerard Who? into the club - answer the question?
Its hard to seperate legacy from feelings: -
I loved
I liked
I was confused
I was living a lie
I came to terms
I hated
I still do
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
I don't think there were loads who wanted him out.
Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher.
There were plenty who didn't rate his football or think he'd take us any further, but acknowledged that he'd earned the right to try again.
Ktvillain, Hawkeye, Everall, East19, Hilts...
-
To be fair to Hilts, he was more in the camp of 'get Mourinho in' than 'MON out'. And all it would have taken was that phone call.....
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
I don't think there were loads who wanted him out.
Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher.
There were plenty who didn't rate his football or think he'd take us any further, but acknowledged that he'd earned the right to try again.
Ktvillain, Hawkeye, Everall, East19, Hilts...
Eight people.
Keep going and you might get enough to fill a second people carrier.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.
Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.
Exactly. The idea that somehow winning football and attractive football need to be different is exactly the attitude that has held England back for generations. From Hungary in '53 to the Germans in '10, English football has suffered from exactly the same deficiencies. Any notion that somehow possession is too risky a strategy to be a good one for winning, or that it's preferable to put in endless crosses in the vain hope that something will happen rather than crafting a move with a definite purpose, or that defenders should always hack it as far away as possible from their goal because passing is such a dangerous luxury - these notions were never right and now they're just laughable.
Except that isn't what Mark said. He suggested that Villa fans were somehow unique for putting a winning team ahead of a pretty team. Which is total bolloocks.
We all like to see great football but we prefer to see winning football.
What's total 'bolloocks' Chris, is your comment. Where did I mention us being unique? There was a time, not so long ago, when Villa fans would want to see both entertaining and winning football. Maybe the likes of the Rags, Stoke, Leicester and Bolton are willing to accept a win at any cost but I'd never have put Villa in that group.
Your first post was "The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win". Which is what all fans are like, with the "as long as win" being the important bit. The clubs you mention don't win all that often so isn't really relevant.
I'd put up with it if we won every week, MON hasn't made me like that being a football fan has.
-
Villajk, DC5
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
I don't think there were loads who wanted him out.
Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher.
There were plenty who didn't rate his football or think he'd take us any further, but acknowledged that he'd earned the right to try again.
Ktvillain, Hawkeye, Everall, East19, Hilts...
Eight people.
Keep going and you might get enough to fill a second people carrier.
There were plenty more as well you know, something like 20% wasn't it on the last poll?
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
I don't think there were loads who wanted him out.
Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher.
There were plenty who didn't rate his football or think he'd take us any further, but acknowledged that he'd earned the right to try again.
Ktvillain, Hawkeye, Everall, East19, Hilts...
Eight people.
Keep going and you might get enough to fill a second people carrier.
There were plenty more as well you know, something like 20% wasn't it on the last poll?
Hang on a sec, when we had that poll, weren't you amongst those telling us that the results represented a highly impressive expression of support for the manager?
Strange that it now is seen as some enormous body of opinion wanting him sacked.
-
MON was exactly what the club needed.
After 2 years I fell out of love with him (boo hoo) and wouldn't have cared if he went.
I remember saying things along those lines on here and getting some strange responses. Actually I only ever remember Risso thinking along the same lines.
There were loads and loads of people wanting him out. I wasn't one of them, but I'm glad he's gone now.
I don't think there were loads who wanted him out.
Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher.
There were plenty who didn't rate his football or think he'd take us any further, but acknowledged that he'd earned the right to try again.
Ktvillain, Hawkeye, Everall, East19, Hilts...
Eight people.
Keep going and you might get enough to fill a second people carrier.
There were plenty more as well you know, something like 20% wasn't it on the last poll?
Hang on a sec, when we had that poll, weren't you amongst those telling us that the results represented a highly impressive expression of support for the manager?
Strange that it now is seen as some enormous body of opinion wanting him sacked.
You're arguing two different points. Yes, it shows that the majority were behind him even if some have now changed their minds. It also shows that more than just "Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher" wanted him out.
-
OK then, it was just Paulthevillain and Risso. Christ. Some people really just enjoy arguing don't they.
-
You're arguing two different points. Yes, it shows that the majority were behind him even if some have now changed their minds. It also shows that more than just "Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher" wanted him out.
And, as i originally pointed out, hardly "loads and loads" as the other poster said.
You then listed a few, which is fair enough, but still nothing like "loads" of them.
-
OK then, it was just Paulthevillain and Risso. Christ. Some people really just enjoy arguing don't they.
What's the matter with you? The point was that you said loads and loads of people wanted him out. I'm disagreeing.
It's a pretty fundamental point to be arguing about, it's not like whether the pies are hot enough or something. We're talking about whether there was a significant portion of the readership who wanted the manager to leave.
-
OK then, it was just Paulthevillain and Risso. Christ. Some people really just enjoy arguing don't they.
What's the matter with you? The point was that you said loads and loads of people wanted him out. I'm disagreeing.
It's a pretty fundamental point to be arguing about, it's not like whether the pies are hot enough or something. We're talking about whether there was a significant portion of the readership who wanted the manager to leave.
Well it wasn't insignificant.
:-)
-
Does it really matter who did and didn't want him gone? He's not our manager anymore our time would be better sopent discussing the merits of Gezza (don't think it's Chavvy and I'm gonna try and make it stick) now he's the gaffer?
And yes, I appreciate that's a bit rich coming from me seeing as I started the thread!
-
You're arguing two different points. Yes, it shows that the majority were behind him even if some have now changed their minds. It also shows that more than just "Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher" wanted him out.
And, as i originally pointed out, hardly "loads and loads" as the other poster said.
You then listed a few, which is fair enough, but still nothing like "loads" of them.
Perhaps it just seemed like more as they were so unremitting in their determination to let us know about it. <wink>
-
You're arguing two different points. Yes, it shows that the majority were behind him even if some have now changed their minds. It also shows that more than just "Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher" wanted him out.
And, as i originally pointed out, hardly "loads and loads" as the other poster said.
You then listed a few, which is fair enough, but still nothing like "loads" of them.
Perhaps it just seemed like more as they were so unremitting in their determination to let us know about it. <wink>
I guess some people also are more noticeable than others, which distorts the overview of opinion (says Mr 20,155 posts to Mr 20,975 posts, whilst winking)
-
Those two post counts simply suggests you are both sad and lonely. And that you need each other.
Grabs coat and pegs it.
-
Your first post was "The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win". Which is what all fans are like, with the "as long as win" being the important bit. The clubs you mention don't win all that often so isn't really relevant.
I'd put up with it if we won every week, MON hasn't made me like that being a football fan has.
I agree. If we play fantastic football and deserve to win but go onto lose 1-0 I feel like shit. If we win but play badly I'm happy. Points mean prizes and all wins are equal in terms of these.
Now I think we might see a more technical brand of football under Ged but I'm not sure it will be blistering and fantastic stuff.
-
Does it really matter who did and didn't want him gone? He's not our manager anymore our time would be better sopent discussing the merits of Gezza (don't think it's Chavvy and I'm gonna try and make it stick) now he's the gaffer?
And yes, I appreciate that's a bit rich coming from me seeing as I started the thread!
Indeed. The thread is called "The Legacy of Martin O'Neill" so they might as well get it out of their systems here.
-
You're arguing two different points. Yes, it shows that the majority were behind him even if some have now changed their minds. It also shows that more than just "Risso, Malcolm, who else? Mark Fletcher" wanted him out.
And, as i originally pointed out, hardly "loads and loads" as the other poster said.
You then listed a few, which is fair enough, but still nothing like "loads" of them.
Perhaps it just seemed like more as they were so unremitting in their determination to let us know about it. <wink>
Which in comparison even now to those who kept backing the man ad nausea, was but a small, quiet few.
<wink>
-
Please don't forget me.
OK then, it was just Paulthevillain and Risso. Christ. Some people really just enjoy arguing don't they.
And me, I wanted him out - badly.
-
I can only think of about 8 people on here who wanted Bicycle face out.
From my view, he'd had 4 seasons, one more than I think any manager should have to show that they were taking a club forward.
He was asked to sort out the wage bill and a combination of that and the club's refusal to sign the woefully inadequate McGready and injury ridden Keane (for £18m) caused him to have a hissy fit and leave us in the lurch 5 days before the season.
He'll not be mourned by me, he's nowhere near as good as thinks he is.
Redknapp was right 'I'm a better coach than O'Neill.'
-
Also, you can't read too much into the polls, people wilfully put controversial votes on them, have a look at the next Villa manager one, I think 12 people voted for O'Leary.
-
I can only think of about 8 people on here who wanted Bicycle face out.
From my view, he'd had 4 seasons, one more than I think any manager should have to show that they were taking a club forward.
He was asked to sort out the wage bill and a combination of that and the club's refusal to sign the woefully inadequate McGready and injury ridden Keane (for £18m) caused him to have a hissy fit and leave us in the lurch 5 days before the season.
He'll not be mourned by me, he's nowhere near as good as thinks he is.
Redknapp was right 'I'm a better coach than O'Neill.'
I agree with McGeady but the injury ridden Keane bit? I have never noticed him to miss loads of matches through injury compared to an Owen for example.
-
I can only think of about 8 people on here who wanted Bicycle face out.
From my view, he'd had 4 seasons, one more than I think any manager should have to show that they were taking a club forward.
He was asked to sort out the wage bill and a combination of that and the club's refusal to sign the woefully inadequate McGready and injury ridden Keane (for £18m) caused him to have a hissy fit and leave us in the lurch 5 days before the season.
He'll not be mourned by me, he's nowhere near as good as thinks he is.
Redknapp was right 'I'm a better coach than O'Neill.'
I agree with McGeady but the injury ridden Keane bit? I have never noticed him to miss loads of matches through injury compared to an Owen for example.
He's had his injuries, but apart from that, £9m for a 30 year old Spurs reject with NO resale value?
Would have been a poor move.
-
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I think you'll find that 99% of football fans will put winning ahead of pretty football everytime. Clearly you and Tony Mowbray are in the other 1%.
Once again Chris you deliberately miss the point. If your definition of decent football is restricted to Mowbray, you really have little understanding of modern football. You really must have hated the West Ham game.
Exactly. The idea that somehow winning football and attractive football need to be different is exactly the attitude that has held England back for generations. From Hungary in '53 to the Germans in '10, English football has suffered from exactly the same deficiencies. Any notion that somehow possession is too risky a strategy to be a good one for winning, or that it's preferable to put in endless crosses in the vain hope that something will happen rather than crafting a move with a definite purpose, or that defenders should always hack it as far away as possible from their goal because passing is such a dangerous luxury - these notions were never right and now they're just laughable.
Except that isn't what Mark said. He suggested that Villa fans were somehow unique for putting a winning team ahead of a pretty team. Which is total bolloocks.
We all like to see great football but we prefer to see winning football.
What's total 'bolloocks' Chris, is your comment. Where did I mention us being unique? There was a time, not so long ago, when Villa fans would want to see both entertaining and winning football. Maybe the likes of the Rags, Stoke, Leicester and Bolton are willing to accept a win at any cost but I'd never have put Villa in that group.
Your first post was "The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win". Which is what all fans are like, with the "as long as win" being the important bit. The clubs you mention don't win all that often so isn't really relevant.
I'd put up with it if we won every week, MON hasn't made me like that being a football fan has.
I think you'll find a lot, if not all football fans have higher expectations of their teams than you Chris. Judging by the response on here over the last month, maybe my initial comment was incorrect, the vast majority are now glad MON has gone and it wasn't because we weren't winning enough games, maybe fans wanted an essential ingredient that was missing, a bit of entertainment, a sign that we were progressing and developing as a team. Monty hit the nail on the head and hopefully with decent coaches we'll start to win games with more style.
I just hope you won't be too disappointed should we achieve it. After all, you were there when we were shit.
-
His legacy is a platform of good players that I believe have even more to give. Though the wage bill maybe high I still believe there is money to spend and room for manoeuvre. We’re a top 6 club who have begun to start challenging again. It is clear O’Neill was not the manager to take us further forward.
-
Please don't forget me. OK then, it was just Paulthevillain and Risso. Christ. Some people really just enjoy arguing don't they.
And me, I wanted him out - badly.
Was are the 'We wanted MON out' gang nominating sfx412 for membership?
-
Please don't forget me. OK then, it was just Paulthevillain and Risso. Christ. Some people really just enjoy arguing don't they.
And me, I wanted him out - badly.
Was are the 'We wanted MON out' gang nominating sfx412 for membership?
He was the Raving loony independent candidate, nothing to do with us!
-
Please don't forget me. OK then, it was just Paulthevillain and Risso. Christ. Some people really just enjoy arguing don't they.
And me, I wanted him out - badly.
Was are the 'We wanted MON out' gang nominating sfx412 for membership?
He was the Raving loony independent candidate, nothing to do with us!
Get lost, he's your Ayatollah, your spiritual leader. Where Malcom treads today, you all follow.
-
Too extreme for me, he once PM'd me a list of posters he hated with their home addresses and details of how to make explosives out of fertiliser, naturally your name was top of the list Chris.
I'd gladly put your windows in, but nothing more.
-
Too extreme for me, he once PM'd me a list of posters he hated with their home addresses and details of how to make explosives out of fertiliser, naturally your name was top of the list Chris.
I'd gladly put your windows in, but nothing more.
That's a euphemism Chris, Fletch is a filthy bugger.
You'll probably have him threatening to "kick your back door in and paint it white on the way out" sooner or later.
-
Those two post counts simply suggests you are both sad and lonely. And that you need each other.
Grabs coat and pegs it.
Your opinion counts for shit, t_v. You don't even go to the games.
that's a joke, obv.
-
Too extreme for me, he once PM'd me a list of posters he hated with their home addresses and details of how to make explosives out of fertiliser, naturally your name was top of the list Chris.
I'd gladly put your windows in, but nothing more.
That's a euphemism Chris, Fletch is a filthy bugger.
You'll probably have him threatening to "kick your back door in and paint it white on the way out" sooner or later.
Ohh it does sound odd.
I'll change it to 'Give Chris a thorough going over.'
-
The legacy of MON was he thought he could turn every overpaid turd into an overpaid diamond , unfortunately he could not..
-
Mark Kelly:
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I wish more fans had that winning mentality. There are far too many these days who don't understand the difference between a football club and a soap opera, or dare I say a Portuguese novela.
It isn't all about winning, though, is it? It needs to be entertaining, too.
It absolutely is all about winning.
If we did that comedy thing where one person has the ball and the other 10 form a defensive, protective circle around him whilst they shuffle toward the net, I'd be reasonably happy as long as we won.
Seriously though, I'm never unhappy with the manner of a win, not ever. I am always unhappy following a defeat, regardless of how much better we may have been or how unlucky or how dodgy the ref. I just hate it. Being entertained by the performance is a very distant "nice to have" compared to the result for me.
-
Being entertained by the performance is a very distant "nice to have" compared to the result for me.
When I think about this question I think about a match V Sunderland at the fag end of John Gregory's reign. Villa won 1-0 but it was the most excrutiating match I think I've ever had to sit through. Winning is not worth that.
-
Mark Kelly:
The legacy of MON is fans willing to accept any old shit provided we win.
I wish more fans had that winning mentality. There are far too many these days who don't understand the difference between a football club and a soap opera, or dare I say a Portuguese novela.
It isn't all about winning, though, is it? It needs to be entertaining, too.
It absolutely is all about winning.
If we did that comedy thing where one person has the ball and the other 10 form a defensive, protective circle around him whilst they shuffle toward the net, I'd be reasonably happy as long as we won.
Seriously though, I'm never unhappy with the manner of a win, not ever. I am always unhappy following a defeat, regardless of how much better we may have been or how unlucky or how dodgy the ref. I just hate it. Being entertained by the performance is a very distant "nice to have" compared to the result for me.
Really?
Fair play to you, in that case, no wonder you liked MON so much ;)
Surely there is a limit, though? What if we played like Cambridge United under John Beck? A percentages, out and out long ball game? Would you pay to watch that so long as the results were ok?
I don't suspect many people would do - the winning is good, yes, but our volatile attendances suggest we're not one of the clubs that could get away with being so unentertaining (if indeed any can, these days).
I guess the other question is where you draw the line - ie what do you mean by "winning" over the course of the season?
I assumed you'd accept, for example, 38 unwatchable performances in return for winning the league (i bet we all would), but what about in return for finishing 6th? Or 8th? Or 10th?
I'm not trying to kick off a row, incidentally, I think we've just stumbled on an interesting point of debate.
-
There's also this weird divide people often make between good football and winning football, because none of the teams who are champions in any of the major divisions in the world, the European champions, the Libertadores winners, the South American, European and World Cup victors, and indeed all their runners-up and contendors - none of them play the kind of hoofball which goes down in England as 'pragmatic'. What on earth is pragmatic about relying on luck, or bobbles, or opposition mistakes? To some extent that's what MON's football was like at its worst, and it's the football that Allardyce, Wimbledon and John Beck have turned out under the guise that it 'wins games'. The lack of any champions of that style in the last 50 years should surely end that debate.
-
You could also ask of those who place a higher value on style over results, at which point does that change? Yes, you wouldn't accept Arsenal style performances and relegation, but were we bottom half would you be asking for a change to see us more competitive and less open?
It's a balance.
-
You could also ask of those who place a higher value on style over results, at which point does that change? Yes, you wouldn't accept Arsenal style performances and relegation, but were we bottom half would you be asking for a change to see us more competitive and less open?
It's a balance.
It's exactly the same question - where does the "tipping point" lie.
Sounds like a good idea for a book.
-
There's also this weird divide people often make between good football and winning football, because none of the teams who are champions in any of the major divisions in the world, the European champions, the Libertadores winners, the South American, European and World Cup victors, and indeed all their runners-up and contendors - none of them play the kind of hoofball which goes down in England as 'pragmatic'. What on earth is pragmatic about relying on luck, or bobbles, or opposition mistakes? To some extent that's what MON's football was like at its worst, and it's the football that Allardyce, Wimbledon and John Beck have turned out under the guise that it 'wins games'. The lack of any champions of that style in the last 50 years should surely end that debate.
I always thought that describing MON's team as "kick and rush" or "long ball" was unfair, as it wasn't that.
I do, however, think the overreliance on wingers and balls into the box in itself was almost as much a percentages game as the long ball game, as it seemed to be based on "get it whacked in as much as you can, and you've got a chance it'll take a bobble or a deflection and you'll get something"
I like watching good wingers play. I don't like watching teams which rely almost totally on their wingers, though.
-
You'll not be suprised that I find it difficult to argue with the late, great Jock Stein: "I think it is important to win a match, but I think what is even more important is the manner in which you win."
-
I don't see it as a 'tipping point' as much as the expectations you have based upon your club/finances spent. If Albion were 16th and playing beautifully they'd be happy, but if we were we'd want more.
If I had to put a tilt on it either way, I think fans would say they were fed up with losing long before they'd say they were fed up with dull football.
-
I agree totally, Paulie. Teams at the level we want to be at cannot seriously rely on luck to the extent that we did.
-
I think there has to be a balance between entertainment and being effective. The problem for me with O'Neill is that last season at home, the football was dull to watch, and led to less victories than even the likes of Sunderland and Blackburn. So boring to watch and largely ineffective.
-
You'll not be suprised that I find it difficult to argue with the late, great Jock Stein: "I think it is important to win a match, but I think what is even more important is the manner in which you win."
I notice he doesn't say the manner in which you lose! I think that's one for our side of the argument!
-
I agree totally, Paulie. Teams at the level we want to be at cannot seriously rely on luck to the extent that we did.
I'd seriously disagree that we relied on luck. We played to our strengths, which was widemen, big strikers and Gabby's pace.
-
I think there has to be a balance between entertainment and being effective. The problem for me with O'Neill is that last season at home, the football was dull to watch, and led to less victories than even the likes of Sunderland and Blackburn. So boring to watch and largely ineffective.
That's the point, really, that attractive football with good enough players is generally actually winning football. With the resources and time at his disposal, MON really should have had us winning more in a more convincing style. The type of football he actually played was as boring as it was inefficient.
John, those strengths are the strengths of lesser sides who don't look to dominate games, which if we're getting to the top we have to do against sides like Blackburn and Sunderland.
-
I think there has to be a balance between entertainment and being effective. The problem for me with O'Neill is that last season at home, the football was dull to watch, and led to less victories than even the likes of Sunderland and Blackburn. So boring to watch and largely ineffective.
That's a decent point, it was actually pretty ineffective at home, certainly compared to our away form.
Maybe I'd have been less harsh on his football if i travelled to all the away matches and got to see our counter attacking style more, but I don't.
I do remember spending much of the last two years sat in my ST seat thinking how boring it was to watch, though.
-
John, those strengths are the strengths of lesser sides who don't look to dominate games, which if we're getting to the top we have to do against sides like Blackburn and Sunderland.
Maybe so, but my argument was always that what we needed was to ADD to our play and not totally adandon that which had largely worked for us. We needed a ball player in the centre and better movement upfront to give us an extra dimension to our play. Yet had we done that by sacrificing the wing play or counter attacking we'd have ended up pretty much as we were.
-
Me too, I would not have gone to many of the later stage matches last season if I hadnt a season ticket.
Ged , please deliver something interesting to watch!
-
You'll not be suprised that I find it difficult to argue with the late, great Jock Stein: "I think it is important to win a match, but I think what is even more important is the manner in which you win."
I notice he doesn't say the manner in which you lose! I think that's one for our side of the argument!
Obviously we all want to win but the manner in which you win is so important. It's all down to developing, progressing, becoming a better side, which in turn will make winning easier. Credit to MON for getting us three top six finishes but we rarely looked like a top 6 side.
I remember at the tail end of the season watching Spurs and thinking they actually do look like a top 4 side. They'd developed their play over the season, everybody knew their job and I hate to say it but were a joy to watch. That's where I want us to be but it was obvious we were never going to achieve it with MON, Robertson and Walford. There's only so far 100% effort can take you.
-
It's true that there was a lot of our play that was very good. However, there was a fundamental problem with the thinking behind it, that I believe needs more than just tweaking to improve. There seemed to be a total disregard for the idea of combinations in the centre, a lack of patience when in possession, being all-too willing to just throw it into the area and see what happens. The 4-4-2 also doesn't help, as it only works now as a defensive formation, yet it was played in home games against the likes of West Ham, and we were outnumbered and frustrated in the midfield. It was so fundamentally predictable and wrong, both in entertainment and results terms, and the whole philosophy needs a rethink, not a tweak.
-
I remember at the tail end of the season watching Spurs and thinking they actually do look like a top 4 side. They'd developed their play over the season, everybody knew their job and I hate to say it but were a joy to watch.
I absolutely hate Tottenham as a club, and their fans always seem to be particularly nauseating, but you're right, the fact is, they frequently did look very impressive last season, they certainly looked the part, it pains me to say.
I found the way we played quite embarassing at times. I'm aware that probably comes across as melodramatic, but it was all just so drab and functional.
I don't know what worried me most, though, whether MON didn't know how to change it, or if he didn't think it needed changing in the first place.
-
John, those strengths are the strengths of lesser sides who don't look to dominate games, which if we're getting to the top we have to do against sides like Blackburn and Sunderland.
Maybe so, but my argument was always that what we needed was to ADD to our play and not totally adandon that which had largely worked for us. We needed a ball player in the centre and better movement upfront to give us an extra dimension to our play. Yet had we done that by sacrificing the wing play or counter attacking we'd have ended up pretty much as we were.
Thing is John, MON wasn't the man to create that.
He did take the club as far as he could, it's just his timing that was so wrong as he definately wasn't going to be anywhere near a P45 from Randy.
-
Me too, I would not have gone to many of the later stage matches last season if I hadnt a season ticket.
Ged , please deliver something interesting to watch!
Sorry he can bore the pants off me if he brings home the trophies.
for a while at least :)
Re the point about 'direct football'. I rarely saw, especially after Mon sold Barry balls played out from defence through midfield to the attack. I'd agree there was some variation but I remember in Mon's early days shouting at Mellberg not to hoof a clearance up to the middle, only for him to smile and shrug his shoulders.
Its always the option of limited teams ask Stoke, Bolton, and we did it far too often
-
I don't know what worried me most, though, whether MON didn't know how to change it, or if he didn't think it needed changing in the first place.
I'd like to think he knew how to change it and he knew it needed changing but what held him back was his loyalty to Robertson and Walford. It probably would have called for him spending more time on the the training sessions, which in turn would probably have meant letting go of some of his power around Villa Park.
-
I don't know what worried me most, though, whether MON didn't know how to change it, or if he didn't think it needed changing in the first place.
I don't know whether I'm remembering it differently to other people but there was a point, around the time we beat Man Utd last year and when Downing had just come into the side and Milner had just moved into the central midfield, when actually Villa did start to play some good stuff. I thought at that point MON had found the answer. This period, however, was all too short and the side was soon again playing as is being discussed. I don't know if the lack of rotation played a part, or the fact that Cuellar was by now entrenched on the right.
-
I know this point could lead to another discussion about money and transfers, so let's not go there.
You do though have to take into account the options available. Both Villa and Spurs had 11 players who played 20+ games last season. I think we were reasonably closely matched on 1st 11. The difference was in what was available in depth behind that, players that could play 10 or so games or could come on and make an impact every now and then. We have Heskey, Sidwell and NRC. Spurs had Bale, Bentley, Gudjohnsen, Jenas, Kaboul, Keane, Kranjcar and Pavyluchenko.
We just don't have a strong enough squad to be able to change things around frequently and target the weaknesses in other teams squads. We have to play our way, the best we can.
-
VD, i think the problem was not the lack of strength in depth, certainly not in the style of play we adopted. The issue was that Martin frequently had us looking like less than the sum of the parts.
We never focused on the "simple" things like keeping the ball, moving off it, creating options for players - whether we had our strongest 11 playing or not.
-
MON thought we were a Man City, where we were closer to Everton.
-
I think we were reasonably closely matched on 1st 11.
The two games last season showed the huge gulf in approach and style between the two teams. I don't recall the line ups but only one team looked like breaking the top 4.
-
VD, i think the problem was not the lack of strength in depth, certainly not in the style of play we adopted. The issue was that Martin frequently had us looking like less than the sum of the parts.
We never focused on the "simple" things like keeping the ball, moving off it, creating options for players - whether we had our strongest 11 playing or not.
I was talking to a guy at work about Villa and he was surprised to hear me say that I was pleased to see the back of MON. My main gripe was that MON never seemed to learn anything from games and cannot possibly have watched reruns of games. As a result me made the same mistakes every single week to the point where we knew how a home game would pan out virtually every week.
If MON had resigned at the end of the season before last then he would have left a legacy of a talented young squad. If he'd have resigned at the end of last season then people would have wished him well while knowing that he was failing. Leaving the way he did eventually will mean that his legacy will be one of contempt from the fans. There's a lot to be said for quitting while you are ahead.
-
I'm going out for a meal now with some one who used to work for MON tonight. Should be an interesting night.... ;-))
hes just told me Houlier didnt turn up today....
-
There's a lot to be said for quitting while you are ahead.
Indeed there is. Only this afternoon the TV crews were out interviewing fans as to who should be the next England manager, now that Capello will stand down after Euro 2012. Somebody mentioned O'Neill and I really was taken aback. Can you imagine MON taking England to the World Cup in Brazil, the thought is frightening (unless you're Scottish). I couldn't stop thinking of the Mike Bassett - England Manager film. Maybe it's his destiny.
-
There's a lot to be said for quitting while you are ahead.
Indeed there is. Only this afternoon the TV crews were out interviewing fans as to who should be the next England manager, now that Capello will stand down after Euro 2012. Somebody mentioned O'Neill and I really was taken aback. Can you imagine MON taking England to the World Cup in Brazil, the thought is frightening (unless you're Scottish). I couldn't stop thinking of the Mike Bassett - England Manager film. Maybe it's his destiny.
The trouble is Mark, didn't Mike Bassett get us to the semifinal playing 4-4-2. (Winky thing)
It would be good to recreate that fight between the English, Scots and Irish at Rio airport as well.
-
There's a lot to be said for quitting while you are ahead.
Indeed there is. Only this afternoon the TV crews were out interviewing fans as to who should be the next England manager, now that Capello will stand down after Euro 2012. Somebody mentioned O'Neill and I really was taken aback. Can you imagine MON taking England to the World Cup in Brazil, the thought is frightening (unless you're Scottish). I couldn't stop thinking of the Mike Bassett - England Manager film. Maybe it's his destiny.
The trouble is Mark, didn't Mike Bassett get us to the semifinal playing 4-4-2. (Winky thing)
It would be good to recreate that fight between the English, Scots and Irish at Rio airport as well.
Maybe he'll go for the Wales job.
-
I think we were reasonably closely matched on 1st 11.
The two games last season showed the huge gulf in approach and style between the two teams. I don't recall the line ups but only one team looked like breaking the top 4.
For 2 teams of similar strength how come they had Crouch, Defoe, Keane compared to Heskey Carew and Gabby ?
-
I think we were reasonably closely matched on 1st 11.
The two games last season showed the huge gulf in approach and style between the two teams. I don't recall the line ups but only one team looked like breaking the top 4.
For 2 teams of similar strength how come they had Crouch, Defoe, Keane compared to Heskey Carew and Gabby ?
I'm not sure of your point. Are you agreeing with me that whilst the first 11 was closely matched, Spurs have more strength in depth? Are you pointing out we've spent 3.5m and a Milan Baros swap compared to Harry's £40,000,000 on strikers?
-
I think we were reasonably closely matched on 1st 11.
The two games last season showed the huge gulf in approach and style between the two teams. I don't recall the line ups but only one team looked like breaking the top 4.
For 2 teams of similar strength how come they had Crouch, Defoe, Keane compared to Heskey Carew and Gabby ?
I'm not sure of your point. Are you agreeing with me that whilst the first 11 was closely matched, Spurs have more strength in depth? Are you pointing out we've spent 3.5m and a Milan Baros swap compared to Harry's £40,000,000 on strikers?
That's a good measure of Martin's legacy - his total inability to spot a decent striker acquisition. I think we're going to suffer most from a lack of goals this season.
-
I think we were reasonably closely matched on 1st 11.
The two games last season showed the huge gulf in approach and style between the two teams. I don't recall the line ups but only one team looked like breaking the top 4.
For 2 teams of similar strength how come they had Crouch, Defoe, Keane compared to Heskey Carew and Gabby ?
I'm not sure of your point. Are you agreeing with me that whilst the first 11 was closely matched, Spurs have more strength in depth? Are you pointing out we've spent 3.5m and a Milan Baros swap compared to Harry's £40,000,000 on strikers?
That's a good measure of Martin's legacy - his total inability to spot a decent striker acquisition. I think we're going to suffer most from a lack of goals this season.
Gabby and Carew have been 2 of the best strikers in the league over the last 3 or 4 seasons, certainly better than Crouch and Keane. It's always nice to have more good strikers but we've not been in a position to be spending 10-12m on squad players like Spurs have.
-
Except when Spurs spend that amount of money on a player they expect them to get into the first team and hopefully do well enough to stay there. Not too dissimilar to us when buying Davies and Reo-Coker for £16m.
-
Except when Spurs spend that amount of money on a player they expect them to get into the first team and hopefully do well enough to stay there. Not too dissimilar to us when buying Davies and Reo-Coker for £16m.
I'm not sure Spurs would expect to be able to play a team with Bentley, Paylyuchenko, Corluka, Defoe, Palacios, Keane, Naughton, Crouch, Bassong and Van der Vaart (all purchased in the last 2 years for £8m-£15m) as first team starters on top of the likes of Lennon, Jenas, Modric, Assou-Okotto, Dawson, King, Bale, Hutton etc... They clearly have been paying big money for squad players.
-
Spurs have spent a lot of money and so have we. They have spent theirs better than O'Neill did and got more out of their players than O'Neill did. Even some of their flops (e.g. Bale and Pavlyuchenko) played important roles for them last season. The proportion of our £120M or whatever that O'Neill spent on players who made almost zero contribution is frightening.
-
Spurs have spent a lot of money and so have we. They have spent theirs better than O'Neill did and got more out of their players than O'Neill did. Even some of their flops (e.g. Bale and Pavlyuchenko) played important roles for them last season. The proportion of our £120M or whatever that O'Neill spent on players who made almost zero contribution is frightening.
Here you go, I've tidied it up for you...
Spurs have spent a lot more money than we have. They have spent much more than O'Neill did and got more out of having more players than O'Neill did. Even some of their very expensive squad players (e.g. Bale and Pavlyuchenko) played important roles for them last season. The proportion of our £120M or whatever that O'Neill spent on players who made almost zero contribution is funnily enough almost zero, although a few of them have now been replaced as 1st choice.
-
Nope. I was spot on first time thanks.
-
The mighty Spurs hot on the heels of losing at home to Wigan are currently drawing with the Baggies. What a club, what a manager.
Our new manager seems quite impressed with the squad he has inherited.
-
The mighty Spurs hot on the heels of losing at home to Wigan are currently drawing with the Baggies. What a club, what a manager.
He's a better manager than O'Neill.
-
Who are you going to constantly whinge about now MON has gone?
Hes gone, time to move on.
-
Who are you going to constantly whinge about now MON has gone?
Hes gone, time to move on.
What's it got to do with you?
I'll type whatever I feel like.
So tough.
-
The mighty Spurs hot on the heels of losing at home to Wigan are currently drawing with the Baggies. What a club, what a manager.
He's a better manager than O'Neill.
He's all mouth.
-
The mighty Spurs hot on the heels of losing at home to Wigan are currently drawing with the Baggies. What a club, what a manager.
He's a better manager than O'Neill.
He's all mouth.
Could have done with a mouth like that, would have got us 4th spot.
He did it for them after they were staring at relegation.
-
Our new manager seems quite impressed with the squad he has inherited.
Just a shame our previous manager was so limited given such talent.
-
It's mystifying that there are some who continue to defend O'Neill's record while at the same time decrying Redknapp's work at Spurs. O'Neill had a decent record with us but Redknapp has worked wonders at Spurs in the short time he has been there. And even then, some dismiss that on the grounds that Spurs have spent a lot of money on building a very good squad, as if spending money wisely is somehow cheating .
-
It's mystifying that there are some who continue to defend O'Neill's record while at the same time decrying Redknapp's work at Spurs. O'Neill had a decent record with us but Redknapp has worked wonders at Spurs in the short time he has been there. And even then, some dismiss that on the grounds that Spurs have spent a lot of money on building a very good squad, as if spending money wisely is somehow cheating .
Well said Hilts.
-
It's mystifying that there are some who continue to defend O'Neill's record while at the same time decrying Redknapp's work at Spurs. O'Neill had a decent record with us but Redknapp has worked wonders at Spurs in the short time he has been there. And even then, some dismiss that on the grounds that Spurs have spent a lot of money on building a very good squad, as if spending money wisely is somehow cheating .
Absolutely.
I still hate him and his club mind.
-
Aye.
It is a curious parallel universe whereby a manager who spent millions and delivered nowt is held in higher regard than a guy whose side will be playing Werder Bremen in the CL this week.
Particularly when the latter had less time in the job, a lower wage bill and roughly the same finances available.
-
Our new manager seems quite impressed with the squad he has inherited.
Just a shame our previous manager was so limited given such talent.
Let's see how many games Davies, NRC and Sidwell get shall we Chris?
-
It's mystifying that there are some who continue to defend O'Neill's record while at the same time decrying Redknapp's work at Spurs. O'Neill had a decent record with us but Redknapp has worked wonders at Spurs in the short time he has been there. And even then, some dismiss that on the grounds that Spurs have spent a lot of money on building a very good squad, as if spending money wisely is somehow cheating .
You have deliberately misinterpreted the argument.
He hasn't worked wonders, he's just returned them to the level they were before they foolishly sacked Martin Jol.
Spurs have spent far more money than us to get to where they are. Unless we match that level of spending then we're going to find it difficult to compete. Not impossible but difficult. Hopefully the new manager will be able to match the old one in keeping us in contention with more expensively assembled squads.
-
It's mystifying that there are some who continue to defend O'Neill's record while at the same time decrying Redknapp's work at Spurs. O'Neill had a decent record with us but Redknapp has worked wonders at Spurs in the short time he has been there. And even then, some dismiss that on the grounds that Spurs have spent a lot of money on building a very good squad, as if spending money wisely is somehow cheating .
You have deliberately misinterpreted the argument.
He hasn't worked wonders, he's just returned them to the level they were before they foolishly sacked Martin Jol.
Spurs have spent far more money than us to get to where they are. Unless we match that level of spending then we're going to find it difficult to compete. Not impossible but difficult. Hopefully the new manager will be able to match the old one in keeping us in contention with more expensively assembled squads.
They've also received a lot more from player sales as well. Over the last four years our net spends have very similar, and of course our wage bill is higher. The fact is that O'Neill had a 50:50 transfer record, for every good signing there was a dud. Redknapp has a much higher success rate in picking and getting the best out of good players. He's also rather obviously got them to a level higher than Jol, seeing as they're now in the Champions League.
-
It's mystifying that there are some who continue to defend O'Neill's record while at the same time decrying Redknapp's work at Spurs. O'Neill had a decent record with us but Redknapp has worked wonders at Spurs in the short time he has been there. And even then, some dismiss that on the grounds that Spurs have spent a lot of money on building a very good squad, as if spending money wisely is somehow cheating .
You have deliberately misinterpreted the argument.
He hasn't worked wonders, he's just returned them to the level they were before they foolishly sacked Martin Jol.
Spurs have spent far more money than us to get to where they are. Unless we match that level of spending then we're going to find it difficult to compete. Not impossible but difficult. Hopefully the new manager will be able to match the old one in keeping us in contention with more expensively assembled squads.
They've also received a lot more from player sales as well. Over the last four years our net spends have very similar, and of course our wage bill is higher. The fact is that O'Neill had a 50:50 transfer record, for every good signing there was a dud. Redknapp has a much higher success rate in picking and getting the best out of good players.
And also getting rid of non-performing, unneeded players. He signed Chimbonda but sold him quickly when he realised that he didn't fancy him. Compare this to the travails we have faced over Harewood, Reo Coker and Davies to name but three who never really played but who also never were sold.
-
It's mystifying that there are some who continue to defend O'Neill's record while at the same time decrying Redknapp's work at Spurs. O'Neill had a decent record with us but Redknapp has worked wonders at Spurs in the short time he has been there. And even then, some dismiss that on the grounds that Spurs have spent a lot of money on building a very good squad, as if spending money wisely is somehow cheating .
You have deliberately misinterpreted the argument.
He hasn't worked wonders, he's just returned them to the level they were before they foolishly sacked Martin Jol.
Spurs have spent far more money than us to get to where they are. Unless we match that level of spending then we're going to find it difficult to compete. Not impossible but difficult. Hopefully the new manager will be able to match the old one in keeping us in contention with more expensively assembled squads.
They've also received a lot more from player sales as well. Over the last four years our net spends have very similar, and of course our wage bill is higher. The fact is that O'Neill had a 50:50 transfer record, for every good signing there was a dud. Redknapp has a much higher success rate in picking and getting the best out of good players. He's also rather obviously got them to a level higher than Jol, seeing as they're now in the Champions League.
The timescale is irrelevant, the squad of players at Spurs cost far more than ours.
Redknapp improved one place on Jol's last two full seasons even by internet hyperbole standards to class that as working wonders is pushing it.
-
He hasn't worked wonders, he's just returned them to the level they were before they foolishly sacked Martin Jol.
Rubbish, he's got them into the Champions League, which is precisely what he was brought there to do. Martin O'Neill wasn't brought to Villa and given plenty of money to spend in order to get us to 6th and no higher.
They've spent a lot, we've spent a lot. They've spent it better than us, they've used their squad better than us, they're in the Champions League, we're already out of the UEFA. And yet there you, still trying to argue that black is white.
-
It's quite bizarre to see people using against Redknapp the fact that Spurs (Champions League group phase qualified Spurs) "only" drew at a newly promoted club when we (booted out of the Europa League at the first stage by the same club as last year) got beaten 6-0 at a newly promoted club.
The same newly promoted club who today lost 2-0 to the weakest of the newly promoted clubs.
It's also interesting to see the decrying of "only" improving on Jol's performance by one place as not a signficant achievement, especially when you consider that that one place was the one they needed to qualify for the Champions League.
Oh, and it is extra amusing when it is done by the same people who until recently were pointing at our own year on year improvement of two points whilst remaining in the same final position as a real achievement.
-
It's quite bizarre to see people using against Redknapp the fact that Spurs (Champions League group phase qualified Spurs) "only" drew at a newly promoted club when we (booted out of the Europa League at the first stage by the same club as last year) got beaten 6-0 at a newly promoted club.
The same newly promoted club who today lost 2-0 to the weakest of the newly promoted clubs.
It's also interesting to see the decrying of "only" improving on Jol's performance by one place as not a signficant achievement, especially when you consider that that one place was the one they needed to qualify for the Champions League.
Oh, and it is extra amusing when it is done by the same people who until recently were pointing at our own year on year improvement of two points whilst remaining in the same financial position as a real achievement.
He's done well but to call getting an expensively assembled team to 4th place in a season where Liverpool flopped "working wonders" is obviously emotional nonsense.
Drawing at Albion after losing at home to Wigan would have people like you, Risso and Hilts incandescent with rage if those results had happened under O'Neill's tenure at Villa.
-
Redknapp improved one place on Jol's last two full seasons even by internet hyperbole standards to class that as working wonders is pushing it.
Ignoring the fact that of course he didn't take over when they were in 4th, that one all important place could completely transform their club.
-
Redknapp improved one place on Jol's last two full seasons even by internet hyperbole standards to class that as working wonders is pushing it.
Ignoring the fact that of course he didn't take over when they were in 4th, that one all important place could completely transform their club.
He took over largely the same group of players though.
-
It's quite bizarre to see people using against Redknapp the fact that Spurs (Champions League group phase qualified Spurs) "only" drew at a newly promoted club when we (booted out of the Europa League at the first stage by the same club as last year) got beaten 6-0 at a newly promoted club.
The same newly promoted club who today lost 2-0 to the weakest of the newly promoted clubs.
It's also interesting to see the decrying of "only" improving on Jol's performance by one place as not a signficant achievement, especially when you consider that that one place was the one they needed to qualify for the Champions League.
Oh, and it is extra amusing when it is done by the same people who until recently were pointing at our own year on year improvement of two points whilst remaining in the same financial position as a real achievement.
He's done well but to call getting an expensively assembled team to 4th place in a season where Liverpool flopped "working wonders" is obviously emotional nonsense.
Drawing at Albion after losing at home to Wigan would have people like you, Risso and Hilts incandescent with rage if those results had happened under O'Neill's tenure at Villa.
They did happen under O'Neill's tenure at Villa.
The difference is, Redknapp has got Spurs into the Champions League, and then into the group stages. When a manager does that, it is natural that he gets cut a lot of slack.
And if we're in the realm of "if x had happened, you, other poster and other poster would have said y", had MON improved our league position by one place and got us into the champions league, you would have been at Cofton Park when the Pope turns up, begging him to beatify him.
-
I'm at a loss Chris, as to how you can decry what Redknapp has achieved and say he is 'all mouth'
They were relegation candidates, now they're in the Champions League.
A remarkable achievement.
Although I concede, that as a person, i'm not keen on him.
-
He's done well but to call getting an expensively assembled team to 4th place in a season where Liverpool flopped "working wonders" is obviously emotional nonsense.
Actually, denying it is nonsense. He took over a team that was short on form and confidence and within two seasons got them into the Champions League. In four years, despite enjoying major funds and total control, O'Neill couldn't do any better than sixth. So if you think that constitutes O'Neill doing a terrific job at Villa, which you obviously do, it's difficult to argue that Redknapp hasn't done a better job at Spurs. Although, predictably, you are doing exactly that.
-
Redknapp improved one place on Jol's last two full seasons even by internet hyperbole standards to class that as working wonders is pushing it.
Ignoring the fact that of course he didn't take over when they were in 4th, that one all important place could completely transform their club.
He took over largely the same group of players though.
And O'Neill took over a group of players who had also finished 6th, so by your argument, to do the same as O'Leary means he must have been fucking dreadful.
-
I'm at a loss Chris, as to how you can decry what Redknapp has achieved and say he is 'all mouth'
They were relegation candidates, now they're in the Champions League.
A remarkable achievement.
Although I concede, that as a person, i'm not keen on him.
They were only relegation candidates because the last manager was so shit, he'd taken a squad that had finished 5th twice in a row and fucked it up.
Redknapp has done a decent job, but all he'd done is get an expensive squad to 4th place. Since when has that been working wonders?
-
Redknapp improved one place on Jol's last two full seasons even by internet hyperbole standards to class that as working wonders is pushing it.
Ignoring the fact that of course he didn't take over when they were in 4th, that one all important place could completely transform their club.
He took over largely the same group of players though.
And O'Neill took over a group of players who had also finished 6th, so by your argument, to do the same as O'Leary means he must have been fucking dreadful.
No, he didn't.He's done well but to call getting an expensively assembled team to 4th place in a season where Liverpool flopped "working wonders" is obviously emotional nonsense.
Actually, denying it is nonsense. He took over a team that was short on form and confidence and within two seasons got them into the Champions League. In four years, despite enjoying major funds and total control, O'Neill couldn't do any better than sixth. So if you think that constitutes O'Neill doing a terrific job at Villa, which you obviously do, it's difficult to argue that Redknapp hasn't done a better job at Spurs. Although, predictably, you are doing exactly that.
Both managers did a pretty good job, neither worked wonders.
-
There really wasn't a huge amount between the Newcastle side that went down in 2009 and the Tottenham side that were down around the arse end of the table for a good stretch of the same campaign.
Both had good, talented individuals. But both sides were also chronically unbalanced, with some absolute shit in the squad too.
In the end Newcastle suffered from the whole Kinnear farce, Given leaving and all the rest of it. Tottenham signed Palacios and Defoe in Jan and that took them to mid-table.
It could have genuinely gone either way for them that year, so to play down 'arrys achievements since then(much as I dislike the bloke) is doing him a major disservice.
-
I'm at a loss Chris, as to how you can decry what Redknapp has achieved and say he is 'all mouth'
They were relegation candidates, now they're in the Champions League.
A remarkable achievement.
Although I concede, that as a person, i'm not keen on him.
They were only relegation candidates because the last manager was so shit, he'd taken a squad that had finished 5th twice in a row and fucked it up.
Redknapp has done a decent job, but all he'd done is get an expensive squad to 4th place. Since when has that been working wonders?
You say "4th place" as if all it represents is one place higher than 5th, whereas we all know that for clubs of our level 4th represents something of a holy grail, rightly or wrongly.
You're not obliged to rate Redknapp so none of this would matter if you didn't at the same time rate Martin O'Neill very highly, despite him taking an expensive squad - and it is an expensive squad - no higher than 6th, in four attempts.
Redknapp has done a better job in a shorter time at Spurs than O'Neill managed at Villa. That's all there is to it.
-
According to wikipedia:
cost of Spurs squad - £190m
cost of Villa squad - £109m
both approx with a couple of guesses.
I would like us to copy Tottenham's policy of investment in lower league players: Bale - £5m, Huddlestone - £3m, Lennon - £1m.
-
Aye.
We've missed a trick there.
They don't always work out (see Andy Reid and Simon Davies) but even if they don't the hit you take financially isn't as bad.
When they come off you save yourself a small fortune.
-
Redknapp improved one place on Jol's last two full seasons even by internet hyperbole standards to class that as working wonders is pushing it.
Ignoring the fact that of course he didn't take over when they were in 4th, that one all important place could completely transform their club.
He took over largely the same group of players though.
And O'Neill took over a group of players who had also finished 6th, so by your argument, to do the same as O'Leary means he must have been fucking dreadful.
No, he didn't.
Angel, Barry, Delaney, Hendrie, McCann, Mellberg, Moore, Ridgewell, Samuel, Sorensen and Whittingham were all still at the club when O'Neill took over. All were at the club in O'Leary's 6th placed season.
-
I'm at a loss Chris, as to how you can decry what Redknapp has achieved and say he is 'all mouth'
They were relegation candidates, now they're in the Champions League.
A remarkable achievement.
Although I concede, that as a person, i'm not keen on him.
They were only relegation candidates because the last manager was so shit, he'd taken a squad that had finished 5th twice in a row and fucked it up.
Redknapp has done a decent job, but all he'd done is get an expensive squad to 4th place. Since when has that been working wonders?
You say "4th place" as if all it represents is one place higher than 5th, whereas we all know that for clubs of our level 4th represents something of a holy grail, rightly or wrongly.
You're not obliged to rate Redknapp so none of this would matter if you didn't at the same time rate Martin O'Neill very highly, despite him taking an expensive squad - and it is an expensive squad - no higher than 6th, in four attempts.
Redknapp has done a better job in a shorter time at Spurs than O'Neill managed at Villa. That's all there is to it.
However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.
-
Redknapp improved one place on Jol's last two full seasons even by internet hyperbole standards to class that as working wonders is pushing it.
Ignoring the fact that of course he didn't take over when they were in 4th, that one all important place could completely transform their club.
He took over largely the same group of players though.
And O'Neill took over a group of players who had also finished 6th, so by your argument, to do the same as O'Leary means he must have been fucking dreadful.
No, he didn't.
Angel, Barry, Delaney, Hendrie, McCann, Mellberg, Moore, Ridgewell, Samuel, Sorensen and Whittingham were all still at the club when O'Neill took over. All were at the club in O'Leary's 6th placed season.
And how many of them played any significant part?
-
However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.
It certainly is, particularly if your idea of a good job is finishing no higher than 6th after spending £120M.
-
However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.
It certainly is, particularly if your idea of a good job is finishing no higher than 6th after spending £120M.
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
-
However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.
It certainly is, particularly if your idea of a good job is finishing no higher than 6th after spending £120M.
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
You don't seem to understand the concept of net spend. Yes their squad cost more, but then they've also had an awful lot of high profile sales as well.
-
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
We can argue about the term to use but whichever way you cut it Redknapp's done a better job in a shorter time than O'Neill, a man you rate so highly. And, to bring this full circle, it's mystifying that you have such high regard for a man who achieved so little at such expense at Villa, and have so little regard for someone who has done better than that at Spurs.
-
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
We can argue about the term to use but whichever way you cut it Redknapp's done a better job in a shorter time than O'Neill, a man you rate so highly. And, to bring this full circle, it's mystifying that you have such high regard for a man who achieved so little at such expense at Villa, and have so little regard for someone who has done better than that at Spurs.
As I said "both managers did a pretty good job, neither worked wonders" Redkapp just had more expensive players to work with. The proof of how good is what happens from now, but saying he has worked wonders makes it sound as though he's got a 4th place finish with Crewe.
-
However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.
It certainly is, particularly if your idea of a good job is finishing no higher than 6th after spending £120M.
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
You don't seem to understand the concept of net spend. Yes their squad cost more, but then they've also had an awful lot of high profile sales as well.
How far back do we take the net spend to make any comparison worthwhile?
I did a back of the envelope working of Mon's ins and outs and came up with about £60m. Does that sound about right?
-
Saying Redknapp has not done wonders is silly.
What are we all doing Tuesday night? Because Harry Redknapp is in Germany playing Champions League football.
We are faffing around without a manager loosing our beat players.
-
Saying Redknapp has not done wonders is silly.
What are we all doing Tuesday night? Because Harry Redknapp is in Germany playing Champions League football.
We are faffing around without a manager loosing our beat players.
So who plays bass?
-
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
We can argue about the term to use but whichever way you cut it Redknapp's done a better job in a shorter time than O'Neill, a man you rate so highly. And, to bring this full circle, it's mystifying that you have such high regard for a man who achieved so little at such expense at Villa, and have so little regard for someone who has done better than that at Spurs.
As I said "both managers did a pretty good job, neither worked wonders" Redkapp just had more expensive players to work with. The proof of how good is what happens from now, but saying he has worked wonders makes it sound as though he's got a 4th place finish with Crewe.
So who did better? Redknapp, or O'Neill?
-
Is this a MON vs Redknapp debate then?
MON has now left, i thought he done a reasonable job, i think HR has done a good job at Spuds, both teams are about the same if you ask me, MON walked into a Villa job in a far worse position than the job HR walked into imho, for every Davies there is a Hutton, for every NRC a Bentley.I just don't see the point of banging on about MON now.
I do like HR though, but can't stand Spuds.
-
Is this a MON vs Redknapp debate then?
MON has now left, i thought he done a reasonable job, i think HR has done a good job at Spuds, both teams are about the same if you ask me, MON walked into a Villa job in a far worse position than the job HR walked into imho, for every Davies there is a Hutton, for every NRC a Bentley.I just don't see the point of banging on about MON now.
I do like HR though, but can't stand Spuds.
Hutton and Bentley were signed by Juande Ramos not 'Appy 'Arry.
-
Is this a MON vs Redknapp debate then?
MON has now left, i thought he done a reasonable job, i think HR has done a good job at Spuds, both teams are about the same if you ask me, MON walked into a Villa job in a far worse position than the job HR walked into imho, for every Davies there is a Hutton, for every NRC a Bentley.I just don't see the point of banging on about MON now.
I do like HR though, but can't stand Spuds.
BLF, if you can't see the point of banging on about MON, fair enough, but the thread is about MON's legacy. It's not like there is no warning ;-)
Anyway, you're interrupting Chris having an absolute nightmare here.
I imagine he's stood in front of a chart covered with squiggles and diagrams right now, trying to work out how he's going to extricate himself from this particular corner he's backed himself into.
-
Yeah and for every heskey there is a Defoe
-
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
We can argue about the term to use but whichever way you cut it Redknapp's done a better job in a shorter time than O'Neill, a man you rate so highly. And, to bring this full circle, it's mystifying that you have such high regard for a man who achieved so little at such expense at Villa, and have so little regard for someone who has done better than that at Spurs.
As I said "both managers did a pretty good job, neither worked wonders" Redkapp just had more expensive players to work with. The proof of how good is what happens from now, but saying he has worked wonders makes it sound as though he's got a 4th place finish with Crewe.
You seem to think that it was a straight fight between us and Spurs for 4th. You say Redknapp hasn't done a great job because he's spent more than us. Well surely the fact that he's spent way less than Liverpool and Man City shows that he has.
-
Anyway, you're interrupting Chris having an absolute nightmare here.
I imagine he's stood in front of a chart covered with squiggles and diagrams right now, trying to work out how he's going to extricate himself from this particular corner he's backed himself into.
Good point.
Give it up Chris, you're wrong as wrong can be on this one.
You dare to say how Liverpool fucked up to let Spurs in, no way would you stand for anybody saying that if it was us who had taken advantage of their idiocy.
-
Spurs were bottom of the league when 'Arry took over - 2points from 8 games was it? (as he tells anyone who'll listen). I can't stand the bloke, but you'd have to be pretty one-eyed not to concede that he has done a fantastic job. He's twice the manager MON is.
-
Who cares? Nice bloke but with all the will in the world he was never as good as he thought he was.
Fuck him.
-
Well Legacy suggests that we discuss what he has left behind.
Are we a better team after his stint.....yes
Have we got better players now than we had before........yes
Is he a better manager than HR...........don't know.
All i know is that with Randys support, MON has taken us from a team that was going to get relegated, bought , generally, potentially good young players, and made us a team that did'nt fear teams above us for the 1st time in about 10 yrs.To compare him to HR is ridiculous, that is a team who has always tried to compete with the top teams, and gebnerally failed.They spend more than us, act bigger than us, generate more income than us, and i expect them to finish above us, the fact that MONs teams generally finished higher might suggest that MON might deserve a bit more praise than he seems to be getting on here.
-
To compare him to HR is ridiculous, that is a team who has always tried to compete with the top teams, and gebnerally failed.They spend more than us, act bigger than us, generate more income than us, and i expect them to finish above us, the fact that MONs teams generally finished higher might suggest that MON might deserve a bit more praise than he seems to be getting on here.
We've finished above Spurs more times than they have us in the last 10-15 years.
-
To compare him to HR is ridiculous, that is a team who has always tried to compete with the top teams, and gebnerally failed.They spend more than us, act bigger than us, generate more income than us, and i expect them to finish above us, the fact that MONs teams generally finished higher might suggest that MON might deserve a bit more praise than he seems to be getting on here.
We've finished above Spurs more times than they have us in the last 10-15 years.
We've finished in the top six in 9 of the 18 seasons since the Premier League started.
Spurs have managed that three times.
I sometimes wonder why, as fans, we are quite so keen to make ourselves to be like Sunderland or West Ham or something. And that also gives lie to that 7th-12th place nonsense, too, for what it's worth. Which isn't very much, but it does show it to be misguided.
In fact:
15, 8, 15, 7, 8, 10,14,11,10,12, 9, 10, 14, 9, 5, 5, 11, 8, 4
There's a 7th - 12th place club right there. Which makes Redknapp's achievement all the more impressive.
*fetches coat*
-
Great thread right now. Looking forward to chris smiths next clever reply!! :0)
-
According to wikipedia:
cost of Spurs squad - £190m
cost of Villa squad - £109m
both approx with a couple of guesses.
...
The figures are probably not exactly correct but the difference in spread is about right. Spurs squad has cost something like 75-80% more to assemble than ours.
-
...
How far back do we take the net spend to make any comparison worthwhile?
I did a back of the envelope working of Mon's ins and outs and came up with about £60m. Does that sound about right?
Yes that's right. We've spent approx. £60m net.
-
Yes that's right. We've spent approx. £60m net.
And what is Spurs' net spend over the same period?
-
How much did the squad that relegated Newcastle cost?
The value of the players at point of purchase isn't in itself a clear guide to the merits or otherwise of a side.
Regardless of whether the bloke before Rednkapp spent £50 million or £500 million, it's hard to argue against the point that they looked like a side in trouble when he arrived (though I'm sure a few will try). Plenty of Bentley/ Dos Santos/ Modric types, but very little backbone. They were getting turned over regularly by some very mediocre opposition.
Redknapp got the most out of the players he inherited -or at least the ones he felt he could work with. Moved others on and signed key players for key positions. Keane second time around aside, I'm struggling to think of a bad buy he's made.
Good management, in other words. Making the most of your available resources and sourcing new players at reasonable prices.
-
Yes that's right. We've spent approx. £60m net.
And what is Spurs' net spend over the same period?
I think it is approx. £100m and they were building on a squad that had finished 5th two season in a row.
-
Angel, Barry, Delaney, Hendrie, McCann, Mellberg, Moore, Ridgewell, Samuel, Sorensen and Whittingham were all still at the club when O'Neill took over. All were at the club in O'Leary's 6th placed season.
And how many of them played any significant part?
[/quote]
O'Neill also inherited Laursen, Bouma and Agbonlahor. Three key players in our progression under MON. Baros and Berger (even Kevin Phillips come to think of it) were decent players too. MON failed to get the best out of the former (in fairness Baros did ok under DOL) and used Berger too sparingly. O'Dreary chronically under-achieved in his last season and O'Neill didn't have a bad set of players at all when he took over.
-
Spurs have a good, competitive team and squad, but for me the main reason they got into the Champions' League was the sudden (and accidental as far as Redknapp's concerned) burst into life of Gareth Bale in the further forward role. Other than that and I think City bore their way there, but Bale's arrival was so sudden and timed so well to coincide with the games against Chelsea and Arsenal, which they wouldn't have won without his contribution - as neither of them knew quite what to do against this sudden new threat. It's rather like when Ash first burst onto the scene in his first full year for us - teams don't quite triple up on him at first, so for a few games he's absolutely flying, and those few games were the supposed unwinnables which they won.
As for Redknapp himself, his man-management seems a bit like MON's - great if he likes you, but if he doesn't, he's pretty unambiguous about it - his transfer policy is hardly value-for-money based largely (but at a club like Spurs, you can afford to spend a bit more), though he has picked up a few gems like many have, and he's an absolute tactical dinosaur. Wigan beat them largely because Martinez played a 3-5-2, a tactic specifically invented to thwart open 4-4-2s - in the mid-80s. It's 4-4-2 or a system like today when they don't have the forward for one-up-front systems, both of which leave them open on the counter. I can't wait to see them go to Inter and attempt to play this alarmingly open way, and I think with the extra physical demands of both the system and Europe, they'll struggle to replicate their success last season.
-
Spurs have a good, competitive team and squad, but for me the main reason they got into the Champions' League was the sudden (and accidental as far as Redknapp's concerned) burst into life of Gareth Bale in the further forward role. Other than that and I think City bore their way there, but Bale's arrival was so sudden and timed so well to coincide with the games against Chelsea and Arsenal, which they wouldn't have won without his contribution - as neither of them knew quite what to do against this sudden new threat. It's rather like when Ash first burst onto the scene in his first full year for us - teams don't quite triple up on him at first, so for a few games he's absolutely flying, and those few games were the supposed unwinnables which they won.
As for Redknapp himself, his man-management seems a bit like MON's - great if he likes you, but if he doesn't, he's pretty unambiguous about it - his transfer policy is hardly value-for-money based largely (but at a club like Spurs, you can afford to spend a bit more), though he has picked up a few gems like many have, and he's an absolute tactical dinosaur. Wigan beat them largely because Martinez played a 3-5-2, a tactic specifically invented to thwart open 4-4-2s - in the mid-80s. It's 4-4-2 or a system like today when they don't have the forward for one-up-front systems, both of which leave them open on the counter. I can't wait to see them go to Inter and attempt to play this alarmingly open way, and I think with the extra physical demands of both the system and Europe, they'll struggle to replicate their success last season.
I don't buy any of that. You're telling me that over 38 games a side finished in fourth place mainly because of a magic spell from one player, and despite a manager who has limited man management skills, chucks money around like it's going out of fashion, and knows nothing about tactics? Rubbish.
-
What made the difference was a magic spell from one player, which stretched the whole of the pitch as teams previously focusing their attention on one wing (Lennon) suddenly had a whole new threat opening up on the other side. Over 38 games they earned it, of course, but it can hardly be denied, surely, that Liverpool's catastrophic demise had left the door open for someone. It wasn't us because of MON's various deficiencies, it wasn't Man City's because, crucially I think, Mancini was so timid in going for results - and of course the thousands of consecutive draws under Hughes. As for tactically inept, Redknapp's hardly alone in that in England, we're hardly renowned throughout the world for our innovative tactical thinking in this country, are we? So that deficiency of Redknapp's, that would be highlighted abroad and internationally, is diminished here - not least by the quality of player he inherited as well. And I never said his man-management skills are limited, just similar to MON's, and he was famous for his. A transfer policy consisting mainly of buying back players the club had sold for more than they sold them for is not what I call value for money, nor is Peter Crouch at £11m, Palacios at £15m and Sandro at £10m+.
He's not a bad manager, but he should hardly be exalted as much as he is. It would be a bit like if PSG won the league - their manager wouldn't necessarily have to be a genius, he'd just have to be competent enough to prevent the usual fuck-ups that characterise that club, and the same applies to Redknapp and Spurs. They got their first competent management structure since Jol was in charge without Comolli, Liverpool had a colossal disaster bigger than Arsenal's in the two years Spurs were fifth and they took full advantage. Not genius, just competence.
-
He's not a bad manager, but he should hardly be exalted as much as he is. It would be a bit like if PSG won the league - their manager wouldn't necessarily have to be a genius, he'd just have to be competent enough to prevent the usual fuck-ups that characterise that club, and the same applies to Redknapp and Spurs. They got their first competent management structure since Jol was in charge without Comolli, Liverpool had a colossal disaster bigger than Arsenal's in the two years Spurs were fifth and they took full advantage. Not genius, just competence.
I don't think anyone has called him a genius; I certainly haven't. But he deserves more credit than he's getting from you.
-
Tottenham at key stages of the campaign last year stepped up, found an extra gear.
Previously they had been a bit of a soft touch on the road, but last year they actually performed like a big club. Going to opposition grounds and controlling the game.
Lennon started the season like a house on fire, but was injured for a good chunk of the campaign. Bentley came in and provided a useful contribution. When the goals were drying up just after new year Pavlyuchenko came in and bagged a few in crucial games.
Then Bale's good form for the final run-in when they faced the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Citeh.
They fully earned it - no luck involved. Unless it's lucky to keep fringe players involved and motivated enough to provide a winning contribution when they get a taste of the action. Lucky to have more than one way of playing. Lucky to have a manager who can get the maximum out of his available resources.
I also don't buy into any suggestion that Redknapp is in someway tactically deficient. That would indicate that he gets by by bluster and motivation alone. Watching how his teams play I find that very unlikely.
He even mentioned today that part of their failing was not keeping the ball and creating space. Odd to offer a comment in his defence after his side barely got away with a point against a side as poor as Olbiyun but this:
"Possession is what it's all about. If you keep the ball you make the other team chase but if you give it away, you have to chase it yourselves and that's a lot harder.
"In the first half we kept it well and made them chase us for 45 minutes.
"In the second half we turned the ball over too easily. We didn't work hard enough to make angles for each other and suddenly we had to chase and that's when it became more difficult."
offers an insight into his philosophy and how he sets his teams up play.
Maybe it's not full of imaginative buzzwords like pivot, trequartista and all the other bobbins. But it sounds like a bloke who knows how football should be played. The very mention of keeping the ball, making angles and working openings is light years away from what we've been doing these past few years.
-
Tactics isn't just philosophy, it's about application and what you want your players to do in specific areas. Because we're used to MON and his neolithics, hearing things like that from Redknapp are a breath of fresh air. But you'd hear Keegan, or Hoddle, or even dear old Ollie at Blackpool saying things like that, and it hardly makes them good at tactics - just lovers of good football. Look at Mourinho - 87% possession conceded against Barca and won through because of specific tactical plans for different players, areas of the field, stages of the game and so on. Everything was meticulously planned. Talking about keeping the ball and making angles and all that is an admirable philosophy - and like you say, miles away from ourselves last season - but it's not tactics. A good tactician would not have lost to Wigan in the manner that they did. He strikes me as an old-fashioned 'focus only on what we do' manager, in the Clough mould. You can't do that anymore. Good philosophy, decent man-management, but still tactically behind the curve.
-
...
How far back do we take the net spend to make any comparison worthwhile?
I did a back of the envelope working of Mon's ins and outs and came up with about £60m. Does that sound about right?
Yes that's right. We've spent approx. £60m net.
Which includes the Milner money received from Man City..
-
...
How far back do we take the net spend to make any comparison worthwhile?
I did a back of the envelope working of Mon's ins and outs and came up with about £60m. Does that sound about right?
Yes that's right. We've spent approx. £60m net.
Which includes the Milner money received from Man City..
Not even counting the bizarre wages some players were/are on.
-
Wigan beat them largely because Martinez played a 3-5-2, a tactic specifically invented to thwart open 4-4-2s - in the mid-80s.
Didn't we play a 5-3-2 (3-5-2 when attacking) to great effect with Sir Brian of Little from 1995-'97? (I seem to remember Collymore's arrival leading to a disastrous flirtation with 4-3-3 and the infamous four defeats in a row at the start of '97/98).
-
However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.
It certainly is, particularly if your idea of a good job is finishing no higher than 6th after spending £120M.
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
You don't seem to understand the concept of net spend. Yes their squad cost more, but then they've also had an awful lot of high profile sales as well.
Totally irrelevant other than from an accountants point of view.
Redknapp has a squad of players to choose from that cost £190m to assemble.
Our manager, when he finally arrives, will have a squad of players to choose from that cost £109m to assemble.
Do you not understand? They have a stronger squad than us as they've spent more on it because whereas we've only been investing for 4 years they've been at it for much longer.
-
He's not a bad manager, but he should hardly be exalted as much as he is. It would be a bit like if PSG won the league - their manager wouldn't necessarily have to be a genius, he'd just have to be competent enough to prevent the usual fuck-ups that characterise that club, and the same applies to Redknapp and Spurs. They got their first competent management structure since Jol was in charge without Comolli, Liverpool had a colossal disaster bigger than Arsenal's in the two years Spurs were fifth and they took full advantage. Not genius, just competence.
I don't think anyone has called him a genius; I certainly haven't. But he deserves more credit than he's getting from you.
You said he worked wonders which is the phrase that sparked my interest in this.
It's a sad commentary on how some people view football these days that finishing 4th with such an expensively assembled squad is considered a major achievement.
-
It's a sad commentary on how some people view football these days that finishing 4th with such an expensively assembled squad is considered a major achievement
Chris.
Haven't you in the past said that 4th is more important than silverware?
-
It's a sad commentary on how some people view football these days that finishing 4th with such an expensively assembled squad is considered a major achievement
Chris.
Haven't you in the past said that 4th is more important than silverware?
Not to me personally but I accept that getting into the CL is more important to the club in terms of development than winning say the Carling Cup but that still doesn't mean that I think a manager who does it with such an expensive squad has worked wonders. If Mick McCarthy got the Dingles there then that would be working wonders.
It's the over the top language that I object to. He'd done a decent job, as did MON, but it's not the remarkable achievement coolerking tries to pretend it is.
-
It's a sad commentary on how some people view football these days that finishing 4th with such an expensively assembled squad is considered a major achievement
Chris.
Haven't you in the past said that 4th is more important than silverware?
Not to me personally but I accept that getting into the CL is more important to the club in terms of development than winning say the Carling Cup but that still doesn't mean that I think a manager who does it with such an expensive squad has worked wonders. If Mick McCarthy got the Dingles there then that would be working wonders.
It's the over the top language that I object to. He'd done a decent job, as did MON, but it's not the remarkable achievement coolerking tries to pretend it is.
http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/fudge(1).jpg
-
It's a sad commentary on how some people view football these days that finishing 4th with such an expensively assembled squad is considered a major achievement
Chris.
Haven't you in the past said that 4th is more important than silverware?
Not to me personally but I accept that getting into the CL is more important to the club in terms of development than winning say the Carling Cup but that still doesn't mean that I think a manager who does it with such an expensive squad has worked wonders. If Mick McCarthy got the Dingles there then that would be working wonders.
It's the over the top language that I object to. He'd done a decent job, as did MON, but it's not the remarkable achievement coolerking tries to pretend it is.
http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/fudge(1).jpg
So do you think Harry Redknapp has worked wonders at Spurs? Even given his own love of self promotion I doubt he'd have the cheek to call it that himself.
It is just doing what a decent manager should do given the investment. If MON had another £80m worth of players then we would have been right to expect the same from him.
-
Monty's point has been the best made so far. Spurs success was much to do with Rednapp failing to screw up. Our failure to succeed at reaching CL last season was to do with MON's poor decisions in formation, tactics and personnel while Rednapp was able to organise a team which had been a shambles for a few seasons. Rednapp had more strength in depth than MON, but he had more injury problems and in some some instances was forced to utilise squad players. MON on the other hand, played players who were clearly unfit while very competent replacements sat on the bench frustrated.
Rednapp is on the up at Spurs. MON in my view, was in the process of failing quite badly at Villa. The rot had set in and I wasn't looking forward to this season at all as it promised to be dull and repetitive, and I can't see that he would have lasted the season anyway.
-
Net spend is relevant of course - if a club have spent a lot through recouping a lot it means their manager is decent at getting players who he doesn't want in the shop window, performing and generating revenue if sold. As such they can then spend more to buy other players.
-
anyone remember this interview with oniell earlier his year titled " its not my nature to down tools"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/apr/04/martin-oneill-aston-villa-interview
he has downed tools at every job he has had, lol
-
Net spend is relevant of course - if a club have spent a lot through recouping a lot it means their manager is decent at getting players who he doesn't want in the shop window, performing and generating revenue if sold. As such they can then spend more to buy other players.
But it's not particularly relevant when comparing Redknapp and O'Neill's records. It's only relevant if you're comparing Spurs and Villa as clubs.
It's very easy to praise the club for getting absurd tranfer fees for the likes of Keane, Berbatov and Carrick but it doesn't make Harry Redknapp any better a manager as he had nothing to do with those transfers.
Harry Redknapp's net spend over the last two of seasons is approximately £55m.
-
Wrap it up every way you like Rednapp achieved 4th, Mon never beat the 6th place Dol achieved with next to no spend, 3 times on the trot then quit just before the season kicked off.
-
It's the over the top language that I object to. He'd done a decent job, as did MON, but it's not the remarkable achievement coolerking tries to pretend it is.
Given that it took him less than two years to do it, I think it was a remarkable achievement. You can go on as much as you like about spend, net spend and the rest, but Redknapp managed to achieve what has been beyond any Spurs manager for 20 years. Even if they had massively outspent us, which I don't accept, they didn't massively outspend Man City and they finished above them too.
But most of all, given how wonderful you thought Martin O'Neill was, and how highly you regard the work he did at Villa, Redknapp's achievement in comparison is significantly better. Meaning - to use your own over the top language - he is considerably more than "all mouth", which is the phrase which sparked my interest in this.
-
It's the over the top language that I object to. He'd done a decent job, as did MON, but it's not the remarkable achievement coolerking tries to pretend it is.
Given that it took him less than two years to do it, I think it was a remarkable achievement. You can go on as much as you like about spend, net spend and the rest, but Redknapp managed to achieve what has been beyond any Spurs manager for 20 years. Even if they had massively outspent us, which I don't accept, they didn't massively outspend Man City and they finished above them too.
But most of all, given how wonderful you thought Martin O'Neill was, and how highly you regard the work he did at Villa, Redknapp's achievement in comparison is significantly better. Meaning - to use your own over the top language - he is considerably more than "all mouth", which is the phrase which sparked my interest in this.
He is all mouth; a horrible, hypocritical individual. Why you admire him so highly is mystifying.
We're going round in circles now but I think that you know your gushing praise for him was over the top but don't have the balls to admit it so will carry on trying to justify the ludicrous idea that getting 4th place with a team that cost almost £200m to assemble is working wonders. Whether it's better than O'Neill did is neither here nor there; the fact is that it is not the sort of astounding, earth shattering achievement you are trying to convince us it is. I think that's something only the most one-eyed Spurs fan would agree with.
-
It'll be interesting when we finally have some information about the circumstances surrounding the resignations.
-
However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.
It certainly is, particularly if your idea of a good job is finishing no higher than 6th after spending £120M.
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
You don't seem to understand the concept of net spend. Yes their squad cost more, but then they've also had an awful lot of high profile sales as well.
Totally irrelevant other than from an accountants point of view.
Redknapp has a squad of players to choose from that cost £190m to assemble.
Our manager, when he finally arrives, will have a squad of players to choose from that cost £109m to assemble.
Do you not understand? They have a stronger squad than us as they've spent more on it because whereas we've only been investing for 4 years they've been at it for much longer.
Just because you don't understand the concept of "net spend", doesn't make it irrelevant I'm afraid.
If we were to sell Ashley Young and Agbonlahor for say, £40m, and went out and spent the same amount on Darren Bent and Lennon, we'd be no better off player wise, but we'd have £40m in our amount spent column. Using your limited understanding of the situation, because we'd spent £40m, we should automatically be better off, when of course we'd have two very similar players. That's why "net spend" is relevant.
-
He is all mouth; a horrible, hypocritical individual. Why you admire him so highly is mystifying.
We're going round in circles now but I think that you know your gushing praise for him was over the top but don't have the balls to admit it so will carry on trying to justify the ludicrous idea that getting 4th place with a team that cost almost £200m to assemble is working wonders. Whether it's better than O'Neill did is neither here nor there; the fact is that it is not the sort of astounding, earth shattering achievement you are trying to convince us it is. I think that's something only the most one-eyed Spurs fan would agree with.
On the contrary, I think he deserves all the praise he gets. Which is probably why he got the Manager of the Year award. And equally on the contrary, you know that your fawning admiration for such a limited manager as O'Neill was way over the top and rather than come out and say you totally misjudged him, what you do instead is denigrate the achievements of those who have achieved more in a shorter time.
It's mystifying that you still think O'Neill did a wonderful job at Villa and yet decry Redknapp for doing precisely what it was beyond O'Neill's abilities to do.
And while we're on the subject of horrible hypocritical individuals, how would you describe a manager who is quoted as saying "It's not in my nature to down tools", before quitting his job and leaving Villa in an extremely awkward situation five days before the start of a new season?
-
Mr X lives in a four bedroomed house which cost £1m. He bought it with the proceeds of the sale of his previous house which he sold for £999,950. So his new house cost £50.
Mr Y lives in a tent that cost £50.
-
And again, the accumulated value of the squad 'arry inherited measured purely on transfer fees alone isn't a barometer of how good that side was.
-
Why isn't the accumuated value a good barometer of the quality of the squad?
-
How much did the squad that relegated Newcastle cost?
-
If you are gonna talk about why Harry and Martin's net spend shouldn't you take into account the 30million Harry will recoup via CL?
After all he achieved what we were all trying for.
-
Why isn't the accumuated value a good barometer of the quality of the squad?
You cunningly missed out the word "alone" there. Because there a number of other factors that should be taken into account.
-
If the previous manager had made good use of the funds available chances are 'arry wouldn't have taken over a side scraping about at the arse end of the table. Or taken over at all.
So the spend under previous managers -whilst not being completely irrelevant- doesn't automatically ensure that Redknapp had a head start when he took over.
-
If the previous manager had made good use of the funds available chances are 'arry wouldn't have taken over a side scraping about at the arse end of the table. Or taken over at all.
Whilst the above makes logical sense, Ramos (and Jol before him) didn't have anything to do with player transfers which were in the hands of Comolli (and Arnesen before him).
-
Once again Chris's whole argument revolves around one word of hyperbole that someone happened to say, so because someone said "wonders" Chris can argue that because "wonders" isn't true it means Redknapp was actually nothing more than average! Astonishing really (oops, sorry, not astonishing, that would be hyperbole, I meant bollocks).
Redknapp is a better manager than O'Neill, that's the crux of it.
-
There is plenty of taking bollocks going on but isn't coming from Chris.
It would have made more sense to simply agree with Chris that Redknapp had done a decent job but hadn't "worked wonders".
-
To you maybe, as you both share the same narrow (and increasingly perplexing) point of view.
You are both like a dog with a bone, cannot let it go. And cannot bear -even now- any criticism of MON.
I'm just surprised (though quite relieved) that you haven't dug up any cack handed stats to justify your weak argument. I assume it's because none actually exist.
-
There is plenty of taking bollocks going on and it isn't just coming from Chris.
There, tidied that up for you.
-
Why isn't the accumuated value a good barometer of the quality of the squad?
You cunningly missed out the word "alone" there. Because there a number of other factors that should be taken into account.
Risso et Monsieur Chien arguing financial semantics. Let's do the timewarp again!
-
[If the previous manager had made good use of the funds available chances are 'arry wouldn't have taken over a side scraping about at the arse end of the table. Or taken over at all.
Whilst the above makes logical sense, Ramos (and Jol before him) didn't have anything to do with player transfers which were in the hands of Comolli (and Arnesen before him).
True to an extent.
Comoli organised the transfers, but there was input from the manager of the time.
How much input exactly is open to question.
This model worked so well that when 'arry took over they ditched it and gave him sole control over transfers. Which would again perhaps indicate that the club wasn't in such great shape at the time and needed a change of direction.
The wrong appointment at that time could have seen them dropping out of the league. To hear some on here you'd think 'arry inherited a squad on a par with Brazil 1970, and all he had to do to be successful was turn up. Or not 'fcuk it up.'
Again, they had some talented individuals but very little backbone. The squad as a whole was unbalanced and they were getting turned over with increasing regularity. When that kind of rot sets in it's very hard to reverse the trend.
-
It would have made more sense to simply agree with Chris that Redknapp had done a decent job but hadn't "worked wonders".
Better than O'Neill though.
-
It would have made more sense to simply agree with Chris even if you strongly disagree.
In VD world perhaps.
-
Compare the squad MON took over, to the squad HR took over, and then tell me who done the better job to get into the top6.
When was the last time a HR signing was sold for £28m?
Now can we put this , whos better MON or HR to bed, MON left us Milner, AYoung, Delph.I am quite happy with that.We have the basis of a very good team, if Hou moves us on then we won't be far off the top 4 again.
-
Compare the squad MON took over, to the squad HR took over, and then tell me who done the better job to get into the top6.
Redknapp didn't just get into the top 6 and plateau there though did he? He didn't just get Spurs into the top 6 - he got them into the Champions League, inside two years.
In the two seasons it took Redknapp to lift Spurs from the foot of the Premier League to the Champions League, O'Neill didn't move this club any further forward at all.
-
I think it's certainly fair to say that the squad 'Arry took over needed some tweaking, whereas the squad MON inherited needed drastic overhaul, and that we're now not too far off the stage that Spurs were when 'Arry took over there (anyone who argues that they weren't horrendously under-achieving is surely wrong). The question is, though, would MON have done what 'Arry managed to do in pulling off those tweaks required to take us to a position where, if a club like Liverpool have a mare this season, we'd be able to take advantage? MON had us playing slightly above our level (the level which was partially his fault, with his less than astute transfer policy) and Redknapp took over a side desperately under-achieving and managed to get them playing to their admittedly high level. They're two different skills and the jobs aren't particularly comparable, but if the rumours (Keane, McGeady) are true, then I'm far from convinced MON had the right ideas to take us to that fabled 'next level'.
-
However you try to dress it up it isn't "working wonders" to finish 4th with the squad of players he has to choose from.
It certainly is, particularly if your idea of a good job is finishing no higher than 6th after spending £120M.
As Ron has pointed out he's got a squad that cost almost twice as much as ours. He's done well, if he wins something then he'll have done very well but it still won't be working wonders.
You don't seem to understand the concept of net spend. Yes their squad cost more, but then they've also had an awful lot of high profile sales as well.
Totally irrelevant other than from an accountants point of view.
Redknapp has a squad of players to choose from that cost £190m to assemble.
Our manager, when he finally arrives, will have a squad of players to choose from that cost £109m to assemble.
Do you not understand? They have a stronger squad than us as they've spent more on it because whereas we've only been investing for 4 years they've been at it for much longer.
Just because you don't understand the concept of "net spend", doesn't make it irrelevant I'm afraid.
If we were to sell Ashley Young and Agbonlahor for say, £40m, and went out and spent the same amount on Darren Bent and Lennon, we'd be no better off player wise, but we'd have £40m in our amount spent column. Using your limited understanding of the situation, because we'd spent £40m, we should automatically be better off, when of course we'd have two very similar players. That's why "net spend" is relevant.
What a pathetic post.
You're "concept of net spend" is totally irrelevant to the football argument. When picking his side to get to 4th place what Spurs show in the accounts makes no odds whatsoever. We're talking about the job Droopy has done at Spurs in getting to 4th not in satisfying an accountants wet dream. With a squad of players that cost around £200m that's a good but not great achievement.
-
To be fair Monty, i think you are bang on.
Our squad now, is equivalent of the squad HR took over at Spuds.Indeed, we do need a bit of tweaking, as did Spuds.Hats off to HR for being able to buy the right players to get into the top 4, you could argue that MON resigned because he was'nt given the opportunity to "tweak".
In that respect Hou might not be a bad appointment, the old head, Knowing, experienced, a bit like HR, Hopefully he might be given the funds to "tweak"....we are not far off any of the top 6, we should just believe a bit more.
-
When was the last time a HR signing was sold for £28m?
Now can we put this , whos better MON or HR to bed, MON left us Milner, AYoung, Delph.I am quite happy with that.We have the basis of a very good team, if Hou moves us on then we won't be far off the top 4 again.
Firstly, Harry Redknapp has lots of players he signed who have been sold at vast profits, eg Glen Johnson (sold for £18m), Muntari (£13m) and Diarra (£20m). Secondly, how many players has Redknapp signed that were a total waste of money like Curtis Davies (£10m) and Stewart Downing (£12m)?
Finally, O'Neill left us Milner did he? Remind me where he's playing again.
-
He is all mouth; a horrible, hypocritical individual. Why you admire him so highly is mystifying.
We're going round in circles now but I think that you know your gushing praise for him was over the top but don't have the balls to admit it so will carry on trying to justify the ludicrous idea that getting 4th place with a team that cost almost £200m to assemble is working wonders. Whether it's better than O'Neill did is neither here nor there; the fact is that it is not the sort of astounding, earth shattering achievement you are trying to convince us it is. I think that's something only the most one-eyed Spurs fan would agree with.
On the contrary, I think he deserves all the praise he gets. Which is probably why he got the Manager of the Year award. And equally on the contrary, you know that your fawning admiration for such a limited manager as O'Neill was way over the top and rather than come out and say you totally misjudged him, what you do instead is denigrate the achievements of those who have achieved more in a shorter time.
It's mystifying that you still think O'Neill did a wonderful job at Villa and yet decry Redknapp for doing precisely what it was beyond O'Neill's abilities to do.
And while we're on the subject of horrible hypocritical individuals, how would you describe a manager who is quoted as saying "It's not in my nature to down tools", before quitting his job and leaving Villa in an extremely awkward situation five days before the start of a new season?
Why are you uinvrenting things just to suit your agument. It's a little sad that a debate on the Internet means so much to you. You're fully aware (or should be if you've read what I've posted on this thread) that I said both did a decent job but neither worked wonders. I haven't said anything approaching O'Neill did a 'wonderful job' that's just you twisting things as is your style.
-
Compare the squad MON took over, to the squad HR took over, and then tell me who done the better job to get into the top6.
When was the last time a HR signing was sold for £28m?
Now can we put this , whos better MON or HR to bed, MON left us Milner, AYoung, Delph.I am quite happy with that.We have the basis of a very good team, if Hou moves us on then we won't be far off the top 4 again.
I agree. Now is the time for intelligent movement in the market. People say that MON has left a small squad, but if the players he signed were better then we'd have had, if not a perfectly sized, then at least a much more competitive squad than we do. For example, if we got rid of Sidwell and replaced him with another central midfielder of whatever type he's meant to be but better, our squad hasn't stayed the same in size but has in fact increased by one in real terms, because Sidwell is not, right now, a viable option. Same is true to a lesser extent of NRC, Heskey and certainly Beye, maybe Guzan.
-
Kaboul worth £10m is he Risso?
MON left us with Milner, we sold him after he had left.My point is, that if MON was such an unmitigated disaster as you indicate, then we would'nt be getting £28m for one of his signings.
And to be fair if Milner had been sold at the same time as the others you have named, then we would have got more than £28m.Diarra is available for what £6m?Muntari the same?
-
Why are you uinvrenting things just to suit your agument. It's a little sad that a debate on the Internet means so much to you. You're fully aware (or should be if you've read what I've posted on this thread) that I said both did a decent job but neither worked wonders. I haven't said anything approaching O'Neill did a 'wonderful job' that's just you twisting things as is your style.
You think O'Neill did only a "decent" job? This from a man who would stand absolutely zero criticism of O'Neill at any point over the last four years? That's the mother of all U-turns.
-
That's M Diarra not Lassana.
-
[If the previous manager had made good use of the funds available chances are 'arry wouldn't have taken over a side scraping about at the arse end of the table. Or taken over at all.
Whilst the above makes logical sense, Ramos (and Jol before him) didn't have anything to do with player transfers which were in the hands of Comolli (and Arnesen before him).
True to an extent.
Comoli organised the transfers, but there was input from the manager of the time.
How much input exactly is open to question.
This model worked so well that when 'arry took over they ditched it and gave him sole control over transfers. Which would again perhaps indicate that the club wasn't in such great shape at the time and needed a change of direction.
Jol has since said that he had no input on which players were brought in - to the extent that he suggested positions on the pitch that he thought needed strengthening and was outright ignored. Ramos came from a culture at Sevilla where Ramon Rodriguez oversaw pretty much everything from the youth system to player transfers. The Jol thing could easily be put down to "sacked manager makes excuses for being sacked", but it was pretty well established that Comolli and Arnesen did pretty much everything transfer related prior to Redknapp coming in.
As for the whole approach not working and it being sensibly scrapped - I think that's quite obvious.
-
And to be fair if Milner had been sold at the same time as the others you have named, then we would have got more than £28m.Diarra is available for what £6m?Muntari the same?
Which says more about the highly-inflated British transfer market that O'Neill choose solely to operate in. Young, Delph and Milner were signed for a combined £25m - a hell of a lot for players who had a lot to prove. Fair play to O'Neill for getting the best out of two of them but if he hadn't been so one-eyed and instead broadened his transfer policy by signing the likes of Muntari or Diarra from abroad (instead of ''safe'' yet no less costly options such as Sidwell/Downing/NRC) who knows how well we might have done.
-
Kaboul worth £10m is he Risso?
MON left us with Milner, we sold him after he had left.My point is, that if MON was such an unmitigated disaster as you indicate, then we would'nt be getting £28m for one of his signings.
And to be fair if Milner had been sold at the same time as the others you have named, then we would have got more than £28m.Diarra is available for what £6m?Muntari the same?
Amy chance you could actually check any of your facts before posting? When has Redknapp paid £10m for Kaboul exactly?
And where did I say that O'Neill was an unmitigated disaster?
-
Why are you uinvrenting things just to suit your agument. It's a little sad that a debate on the Internet means so much to you. You're fully aware (or should be if you've read what I've posted on this thread) that I said both did a decent job but neither worked wonders. I haven't said anything approaching O'Neill did a 'wonderful job' that's just you twisting things as is your style.
You think O'Neill did only a "decent" job? This from a man who would stand absolutely zero criticism of O'Neill at any point over the last four years? That's the mother of all U-turns.
I've argued with the ridiculous, ill informed and monotonous critcism you've posted because like in this thread it's always been exaggerated to make a point. My position was that you don't sack a manger who has finished 6th (unless the targets you set him were higher of course but I don't believe that to be the case).
-
Getting more than £28m for Milner...Christ, I wasn't his greatest fan but those who are can surely see we got as good a price as we could ever hope to get for him.
-
[If the previous manager had made good use of the funds available chances are 'arry wouldn't have taken over a side scraping about at the arse end of the table. Or taken over at all.
Whilst the above makes logical sense, Ramos (and Jol before him) didn't have anything to do with player transfers which were in the hands of Comolli (and Arnesen before him).
True to an extent.
Comoli organised the transfers, but there was input from the manager of the time.
How much input exactly is open to question.
This model worked so well that when 'arry took over they ditched it and gave him sole control over transfers. Which would again perhaps indicate that the club wasn't in such great shape at the time and needed a change of direction.
Jol has since said that he had no input on which players were brought in - to the extent that he suggested positions on the pitch that he thought needed strengthening and was outright ignored. Ramos came from a culture at Sevilla where Ramon Rodriguez oversaw pretty much everything from the youth system to player transfers. The Jol thing could easily be put down to "sacked manager makes excuses for being sacked", but it was pretty well established that Comolli and Arnesen did pretty much everything transfer related prior to Redknapp coming in.
As for the whole approach not working and it being sensibly scrapped - I think that's quite obvious.
What you have there then if true (and I have no reason to doubt you) is a scenario whereby players were signed by first Arnesen (before he went to Chelsea) and then Comoli and then played (or not) by Jol and shifted around by Ramos.
This does not sound like some dream scenario to walk into, a club in such good shape that all any half decent manager has to do is turn up for training and cruise on autopilot.
There would have been a whole host of dissatisfied players, players gambled on who had perhaps not turned out to be that good, players who were the choice of the DM but for which the coach/manager had absolutely no use for, and good players suffering a crisis of confidence.
Yet within the space of 18 months 'arry had moulded that lot into an effective CL challenging unit, shipping out those not fit for purpose and acquiring players to improve the side. And all within the financial constraints imposed by ENIC, and with a lower wage bill than that at the Villa. I think it does him a disservice to suggest this was only 'tweaking' too. That might be valid if he had just signed one or two key individuals to complement an already outstanding side. But the volume in both the players in and players out column since he's been in the role isn't consistent with that train of thought.
-
I've argued with the ridiculous, ill informed and monotonous critcism you've posted because like in this thread it's always been exaggerated to make a point. My position was that you don't sack a manger who has finished 6th (unless the targets you set him were higher of course but I don't believe that to be the case).
No, your position was that any criticism of O'Neill was unjustified, which is why you steadfastly refused to make any, and immediately jumped on those who did. I know that, you know that and the whole board knows that. You were the happiest of happy clappers, with the possible exception of villadawg. And I don't for a moment believe the upper limit of our ambition was sixth, any more than you do.
So, for you to now say you think he did only a "decent" job and no more, flies in the face of virtually every post you have made over the last four years.
-
There's no doubt Redknapp has done a good job, because getting a side to play as well as they should isn't necessarily the easiest thing in the world - competence is difficult to achieve in any line of business. However, I would certainly say that the position they were in when he took over was a false one, as they were underachieving horrendously despite some good players - largely thanks to a transfer policy and management structure which Redknapp didn't have to contend with as Spurs decided to get rid of it on his arrival. The squad itself required some tweaking (and I would use the word tweaking, as they had the basis of a really good side with players like Modric, Huddlestone, King and Gomes), which he did at mostly large but, for Spurs, affordable cost, Liverpool had a mare and Spurs were the team to take advantage. However, I do think the 'relegation to Champions' League' is exaggerating it somewhat, as they were underachieving when he took over. It's not a transformation of genuine Clough-like proportions, in other words, but definitely a good job.
-
They probably wouldn't have gone down.
But with the wrong appointment at that time who knows?
When you're on the kind of losing streak they were on, and with the accompanying crisis of confidence thrown in anything is possible.
I do know a fair few Spurs fans who were looking over their shoulder at that point and were more interested in the results of the likes of Hull, West Ham, Boro and so on than further up the table.
As we have seen countless times in the past, being a big club or having an expensively assembled side is no guarantee of success - or even a guarantee that you can avoid relegation. Ask Newcastle and Leeds.
-
Certainly, and as I say, he's done a good job, whereas Newcastle and Leeds didn't address their problems and continued their floundering downwards. Spurs, with a bit of Levy common sense, woke up, smelled the coffee and did something about it. The point is that Redknapp has done a good job, but not necessarily a fantastic one. To do a fantastic job he'd have to have got Spurs playing above their level OR bought a squad that can win the league for the same price he's spent on his fourth-place contenders now - and they're still fourth place contenders having finished there last year, by the way, because I don't think they're finishing above Arsenal and they definitely could finish below City, for instance.
-
[If the previous manager had made good use of the funds available chances are 'arry wouldn't have taken over a side scraping about at the arse end of the table. Or taken over at all.
Whilst the above makes logical sense, Ramos (and Jol before him) didn't have anything to do with player transfers which were in the hands of Comolli (and Arnesen before him).
True to an extent.
Comoli organised the transfers, but there was input from the manager of the time.
How much input exactly is open to question.
This model worked so well that when 'arry took over they ditched it and gave him sole control over transfers. Which would again perhaps indicate that the club wasn't in such great shape at the time and needed a change of direction.
Jol has since said that he had no input on which players were brought in - to the extent that he suggested positions on the pitch that he thought needed strengthening and was outright ignored. Ramos came from a culture at Sevilla where Ramon Rodriguez oversaw pretty much everything from the youth system to player transfers. The Jol thing could easily be put down to "sacked manager makes excuses for being sacked", but it was pretty well established that Comolli and Arnesen did pretty much everything transfer related prior to Redknapp coming in.
As for the whole approach not working and it being sensibly scrapped - I think that's quite obvious.
What you have there then if true (and I have no reason to doubt you) is a scenario whereby players were signed by first Arnesen (before he went to Chelsea) and then Comoli and then played (or not) by Jol and shifted around by Ramos.
This does not sound like some dream scenario to walk into, a club in such good shape that all any half decent manager has to do is turn up for training and cruise on autopilot.
There would have been a whole host of dissatisfied players, players gambled on who had perhaps not turned out to be that good, players who were the choice of the DM but for which the coach/manager had absolutely no use for, and good players suffering a crisis of confidence.
Yet within the space of 18 months 'arry had moulded that lot into an effective CL challenging unit, shipping out those not fit for purpose and acquiring players to improve the side. And all within the financial constraints imposed by ENIC, and with a lower wage bill than that at the Villa. I think it does him a disservice to suggest this was only 'tweaking' too. That might be valid if he had just signed one or two key individuals to complement an already outstanding side. But the volume in both the players in and players out column since he's been in the role isn't consistent with that train of thought.
No disagreement with any of that (apart from maybe "financial constraints imposed by ENIC" - he has spent about £55m [net] in the last two years).
I think he's done a depressingly good job there - just wanted to clarify a couple of inaccuracies in some of the earlier posts.
-
Depressingly good is exactly right.
I hate giving the defective Toby Jug any credit at all. There is probably nobody in football I'd like to see fail more, truth be told.
-
Risso.....how much did HR pay for Kaboul last time, £8-10m if my memory serves me well.
And you was never a fan of him, thats fine, and always highlighted his failures, and never praised his successes.Thats fine, but don't try to make out you are impartial in this discussion.
Curtis Davies was always going to be the next Rio Ferdinand, or the next Titus Bramble.Unfortunately, it appears that he is going to be the next Bramble, but i think buying the Davies/Delphs/Milners/Ayoungs/Downings of this world is the direction we have to go in.
-
Risso.....how much did HR pay for Kaboul last time, £8-10m if my memory serves me well.
£6m when he went to Portsmouth and £5m when he re-joined Spurs if newspaper reports are to be believed.
-
Risso.....how much did HR pay for Kaboul last time, £8-10m if my memory serves me well.
And you was never a fan of him, thats fine, and always highlighted his failures, and never praised his successes.Thats fine, but don't try to make out you are impartial in this discussion.
Reading your posts almost makes me wish Coopers Injury was still here, by comparison tp the hogwash ypu serve up he was the very epitome of a well reasoned, factually accurate poster.
-
This will be the Kaboul that MON also tried to sign in 2008 I take it?
So as well as Davies, Sidwell, Beye, Heskey and co on the books we'd have also had that heap of shite to offload.
-
Risso.....how much did HR pay for Kaboul last time, £8-10m if my memory serves me well.
£6m when he went to Portsmouth and £5m when he re-joined Spurs if newspaper reports are to be believed.
£6 mil return plus waving £3.5 mil owed from the Pompey original purchase. So 9-10 mil overall when he went back to spurs. Or so I believe from the time.
-
Risso.....how much did HR pay for Kaboul last time, £8-10m if my memory serves me well.
And you was never a fan of him, thats fine, and always highlighted his failures, and never praised his successes.Thats fine, but don't try to make out you are impartial in this discussion.
Curtis Davies was always going to be the next Rio Ferdinand, or the next Titus Bramble.Unfortunately, it appears that he is going to be the next Bramble, but i think buying the Davies/Delphs/Milners/Ayoungs/Downings of this world is the direction we have to go in.
What's with the three lines of whitespace at the start of every post, BLF?
I always imagine it as you taking a deep breath before posting.
-
A cursory Google search keeps throwing up the figure of £5m. And whether that is including or excluding any monies owed I'm not sure I'd want to speak with any authority on that. Without seeing either club's accounts I'm not sure how anyone would really know.
However I would be very surprised if Redknapp mugged Portsmouth for Krancjar for £2.5m and was then ripped off for Kaboul considering what he knew about their finances.
-
This will be the Kaboul that MON also tried to sign in 2008 I take it?
So as well as Davies, Sidwell, Beye, Heskey and co on the books we'd have also had that heap of shite to offload.
That's the thing I like most about MON going, not having to panic every time a patently-not-good-enough player came on the market.
I remember shuddering the day after MON left when hearing a report starting with "Kenwyne Jones is to seal a move to ... " and expecting to hear "Aston Villa" before remembering he'd gone, and thinking "well, at least we won't get linked with predictably, uninspiring players window after wndow, jsut because they fit in with the manager's 'can't be arsed to look elsewhere for value' ethos"
-
Risso.....how much did HR pay for Kaboul last time, £8-10m if my memory serves me well.
And you was never a fan of him, thats fine, and always highlighted his failures, and never praised his successes.Thats fine, but don't try to make out you are impartial in this discussion.
Curtis Davies was always going to be the next Rio Ferdinand, or the next Titus Bramble.Unfortunately, it appears that he is going to be the next Bramble, but i think buying the Davies/Delphs/Milners/Ayoungs/Downings of this world is the direction we have to go in.
What's with the three lines of whitespace at the start of every post, BLF?
I always imagine it as you taking a deep breath before posting.
Remembering back to Primary School english lessons, you always start a new paragraph with a space - ideally using the width of your index finger as a gauge.
-
Risso.....how much did HR pay for Kaboul last time, £8-10m if my memory serves me well.
And you was never a fan of him, thats fine, and always highlighted his failures, and never praised his successes.Thats fine, but don't try to make out you are impartial in this discussion.
Curtis Davies was always going to be the next Rio Ferdinand, or the next Titus Bramble.Unfortunately, it appears that he is going to be the next Bramble, but i think buying the Davies/Delphs/Milners/Ayoungs/Downings of this world is the direction we have to go in.
What's with the three lines of whitespace at the start of every post, BLF?
I always imagine it as you taking a deep breath before posting.
Remembering back to Primary School english lessons, you always start a new paragraph with a space - ideally using the width of your index finger as a gauge.
Yup. Not three lines of it, though.
I was wondering whether BLF is using some weird mobile device browser that bollockses up the reply box. The browser on the HTC Desire is a bit iffy with them for me.
-
Risso.....how much did HR pay for Kaboul last time, £8-10m if my memory serves me well.
And you was never a fan of him, thats fine, and always highlighted his failures, and never praised his successes.Thats fine, but don't try to make out you are impartial in this discussion.
Curtis Davies was always going to be the next Rio Ferdinand, or the next Titus Bramble.Unfortunately, it appears that he is going to be the next Bramble, but i think buying the Davies/Delphs/Milners/Ayoungs/Downings of this world is the direction we have to go in.
What's with the three lines of whitespace at the start of every post, BLF?
I always imagine it as you taking a deep breath before posting.
Remembering back to Primary School english lessons, you always start a new paragraph with a space - ideally using the width of your index finger as a gauge.
Yup. Not three lines of it, though
I reckon the space at the start of each of his paragraphs is about the width of a relatively slim finger placed against a computer monitor.
-
I'm glad of many things he did whilst he was here.
He was instrumental in our change of image nationwide. We had become a bit of a joke at the back end of the Ellis campaign and he made us newsworthy again. Usually for the right reasons, until the very end.
I was also quite happy with a British core to the side, particularly when you hear of the divide at other clubs where the foreigners and home based players remained in separate camps.
For all our tactical deficiency and some of the outright shite that was served up at home matches you would also vary rarely see any Villa side giving less than 100%, or not look interested. We've heard various reports of player unrest but they must have respected/ feared him enough to give their all, the limited chosen few anyway. The regular starting XI that he ran into the ground.
We won 17 league games last year and 17 the season before. Not easy in a league as competitive as the Premiership and any manager coming in will have a job to match that alone.
All good things.
But I must say I am relieved that we escaped without a McGeady or Kenwyne Jones on the books. Or worse, a Ricardo Fuller or Gary O'Neill. And the various debates that would have no doubt ensued trying to argue that actually they weren't that bad after all.
-
Even without him here I'd rather he had spent £3m on Ricardo Fuller than Heskey the other year.
A very underrated player in my opinion.
-
Not a terrible player by any stretch.
But ask yourself this, would any of the other sides around us have gone for him. Or Harewood, Heskey, Beye, Knight? and so on
-
Almost certainly not.
Although Liverpool did apparently go in for Heskey.
-
It would have been much more preferable if he'd rocked up there to put the kybosh on their title challenge that year.
-
When we went for Harewood and Knight we were 12th, so yes, other teams around us would and have gone in for them.
-
It would have been much more preferable if he'd rocked up there to put the kybosh on their title challenge that year.
Indeed. An absolutely ideal replacement for the half-season that Torres isn't fit.
-
Er, no.
Wigan and B-lose were keen to sign Harewood. So that's a side who'd just narrowly avoided relegation and one who had just gained promotion.
I'm pretty certain Zat Knight didn't have any takers apart from us back in 2007 either. It was also quite revealing at the time that quite a few Fulham fans were glad to see the back of him.
Isn't the idea of progressing and pushing the thing on signing better players? Be they from clubs on a par or better than us, or good players from struggling sides. Not players who are only attracting attention from sides battling relegation or from struggling sides who nevertheless have deemed said player not to be up to standard.
-
Considering what was available at the time I'm not going to even entertain trying to justify the Harewood signing, but I still think Knight was absolutely fine.
Even if we could have done it all much better, it wasn't a disaster by any stretch.
-
Not a disaster, no.
But in keeping with the general theme that we were signing players a notch or two below the required level over a prolonged period which -in the final analysis- was probably the biggest single reason why we came up short in the past two seasons.
-
Knight wasn't a disaster. He wasn't very good, but not a disastrous signing.
With Harewood the problem wasn't just the fact that we signed him (and he plainly was not good enough), it was who we didn't sign. We needed a goalscorer, MON - God knows why - thought it was him. We then ended up trying to convince ourselves that he was actually alright.
Then there's the bogus "he did a job for us" argument. He contributed next to nothing and cost us 8 or 9 million pounds over his contract. If anyone wanted proof that our wages policy was out of kilter, then Harewood was a pretty good example of money flushed down the bog.
-
Right, having started low I'm going to meekly suggest that Knight was actually a good signing rather than not simply 'not disastrous'.
Anyone still with me?
-
I can accept the logic (just about) that he was signed as a squad player.
I don't think he was signed to be the focal point of the attack, rather to act as cover for JC and Gabby who the manager obviously had a fair degree of faith in.
But I find it very hard to buy into the train of thought that he was the very best we could manage at the time, as we'd only finished mid-table the season before. Our stated aim was Europe and back then we had far better resources than all the clubs around us like Blackburn, Everton and even Citeh.
-
Right, having started low I'm going to meekly suggest that Knight was actually a good signing rather than not simply 'not disastrous'.
Anyone still with me?
Can't go with that.
Memorable goal v Arsenal but far too error prone.
-
Right, having started low I'm going to meekly suggest that Knight was actually a good signing rather than not simply 'not disastrous'.
Anyone still with me?
I'm sorry, Dave, I wish you all the best, but I'm out.
*Duncan Bannatyne face*
-
Right, having started low I'm going to meekly suggest that Knight was actually a good signing rather than not simply 'not disastrous'.
Anyone still with me?
Can't go with that.
Memorable goal v Arsenal but far too error prone.
Dammit, tried to go for too much too soon.
Your above post about Harewood I agree with completely though. Considering Blackburn signed Santa Cruz who went on to score 17 league goals for them that season a few days after our Harewood coup, there is simply no argument that he was the best we could have attracted.
-
Er, no.
Wigan and B-lose were keen to sign Harewood. So that's a side who'd just narrowly avoided relegation and one who had just gained promotion.
I'm pretty certain Zat Knight didn't have any takers apart from us back in 2007 either. It was also quite revealing at the time that quite a few Fulham fans were glad to see the back of him.
Isn't the idea of progressing and pushing the thing on signing better players? Be they from clubs on a par or better than us, or good players from struggling sides. Not players who are only attracting attention from sides battling relegation or from struggling sides who nevertheless have deemed said player not to be up to standard.
They were both bought as backup players to the exiting team. Yes, we should be buying first teamers and making the current first teamers into the squad players, but at the time we did need more depth and it was easier to deepen the squad by getting Knight and Harewood. The same with Beye as well, later on. We off loaded Knight when his services weren't needed anymore to another team in 13th position (where he is a constant starter). Harewood should have been got rid of earlier but he did spend most of the last few seasons out on loan which should have reduced his wage costs at least during that time.
Heskey was definitely a mistake, and we should have got better. He was definitely that years Cascarino, but don't forget this was the time that Carew had his mysterious back injury he picked up around the time of the Rocket Club incident. We only really had Gabby playing out of his skin up front on his own. It was also the year that his performances for Wigan had got him back in the England setup and he was being credited in helping Rooney for England (similar to how he helped take the pressure of Owen previously). If he had come in and helped out with Gabby we wouldn't have had this conversation as we would have been 4th. But the wages he is on is a joke.
-
There was a spell that started from Manure at home in Nov 2007 up to Hamburg away in Dec 08 when pretty much any time he stepped onto the pitch he made at least one potentially match-altering howler.
Sometimes it resulted in a goal against, but even when it didn't that wasn't a judgement call on his part.
Nice bloke, Villa fan and all the rest of it.
But good signing?
No.
-
Dammit, tried to go for too much too soon.
Your above post about Harewood I agree with completely though. Considering Blackburn signed Santa Cruz who went on to score 17 league goals for them that season a few days after our Harewood coup, there is simply no argument that he was the best we could have attracted.
For 3.5 mil, those 19 goals would have been handy, but judging he has pretty much shown that the season was a one off and he has Heskeys goal scoring record and Owens injury record for almost every other season before and since. Hughes obviously wanted to help out Blackburn with his new found wealth when he paid £17.5 mil for him.
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
Yes there was a lot of better players out there. Like most summers. I would have liked a lot of them. Until the recent release of our wage problems I would have said that the Portsmouth and West Ham signings were probably paying wages we wouldn't pay, especially as two of them had just left Chelsea. Don;t forget both teams are in serious financial difficulty stemming from that season. As for Bale, for all his world beating skills now, for 2.5 years he was a joke (how many league games played on the non winning side) until Redknapp wised up and played him as an attacking midfielder rather then a fullback.
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
Yes there was a lot of better players out there. Like most summers. I would have liked a lot of them. Until the recent release of our wage problems I would have said that the Portsmouth and West Ham signings were probably paying wages we wouldn't pay, especially as two of them had just left Chelsea. Don;t forget both teams are in serious financial difficulty stemming from that season. As for Bale, for all his world beating skills now, for 2.5 years he was a joke (how many league games played on the non winning side) until Redknapp wised up and played him as an attacking midfielder rather then a fullback.
We hardly had the financial instability of West Ham and Portsmouth. In fact, wasn't this smack in the middle of the "Henry's not good enough" optimism?
-
For 3.5 mil, those 19 goals would have been handy, but judging he has pretty much shown that the season was a one off and he has Heskeys goal scoring record and Owens injury record for almost every other season before and since. Hughes obviously wanted to help out Blackburn with his new found wealth when he paid £17.5 mil for him.
Yep. 19 goals and a £14M profit. We dodged a bullet there. Thanks Martin.
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
Blimey seeing that makes me relise what a poor job we did that summer ,especially when we went on to sing Luke Young for double what Boro paid.
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
Blimey seeing that makes me relise what a poor job we did that summer ,especially when we went on to sign Luke Young for double what Boro paid.
-
For 3.5 mil, those 19 goals would have been handy, but judging he has pretty much shown that the season was a one off and he has Heskeys goal scoring record and Owens injury record for almost every other season before and since. Hughes obviously wanted to help out Blackburn with his new found wealth when he paid £17.5 mil for him.
Yep. 19 goals and a £14M profit. We dodged a bullet there. Thanks Martin.
No, possibly 19 goals and the profit only occurred as Hughes left to manage Money bags Man City. Would he have signed Santa Cruz if he hadn't already played for Hughes. For us, Santa Cruz could well have not had his one good season. We will never know.
We did get a £16 mil profit and a £12 mil profit for Milner and Barry from them though.
-
Yep, considering we finished 6th in 2008 with an average enough previous lot of summer signings, we could really have challenged for 4th had we showed a bit more ambition in the transfer market. I know we'd come back off a season of finishing 11th in MON's first year and the fact that we beat Wigan to the signature of Marlon suggests we struggled to get quality players in during summer 2007. But the examples Dave gives shows that we should have done better. We scored a highly impressive 71 goals in 07/08 but we also conceded 51 I think it was. Oh for a Jagielka (or perhaps Collins/Cuellar) beside Laursen that year instead of Knight/Davies.
Actually I'm just remembering Haangeland failed a medical in August 2007 didn't he? Maybe a bit too dominant to play with Laursen but you can only imagine our defensive record would have been a lot better that season with him in tow. O'Neill the nearly man - he came quite close to doing a Brian Little-esque transformation on the pitch but not close enough.
-
We hardly had the financial instability of West Ham and Portsmouth. In fact, wasn't this smack in the middle of the "Henry's not good enough" optimism?
Neither did they at the time. The Icelandic biscuit barons had just taken over the Ammers and were buying people on large wages. Portsmouth were letting Arry do the signings and the wages which lead to them winning the Cup in 2008 and going into administration in 2010.
There might have been "Henrys not good enough" opinions from some but wasn't there also "Lets not do Chelsea, but rather build a squad and team for the long term" opinions as well from others. We did neither it turns out and still let the wages spiral as well.
Like I mentioned earlier, if we knew the wages MON was splashing out on the backups then we should have gone for some of names mentioned in your post. Although you have been selective with the names as we know that they have worked out well but say for example Faubert, Dyer, Kaboul and Mido were also signed by those clubs at the time but you definitely would not want them now.
-
Players were available. We didn't sign them.
-
The players signed by MON were generally from a very specific bracket: overpriced, largely British, dependable, not so hot on technique and so on. Players like Knight and even Harewood, as short term measures, I can forgive, but some of the money he squandered on players who were supposedly our long-term but ended up causing more problems than they solved was not.
-
And if Jagielka hadn't been a success, which name would you have chosen instead. If Knight or Curtis had been a success, whose name would you have chosen as a bad buy.
You have won the argument because hindsight is 20/20 and I'm only talking in possibilities and opinions. I do remember that the majority of fans thought Curtis had a good loan season and apart from slightly over priced was a good purchase in 2008, especially as we had a blip when he got injured after the Arsenal match. 2 years later and he is held up as a mistake in the transfer market. I never heard any dissenters on Sidwells signing at the time. Again two years later he is a transfer mistake. Alot of fans were eating huimble pie on the Collins transfer as most thought it was a bad decision at the time. Although with some like Heskey and Harewood it is quite obvious the way it would go beforehand.
-
And if Jagielka hadn't been a success, which name would you have chosen instead. If Knight or Curtis had been a success, whose name would you have chosen as a bad buy.
You have won the argument because hindsight is 20/20 and I'm only talking in possibilities and opinions. I do remember that the majority of fans thought Curtis had a good loan season and apart from slightly over priced was a good purchase in 2008, especially as we had a blip when he got injured after the Arsenal match. 2 years later and he is held up as a mistake in the transfer market. I never heard any dissenters on Sidwells signing at the time. Again two years later he is a transfer mistake. Alot of fans were eating huimble pie on the Collins transfer as most thought it was a bad decision at the time. Although with some like Heskey and Harewood it is quite obvious the way it would go beforehand.
If Knight or Davies had been a success we'd have had a better team and O'Neill would have been a better manager, so what your point is there, I don't know.
I always love the "Nobody complained at the time" argument. By the same token, Peter Withe was a bad signing because nobody cheered at the time. You can claim hindsight all you like, but the fact is that players who proved good signings were available and Martin O'Neill didn't sign them.
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
That's as good a summing up of O'Neill as I've seen.
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
It's easy to list players we could/should have signed, but how mnay of the teams that did sign these players then finished above us that season?
We improved to 6th place and whatever I think of the players we singed, that's what matters and is as good as we could realistically expected in 07/08.
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
It's easy to list players we could/should have signed, but how mnay of the teams that did sign these players then finished above us that season?
We improved to 6th place and whatever I think of the players we singed, that's what matters and is as good as we could realistically expected in 07/08.
I wouldn't dispute that John, but a lot of the players we signed back then are still a massive drain on the wage bill, and that's effectively what's stopped us kicking on. Whether you think the likes of Davies, NRC, Harewood and Heskey and all the other debatable signings are any good or not, the fact is the money spent in terms of transfer fees and wages on those has been huge, and as the saying goes, once it's gone, it's gone.
-
I wouldn't dispute that John, but a lot of the players we signed back then are still a massive drain on the wage bill, and that's effectively what's stopped us kicking on. Whether you think the likes of Davies, NRC, Harewood and Heskey and all the other debatable signings are any good or not, the fact is the money spent in terms of transfer fees and wages on those has been huge, and as the saying goes, once it's gone, it's gone.
Fully agree.
I've said it before, specifically about Harewood, but the main issue with these players was not shifting them on earlier. Zat Knight is a prime example - couple of years of service then a small profit made.
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
It's easy to list players we could/should have signed, but how mnay of the teams that did sign these players then finished above us that season?
We improved to 6th place and whatever I think of the players we singed, that's what matters and is as good as we could realistically expected in 07/08.
Not if we'd signed better players, it wasn't. And even if it was, two years later we should have been in a position to improve.
-
Not if we'd signed better players, it wasn't. And even if it was, two years later we should have been in a position to improve.
Well, I think we WERE in a position to improve. Whether we did or not then comes down to the whole position/number of points/gap to 4th/cup runs argument we regularly see on here. But ultimately we haven't kicked on to the level we would all have wanted. However, I don't think the transfer dealings of 07/08 are the reason for that.
-
Not if we'd signed better players, it wasn't. And even if it was, two years later we should have been in a position to improve.
Well, I think we WERE in a position to improve. Whether we did or not then comes down to the whole position/number of points/gap to 4th/cup runs argument we regularly see on here. But ultimately we haven't kicked on to the level we would all have wanted. However, I don't think the transfer dealings of 07/08 are the reason for that.
I do to a certain extent. The players listed have probably been responsible for something like £50m leaving the club's coffers.
-
Not if we'd signed better players, it wasn't. And even if it was, two years later we should have been in a position to improve.
Well, I think we WERE in a position to improve. Whether we did or not then comes down to the whole position/number of points/gap to 4th/cup runs argument we regularly see on here. But ultimately we haven't kicked on to the level we would all have wanted. However, I don't think the transfer dealings of 07/08 are the reason for that.
I do to a certain extent. The players listed have probably been responsible for something like £50m leaving the club's coffers.
£50m is a lot of money, but we're talking about 3 yeras of wages for 4 or 5 PL players, so such an outlay is to be expected. As I said before, we needed to shift them on as we did with Knight and then see a chunk of that £50m spent on other, presumably better, players. That's where I think we stalled - not being able to move on the 'stepping stone' players we needed in out transition from bottom half to top 6, which is where Randy is reportedly putting his foot down and where the whole issue with Martin seems to have started. It was a good plan and one I bought into, but know it seems the flaw is to too high wages that are keeping them here.
That having been said, Harewood is gone now and as the others see another year/6 months off their contracts, they may become more willing to take a drop to secure the right move?
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
It's easy to list players we could/should have signed, but how mnay of the teams that did sign these players then finished above us that season?
We improved to 6th place and whatever I think of the players we singed, that's what matters and is as good as we could realistically expected in 07/08.
Not if we'd signed better players, it wasn't. And even if it was, two years later we should have been in a position to improve.
We were in a position to improve. We've rarely in recent times been in a better position to improve.
League Cup Final, FA Cup semi-final, 6 points away from 4th position.
A squad assembled for a fraction of the average cost of a top 6 squad and paying wages massively below the average of a top 6 team.
Instead of pushing on, we appointed Paul Faulkner as CEO, gave him responsibility for transfers in and out, announced through the General that we had to focus on reducing wages and selling some players and then sold our best player for a £20m profit.
Of the players you listed (having skipped the purchases of Carew and Ashley), only Reo-Coker and Davies remain. Both of them spent 2 seasons as first choice players before being superseded by better players last season, just as a progressive team should be doing and both of them comfortably capable of playing for a mid ranked PL team or better, which is of course exactly the type of team we were when they signed.
We have over-performed in relation to the amount of money we have spent on transfers and wages. If that statement is so patently untrue as some of you would have us believe, it should be easy for someone to provide some form of objective analysis to prove it wrong.
-
We were in a position to improve. We've rarely in recent times been in a better position to improve.
League Cup Final, FA Cup semi-final, 6 points away from 4th position.
A squad assembled for a fraction of the average cost of a top 6 squad and paying wages massively below the average of a top 6 team.
What do the two cup runs have to do with whether we are in a position to improve? What do they indicate about the long-term health of the club? Portsmouth won the FA Cup they year before and look at them now. Cup runs are no indicator of anything other than how good your team is compared to the teams it is drawn against.
I thought that in spending £120M over four years we've outspent practically everyone in the Premier League. And are shelling out more in wages than, for instance, Spurs. To the extent that even some of our fringe players we are unable to move on because we're paying them so much.
-
I thought that in spending £120M over four years we've outspent practically everyone in the Premier League. And are shelling out more in wages than, for instance, Spurs. To the extent that even some of our fringe players we are unable to move on because we're paying them so much.
That's exactly correct.
We have a higher wage bill than Everton and Spurs. Significantly higher.
That's something which gets ignored in "lower than the average wage bill for top six clubs" which is now massively skewed by Man City.
-
It's great to compare us to other top six sides but we don't compete naturally with Chelsea, Man United and Arsenal. Our rivals are the teams from 4th to 8th. These are the teams we compete with and our rivals. If we are below average for a top six team it is because we are a below average top six team in fact the weakest top six team in terms of finishing position.
An accountant wrote this exceptionally boring report that became an exceptionally boring article in my paper the other week. In it, she looked at using a complex formula that I could not fathom the value for money provided by a squad in terms of wages and fees and finishing places. We were in the bottom half IIRC 11th-13th and behind a number of top six teams who delivered higher points totals. Everton and Birmigham teams who have through the signing of decent but slightly undesirable players and canny management delivered excellent value for money.
We compete with Birmingham and Everton far more than we compete with say Chelsea.
-
I thought that in spending £120M over four years we've outspent practically everyone in the Premier League. And are shelling out more in wages than, for instance, Spurs. To the extent that even some of our fringe players we are unable to move on because we're paying them so much.
That's exactly correct.
We have a higher wage bill than Everton and Spurs. Significantly higher.
That's something which gets ignored in "lower than the average wage bill for top six clubs" which is now massively skewed by Man City.
It isn't exactly correct at all.
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
As for outspending other clubs with £120m, this is taken directly from the Spurs accounts "During the financial year the following players joined the Club: Luka Modric, Giovani Dos Santos, Heurelho Gomes, David Bentley, Vedran Corluka, Cesar Sanchez, Roman Pavlyuchenko, Wilson Palacios, Carlo Cudicini, John Bostock, Paul-Jose M’Poku Ebunge and Mirko Ranieri whilst Jermain Defoe, Pascal Chimbonda and Robbie Keane all re-signed. The total cost of all of these players was £119.3m.
They have since bought Naughton, Walker, Crouch, Bassong, Krancjar, Kaboul, Gallas and Van der Vaart.
As I said, it should be easy to show some kind of objective analysis, rather than simply plucking random figures that you think support your argument.
-
It isn't exactly correct at all.
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
Until you've got some figures to back up your assertions that somehow Spurs are hiding their true staff costs elesewhere, I'd stop going on about it.
-
I thought that in spending £120M over four years we've outspent practically everyone in the Premier League. And are shelling out more in wages than, for instance, Spurs. To the extent that even some of our fringe players we are unable to move on because we're paying them so much.
That's exactly correct.
We have a higher wage bill than Everton and Spurs. Significantly higher.
That's something which gets ignored in "lower than the average wage bill for top six clubs" which is now massively skewed by Man City.
It isn't exactly correct at all.
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
As for outspending other clubs with £120m, this is taken directly from the Spurs accounts "During the financial year the following players joined the Club: Luka Modric, Giovani Dos Santos, Heurelho Gomes, David Bentley, Vedran Corluka, Cesar Sanchez, Roman Pavlyuchenko, Wilson Palacios, Carlo Cudicini, John Bostock, Paul-Jose M’Poku Ebunge and Mirko Ranieri whilst Jermain Defoe, Pascal Chimbonda and Robbie Keane all re-signed. The total cost of all of these players was £119.3m.
They have since bought Naughton, Walker, Crouch, Bassong, Krancjar, Kaboul, Gallas and Van der Vaart.
As I said, it should be easy to show some kind of objective analysis, rather than simply plucking random figures that you think support your argument.
So you believe the Spurs accounts for one thing but not the other. Funny that. It may be worth pointing out to you that Spurs were not the only club we were in competition with last season. In any event, as I said at the tail end of last season, I don't recall any of this finance stuff being raised at the beginning of the season as a reason why we couldn't hope to compete. As I recall you believed that, given the players we had bought with the money we had spent, we should be able to improve our points tally sufficient to finish 4th, and 3rd if things went our way.
But now you appear to be arguing that we could not possibly have finished above Spurs because they massively outstrip us in terms of money spent on transfers and salaries, to the point where we simply cannot compete. Which is of course utter rubbish.
With the money we spent we should have a squad of comparable quality. That we didn't, and even then failed to use what squad we did have adequately, is entirely the responsibility of O'Neill.
-
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
That's the point, Villadawg, you haven't "pointed that out" at all.
You've claimed it isn't, but each time you've done so, you've had it explained to you why you're talking nonsense by a finance professional.
What then happens is you lay off it, then a few weeks after, the next time you start suggesting we've spent peanuts on players and pay them sod all (by comparison), you roll it out again in the hope that people will just let it pass.
Our wage bill is higher than that of both Spurs and Everton. That is a fact.
-
Someone will come up with a name straight away but in the last 3 season have we actually sold a player that hasn't wanted to go to a rival club, or has fallen out with O'Neill in order to get them off the wage bill through hardly being used?
-
A squad assembled for a fraction of the average cost of a top 6 squad and paying wages massively below the average of a top 6 team.
Haven't Everton finished in the top six consistently for the past few years, or was I hallucinating again? Tottenham last year. We've also spent considerably more than Everton, Arsenal and even Man U in recent seasons.
Instead of pushing on, we appointed Paul Faulkner as CEO, gave him responsibility for transfers in and out, announced through the General that we had to focus on reducing wages and selling some players and then sold our best player for a £20m profit.
So Milner moved for £32 million?
Calculator not working again VD, or are you just firing out random numbers now?
-
In summer 2007, Martin's first close-season, we bought Zat Knight, Marlon Harewood and Nigel Reo-Coker plus signing Curtis Davies and Scott Carson on loan. Also bought that summer by clubs who were by no means more attractive than us were Roque Santa Cruz (Blackburn), Phil Jagielka, Leighton Baines, Tim Howard & Yakubu (Everton), Luke Young (Middlesbrough), Sylvain Distin & Glen Johnson (Portsmouth), Gareth Bale (Spurs), Scott Parker & Craig Bellamy (West Ham).
We missed out on being able to really improve the squad that summer and we've spent the past three years trying to catch up.
While some of those were signed on massive wages (Parker and Distin) and some seemed questionable at the time (Jagielka and Santa Cruz) it really does put it into perspective what a waste that Summer was.
It seemed to set the tone for the new Villa didn't it? After the January where we got Ash, Carew and Maloney the media were building us up big in the Summer (links to Saviola, Sneijder, VDV, Jovaonvic, Dica - all exciting players) and MON went in the complete opposite direction.
Opportunity wasted.
-
The legacy of Martin O'Neil - one word- Heskey
Thats when I changed my mind 100 % about him...
-
It isn't exactly correct at all.
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
Until you've got some figures to back up your assertions that somehow Spurs are hiding their true staff costs elesewhere, I'd stop going on about it.
I'll stop going on about it when
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
That's the point, Villadawg, you haven't "pointed that out" at all.
You've claimed it isn't, but each time you've done so, you've had it explained to you why you're talking nonsense by a finance professional.
What then happens is you lay off it, then a few weeks after, the next time you start suggesting we've spent peanuts on players and pay them sod all (by comparison), you roll it out again in the hope that people will just let it pass.
Our wage bill is higher than that of both Spurs and Everton. That is a fact.
Have I bollocks had it explained that I'm talking nonsense. What I've had is people saying that the 1000 extra staff accounted for in Villa's figures is irrelevant and that they have no idea how much and in what way the two clubs account for signing-on fees and image rights.
We know for a fact that the two figures are not like for like comparisons, that's all we know.
-
Have I bollocks had it explained that I'm talking nonsense. What I've had is people saying that the 1000 extra staff accounted for in Villa's figures is irrelevant and that they have no idea how much and in what way the two clubs account for signing-on fees and image rights.
We know for a fact that the two figures are not like for like comparisons, that's all we know.
Well, it's come down to an experienced accountancy professional explaining to you the error of your ways over and over again, and you alone - a lone voice in the wilderness - stubbornly refusing to believe what he says, no matter how many times he tells you, no matter how many times he explains to you your failure to grasp the image rights thing.
Is it that big a deal? Our wage bill is bigger than theirs.
-
I've always thought that January window where we were perfectly poised around the top four and Arsenal signed Arshavin/we signed Heskey was the major window faux pas but looking at that list from Summer '07, I might need to think again.
-
Have I bollocks had it explained that I'm talking nonsense. What I've had is people saying that the 1000 extra staff accounted for in Villa's figures is irrelevant and that they have no idea how much and in what way the two clubs account for signing-on fees and image rights.
We know for a fact that the two figures are not like for like comparisons, that's all we know.
No, that's all you know. Everyone else has accepted it long ago. The reason you haven't is that you're on a one-man crusade to prove that Spurs spend more on wages than we do in order to demonstrate how you think O'Neill worked a minor miracle in acheiving 6th place given the perceived financial advantages enjoyed by other clubs.
Your starting point is that Spurs must pay their players more than we do. What the basis is for that assumption I have no idea. Even if they do pay their players a lot, it's entirely possible that we pay our players more. In fact it's common knowledge that we pay our players a lot - in many cases far in excess of what they are worth. And that's the issue: not that Spurs spend a lot on wages but that we spend more and, due to O'Neill's questionable judgment, a lot of it on inferior players.
-
I thought that in spending £120M over four years we've outspent practically everyone in the Premier League. And are shelling out more in wages than, for instance, Spurs. To the extent that even some of our fringe players we are unable to move on because we're paying them so much.
That's exactly correct.
We have a higher wage bill than Everton and Spurs. Significantly higher.
That's something which gets ignored in "lower than the average wage bill for top six clubs" which is now massively skewed by Man City.
It isn't exactly correct at all.
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
As for outspending other clubs with £120m, this is taken directly from the Spurs accounts "During the financial year the following players joined the Club: Luka Modric, Giovani Dos Santos, Heurelho Gomes, David Bentley, Vedran Corluka, Cesar Sanchez, Roman Pavlyuchenko, Wilson Palacios, Carlo Cudicini, John Bostock, Paul-Jose M’Poku Ebunge and Mirko Ranieri whilst Jermain Defoe, Pascal Chimbonda and Robbie Keane all re-signed. The total cost of all of these players was £119.3m.
They have since bought Naughton, Walker, Crouch, Bassong, Krancjar, Kaboul, Gallas and Van der Vaart.
As I said, it should be easy to show some kind of objective analysis, rather than simply plucking random figures that you think support your argument.
So you believe the Spurs accounts for one thing but not the other. Funny that. It may be worth pointing out to you that Spurs were not the only club we were in competition with last season. In any event, as I said at the tail end of last season, I don't recall any of this finance stuff being raised at the beginning of the season as a reason why we couldn't hope to compete. As I recall you believed that, given the players we had bought with the money we had spent, we should be able to improve our points tally sufficient to finish 4th, and 3rd if things went our way.
But now you appear to be arguing that we could not possibly have finished above Spurs because they massively outstrip us in terms of money spent on transfers and salaries, to the point where we simply cannot compete. Which is of course utter rubbish.
With the money we spent we should have a squad of comparable quality. That we didn't, and even then failed to use what squad we did have adequately, is entirely the responsibility of O'Neill.
The "staff costs" figure does not necessarily represent all of the payments to players. Are you able to understand that?
The £119.3m does have to represent the amount spent on player acquisitions. Are you able to understand that also?
If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?
Why do you think we should have a squad of comparable quality when Spurs and Man City have spent so much more on theirs? What possible rationalisation can you have for that statement?
-
The 1,000 fewer staff is an interesting stat. It sounds really great until you look at the actual figures.
If you account for only full time employees we have 445 staff. If you add the people who work on match and event days that's another 953 employees. Maybe spurs subcontract that work out? And maybe despite the vast number of employees accounted for there they couldn't set us back much saying as they work a limited number of hours and are predominantly not in managerial and higher paid positions it makes scant difference.
-
I thought that in spending £120M over four years we've outspent practically everyone in the Premier League. And are shelling out more in wages than, for instance, Spurs. To the extent that even some of our fringe players we are unable to move on because we're paying them so much.
That's exactly correct.
We have a higher wage bill than Everton and Spurs. Significantly higher.
That's something which gets ignored in "lower than the average wage bill for top six clubs" which is now massively skewed by Man City.
It isn't exactly correct at all.
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
As for outspending other clubs with £120m, this is taken directly from the Spurs accounts "During the financial year the following players joined the Club: Luka Modric, Giovani Dos Santos, Heurelho Gomes, David Bentley, Vedran Corluka, Cesar Sanchez, Roman Pavlyuchenko, Wilson Palacios, Carlo Cudicini, John Bostock, Paul-Jose M’Poku Ebunge and Mirko Ranieri whilst Jermain Defoe, Pascal Chimbonda and Robbie Keane all re-signed. The total cost of all of these players was £119.3m.
They have since bought Naughton, Walker, Crouch, Bassong, Krancjar, Kaboul, Gallas and Van der Vaart.
As I said, it should be easy to show some kind of objective analysis, rather than simply plucking random figures that you think support your argument.
So you believe the Spurs accounts for one thing but not the other. Funny that. It may be worth pointing out to you that Spurs were not the only club we were in competition with last season. In any event, as I said at the tail end of last season, I don't recall any of this finance stuff being raised at the beginning of the season as a reason why we couldn't hope to compete. As I recall you believed that, given the players we had bought with the money we had spent, we should be able to improve our points tally sufficient to finish 4th, and 3rd if things went our way.
But now you appear to be arguing that we could not possibly have finished above Spurs because they massively outstrip us in terms of money spent on transfers and salaries, to the point where we simply cannot compete. Which is of course utter rubbish.
With the money we spent we should have a squad of comparable quality. That we didn't, and even then failed to use what squad we did have adequately, is entirely the responsibility of O'Neill.
The "staff costs" figure does not necessarily represent all of the payments to players. Are you able to understand that?
The £119.3m does have to represent the amount spent on player acquisitions. Are you able to understand that also?
If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?
Why do you think we should have a squad of comparable quality when Spurs and Man City have spent so much more on theirs? What possible rationalisation can you have for that statement?
Mate, it's not about being able to understand it, it is about the fact that your stuff about signing on fees and amortisation is fundamentally flawed, as has been explained to you god knows how many times.
I didn't say anything about the cost of acquisition of the squads - I'm entirely familiar with your flawed logic on that subject, so don't need you to bring conversation around to that - I merely pointed out that:
1. Our wage bill is bigger than theirs.
2. Your theories re how they might actually pay their players more are precisely that - theories.
3. They're theories not based on any fact.
So, yes, I understand entirely.
I suspect you understand the facts yourself, too, you just refuse to believe them, as in your view, Spurs pay more than we do because, because, because they just do ... they must do!
-
The "staff costs" figure does not necessarily represent all of the payments to players. Are you able to understand that?
The £119.3m does have to represent the amount spent on player acquisitions. Are you able to understand that also?
If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?
Why do you think we should have a squad of comparable quality when Spurs and Man City have spent so much more on theirs? What possible rationalisation can you have for that statement?
What you don't appear to understand is that you have singularly failed to demonstrate that any of the above 'possibilities' have actually taken place. Until you do, I'm afraid you're not going to convince anyone other than yourself.
The reason we should have a good squad is because £120M is a fuck of a lot of money, even in today's market. Couple that with the fact that we also spend an large proportion of our turnover on player salaries. What on earth are we doing with all that money if not acquiring a bloody good squad?
Wasting it on mediocre players, as it happens. We should have a very good squad for that outlay but we don't, and there's only one man who should take responsibility for that.
-
Have I bollocks had it explained that I'm talking nonsense. What I've had is people saying that the 1000 extra staff accounted for in Villa's figures is irrelevant and that they have no idea how much and in what way the two clubs account for signing-on fees and image rights.
We know for a fact that the two figures are not like for like comparisons, that's all we know.
Well, it's come down to an experienced accountancy professional explaining to you the error of your ways over and over again, and you alone - a lone voice in the wilderness - stubbornly refusing to believe what he says, no matter how many times he tells you, no matter how many times he explains to you your failure to grasp the image rights thing.
Is it that big a deal? Our wage bill is bigger than theirs.
I am perfectly capable of understanding a set of company accounts thanks. I recognise what they tell you and what they don't tell you. Risso offered one possible explanation of how Spurs might account for image rights and signing on fees, I offered another. The fact is we do not have enough detail.
It isn't that big a deal, Spurs definitely pay more for players in combined transfer fees and wages, shall we leave it at that?
-
I thought that in spending £120M over four years we've outspent practically everyone in the Premier League. And are shelling out more in wages than, for instance, Spurs. To the extent that even some of our fringe players we are unable to move on because we're paying them so much.
That's exactly correct.
We have a higher wage bill than Everton and Spurs. Significantly higher.
That's something which gets ignored in "lower than the average wage bill for top six clubs" which is now massively skewed by Man City.
It isn't exactly correct at all.
In the comparison between Spurs and Villa you are relying on the staff costs figure in the 2009 accounts, which as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions isn't a like for like comparison.
As for outspending other clubs with £120m, this is taken directly from the Spurs accounts "During the financial year the following players joined the Club: Luka Modric, Giovani Dos Santos, Heurelho Gomes, David Bentley, Vedran Corluka, Cesar Sanchez, Roman Pavlyuchenko, Wilson Palacios, Carlo Cudicini, John Bostock, Paul-Jose M’Poku Ebunge and Mirko Ranieri whilst Jermain Defoe, Pascal Chimbonda and Robbie Keane all re-signed. The total cost of all of these players was £119.3m.
They have since bought Naughton, Walker, Crouch, Bassong, Krancjar, Kaboul, Gallas and Van der Vaart.
As I said, it should be easy to show some kind of objective analysis, rather than simply plucking random figures that you think support your argument.
So you believe the Spurs accounts for one thing but not the other. Funny that. It may be worth pointing out to you that Spurs were not the only club we were in competition with last season. In any event, as I said at the tail end of last season, I don't recall any of this finance stuff being raised at the beginning of the season as a reason why we couldn't hope to compete. As I recall you believed that, given the players we had bought with the money we had spent, we should be able to improve our points tally sufficient to finish 4th, and 3rd if things went our way.
But now you appear to be arguing that we could not possibly have finished above Spurs because they massively outstrip us in terms of money spent on transfers and salaries, to the point where we simply cannot compete. Which is of course utter rubbish.
With the money we spent we should have a squad of comparable quality. That we didn't, and even then failed to use what squad we did have adequately, is entirely the responsibility of O'Neill.
The "staff costs" figure does not necessarily represent all of the payments to players. Are you able to understand that?
The £119.3m does have to represent the amount spent on player acquisitions. Are you able to understand that also?
If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?
Why do you think we should have a squad of comparable quality when Spurs and Man City have spent so much more on theirs? What possible rationalisation can you have for that statement?
Mate, it's not about being able to understand it, it is about the fact that your stuff about signing on fees and amortisation is fundamentally flawed, as has been explained to you god knows how many times.
I didn't say anything about the cost of acquisition of the squads - I'm entirely familiar with your flawed logic on that subject, so don't need you to bring conversation around to that - I merely pointed out that:
1. Our wage bill is bigger than theirs.
2. Your theories re how they might actually pay their players more are precisely that - theories.
3. They're theories not based on any fact.
So, yes, I understand entirely.
I suspect you understand the facts yourself, too, you just refuse to believe them, as in your view, Spurs pay more than we do because, because, because they just do ... they must do!
This stuff really makes ne laugh. Some people are so keen to believe that somehow we're run like shit and Spurs are run brilliantly that they will not countenance for a second that their might be something in what VD says. That a rich club from London might actually pay their players very well. No, of course that can't possibly be true, they've limped along like paupers while we've been lighting cigars with £50 notes.
The truth is none of us can know for certain yet Paulie and Risso feel confident enough to dismiss what he says as theories while claiming their own interpretation as cold hard facts.
-
The 1,000 fewer staff is an interesting stat. It sounds really great until you look at the actual figures.
If you account for only full time employees we have 445 staff. If you add the people who work on match and event days that's another 953 employees. Maybe spurs subcontract that work out? And maybe despite the vast number of employees accounted for there they couldn't set us back much saying as they work a limited number of hours and are predominantly not in managerial and higher paid positions it makes scant difference.
You're wrong Sandman.
Spurs are cooking the books, paying their catering staff footballer-type wages but doing it through third parties.
Or paying their players peanuts on the official books but working some kind of financial voodoo with image rights.
Either way they're up to something and VD is on to them.
He's come this far and he can't be seen to backtrack now.
Actually it's quite fun to see him keep digging.
-
It isn't that big a deal, Spurs definitely pay more for players in combined transfer fees and wages, shall we leave it at that?
I know what the situation is, therefore it's no big deal for me. It is, however, for you for some reason, so if it makes you happy, keep on believing it.
Just don't be surprised if people pull you up on it or are bemused when you go on refusing to believe it.
-
Isn't 'Arry up in court sometime soon for tax evasion?
-
One legacy of O'Neill is that I am now being very cautious in my expectations of GH and McAllister.
-
This stuff really makes ne laugh. Some people are so keen to believe that somehow we're run like shit and Spurs are run brilliantly that they will not countenance for a second that their might be something in what VD says. That a rich club from London might actually pay their players very well. No, of course that can't possibly be true, they've limped along like paupers while we've been lighting cigars with £50 notes.
The truth is none of us can know for certain yet Paulie and Risso feel confident enough to dismiss what he says as theories while claiming their own interpretation as cold hard facts.
Who has said anything about Spurs not paying their players well? I'm sure they do. They might have a lower wage bill than us, but I don't think for a moment they're all forced to claim housing benefit.
Although I'd believe it if Woodgate was on incapacity benefit.
Incidentally, I don't think we're run like shit. A cursory examination of this board over the last few weeks would suggest that you're the one thinking that.
Our wage bill is higher than theirs. Fact. In the accounts.
Villadawg's theories about maybe this, maybe that - theories.
-
Isn't 'Arry up in court sometime soon for tax evasion?
He's worked wonders with his tax form.
-
It isn't that big a deal, Spurs definitely pay more for players in combined transfer fees and wages, shall we leave it at that?
So accept you're right, even when you're wrong?
Or at best have nothing to back up your assertion other than a hunch? Refusing to believe audited accounts?
Is that how it works now?
-
Perhaps that's one of MON's legacies.
That we're reduced to arguing over accounting procedures to make his record look more impressive.
My take on his legacy is that he did a decent job - nothing more, nothing less - and although we've got some very decent players, we've got some high earning rubbish that we'll struggle to shift.
Well, I suspect we will, but let's see what happens when Houllier has settled in and tries to shift those he sees as surplus to requirements.
-
The truth is none of us can know for certain yet Paulie and Risso feel confident enough to dismiss what he says as theories while claiming their own interpretation as cold hard facts.
Please show me one thing I have said on the issue that isn't a cold hard fact.
-
Perhaps that's one of MON's legacies.
That we're reduced to arguing over accounting procedures to make his record look more impressive.
may I remind you mr walnuts that you are under oath
-
This stuff really makes ne laugh. Some people are so keen to believe that somehow we're run like shit and Spurs are run brilliantly that they will not countenance for a second that their might be something in what VD says.
Why on earth should anyone think there is something in what he says when he hasn't got a shred of evidence to support any of it?
-
This stuff really makes ne laugh. Some people are so keen to believe that somehow we're run like shit and Spurs are run brilliantly that they will not countenance for a second that their might be something in what VD says. That a rich club from London might actually pay their players very well. No, of course that can't possibly be true, they've limped along like paupers while we've been lighting cigars with £50 notes.
The truth is none of us can know for certain yet Paulie and Risso feel confident enough to dismiss what he says as theories while claiming their own interpretation as cold hard facts.
Who has said anything about Spurs not paying their players well? I'm sure they do. They might have a lower wage bill than us, but I don't think for a moment they're all forced to claim housing benefit.
Although I'd believe it if Woodgate was on incapacity benefit.
Incidentally, I don't think we're run like shit. A cursory examination of this board over the last few weeks would suggest that you're the one thinking that.
Our wage bill is higher than theirs. Fact. In the accounts.
Villadawg's theories about maybe this, maybe that - theories.
A cursory examination would suggest that you're making things up, again. I've never once said that we're run like shit. As you were so fond of saying the club is bigger than one man and questioning one or two decisions doesn't mean that you think everything is shit or doesn't that argument count now that you're not using it?
However, to suggest that our owners are paying more on players wages than Spurs who have a much larger playing squad is a pretty damning indictment of them. That's why I think that the published accounts don't tell the whole story because I don't believe that Randy Lerner is as stupid as you are painting him.
-
This stuff really makes me laugh. Some people are so keen to believe that somehow we're run like shit and Spurs are run brilliantly that they will not countenance for a second that their might be something in what VD says. That a rich club from London might actually pay their players very well. No, of course that can't possibly be true, they've limped along like paupers while we've been lighting cigars with £50 notes.
The truth is none of us can know for certain yet Paulie and Risso feel confident enough to dismiss what he says as theories while claiming their own interpretation as cold hard facts.
Spurs are actually a very well run club. Levy has kept the wage bill down sensibly. Their top earners make the same as ours for example. Guys like Bale, Modric and Huddlestone will be on small wages as they have come in from lesser leagues but they have developed into better players whilst at Spurs and become stars. Our players probably by dint of being experienced premier league players, earned premier league wages at their old clubs and therefore get larger premier league wages with us. We are not as well ran. More probably should have been done to curb the wage situation but we are not ran like shit and are not perpetrating Portsmouth style largess.
I expect since Spurs last accounts their wages have increased. I doubt say Van Der Vaart and Gallas are on a tuppence ha'peny each week. However, they have greater revenue streams and now CL football which allows them to bear this. We pay players more BUT we don't have the revenues to bear this whereas Spurs have. Our wages will also have increased with Dunne, Warnock, Collins and Downing earning decent wages.
-
This stuff really makes me laugh. Some people are so keen to believe that somehow we're run like shit and Spurs are run brilliantly that they will not countenance for a second that their might be something in what VD says. That a rich club from London might actually pay their players very well. No, of course that can't possibly be true, they've limped along like paupers while we've been lighting cigars with £50 notes.
The truth is none of us can know for certain yet Paulie and Risso feel confident enough to dismiss what he says as theories while claiming their own interpretation as cold hard facts.
Spurs are actually a very well run club. Levy has kept the wage bill down sensibly. Their top earners make the same as ours for example. Guys like Bale, Modric and Huddlestone will be on small wages as they have come in from lesser leagues but they have developed into better players whilst at Spurs and become stars. Our players probably by dint of being experienced premier league players, earned premier league wages at their old clubs and therefore get larger premier league wages with us.
I expect since Spurs last accounts their wages have increased. I doubt say Van Der Vaart and Gallas are on a tuppence ha'peny each week. However, they have greater revenue streams and now CL football which allows them to bear this. We pay players more BUT we don't have the revenues to bear this whereas Spurs have. Our wages will also have increased with Dunne, Warnock, Collins and Downing earning decent wages.
Sounds like a lot of guesswork there, Sandman.
-
The 1,000 fewer staff is an interesting stat. It sounds really great until you look at the actual figures.
If you account for only full time employees we have 445 staff. If you add the people who work on match and event days that's another 953 employees. Maybe spurs subcontract that work out? And maybe despite the vast number of employees accounted for there they couldn't set us back much saying as they work a limited number of hours and are predominantly not in managerial and higher paid positions it makes scant difference.
The important thing is that it clearly illustrates that the two figures are not a like for like comparison. You might also want to ask why we have 445 full-time employees and Spurs have only 286.
-
However, to suggest that our owners are paying more on players wages than Spurs who have a much larger playing squad is a pretty damning indictment of them. That's why I think that the published accounts don't tell the whole story because I don't believe that Randy Lerner is as stupid as you are painting him.
But again, we know that we are paying a lot of money to our players - even to those who O'Neill rarely played, which is why we're finding it hard to shift them. That being the case, is it really so difficult to believe we shell out more on salaries than Spurs do?
-
Look at the amount of times Levy has said 'no' to 'arry this summer.
Even with CL qualification on the line, he didn't give him carte blanche to spend, spend, spend. He's well known in the industry to be an absolute bastard to deal with. It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to think that his approach to players wage negotiations is similar.
-
The important thing is that it clearly illustrates that the two figures are not a like for like comparison. You might also want to ask why we have 445 full-time employees and Spurs have only 286.
Have you actually got any proof that Spurs spend more on player wages than we do? I mean actual proof, as opposed to speculation and innuendo?
-
All this just because some people just can't accept that old melted candle face has proved to be a better manager than Martin O'Neill!
I know it hurts, and I can't stand the tax dodging twunt either, but fourth place and playing in the CL group stages tomorrow night tells me I'll just have to bite the bullet on this one.
-
If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?
If you look at the Spurs accounts, you'll find that the total amortisation charge is £38.1m. Of this, actual amortisation of contracts is £37.3m. Leaving a whopping £800K for the write off of signing on fees etc, so again, you're barking up the wrong tree there.
As to total costs, well, the admin costs for Villa are as a whole were £105m, of which staff costs were £70.5m. Total admin costs for Spurs are £95m, of which £60.5m are staff costs. It all seems quite reasonable when you look at those figures. There's nothing you can reliably point out to at all that states that the total players costs for Spurs were higher than Villa's, nothing whatsoever. Even if £10m of Spurs £30m other admin costs were image rights payments, and even if Villa paid nothing at all for image rights, they'd still just be on a par with us.
-
The important thing is that it clearly illustrates that the two figures are not a like for like comparison. You might also want to ask why we have 445 full-time employees and Spurs have only 286.
Once could reasonably assume that all the highest earners (ie players, board) are included in spurs 286. The shortfall would most certainly be low paid jobs that would, at best, amount to a yearly salary of an average player's weekly wage.
-
Harry is of course a very good manager, but it usually comes with a very high price.
-
Their top earners make the same as ours for example. Guys like Bale, Modric and Huddlestone will be on small wages as they have come in from lesser leagues
Found this from last month, (what has happened to the 'quote' options by the way?)
Tottenham Hotspur star Luca Modric has stated he is embarrassed that he earns £70,000 a week at White Hart Lane.
The 24-year-old midfield dynamo penned a new six-year contract extension in May to become the club's highest paid player, but admits he has been left red-faced after his annual salary was leaked to the papers.
-
Yes but as my post was on the figures in the accounts... At that time he was on £25K allegedly.
It will be the same with us for Ashley Young... Coming in from Watford he will have earned less but if he signs a new contract he will be on a similar figure. It was something that should have been clearer in my initial post as I believe all three players in my example have recently got new contracts. The fact remains that they probably earned less than say Habib Beye or Nicky Shorey when they first joined.
-
If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?
If you look at the Spurs accounts, you'll find that the total amortisation charge is £38.1m. Of this, actual amortisation of contracts is £37.3m. Leaving a whopping £800K for the write off of signing on fees etc, so again, you're barking up the wrong tree there.
As to total costs, well, the admin costs for Villa are as a whole were £105m, of which staff costs were £70.5m. Total admin costs for Spurs are £95m, of which £60.5m are staff costs. It all seems quite reasonable when you look at those figures. There's nothing you can reliably point out to at all that states that the total players costs for Spurs were higher than Villa's, nothing whatsoever. Even if £10m of Spurs £30m other admin costs were image rights payments, and even if Villa paid nothing at all for image rights, they'd still just be on a par with us.
Why couldn't they include the signing-on fee as part of the overall player acquisition cost and include it in the £37.3m? If they were giving a player like Modric a £2m signing on fee couldn't they just agree a contract with "modric ltd", and pay it on a straight-line basis over the term of his initial contract?
-
All this just because some people just can't accept that old melted candle face has proved to be a better manager than Martin O'Neill!
I know it hurts, and I can't stand the tax dodging twunt either, but fourth place and playing in the CL group stages tomorrow night tells me I'll just have to bite the bullet on this one.
What was it a LC final in his first (half) season and an FA Cup semi in his second too? So matching and then bettering (with 4th place) MON's achievements in half the time.
Aye, he's clearly all talk.
-
If Spurs have a bigger squad than us and pay less in player wages then our chairman is an idiot. I don't believe that Randy Lerner is an idiot.
-
If Spurs have a bigger squad than us and pay less in player wages then our chairman is an idiot. I don't believe that Randy Lerner is an idiot.
Or maybe Spurs just have a shrewder Chairman.
I'm afraid your personal opinion of Randy has zero bearing on the accuracy of Spurs' accounts.
-
Their top earners make the same as ours for example. Guys like Bale, Modric and Huddlestone will be on small wages as they have come in from lesser leagues
Found this from last month, (what has happened to the 'quote' options by the way?)
Tottenham Hotspur star Luca Modric has stated he is embarrassed that he earns £70,000 a week at White Hart Lane.
The 24-year-old midfield dynamo penned a new six-year contract extension in May to become the club's highest paid player, but admits he has been left red-faced after his annual salary was leaked to the papers.
Good find.
The thing is, if Spurs wage bill actually exceeds Villa's for this or the next financial year (and I'd say there is every chance it will) they will be in a better position to sustain it.
There income was greater than ours even with their lower wage bill.
-
Why couldn't they include the signing-on fee as part of the overall player acquisition cost and include it in the £37.3m? If they were giving a player like Modric a £2m signing on fee couldn't they just agree a contract with "modric ltd", and pay it on a straight-line basis over the term of his initial contract?
Again, have you actually got any proof that this is what they are doing?
-
Baseball mit face inherited a much better squad than the barmy leprechaun. That said, Redknapp is an excellent manager, and I'd take him, dodgy dealings and all, over O Neill any day of the week. Better football for starters.
-
Baseball mit face inherited a much better squad than the barmy leprechaun. That said, Redknapp is an excellent manager, and I'd take him, dodgy dealings and all, over O Neill any day of the week. Better football for starters.
spot on
-
I agree as well.
The only problem is that this whole argument started with someone saying the same thing.
-
If Spurs have a bigger squad than us and pay less in player wages then our chairman is an idiot. I don't believe that Randy Lerner is an idiot.
Either that or you just don't know what you're talking about. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
-
Baseball mit face inherited a much better squad than the barmy leprechaun. That said, Redknapp is an excellent manager, and I'd take him, dodgy dealings and all, over O Neill any day of the week. Better football for starters.
With the lack of wage control we had under MON, I would hate to have seen what the wage bill would have been under Redknapp.
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
I like this
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
Is Sidwell injured? And what happened to Carew. And don't forget that Stoke managed to buy players to actually put on their bench/play on the pitch this window. We didn't, couldn't, wouldn't buy anyone this window so you get three players out injured, we are then putting kids on. Yes, Martin did leave the squad threadbare in places (Leftback) but if you took out all of Stokes transfer dealings this summer from that announced team, it would have been interesting to compare benches then.
-
how pathetic is that.
After 4 seasons of Mon's dealings the reason Stoke had a more convincing bench was because Randy didn't spend in the summer.
Inredible. I wonder why he didn't spend? Oh yes the manager we had quit 5 days, 5 days, before kick off.
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
Except fo the fact that Stoke's bench was stronger because they made a good few quality signings this summer (most of them after MON was gone too)....what did we do?
-
Except fo the fact that Stoke's bench was stronger because they made a good few quality signings this summer (most of them after MON was gone too)....what did we do?
Had to look for a new manager after that prick left us in the most spiteful way possible?
-
Except fo the fact that Stoke's bench was stronger because they made a good few quality signings this summer (most of them after MON was gone too)....what did we do?
Had to look for a new manager after that prick left us in the most spiteful way possible?
I can't help joining the dots between the 2.
-
I can't help joining the dots between the 2.
Feel free. O'Neill has form when it comes to acting the prick when not given full control (i.e. more than a normal manager should have) of a football club. He had it at Villa, wasted a disgusting amount of money on wages, was asked / told to sort out the situation before being allowed to bring in any others, didn't, and then walked at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the football club.
You know, I should at this stage be getting over how he left (particularly as I wanted him gone for a number of months), but I'm just as angry now over it as the day it happened. Moreso even.
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
Or is it the legacy of the whole club - MON and the board - for this summer?
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
Yeah, right.
Or is it the legacy of the whole club - MON and the board - for this summer?
So its down to Mon leaving and the Boards prevarications and nothing to do with the 4 seasons Mon was in control ?
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
Yeah, right.
Or is it the legacy of the whole club - MON and the board - for this summer?
So its down to Mon leaving and the Boards prevarications and nothing to do with the 4 seasons Mon was in control ?
I suppose the question is, was O'Neill leaving the club the cause of our problems or a symptom of the problems we have seen since Faulkner became CEO in May.
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
Yeah, right.
Or is it the legacy of the whole club - MON and the board - for this summer?
So its down to Mon leaving and the Boards prevarications and nothing to do with the 4 seasons Mon was in control ?
No, Stoke's bench has nothing to do with MON's 4 years in charge. We didn't buy a player in the summer and let some go. They bought Pennant and Gudjohnsen who were on the bench. They also bought others who were playing. That all happened in the summer and not during the previous 4 years.
That to me, and anyone else who presumably can add up, shows that it was a summer of inactivity, managers departure, and a woeful board response to that that has caused the current situation.
-
The commentators tonight pointed out that Stoke City have a stronger subs' bench than us. That's your legacy MON, you dithering arse.
Yeah, right.
Or is it the legacy of the whole club - MON and the board - for this summer?
So its down to Mon leaving and the Boards prevarications and nothing to do with the 4 seasons Mon was in control ?
No, Stoke's bench has nothing to do with MON's 4 years in charge. We didn't buy a player in the summer and let some go. They bought Pennant and Gudjohnsen who were on the bench. They also bought others who were playing. That all happened in the summer and not during the previous 4 years.
That to me, and anyone else who presumably can add up, shows that it was a summer of inactivity, managers departure, and a woeful board response to that that has caused the current situation.
Do you know I could have sworn we bought Ireland as part of the Milner deal, and had appointed Houllier as manager but perhaps I'm wrong again.
-
No, we didn't buy Ireland. He was a makeweight in a deal that saw one of our better players go the other way. They bought Milner and gave us someone. We have yet to buy anyone.
As for the manager, how can you appoint someone who has still got another job?
-
All this just because some people just can't accept that old melted candle face has proved to be a better manager than Martin O'Neill!
I know it hurts, and I can't stand the tax dodging twunt either, but fourth place and playing in the CL group stages tomorrow night tells me I'll just have to bite the bullet on this one.
When you look at us and them 2 years ago, that is proof in how much they have progressed more that us.
-
Why couldn't they include the signing-on fee as part of the overall player acquisition cost and include it in the £37.3m? If they were giving a player like Modric a £2m signing on fee couldn't they just agree a contract with "modric ltd", and pay it on a straight-line basis over the term of his initial contract?
Again, have you actually got any proof that this is what they are doing?
No I haven't any proof they are doing that, just as you presumably have no proof that they aren't. I've never claimed to have any certainty about how much Spurs pay their players, you have. My suspicion is based on the discrepancy between the high cost of player purchases, their large and experienced squad and the seemingly low "staff costs". It doesn't appear to make sense.
The statement in their accounts that "The costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets." leads me to think that agent fees and signing-on fees may be classified in this way and would then be fully amortised on a straight-line basis.
That could explain the discrepancy.
BTW: There is nothing dodgy about accounting in this way, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
-
No I haven't any proof they are doing that, just as you presumably have no proof that they aren't. I've never claimed to have any certainty about how much Spurs pay their players, you have. My suspicion is based on the discrepancy between the high cost of player purchases, their large and experienced squad and the seemingly low "staff costs". It doesn't appear to make sense.
The statement in their accounts that "The costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets." leads me to think that agent fees and signing-on fees may be classified in this way and would then be fully amortised on a straight-line basis.
That could explain the discrepancy.
BTW: There is nothing dodgy about accounting in this way, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
Come off it. The proof is their official accounts. Until you can offer some evidence that those accounts are incorrect or inaccurate or misleading then they stand. You know as well as I do that it's absurd to make an unfounded allegation and, when challenged to prove it, to simply parrot back "Where's your proof my allegation isn't correct?"
-
Can someone please enlighten me as to why MON left? Many on here must know because of the abuse he is now recieving. The general consensus is that he deliberately, and with calculated spite, timed his departure to cause maximum damage to the club.
There is another school of thought that he resigned as a matter of principle in that he found the working conditions unsuitable, was asked to sign players against his will (which can only mean Ireland) or was told that there would be no money for signings until sales were made.
An obtuse statement from Lerner and veiled comments for the General don't really make it clear and until MON pipes up we may not know for some time.
But many on here have made up their minds, and if the "dropped us in the shit" thoery is the truth I'd like to know. But as yet don't see any evidence for this. Theres no evidence for the "matter of principle" idea either so I remain firmly in the dark as to why he left.
And as for blaming MON for the current, off the field mess, thats just pathetic. Many clubs have had to cope with the sudden departure of managers at crucial times, including those managers taking their entire backroom staff, but they coped somehow. We seem to be making a pigs ear of the whole process.
I'm not here to defend MON, all I want is know the truth.
-
Of course its the truth. He left 5 days before the start of the season and took all the staff with him. What other truth do you need? And you suggest he's a principled man?
-
Why couldn't they include the signing-on fee as part of the overall player acquisition cost and include it in the £37.3m? If they were giving a player like Modric a £2m signing on fee couldn't they just agree a contract with "modric ltd", and pay it on a straight-line basis over the term of his initial contract?
Again, have you actually got any proof that this is what they are doing?
No I haven't any proof they are doing that, just as you presumably have no proof that they aren't. I've never claimed to have any certainty about how much Spurs pay their players, you have. My suspicion is based on the discrepancy between the high cost of player purchases, their large and experienced squad and the seemingly low "staff costs". It doesn't appear to make sense.
The statement in their accounts that "The costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets." leads me to think that agent fees and signing-on fees may be classified in this way and would then be fully amortised on a straight-line basis.
That could explain the discrepancy.
BTW: There is nothing dodgy about accounting in this way, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
I think you're wrong. The accounts say that intangible assets relate entirely to the cost of registrations. These are the payments made to the selling club, and the amortisation of these amounts is £37.3m. Other football related income and expenditure (presumable what you're talking about) is £800K for the year.
-
I know when he left and I know he took his staff with him. What I don't know is why he left.
-
I think the thing is that even if O'Neill had been treated abysmally and his position made untenable, the decent thing to do would have been to put the team and the fans first and keep going until a replacement could be found. As it was, whatever the reason behind his decision to quit, he decided it was more important for him to go instantly, regardless of the negative effect it would have, which he would have been well aware of.
-
Of course its the truth. He left 5 days before the start of the season and took all the staff with him. What other truth do you need? And you suggest he's a principled man?
Until there's a statement from either the board or O'Neill, does anybody know why he left?
Also, what about the rumours of him going in March? did Lerner talk him round? tell him to give it until the end of the season?
who knows?
Do people type the line " he left us 5 days before the end of the season" or just copy and paste it from each of SFX142's barely intelligible posts?
-
I think the thing is that even if O'Neill had been treated abysmally and his position made untenable, the decent thing to do would have been to put the team and the fans first and keep going until a replacement could be found. As it was, whatever the reason behind his decision to quit, he decided it was more important for him to go instantly, regardless of the negative effect it would have, which he would have been well aware of.
Exactly so. Whatever the reason why he left (I suspect because he didn't want to deal with the mess he'd helped create wages wise) the fact he has left and the timing of it makes any justification of it redundant.
-
how pathetic is that.
After 4 seasons of Mon's dealings the reason Stoke had a more convincing bench was because Randy didn't spend in the summer.
Inredible. I wonder why he didn't spend? Oh yes the manager we had quit 5 days, 5 days, before kick off.
I'm not defending MON on the fact that we should have had a stronger squad by now. I was pointing out as others have also done that most of Stokes "stronger players" on that bench were bought in the summer. We didn't buy anyone and again MON has the shoulder the main responsibility for that but the board then decided that we were no rush for a manager before the window and also in no obvious rush for one at the moment.
-
I think the thing is that even if O'Neill had been treated abysmally and his position made untenable, the decent thing to do would have been to put the team and the fans first and keep going until a replacement could be found. As it was, whatever the reason behind his decision to quit, he decided it was more important for him to go instantly, regardless of the negative effect it would have, which he would have been well aware of.
Of course it would be the decent thing to do, but I can't think of any situation where this has happened before. When managers resign they tend to have cleared their desk before the statement is released, and while it would be nice to think that MON would've put the club first I think it's a bit naive.
Few people employed at football clubs are in it for anything other than themselves.
-
No I haven't any proof they are doing that, just as you presumably have no proof that they aren't. I've never claimed to have any certainty about how much Spurs pay their players, you have. My suspicion is based on the discrepancy between the high cost of player purchases, their large and experienced squad and the seemingly low "staff costs". It doesn't appear to make sense.
The statement in their accounts that "The costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets." leads me to think that agent fees and signing-on fees may be classified in this way and would then be fully amortised on a straight-line basis.
That could explain the discrepancy.
BTW: There is nothing dodgy about accounting in this way, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
Come off it. The proof is their official accounts. Until you can offer some evidence that those accounts are incorrect or inaccurate or misleading then they stand. You know as well as I do that it's absurd to make an unfounded allegation and, when challenged to prove it, to simply parrot back "Where's your proof my allegation isn't correct?"
You don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing in my post to suggest I think the accounts are incorrect, inaccurate or misleading. As with almost all company accounts, they do need interpreting. I am saying that the "staff costs" figure doesn't represent a like for like comparison with the "staff costs" figure in the Villa accounts. We know there are differences due to the fact Villa include all staff, whereas some of Spurs staff appear to be "sub-contracted". The question is whether there are other differences.
-
I think the thing is that even if O'Neill had been treated abysmally and his position made untenable, the decent thing to do would have been to put the team and the fans first and keep going until a replacement could be found. As it was, whatever the reason behind his decision to quit, he decided it was more important for him to go instantly, regardless of the negative effect it would have, which he would have been well aware of.
Exactly so. Whatever the reason why he left (I suspect because he didn't want to deal with the mess he'd helped create wages wise) the fact he has left and the timing of it makes any justification of it redundant.
If he left because he didn't want Ireland I'm right behind him, if he left because of a drastic change of position from the board, I'm right behind him. If he left because the purse strings were tightened and he had to deal with reduced finances, I'm not behind him.
You have your suspicions as to why he left and so does everybody else, including me but like John Lennon, all I want is the truth.
-
The truth is irrelevant and it will not set you free. The fact is that this is the situation we find ourselves in because of the actions of O'Neill. His actions make any explanation short of an illness to his wife, totally irrelevant.
-
You don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing in my post to suggest I think the accounts are incorrect, inaccurate or misleading. As with almost all company accounts, they do need interpreting. I am saying that the "staff costs" figure doesn't represent a like for like comparison with the "staff costs" figure in the Villa accounts. We know there are differences due to the fact Villa include all staff, whereas some of Spurs staff appear to be "sub-contracted". The question is whether there are other differences.
Rubbish. There is nothing to suggest that any conclusion should be drawn other than Spurs have a lower wage bill than us. However you might dress it up, and however much you repeat the allegation, you have totally and utterly failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to support it.
-
I think the thing is that even if O'Neill had been treated abysmally and his position made untenable, the decent thing to do would have been to put the team and the fans first and keep going until a replacement could be found. As it was, whatever the reason behind his decision to quit, he decided it was more important for him to go instantly, regardless of the negative effect it would have, which he would have been well aware of.
Exactly so. Whatever the reason why he left (I suspect because he didn't want to deal with the mess he'd helped create wages wise) the fact he has left and the timing of it makes any justification of it redundant.
If he left because he didn't want Ireland I'm right behind him, if he left because of a drastic change of position from the board, I'm right behind him. If he left because the purse strings were tightened and he had to deal with reduced finances, I'm not behind him.
You have your suspicions as to why he left and so does everybody else, including me but like John Lennon, all I want is the truth.
Exactly.
No short haired yellow bellied some of tricky dicky's
Gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
When Elvis sung we can't go on together with suspicious minds, he wasn't kidding around.
-
No I haven't any proof they are doing that, just as you presumably have no proof that they aren't. I've never claimed to have any certainty about how much Spurs pay their players, you have. My suspicion is based on the discrepancy between the high cost of player purchases, their large and experienced squad and the seemingly low "staff costs". It doesn't appear to make sense.
The statement in their accounts that "The costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets." leads me to think that agent fees and signing-on fees may be classified in this way and would then be fully amortised on a straight-line basis.
That could explain the discrepancy.
BTW: There is nothing dodgy about accounting in this way, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
Come off it. The proof is their official accounts. Until you can offer some evidence that those accounts are incorrect or inaccurate or misleading then they stand. You know as well as I do that it's absurd to make an unfounded allegation and, when challenged to prove it, to simply parrot back "Where's your proof my allegation isn't correct?"
Ridiculous Hilts.
You've only got the proof of the official accounts there, the onus is on you and anyone else to prove that any flight of fantasy VD dreams up is completely impossible.
If they can't, that means that actually it must be true.
So effectively his whole piss poor argument comes down to proving a negative.
If you can't he believes his assertion has some validity.
He can't accept that a squad as good as Tottenham's has a lower wage bill, that's the main thrust of it. He's had it explained to him that their wider approach to recruitment that extends beyond the confines of the overpriced Prem market might have something to do with it. But no - it must be something else.
-
I feel the distrust of the board is born out of an inability to deal with what O’Neill did and how his actions conflict with the cult of personality he has created.
-
The truth is irrelevant and it will not set you free. The fact is that this is the situation we find ourselves in because of the actions of O'Neill. His actions make any explanation short of an illness to his wife, totally irrelevant.
Not really. If his actions were due to the baordbeing as poor 5 days before the season as they have been 5 or so weeks since it started then you can possibly see a reason.
As it is I don't buy into that but the only thing we do know is that we know very little.
-
You don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing in my post to suggest I think the accounts are incorrect, inaccurate or misleading. As with almost all company accounts, they do need interpreting. I am saying that the "staff costs" figure doesn't represent a like for like comparison with the "staff costs" figure in the Villa accounts. We know there are differences due to the fact Villa include all staff, whereas some of Spurs staff appear to be "sub-contracted". The question is whether there are other differences.
How many excuses are you going to come up with for us having a higher wage bill? You've tried blaming it on contingent liabilities, image rights, amortisation and now sub contracting out employees.
-
The truth is irrelevant and it will not set you free. The fact is that this is the situation we find ourselves in because of the actions of O'Neill. His actions make any explanation short of an illness to his wife, totally irrelevant.
Not really. If his actions were due to the baordbeing as poor 5 days before the season as they have been 5 or so weeks since it started then you can possibly see a reason.
As it is I don't buy into that but the only thing we do know is that we know very little.
I’ve left you out of it. You’ve always been a tin foil hat wearer!
I don’t believe that hypothetical at all either. The only and genuine criticisms one could make are that too much faith was put in O’Neill. There were no checks and balances or even contingencies for him walking out. This is something Sir GT has talked about and I agree with him. The second is their naivety in what is a tricky business of appointing a new manager. While Steve Stride may have wanted to call it a day, the board should have sought another experienced mind in the game to have aided the processces such as this one.
The board have been exmploary in all other aspects for four years.
-
I know when he left and I know he took his staff with him. What I don't know is why he left.
Judging by the lack of information, it would seem that he was forced out and was given a substantial bung to say nothing. I'm just guessing but can't see any other reason why he wouldn't have opened up about the whole thing, unless that is all to come. I haven't even heard any 'no comments' which is surprising as you would have thought the press would have set up around his house. There is a sting in the tail here somewhere, you mark my words.
-
Why couldn't they include the signing-on fee as part of the overall player acquisition cost and include it in the £37.3m? If they were giving a player like Modric a £2m signing on fee couldn't they just agree a contract with "modric ltd", and pay it on a straight-line basis over the term of his initial contract?
Again, have you actually got any proof that this is what they are doing?
No I haven't any proof they are doing that, just as you presumably have no proof that they aren't. I've never claimed to have any certainty about how much Spurs pay their players, you have. My suspicion is based on the discrepancy between the high cost of player purchases, their large and experienced squad and the seemingly low "staff costs". It doesn't appear to make sense.
The statement in their accounts that "The costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets." leads me to think that agent fees and signing-on fees may be classified in this way and would then be fully amortised on a straight-line basis.
That could explain the discrepancy.
BTW: There is nothing dodgy about accounting in this way, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
I think you're wrong. The accounts say that intangible assets relate entirely to the cost of registrations. These are the payments made to the selling club, and the amortisation of these amounts is £37.3m. Other football related income and expenditure (presumable what you're talking about) is £800K for the year.
The accounts don't say that the cost of registrations is only the amounts payable to other clubs, they say "costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations", that could include agents fees and signing-on fees couldn't it?
-
Why couldn't they include the signing-on fee as part of the overall player acquisition cost and include it in the £37.3m? If they were giving a player like Modric a £2m signing on fee couldn't they just agree a contract with "modric ltd", and pay it on a straight-line basis over the term of his initial contract?
Again, have you actually got any proof that this is what they are doing?
No I haven't any proof they are doing that, just as you presumably have no proof that they aren't. I've never claimed to have any certainty about how much Spurs pay their players, you have. My suspicion is based on the discrepancy between the high cost of player purchases, their large and experienced squad and the seemingly low "staff costs". It doesn't appear to make sense.
The statement in their accounts that "The costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets." leads me to think that agent fees and signing-on fees may be classified in this way and would then be fully amortised on a straight-line basis.
That could explain the discrepancy.
BTW: There is nothing dodgy about accounting in this way, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
I think you're wrong. The accounts say that intangible assets relate entirely to the cost of registrations. These are the payments made to the selling club, and the amortisation of these amounts is £37.3m. Other football related income and expenditure (presumable what you're talking about) is £800K for the year.
The accounts don't say that the cost of registrations is only the amounts payable to other clubs, they say "costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations", that could include agents fees and signing-on fees couldn't it?
But "costs associated..." is one sentence and not two different things otherwise it would have been grammtically different. So signing-on fees and agent fees may not, and probably aren't key football management staff registrations.
-
The accounts don't say that the cost of registrations is only the amounts payable to other clubs, they say "costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations", that could include agents fees and signing-on fees couldn't it?
Again, no. there's a sperate policy for signing on fees that specifically states that these are PAID and expensed over the course of the player's contract. So they are not included on the balance sheet and amortised. Barking up the wrong tree again I'm afraid.
-
Jesus how on Earth is this argument still rumbling?!
-
You don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing in my post to suggest I think the accounts are incorrect, inaccurate or misleading. As with almost all company accounts, they do need interpreting. I am saying that the "staff costs" figure doesn't represent a like for like comparison with the "staff costs" figure in the Villa accounts. We know there are differences due to the fact Villa include all staff, whereas some of Spurs staff appear to be "sub-contracted". The question is whether there are other differences.
How many excuses are you going to come up with for us having a higher wage bill? You've tried blaming it on contingent liabilities, image rights, amortisation and now sub contracting out employees.
The sub-contracting out of employees part is without question. Spurs "staff costs" relate only to 286 employee's, Villa's cover 1,398. I thought that particular difference in the accounting of "staff costs" had already been established and agreed.
-
No I haven't any proof they are doing that, just as you presumably have no proof that they aren't. I've never claimed to have any certainty about how much Spurs pay their players, you have. My suspicion is based on the discrepancy between the high cost of player purchases, their large and experienced squad and the seemingly low "staff costs". It doesn't appear to make sense.
The statement in their accounts that "The costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations are capitalised as intangible fixed assets." leads me to think that agent fees and signing-on fees may be classified in this way and would then be fully amortised on a straight-line basis.
That could explain the discrepancy.
BTW: There is nothing dodgy about accounting in this way, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
Come off it. The proof is their official accounts. Until you can offer some evidence that those accounts are incorrect or inaccurate or misleading then they stand. You know as well as I do that it's absurd to make an unfounded allegation and, when challenged to prove it, to simply parrot back "Where's your proof my allegation isn't correct?"
Ridiculous Hilts.
You've only got the proof of the official accounts there, the onus is on you and anyone else to prove that any flight of fantasy VD dreams up is completely impossible.
If they can't, that means that actually it must be true.
So effectively his whole piss poor argument comes down to proving a negative.
If you can't he believes his assertion has some validity.
He can't accept that a squad as good as Tottenham's has a lower wage bill, that's the main thrust of it. He's had it explained to him that their wider approach to recruitment that extends beyond the confines of the overpriced Prem market might have something to do with it. But no - it must be something else.
How does your reasoning explain Spurs having a nominal "staff cost" that is only 50% of Liverpool and Arsenal's "staff cost"?
-
They make it up?
-
How does your reasoning explain Spurs having a nominal "staff cost" that is only 50% of Liverpool and Arsenal's "staff cost"?
Show your working out please.
-
How does your reasoning explain Spurs having a nominal "staff cost" that is only 50% of Liverpool and Arsenal's "staff cost"?
Good to see that you've at least given up on the ridiculous signing on fees argument.
In one of the sets of the Spurs accounts, it says that they have undertaken an exercise to link players' salaries with performance. Given that until last year they haven't performed that well in the Premier League for a while, it's not therefore hard to see that they pay players less. Arsenal in particular have high wages costs because they're more successful. In the 08/09 season covered by the last set of accounts, they came 4th in the league, and got to the advanced stages of bothe the FA Cup and the Champions League, which would mean far higher performance based payments. They've also got players like Fabregas who I imagine they're paying a fortune to to keep him at the club. Because the don't traditionally pay high transfer fees, they can also therefore pay players like Adebayor higher salaries when they've proved their worth.
-
The accounts don't say that the cost of registrations is only the amounts payable to other clubs, they say "costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations", that could include agents fees and signing-on fees couldn't it?
Again, no. there's a sperate policy for signing on fees that specifically states that these are PAID and expensed over the course of the player's contract. So they are not included on the balance sheet and amortised. Barking up the wrong tree again I'm afraid.
I'm sorry, I don't understand that. If that is the case, how do they report the future liability for those signing on fees in their accounts? Where does it show up?
-
VD
I'd give this one up as a bad job if I were you.
You're starting to look a tad silly.
-
How does your reasoning explain Spurs having a nominal "staff cost" that is only 50% of Liverpool and Arsenal's "staff cost"?
Good to see that you've at least given up on the ridiculous signing on fees argument.
In one of the sets of the Spurs accounts, it says that they have undertaken an exercise to link players' salaries with performance. Given that until last year they haven't performed that well in the Premier League for a while, it's not therefore hard to see that they pay players less. Arsenal in particular have high wages costs because they're more successful. In the 08/09 season covered by the last set of accounts, they came 4th in the league, and got to the advanced stages of bothe the FA Cup and the Champions League, which would mean far higher performance based payments. They've also got players like Fabregas who I imagine they're paying a fortune to to keep him at the club. Because the don't traditionally pay high transfer fees, they can also therefore pay players like Adebayor higher salaries when they've proved their worth.
I haven't given up anything yet. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it eventually.
I don't think attributing 100% increase in "staff costs" to bonuses, for clubs that haven't actually won anything in the relevant accounting period makes much sense. Fabregas was widely reported to be on something like 60-80,000, a similar amount to Ledley King.
-
How does your reasoning explain Spurs having a nominal "staff cost" that is only 50% of Liverpool and Arsenal's "staff cost"?
Good to see that you've at least given up on the ridiculous signing on fees argument.
In one of the sets of the Spurs accounts, it says that they have undertaken an exercise to link players' salaries with performance. Given that until last year they haven't performed that well in the Premier League for a while, it's not therefore hard to see that they pay players less. Arsenal in particular have high wages costs because they're more successful. In the 08/09 season covered by the last set of accounts, they came 4th in the league, and got to the advanced stages of bothe the FA Cup and the Champions League, which would mean far higher performance based payments. They've also got players like Fabregas who I imagine they're paying a fortune to to keep him at the club. Because the don't traditionally pay high transfer fees, they can also therefore pay players like Adebayor higher salaries when they've proved their worth.
I haven't given up anything yet. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it eventually.
I don't think attributing 100% increase in "staff costs" to bonuses, for clubs that haven't actually won anything in the relevant accounting period makes much sense. Fabregas was widely reported to be on something like 60-80,000, a similar amount to Ledley King.
We got to the bottom of it weeks ago. Everyone else accepted the fact and moved on.
-
I haven't given up anything yet. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it eventually.
I don't think attributing 100% increase in "staff costs" to bonuses, for clubs that haven't actually won anything in the relevant accounting period makes much sense. Fabregas was widely reported to be on something like 60-80,000, a similar amount to Ledley King.
"Bonuses" aren't paid just for winning things. Bonuses will be paid for wins and progressing in things like the Champions League.
-
I haven't given up anything yet. I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it eventually.
I don't think attributing 100% increase in "staff costs" to bonuses, for clubs that haven't actually won anything in the relevant accounting period makes much sense. Fabregas was widely reported to be on something like 60-80,000, a similar amount to Ledley King.
"Bonuses" aren't paid just for winning things. Bonuses will be paid for wins and progressing in things like the Champions League.
And very likely attendances, something Arsenal will always have the edge over Spurs on.
-
Jesus how on Earth is this argument still rumbling?!
My thoughts as well.
Would it be at all possible for this subject, Spurs accounts v Villa accounts, or whatever the subject is, to have it's own thread?
-
The accounts don't say that the cost of registrations is only the amounts payable to other clubs, they say "costs associated with the acquisition of player and key football management staff registrations", that could include agents fees and signing-on fees couldn't it?
Again, no. there's a sperate policy for signing on fees that specifically states that these are PAID and expensed over the course of the player's contract. So they are not included on the balance sheet and amortised. Barking up the wrong tree again I'm afraid.
I'm sorry, I don't understand that. If that is the case, how do they report the future liability for those signing on fees in their accounts? Where does it show up?
They're treating them like wages, ie paying them (presumably on a monthly basis) as they fall due. You don't account for a wages liability, you just pay them out every month the employee is still there.
-
edit:
-
edit:
Don't be shy now.
-
I imagine arguments with O'Neill were much like the above
-
I expect it was more along the lines of "Gaffer, I'm not so sure about that" at which point said player would be banished for months in the reserves.
-
I'm not shy, I'm travelling.
I will come back to this tomorrow. I'm convinced there is more to it than just the 1000 non-playing staff, I can feel it in my bones.
-
I'm not shy, I'm travelling. Which Planet ?
I will come back to this tomorrow. I'm convinced there is more to it than just the 1000 non-playing staff, I can feel it in my bones.
i cant wait
-
I can feel it in my bones.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total of his evidence.
-
It's watertight, you have to give him that.
-
hilts_coolerking: --- Quote from: Villadawg on Today at 06:49:54 PM --- I can feel it in my bones.--- End quote ---And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total of his evidence.
Well that and the 1000+ extra staff. Don't worry though, I will find more.
Thinks - I wonder if Villa are spreading signing on fees over the length of the player contracts or taking the hit upfront???
-
hilts_coolerking: --- Quote from: Villadawg on Today at 06:49:54 PM --- I can feel it in my bones.--- End quote ---And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sum total of his evidence.
Well that and the 1000+ extra staff. Don't worry though, I will find more.
Thinks - I wonder if Villa are spreading signing on fees over the length of the player contracts or taking the hit upfront???
Please, make it stop.
That's aimed at whichever holy deity exists.
-
Thinks - I wonder if Villa are spreading signing on fees over the length of the player contracts or taking the hit upfront???
Sorry to everybody else for carrying this on, but allow me:
"Signing-on fees payable to players are recognised in operating expenses as incurred."
The same as Spurs then. I'll add it to the list:
Villadawg's reasons for Spurs having higher wages than Villa
Contingent liabilities
Image rights
Amortisation
Signing on fees
I feel it in my bones
Anything else?
-
I declare VD the winner.
He feels it in his bone.
What more is there to say?
-
Does anyone else understand a fecking word about what's being said?
-
I reckon if you asked most people who had not been privy to this thread which club had the highest wage bill they'd plump for the one with the larger squad, based in London with players such as Keane, Defoe, Crouch, King, Modric and Pavklathingy in it.
It is therefore counter-intuitive to be told that it is Villa. So it's not unreasonable for VD to try to investigate why one set of accounts(and as far as I can tell this whole thing is based a single set from a couple of years back) shows ours to be higher.
Those of you want it to be true to support your idea that MON was useless clearly prefer it not to be questioned but there is surely merit in trying to dig below the surface to see if we can find out more.
-
I reckon if you asked most people who had not been privy to this thread which club had the highest wage bill they'd plump for the one with the larger squad, based in London with players such as Keane, Defoe, Crouch, King, Modric and Pavklathingy in it.
It is therefore counter-intuitive to be told that it is Villa. So it's not unreasonable for VD to try to investigate why one set of accounts(and as far as I can tell this whole thing is based a single set from a couple of years back) shows ours to be higher.
Those of you want it to be true to support your idea that MON was useless clearly prefer it not to be questioned but there is surely merit in trying to dig below the surface to see if we can find out more.
You may be right, but what you're saying is that if you thought one thing based on no evidence and in actual fact the reality was different based on some empirical evidence, then it is still worthy of finding out why an incorrect assumption is wrong?
-
I reckon if you asked most people who had not been privy to this thread which club had the highest wage bill they'd plump for the one with the larger squad, based in London with players such as Keane, Defoe, Crouch, King, Modric and Pavklathingy in it.
It is therefore counter-intuitive to be told that it is Villa. So it's not unreasonable for VD to try to investigate why one set of accounts(and as far as I can tell this whole thing is based a single set from a couple of years back) shows ours to be higher.
Those of you want it to be true to support your idea that MON was useless clearly prefer it not to be questioned but there is surely merit in trying to dig below the surface to see if we can find out more.
It isn't just one set of accounts, and I've no problem with VD trying to do a bit of digging, but everything he's come up with has been shown to be wrong. You and he sound like New Earth creationists desperately trying to come up with reasons why figures that everybody else accepts as correct are wrong.
-
I reckon if you asked most people who had not been privy to this thread which club had the highest wage bill they'd plump for the one with the larger squad, based in London with players such as Keane, Defoe, Crouch, King, Modric and Pavklathingy in it.
It is therefore counter-intuitive to be told that it is Villa. So it's not unreasonable for VD to try to investigate why one set of accounts(and as far as I can tell this whole thing is based a single set from a couple of years back) shows ours to be higher.
Those of you want it to be true to support your idea that MON was useless clearly prefer it not to be questioned but there is surely merit in trying to dig below the surface to see if we can find out more.
Whereas their standpoint is backed up by financial facts.
As for your first paragraph, it would be safe to assume that, if you had no knowledge of the accounts.
The fact that, actually, it is not true is extremely worrying, giiven the fact that said Spurs squad was having fun in the CL last night whilst we were sat at home.
-
Those of you want it to be true to support your idea that MON was useless clearly prefer it not to be questioned but there is surely merit in trying to dig below the surface to see if we can find out more.
Was Mon useless now then ?
He had plenty of faults, quitting when he did was his pinnacle but he managed to achieve some good things, alongside the majority of mediocre and sometimes down right abysmal things, so I can't see that.
Then again I can't see the need now, especially after his shameful exit, for those trying to justify their erroneous errors of judgement by those who supported him and still do with a long drawn out analysis of a club who drew 2-2 away from home last night in a Cup competition we still dream of getting in to.
I appreciate much of their past defence is now looking decidedly ropey and they must all be clutching at straws, but is it not time to move on.
He left the club in all sorts of a mess and when we get a new manager its going to be a hard task to adjust all and sundry back to a sensible balance, is that not more important.
-
I reckon if you asked most people who had not been privy to this thread which club had the highest wage bill they'd plump for the one with the larger squad, based in London with players such as Keane, Defoe, Crouch, King, Modric and Pavklathingy in it.
It is therefore counter-intuitive to be told that it is Villa. So it's not unreasonable for VD to try to investigate why one set of accounts(and as far as I can tell this whole thing is based a single set from a couple of years back) shows ours to be higher.
Those of you want it to be true to support your idea that MON was useless clearly prefer it not to be questioned but there is surely merit in trying to dig below the surface to see if we can find out more.
I don't see many posts saying he was useless. Any, in fact.
6th three times in a row isn't useless.
Even if he did have generous financial backing, others have had similar and not achieved that.
It's just in this particular instance, in comparison to another Premiership manager of a similar sized club he has come up short. Despite being in charge twice as long as said manager and presiding over a higher wage bill.
You and VD might not like the latter to be the case, and god knows VD has gone to exhaustive lengths to create the illusion that it isn't. With very little success so far.
It really isn't that hard to rationalise. They recruit from a wider pool than we do. This summer they have signed Sandro from Brazillian football. Chances are coming into this league he will command a lower salary than a Sidwell or a Beye.
Previously they've recruited Modric, Ekotto, Gomez and co from abroad and Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson, Bale from the lower leagues. So for every Keane or Defoe on premium wages they have had an equally talented squad member on far less. Whereas we are top-heavy with a stack of players on between £40-£60k, many of them (last year at least) nowhere near the first team.
I expect that with their success last year many of the Spurs players listed above will be on far better deals now. But that is now. After a measure of success. Performance related, you could say. We were paying JC, Friedel, Ash, Milner, Beye, Heskey, Shorey, Sidwell, Luke Young, NRC, Downing, Dunne and co killer wages as soon as they walked through the door, as they came from other top flight (or recently relegated) English clubs. Some of them justified it, plenty of them didn't.
-
Thinks - I wonder if Villa are spreading signing on fees over the length of the player contracts or taking the hit upfront???
Sorry to everybody else for carrying this on, but allow me:
"Signing-on fees payable to players are recognised in operating expenses as incurred."
The same as Spurs then. I'll add it to the list:
Villadawg's reasons for Spurs having higher wages than Villa
Contingent liabilities
Image rights
Amortisation
Signing on fees
I feel it in my bones
Anything else?
Hang on a second, don't go striking off I feel it in my bones. I am not persuaded that Martin O'Neill and Randy Lerner will have signed off on wages for our squad that are higher than the wages Spurs pay their squad. I could understand if man for man we paid our players slightly more than theirs but Spurs have a larger squad and about 8 more experienced players than we have. Each of them earning at the very least 25k a week I would have thought.
I'll have to take another look at the accounts myself. I'll also try to gain an understanding of why we have 445 permanent staff compared to Everton and Spurs who have 226 and 286 respectively and why we have approx. double the number of part-time staff.
-
This thread is like a really really dull political thriller.
-
I don't see many posts saying he was useless. Any, in fact.
6th three times in a row isn't useless.
Even if he did have generous financial backing, others have had similar and not achieved that.
If anything, the way he limits himself tactically and in the market shows how good some of his other managerial qualities must be.
-
Hang on a second, don't go striking off I feel it in my bones. I am not persuaded that Martin O'Neill and Randy Lerner will have signed off on wages for our squad that are higher than the wages Spurs pay their squad. I could understand if man for man we paid our players slightly more than theirs but Spurs have a larger squad and about 8 more experienced players than we have. Each of them earning at the very least 25k a week I would have thought.
I'll have to take another look at the accounts myself. I'll also try to gain an understanding of why we have 445 permanent staff compared to Everton and Spurs who have 226 and 286 respectively and why we have approx. double the number of part-time staff.
I did wonder about that to be fair. I thought about asking the General but considered that the chances of getting an answer were precisely nil so didn't bother.
-
I don't see many posts saying he was useless. Any, in fact.
6th three times in a row isn't useless.
Even if he did have generous financial backing, others have had similar and not achieved that.
If anything, the way he limits himself tactically and in the market shows how good some of his other managerial qualities must be.
I'd agree with that.
I've always thought his motivational skills (at least with the players he's still talking to) are excellent, and he excels at getting above average performances out of not so good players.
Where I think he struggles is when you need something beyond motivation.
-
As mentioned earlier, isn't it likely that the circa 200 figure represents essential staff for most clubs. But whereas other clubs outsource certain aspects of the operation, we do it all in house?
Or is that too straightforward?
-
If there's 300 stewards on matchday there's probably about 400 on the books annually to account for time off and staff turnover. Add catering staff to that and you could easily touch 1,000.
-
If there's 300 stewards on matchday there's probably about 400 on the books annually to account for time off and staff turnover.
So, theoretically, someone who only works three hours a year for the Villa but is paid PAYE would be listed as an employee?
Like, say, Habib Beye?
-
I don't see many posts saying he was useless. Any, in fact.
6th three times in a row isn't useless.
Even if he did have generous financial backing, others have had similar and not achieved that.
If anything, the way he limits himself tactically and in the market shows how good some of his other managerial qualities must be.
I'd agree with that.
I've always thought his motivational skills (at least with the players he's still talking to) are excellent, and he excels at getting above average performances out of not so good players.
Where I think he struggles is when you need something beyond motivation.
Whichever way you look at it, winning 17 games in a league as tough as the Premiership is no mean feat.
The frustration is that at various stages we could have pulled away even further. Had the arse not fallen out of our season post Moscow and Stoke in 2008/09 and had we not gobbed it at home to the tatters and Slumberland last year and so forth.
Scrap that, all the above might have been tolerated better had we something like 10/11 in the home wins column and provided a bit more entertainment. But that argument has been done to death. Rest In Pieces.
Will we win 17 games this year?
We'll have our work cut out, if this start is anything to go by.
-
If there's 300 stewards on matchday there's probably about 400 on the books annually to account for time off and staff turnover.
So, theoretically, someone who only works three hours a year for the Villa but is paid PAYE would be listed as an employee?
Like, say, Habib Beye?
Laboured, but yes.
-
If there's 300 stewards on matchday there's probably about 400 on the books annually to account for time off and staff turnover.
So, theoretically, someone who only works three hours a year for the Villa but is paid PAYE would be listed as an employee?
Like, say, Habib Beye?
Don't be ridiculous. Habib Beye has never 'worked' for Villa.
-
This thread is like a really really dull political thriller.
'All The General's Men'
Makes Archer look Booker prize worthy.
-
If there's 300 stewards on matchday there's probably about 400 on the books annually to account for time off and staff turnover. Add catering staff to that and you could easily touch 1,000.
Catering staff are agency staff though and not club employees.
-
If there's 300 stewards on matchday there's probably about 400 on the books annually to account for time off and staff turnover. Add catering staff to that and you could easily touch 1,000.
So are some of the stewards. I used to work with a bluenose who did some part time security work and he'd get jobs at VP a few times per season. I saw him in the Holte one night, it was the only time he was ever scared of me.
Catering staff are agency staff though and not club employees.
-
If there's 300 stewards on matchday there's probably about 400 on the books annually to account for time off and staff turnover. Add catering staff to that and you could easily touch 1,000.
So are some of the stewards. I used to work with a bluenose who did some part time security work and he'd get jobs at VP a few times per season. I saw him in the Holte one night, it was the only time he was ever scared of me.
Catering staff are agency staff though and not club employees.
I know you get some stewards contracted in, usually for big games and at Christmas. I think (although I'm not sure) that the corporate catering staff are agency and the kiosk ones are directly employed.
-
Villa report 445 full-time and 953 part-time
Spurs report 286 full-time and 577 part-time
Everton report 226 full-time and 459 part-time
Those figure are the average weekly/monthly number of employees throughout the year.
-
Please God, make it stop.
-
Please God, make it stop.
Sorry but God no longer pays heed to this site after the scandalous anti-religion threads that are all the fashion. 'You want your science, I'll shove down your throats you ungrateful bastards...' I can almost hear him/her/it say.
-
Please God, make it stop.
Sorry but God no longer pays heed to this site after the scandalous anti-religion threads that are all the fashion. 'You want your science, I'll shove down your throats you ungrateful bastards...' I can almost hear him/her/it say.
Please Dawkins, make it stop.
-
Please God, make it stop.
Sorry but God no longer pays heed to this site after the scandalous anti-religion threads that are all the fashion. 'You want your science, I'll shove down your throats you ungrateful bastards...' I can almost hear him/her/it say.
Please Dawkins, make it stop.
Enter the Americans stage right. Or is Hawkins actually that robot from Buck Rogers?
-
Please God, make it stop.
You complain about us paying mega wages but aren't interested in why we have 85-90% more staff than Spurs and Everton?
-
Villa report 445 full-time and 953 part-time
Spurs report 286 full-time and 577 part-time
Everton report 226 full-time and 459 part-time
Those figure are the average weekly/monthly number of employees throughout the year.
Jesus!
Can you imagine Gollivan and Brady stewarding the Villa with those figures thrust at them? Blood on the carpet wouldn't do it justice.
-
So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?
-
So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?
I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.
It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.
-
Please God, make it stop.
You complain about us paying mega wages but aren't interested in why we have 85-90% more staff than Spurs and Everton?
It's been explained to you many times, but you don't take any notice. Spurs employ agency, we employ direct. I would also guess that our conference business is far greater than theirs, stuck out in Harringey with no parking and the motorway network an hour away.
-
Please God, make it stop.
I'm giving you a mission Mark, to go up the river and terminate Villadawgs command.
With extreme prejudice.
-
So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?
I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.
There must have been at least two runners for Robertson's and Walford's cigarettes. The nearest fag shop to Bodymoor Heath is in Kingsbury.
-
So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?
I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.
It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.
But again, unless these staff are on wages on a par with a pro footballer I'm not sure how much of a bearing that could have. Middle management or heads of department might be on anything bewteen £40K- 100k per annum. I assume that the vast majority of those listed as staff will be closer to minimum wage (if we're including kiosk staff, stewards et.c)
They won't even be earning £16k per year, as they're only employed for a few hours every second Saturday/Sunday.
-
So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?
I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.
It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.
Have you ever thought to ask?
-
So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?
I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.
It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.
Have you ever thought to ask?
Would that be constructive though ?
Its hardly of world import to the majority I'd have thought?
-
Please God, make it stop.
I'm giving you a mission Mark, to go up the river and terminate Villadawgs command.
With extreme prejudice.
Woodhall can be part of the team and have his head sliced off.
-
I'd love to have a good rummage through the Villa accounts. Phwooooooar.
-
So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?
I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.
It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.
Have you ever thought to ask?
Would that be constructive though ?
Its hardly of world import to the majority I'd have thought?
You don't think that it's at all interesting that we are employing nearly twice as many staff as our closest rivals?
For a supposedly well-run business I think it's pretty eye-opening. I'd certainly be interested in hearing the reason.
-
I'd love to have a good rummage through the Villa accounts. Phwooooooar.
Cue Risso 'interfering' with himself over the Villa catering audits.
-
mon legacy was he shit on us big time,he was gonna go in may but being a selfish self centred twat wanted to cause as much disruption as possible
-
So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?
I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.
It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.
Have you ever thought to ask?
Would that be constructive though ?
Its hardly of world import to the majority I'd have thought?
You don't think that it's at all interesting that we are employing nearly twice as many staff as our closest rivals?
For a supposedly well-run business I think it's pretty eye-opening. I'd certainly be interested in hearing the reason.
The reasons have been given.
-
Please God, make it stop.
You complain about us paying mega wages but aren't interested in why we have 85-90% more staff than Spurs and Everton?
It's been explained to you many times, but you don't take any notice. Spurs employ agency, we employ direct. I would also guess that our conference business is far greater than theirs, stuck out in Harringey with no parking and the motorway network an hour away.
It hasn't been explained to me, I haven't needed it explained to me.
The 577 part-time staff at Spurs may or may not be agency staff, it isn't made clear in the accounts. There is nothing in the Spurs or Everton accounts to indicate that they have additional agency staff over and above those figures I posted. Do you know something different?
What we do know is that the "staff cost" figure in the Spurs accounts relates specifically to those 286 full-time employees, nothing else. The Villa "staff costs" figure relates to 445 full time and 953 part-time employees.
-
Please God, make it stop.
You complain about us paying mega wages but aren't interested in why we have 85-90% more staff than Spurs and Everton?
It's been explained to you many times, but you don't take any notice. Spurs employ agency, we employ direct. I would also guess that our conference business is far greater than theirs, stuck out in Harringey with no parking and the motorway network an hour away.
It hasn't been explained to me, I haven't needed it explained to me.
The 577 part-time staff at Spurs may or may not be agency staff, it isn't made clear in the accounts. There is nothing in the Spurs or Everton accounts to indicate that they have additional agency staff over and above those figures I posted. Do you know something different?
What we do know is that the "staff cost" figure in the Spurs accounts relates specifically to those 286 full-time employees, nothing else. The Villa "staff costs" figure relates to 445 full time and 953 part-time employees.
And who on this planet, except you, cares about it?
-
Please God, make it stop.
You complain about us paying mega wages but aren't interested in why we have 85-90% more staff than Spurs and Everton?
It's been explained to you many times, but you don't take any notice. Spurs employ agency, we employ direct. I would also guess that our conference business is far greater than theirs, stuck out in Harringey with no parking and the motorway network an hour away.
It hasn't been explained to me, I haven't needed it explained to me.
The 577 part-time staff at Spurs may or may not be agency staff, it isn't made clear in the accounts. There is nothing in the Spurs or Everton accounts to indicate that they have additional agency staff over and above those figures I posted. Do you know something different?
What we do know is that the "staff cost" figure in the Spurs accounts relates specifically to those 286 full-time employees, nothing else. The Villa "staff costs" figure relates to 445 full time and 953 part-time employees.
And who on this planet, except you, cares about it?
The issue in question is whether we are spending enough money to compete at the top end of the league. I would have thought some other people might be interested. In fact several people on this thread have said they would be interested to understand it.
Why is it so important to you that we don't discuss and understand why reducing wages has suddenly become the big issue at Villa Park, when Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are spending and investing much, much more than we are?
-
Why is it so important to you that we don't discuss and understand why reducing wages has suddenly become the big issue at Villa Park, when Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are spending and investing much, much more than we are?
That's not the point though. There's obvious merit in discussing the wage bill situation.
There's a bit less merit in you refusing to accept the fact that our wage bill is bigger than Spurs' to the point that we're now discussing how many minimum wage teenagers we have selling botulism burgers and undercooked chips at half time.
-
Why is it so important to you that we don't discuss and understand why reducing wages has suddenly become the big issue at Villa Park, when Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are spending and investing much, much more than we are?
That's not the point though. There's obvious merit in discussing the wage bill situation.
There's a bit less merit in you refusing to accept the fact that our wage bill is bigger than Spurs' to the point that we're now discussing how many minimum wage teenagers we have selling botulism burgers and undercooked chips at half time.
That's not quite how I would characterise it. My query was why are so many insisting that Villa's wage bill and transfer spending is too high when it is well below the average for the top 6 or top 8. The responses have been to point specifically to Spurs "staff costs".
My position all along has been that it probably isn't a like for like comparison.
We all seemingly agree that it is senior first team squad members that make up the bulk of the wage bill. I look at the Spurs squad and they have several more senior experience players than we do. They also have 14 more employees listed in the managers, trainers and players category in total. They appear to have a similar wage structure with their top earners perhaps on slightly more than we pay, so I'd like to understand why that anomaly is there.
The fact we include 445 full-time and 953 part-time employees in our "staff costs" figure, whilst Spurs include just 286 full-time employees in their "staff costs" is clearly relevant to the comparison.
The fact we have so many more staff in every category other than "playing staff" raises a different question.
-
Why is it so important to you that we don't discuss and understand why reducing wages has suddenly become the big issue at Villa Park, when Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are spending and investing much, much more than we are?
That's not the point though. There's obvious merit in discussing the wage bill situation.
There's a bit less merit in you refusing to accept the fact that our wage bill is bigger than Spurs' to the point that we're now discussing how many minimum wage teenagers we have selling botulism burgers and undercooked chips at half time.
That's not quite how I would characterise it. My query was why are so many insisting that Villa's wage bill and transfer spending is too high when it is well below the average for the top 6 or top 8. The responses have been to point specifically to Spurs "staff costs".
My position all along has been that it probably isn't a like for like comparison.
We all seemingly agree that it is senior first team squad members that make up the bulk of the wage bill. I look at the Spurs squad and they have several more senior experience players than we do. They also have 14 more employees listed in the managers, trainers and players category in total. They appear to have a similar wage structure with their top earners perhaps on slightly more than we pay, so I'd like to understand why that anomaly is there.
The fact we include 445 full-time and 953 part-time employees in our "staff costs" figure, whilst Spurs include just 286 full-time employees in their "staff costs" is clearly relevant to the comparison.
The fact we have so many more staff in every category other than "playing staff" raises a different question.
This argument seems to have been going on for weeks and yet no one has been able to contradict Villadawg's point.
-
This argument seems to have been going on for weeks and yet no one has been able to contradict Villadawg's point.
How much do we pay to the matchday staff who almost entirely make up the shortfall? I have no idea how much a steward or vendor will earn and what that adds up to over the year and would quite like to know what difference that makes.
The difference in numbers is obviously explained by the fact Spurs and Everton subcontract work. Most clubs seem to do that in particular for security and catering purposes.
And weeks? It has been months. Months of torture.
-
This argument seems to have been going on for weeks and yet no one has been able to contradict Villadawg's point.
No, VD hasn't been able to offer anything to support his belief that Spurs pay their players more than we do. The official accounts of both clubs contradict that point.
-
(http://moviechopshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/bestpicnetwork_beale2.jpg)
-
This argument seems to have been going on for weeks and yet no one has been able to contradict Villadawg's point.
Au contraire, plenty have explained away the difference, its just some refuse for their own reasons to see it.
Bit like Mon when I assume Randy told him to sell some of the useless high wage earners. However, unlike VD rather than keep plugging away he quit.
-
This argument seems to have been going on for weeks and yet no one has been able to contradict Villadawg's point.
What, you mean apart from an accountant making it clear why it won't be hidden via image rights, signing on fees or any other bobbins. Or others pointing out that Spurs don't exclusively sign their players from the vastly overpriced (both in TF fees and wages) English topflight. Or the staff differential being explained by the different policies between clubs (our preference to keep it all in house - other clubs deciding to outsource part of the operation).
Those lack of contradictions?
It comes to a point when you have to say to someone believe what you want to believe. You can believe that world is flat for all I care, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your choice, kudos to you.
-
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a burger seller works six hours on matchday. They get paid six quid an hour (guess) and work 25 matches a year. That's 900 a year, or to put it into the context of this pointless argument, the annual earnings of 500 Villa Park Mcemployees equals Steve Sidwell's weekly wage.
Now that IS something to get angry about.
-
Considering the difference is in terms of ten or twenty million pounds then 1,000 part time match day employees doesn't make too much difference...
-
Obvious to you, me and prettymuch anyone else.
Anyone else who isn't (still) trying to exonerate MON that is.
-
You can't blame O'Neill for the board being too trusting of him - it's like the Redknapp at Pompey and West Ham argument.
At the end of the day, he spent what he was given and delivered moderate success. I liked him when he was here (but he can go fuck himself for all I'm concerned now).
Like others (Risso?) have said, I hope the board have learnt from it, and judging by the new structure it would seem they have, and haven't lost all their money from the first time round.
-
I'll say it again just for clarity. I don't think the part-time staff have a significant influence on the "staff costs". The 160 full-time staff do have an effect but probably only £2m - £3m. The point I was illustrating is that the "staff costs" in the two clubs annual accounts are not a like for like comparison. That much is undeniable.
It still doesn't explain how Spurs are able to have such a low wage bill considering the significantly larger squad they have and the much high transfer fees they have paid.
We have 24 senior squad players, including Marshell, Guzan, Albrighton, Delph, Salifou, Osbourne and Delfouneso
Villa Squad - Clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/aston-villa/startseite/verein_405.html)
Spurs have 29 senior squad players, everyone of them an U21 or full international.
Spurs Squad - Clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/tottenham-hotspur/startseite/verein_148.html)
In the time Randy has been at Villa we’ve spent something like £150m gross and £70m net on players
Villa transfer balance sheet - clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/aston-villa/transferbilanz/verein_405.html)
Spurs have spent more than £300m gross and almost £160m net during the same period.
Spurs transfer balance sheet - clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/tottenham-hotspur/transferbilanz/verein_148.html)
They’ve spent double the amount we have on players and we’re supposed to believe that their entire squad is making less money than ours?
I just don’t buy it. These players all have agents, why would Spurs player agents be settling for much lower fees than Villa player agents, when their transfer fees are higher? It's true that Spurs have bought more players from foreign markets but they've also bought more players from the British market. Something doesn’t add up.
Fair play to Harry for getting them into the Champions League but where would we be if we'd spent double the amount on our squad?
-
Could I just point out the glaring error in your post? There's no point comparing the squads in September 2010 as the wages costs we're talking about relate to the period from 1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009.
-
I'll say it again just for clarity. I don't think the part-time staff have a significant influence on the "staff costs". The 160 full-time staff do have an effect but probably only £2m - £3m. The point I was illustrating is that the "staff costs" in the two clubs annual accounts are not a like for like comparison. That much is undeniable.
It still doesn't explain how Spurs are able to have such a low wage bill considering the significantly larger squad they have and the much high transfer fees they have paid.
We have 24 senior squad players, including Marshell, Guzan, Albrighton, Delph, Salifou, Osbourne and Delfouneso
Villa Squad - Clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/aston-villa/startseite/verein_405.html)
Spurs have 29 senior squad players, everyone of them an U21 or full international.
Spurs Squad - Clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/tottenham-hotspur/startseite/verein_148.html)
In the time Randy has been at Villa we’ve spent something like £150m gross and £70m net on players
Villa transfer balance sheet - clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/aston-villa/transferbilanz/verein_405.html)
Spurs have spent more than £300m gross and almost £160m net during the same period.
Spurs transfer balance sheet - clicky (http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/tottenham-hotspur/transferbilanz/verein_148.html)
They’ve spent double the amount we have on players and we’re supposed to believe that their entire squad is making less money than ours?
I just don’t buy it. These players all have agents, why would Spurs player agents be settling for much lower fees than Villa player agents, when their transfer fees are higher? It's true that Spurs have bought more players from foreign markets but they've also bought more players from the British market. Something doesn’t add up.
Fair play to Harry for getting them into the Champions League but where would we be if we'd spent double the amount on our squad?
You've pulled out the total number of staff for ourselves, Tottenham and Everton.
How does it compare to the rest of the Prem?
I ask because you obviously have checked these numbers, so I assume you've checked them across the board?
I admit I have little interest in this now, but I'd wonder whether it is us who is the anomaly with an exceptionally high number of staff, or whether it's Spurs and Everton with such a low one.
-
Au contraire, plenty have explained away the difference, its just some refuse for their own reasons to see it.
Bit like Mon when I assume Randy told him to sell some of the useless high wage earners. However, unlike VD rather than keep plugging away he quit.
I do admire your ability to nail those naughty ex-monettes with a pithy rejoinder now and then. Their hearts must sink when they realise you've identified and destroyed their latest endeavor to whitewash O'Neill's wretched attempt to despoil the club we both love so much.
A word to the wise though - nothing has been heard from The Gnasher for quite some time. I fear dark forces could be at work.
-
Risso: Could I just point out the glaring error in your post? There's no point comparing the squads in September 2010 as the wages costs we're talking about relate to the period from 1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009.
If only my argument had been accepted when I pointed out that we finished well ahead of Spurs in the 08/09 season, we'd have saved an awful lot of time.
-
The 2009/10 accounts will be out soon.
*hides*
-
holy crap. In the end does it really matter? You lot will be arguing the colour of grass in a bit. He's gone. Did some good things. Some not so good things. Left us at a very bad time. The whole era wasn't as bad as some will tell you, wasn't as good as some will tell you. So B- for me overall. The end.
-
KevinGage: --- ---You've pulled out the total number of staff for ourselves, Tottenham and Everton.How does it compare to the rest of the Prem?I ask because you obviously have checked these
numbers, so I assume you've checked them across the board?
No sorry, I found the Spurs and Everton annual accounts reports on the net. I didn't find the same staff number/cost info for another couple of clubs I looked at.
-
The 2009/10 accounts will be out soon.
*hides*
No they won't. Risso: Could I just point out the glaring error in your post? There's no point comparing the squads in September 2010 as the wages costs we're talking about relate to the period from 1 June 2008 to 31 May 2009.
If only my argument had been accepted when I pointed out that we finished well ahead of Spurs in the 08/09 season, we'd have saved an awful lot of time.
Eh?
Your post above states that our wage bill to May 2009 can't be possibly be higher than Spurs in reality, and your reason for this is the make up of the respective squads this season. Surely even you can see that that's as inaccurate as all your other theories?
-
If only my argument had been accepted when I pointed out that we finished well ahead of Spurs in the 08/09 season, we'd have saved an awful lot of time.
So your argument is that we finished well ahead of Spurs in 08/09 despite their financial superiority and finished behind them in 09/10 because of their financial superiority?
-
Well yes it is just as inaccurate as you saying thàt Spurs did better than Villa on a lower wage bill based on the 2008/9 accounts. We finished well ahead of Spurs during that season.
-
hilts_coolerking: --- Quote from: Villadawg on Today at 09:21:27 PM ---If only my argument had been accepted when I pointed out that we finished well ahead of Spurs in the 08/09 season, we'd have saved an awful lot of time.--- End quote ---So your argument is that we finished well ahead of Spurs in 08/09 despite their financial superiority and finished behind them in 09/10 because of their financial superiority?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Their continued spending in the transfer market has had a cummulative effect.
-
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Their continued spending in the transfer market has had cummulative effect.
Sorry that just sounds like you're making excuses for O'Neill, as you are wont to do. In other words, Spurs' greater spending - which we are told they have been doing for a lot longer than us - wasn't a factor when we finished above them, but is trotted out as a factor when we finish below them.
I'm reminded of the fact that you didn't mention this financial superiority when predicting we'd get enough points to finish 4th, or maybe even 3rd, last season. At no point did you even mention Spurs or their spending. And as soon as we finished below them out it came.
-
Well yes it is just as inaccurate as you saying thàt Spurs did better than Villa on a lower wage bill based on the 2008/9 accounts. We finished well ahead of Spurs during that season.
What on earth are you going on about now? Have you been drinking all afternoon?
-
In the transfer windows prior to their 4th place finish they spent just over £4million to our £22million.
-
I'll say it again just for clarity. I don't think the part-time staff have a significant influence on the "staff costs". The 160 full-time staff do have an effect but probably only £2m - £3m. The point I was illustrating is that the "staff costs" in the two clubs annual accounts are not a like for like comparison. That much is undeniable.
On one hand you're saying the stewards & burger bar boyz don't have any impact, but then you say their numbers are part of your (the only?) evidence that Spurs' wages are calculated differently to ours.
-
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Their continued spending in the transfer market has had cummulative effect.
Sorry that just sounds like you're making excuses for O'Neill, as you are wont to do. In other words, Spurs' greater spending - which we are told they have been doing for a lot longer than us - wasn't a factor when we finished above them, but is trotted out as a factor when we finish below them.
I'm reminded of the fact that you didn't mention this financial superiority when predicting we'd get enough points to finish 4th, or maybe even 3rd, last season. At no point did you even mention Spurs or their spending. And as soon as we finished below them out it came.
Who is telling you it wasn't a factor when we finished above them? It was a factor. It's just that we were able to finish above them in 07/08 and 08/09 despite that factor but weren't able to last season. The correlation between spending and success in the Premier League isn't some crackpot theory I've created for my own ulterior motives, it has been thoroughly researched and proven.
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?
-
Well yes it is just as inaccurate as you saying thàt Spurs did better than Villa on a lower wage bill based on the 2008/9 accounts. We finished well ahead of Spurs during that season.
What on earth are you going on about now? Have you been drinking all afternoon?
It is rather confusing isn't it. We're comparing 2008/2009 wages with 2009/2010 finishing positions and 2010/2011 transfer spending.
-
Villadawg - you're not much of a romanticist where football is concerned, are you? Spending = success, and results are absolutely everything, who cares if the product is unentertaining,
You're clearly not an accountant, but you probably should be. I think you'd enjoy it. *wink*
-
In the transfer windows prior to their 4th place finish they spent just over £4million to our £22million.
I'll say it again just for clarity. I don't think the part-time staff have a significant influence on the "staff costs". The 160 full-time staff do have an effect but probably only £2m - £3m. The point I was illustrating is that the "staff costs" in the two clubs annual accounts are not a like for like comparison. That much is undeniable.
On one hand you're saying the stewards & burger bar boyz don't have any impact, but then you say their numbers are part of your (the only?) evidence that Spurs' wages are calculated differently to ours.
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.
I've also explained that we have 173 more full-time employees on the non playing side that will also have an impact on the comparison. Maybe £2-£3m
I don't know what or if other things impact on the wage bill figures but I do know that Spurs wage bill figure appears out of kilter, not just with Villa's wage bill and squad comparison but also with Liverpool and Arsenal's.
-
Villadawg - you're not much of a romanticist where football is concerned, are you? Spending = success, and results are absolutely everything, who cares if the product is unentertaining,
You're clearly not an accountant, but you probably should be. I think you'd enjoy it. *wink*
It's all and always in the numbers. :smile:
-
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.
-
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.
-
Great thread, best since Laughing Gravity and the Holacaust. Carry on..
-
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.
-
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. "
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?