Quote from: Villadawg on September 14, 2010, 02:58:47 PMYou 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.
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.
Quote from: hilts_coolerking on September 14, 2010, 02:15:10 PMQuote from: Villadawg on September 14, 2010, 01:52:19 PMNo 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.
Quote from: Villadawg on September 14, 2010, 01:52:19 PMNo 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?"
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.
How does your reasoning explain Spurs having a nominal "staff cost" that is only 50% of Liverpool and Arsenal's "staff cost"?
Quote from: Villadawg on September 14, 2010, 03:25:43 PMThe 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.
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?
Quote from: Villadawg on September 14, 2010, 03:53:23 PMHow 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.
Quote from: Risso on September 14, 2010, 04:11:34 PMQuote from: Villadawg on September 14, 2010, 03:53:23 PMHow 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.
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.
Quote from: Villadawg on September 14, 2010, 04:25:24 PMI 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.
Jesus how on Earth is this argument still rumbling?!
Quote from: Risso on September 14, 2010, 03:42:40 PMQuote from: Villadawg on September 14, 2010, 03:25:43 PMThe 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?
edit:
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: The legacy of Martin O'Neill (Read 151309 times)
