The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[Concrete John]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[Concrete John]

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. 

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[Concrete John]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[Concrete John]

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?     

[Villa'Zawg]

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.

[hilts_coolerking]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[TheSandman]

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.

[Villa'Zawg]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[hilts_coolerking]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.