The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[peter w]

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.

[sfx412]

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.

[peter w]

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?

[Ian.]

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.

[Villa'Zawg]

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.

[hilts_coolerking]

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?" 

[Nev]

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.

[Ads]

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?

[Risso]

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.

[Nev]

I know when he left and I know he took his staff with him. What I don't know is why he left.

[hilts_coolerking]

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.

[Chico Hamilton III]

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?

[Ads]

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.

[Somniloquism]

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.

[Nev]

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.