The end is nigh.

[KevinGage]

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one.

Huddlestone
Lennon
Dawson
Bale
Naughton
Walker

All signed from lower league clubs.

Gomes
Pavlyuchenko
Modric
Dos Santos
Assou-Ekotto
Hutton

All signed from leagues outside of England.

A good chunk of that lot make up the first team, or are crucial squad members.

Could this have an impact on their wage bill being lower?

[Villa'Zawg]

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one.

Huddlestone
Lennon
Dawson
Bale
Naughton
Walker

All signed from lower league clubs.

Gomes
Pavlyuchenko
Modric
Dos Santos
Assou-Ekotto
Hutton

All signed from leagues outside of England.

A good chunk of that lot make up the first team, or are crucial squad members.

Could this have an impact on their wage bill being lower?

Only if you think they and their agents turn up at Spurs as bumbling peasants. Do you honestly believe that players like Dos Santos walked in from Barcelona and took a small wage simply because he was coming from a foreign league? Or that their wasn't a significant signing on fee paid to Modric out of the £16m+ that Spurs supposedly paid for him?

Even with your list of expensive foreigners and lower league players, i wouldn't be surprised if Spurs have also signed as many if not more PL players as we have in the last few seasons.

I honestly don't know what Villa and Spurs pay in player costs, I don't think you do either. I've only argued that there is no evidence that Villa pay less Spurs.

[Monty]

The fact that Dos Santos comes from Barca hardly means he was on a big wage, or would be in a position to demand it. Even if he is on a large wage for a young player, it will be a comparatively low wage. Similarly Modric, though Dinamo got a large fee for him after a bidding war, would have considered a good deal to be around £25k a week - which is, in fact, what he was paid.

Spurs may well have signed a lot of Premier League players, but mostly since 'Arry came back and vomited money for Keane, Defoe and Palacios. The other players were young players, often from lower leagues, and foreign players from leagues where the average wage is not what it is in the Premier League (let's face it, nowhere is like the Premier League). The fact is that Spurs have managed their players wages better than we have, overall, barring the odd blip (Pavlyuchenko was a classic bad signing). It's also a fact, I believe, that they've been accumulating for longer than we have, so over the last few years have not so much been building a team as  building a squad. MON's had to spend his first few years incrementally improving our first team with the only players available. Hopefully now we're getting a squad.

[pauliewalnuts]

Is this your subtle way of telling us that it still doesn't compute for you that Tottenham have a lower wage bill?

I know that this is a passion of yours -along with the latest flight of fantasy that websites such as these have a negative bearing on club morale- and I admire your stamina.

But as has been pointed out various times before, even if Spurs paid big transfer fees for Modric or players from lower leagues, said players usually command lower wages than those already in the Premiership.

What it is, is him making an argument for so long, being proven to be incorrect, then absolutely refusing to believe he's wrong, even when presented with evidence to that effect.

There's no point arguing with him on it. Risso tried explaining to him why his arguments on the way Spurs present things in their accounts was fundamentally flawed, but he still wasn't having it.

You could come up with wage slips for every player of each club, but that would only start off some other line of refusal, probably that the Spurs players earn the same again via some dodgy slush fund.

This argument re Spurs and wages is all a bit Albion really, whingeing that we can't compete with teams because they paying so much more than we do, even when they actually don't, a bit fingers-in-ears, stamping feet and shouting "it ay fair!"

[Risso]

Is this your subtle way of telling us that it still doesn't compute for you that Tottenham have a lower wage bill?

I know that this is a passion of yours -along with the latest flight of fantasy that websites such as these have a negative bearing on club morale- and I admire your stamina.

But as has been pointed out various times before, even if Spurs paid big transfer fees for Modric or players from lower leagues, said players usually command lower wages than those already in the Premiership.

Why would I be subtle, I just disagree. It doesn't compute for me because the facts don't stack up.

It doesn't make any sense to suggest that Spurs spend less to pay their players than we do and there is no evidence to say that Spurs spend less to pay their players than we do. The suggestion that there is evidence to support your view came about because of a misunderstand that you could compare the "staff costs" line item in the Villa and Spurs accounts on a like for like basis. You can't. Does that compute OK for you?

Where is that you think these costs are being "hidden".  I already explained why your theory about the contingent liabilities was completely wrong.

[Dave Clark Five]

I thought it was an appalling decision but it didn't have a big impact on how I feel about the club. I thought by holding the dinner they had acknowledged that it was a mistake.

They had acknowledged the mistake that 'they' had made. It is a pity that O'Neill told the bloke to 'shut up' in such a disgusting manner, after he had asked a perfectly valid question. I suspect he treats the players like that when they say or do something that he disagrees with.

That reason for wanting him gone is so last season.

So a person's view now has to be fashionable does it?

[stevenjos]

I thought it was an appalling decision but it didn't have a big impact on how I feel about the club. I thought by holding the dinner they had acknowledged that it was a mistake.

They had acknowledged the mistake that 'they' had made. It is a pity that O'Neill told the bloke to 'shut up' in such a disgusting manner, after he had asked a perfectly valid question. I suspect he treats the players like that when they say or do something that he disagrees with.

That reason for wanting him gone is so last season.

So a person's view now has to be fashionable does it?

yeah it has to be fashionable! this weeks in vogue view is that Milner is going only for extra money! :oD

[Concrete John]

I thought it was an appalling decision but it didn't have a big impact on how I feel about the club. I thought by holding the dinner they had acknowledged that it was a mistake.

They had acknowledged the mistake that 'they' had made. It is a pity that O'Neill told the bloke to 'shut up' in such a disgusting manner, after he had asked a perfectly valid question. I suspect he treats the players like that when they say or do something that he disagrees with.

That reason for wanting him gone is so last season.

So a person's view now has to be fashionable does it?

I'm one of those that agreed with what he did in Moscow - and yes, I know I'm in a minority on that.  The way i view it is we can't know what would have happened on an artifical pitch in the middle of winter for a game we were likely to lose anyway.  Had Gabby or Ash got injured he'd get just as much stick for risking them.

I think the whole reason for the dinner wasn't to say 'we were wrong' - it was to say 'sorry for your expense'.  I think Martin's said that should he do something similar again he'll make it clear so people know whether to travel or not!   

[Villa'Zawg]

...

What it is, is him making an argument for so long, being proven to be incorrect, then absolutely refusing to believe he's wrong, even when presented with evidence to that effect.

There's no point arguing with him on it. Risso tried explaining to him why his arguments on the way Spurs present things in their accounts was fundamentally flawed, but he still wasn't having it.

You could come up with wage slips for every player of each club, but that would only start off some other line of refusal, probably that the Spurs players earn the same again via some dodgy slush fund.

This argument re Spurs and wages is all a bit Albion really, whingeing that we can't compete with teams because they paying so much more than we do, even when they actually don't, a bit fingers-in-ears, stamping feet and shouting "it ay fair!"

Let me respond to your last point first. This discussion didn’t come about because I or anyone else was “whingeing” about us not being able to compete with teams spending more money than us. It came about because of your insistence that Spurs have a lower wage bill for their players and that this was evidence that Harry Redknapp was a better manager than Martin O’Neill. The reasoning being that it was “- Fact -” that he got his team higher in the league whilst paying his players less than we do. That was the argument as I understood it.

I’ve made my point repeatedly that you aren’t comparing like for like as best I could and have left it at that. Several times.

You have felt it necessary to bring it up over and over again and each time you bring it up, you reset the discussion by insisting it is a fact that Spurs pay their players more than we do and refer to me as someone who doesn’t know or understand what he is talking about. This thread is a good case in point

...
I think you probably read that on here from someone who refuses to acknowledge the fact - fact - that our wage bill is bigger than Spurs.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood but I took that quote to be referring to me.

You make the point about “wage slips” as if to suggest that the evidence that you and Risso have used to present your side of the argument is as objective and irrefutable as seeing the detailed figures for player costs. It isn’t, it isn’t even close.

The argument I have been having with you for so long is that you shouldn’t take the “staff costs” figures from the two sets of accounts and assume that you are comparing like for like. Unfortunately, the two sets of accounts aren’t detailed enough to be able to say with any certainty, which club pays its playing squad the most.

As I said the last time you brought this up, I’m bored with this argument. I’d rather be talking about the opinion that the £70m staff costs we pay is unsustainable; when the Sunday Times yesterday reported yesterday that the average staff costs for Premier League clubs as a whole is £66.4m. I’m not sure why when we’re paying only 5% above the average, so many fans are supporting the General's view that “What we see right now is the Club getting a handle on the wage side of the house.  This is no different than what we have done once before.  This means we have to sell some players...”

Just for the record. I don’t think there is anything “dodgy” about how Spurs account for their player costs. I’m sure it is all above board and legal. I’ve never said otherwise. I just think that they arrange their operations and account for their costs in a different way to RAL.

I'm sorry for the long post and I'm sure you'll find something in it to nitpick over but unless you've got something new or substantive to say, I'll just leave you to have the last word on the subject . Again.

[Risso]

Did you miss my question Villadawg?  Where is that you think the extra amounts Spurs are paying their players are included in their accounts?

[Villa'Zawg]

Is this your subtle way of telling us that it still doesn't compute for you that Tottenham have a lower wage bill?

I know that this is a passion of yours -along with the latest flight of fantasy that websites such as these have a negative bearing on club morale- and I admire your stamina.

But as has been pointed out various times before, even if Spurs paid big transfer fees for Modric or players from lower leagues, said players usually command lower wages than those already in the Premiership.

Why would I be subtle, I just disagree. It doesn't compute for me because the facts don't stack up.

It doesn't make any sense to suggest that Spurs spend less to pay their players than we do and there is no evidence to say that Spurs spend less to pay their players than we do. The suggestion that there is evidence to support your view came about because of a misunderstand that you could compare the "staff costs" line item in the Villa and Spurs accounts on a like for like basis. You can't. Does that compute OK for you?

Where is that you think these costs are being "hidden".  I already explained why your theory about the contingent liabilities was completely wrong.

I don't think they are hidden or even "hidden". I think that some of the costs that Villa report in their "staff costs", are legitimately reported in the Spurs accounts within the £31.3m "Other operating costs" and/or the £38m "Amortisation, impairments and other net football trading income and expenditure". The difference in comparable costs may relate to outsourced operations, media rights and signing on fees etc...

[Villa'Zawg]

I thought it was an appalling decision but it didn't have a big impact on how I feel about the club. I thought by holding the dinner they had acknowledged that it was a mistake.

They had acknowledged the mistake that 'they' had made. It is a pity that O'Neill told the bloke to 'shut up' in such a disgusting manner, after he had asked a perfectly valid question. I suspect he treats the players like that when they say or do something that he disagrees with.

That reason for wanting him gone is so last season.

So a person's view now has to be fashionable does it?

No. It's just that I understood that you were offended that O'Neill had said "Oh, shut up" to someone last year soon after it had happened.  I would have thought you'd be over it by now.

[Risso]

I don't think they are hidden or even "hidden". I think that some of the costs that Villa report in their "staff costs", are legitimately reported in the Spurs accounts within the £31.3m "Other operating costs" and/or the £38m "Amortisation, impairments and other net football trading income and expenditure". The difference in comparable costs may relate to outsourced operations, media rights and signing on fees etc...

The £38m amortisation and other payments amount includes £37.2m of actual amortisation.  So that's a huge £880K of "other expenditure."  Signing on fees are included in here, so can't be in "other operating costs".

As for image rights, it's hard to say, but typically they're believed to be 10% of players' salaries.  So they're just as likely to apply to Villa players, as they are Spurs.  Seeing as our parent company is a Delaware company (ie low taxation jurisdiction) it's hard to imagine that Randy doesn't take full advantage of tax planning possibilities.

[Dave Clark Five]

I thought it was an appalling decision but it didn't have a big impact on how I feel about the club. I thought by holding the dinner they had acknowledged that it was a mistake.

They had acknowledged the mistake that 'they' had made. It is a pity that O'Neill told the bloke to 'shut up' in such a disgusting manner, after he had asked a perfectly valid question. I suspect he treats the players like that when they say or do something that he disagrees with.

That reason for wanting him gone is so last season.

So a person's view now has to be fashionable does it?

No. It's just that I understood that you were offended that O'Neill had said "Oh, shut up" to someone last year soon after it had happened.  I would have thought you'd be over it by now.

Not half as offended as the person it was addressed to and the others on his table.
Sorry if my interpretation of events differ from your Official opinion.

[Villa'Zawg]

I don't think they are hidden or even "hidden". I think that some of the costs that Villa report in their "staff costs", are legitimately reported in the Spurs accounts within the £31.3m "Other operating costs" and/or the £38m "Amortisation, impairments and other net football trading income and expenditure". The difference in comparable costs may relate to outsourced operations, media rights and signing on fees etc...

The £38m amortisation and other payments amount includes £37.2m of actual amortisation.  So that's a huge £880K of "other expenditure."  Signing on fees are included in here, so can't be in "other operating costs".

As for image rights, it's hard to say, but typically they're believed to be 10% of players' salaries.  So they're just as likely to apply to Villa players, as they are Spurs.  Seeing as our parent company is a Delaware company (ie low taxation jurisdiction) it's hard to imagine that Randy doesn't take full advantage of tax planning possibilities.

That's fine, we agree that "staff costs" isn't necessarily a like for like comparison.

I genuinely don't know the answer to this question. Am I right in thinking that player signing on fees could be capitalised and amortised over the period of the contract? If so, could those figures be classified as impairment of intangible assets and therefore come under the £37.2m of actual amortisation?