The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[hilts_coolerking]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

[sfx412]

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.

[KevinGage]

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.

[dave.woodhall]

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.

[TheSandman]

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...

[KevinGage]

Obvious to you, me and prettymuch anyone else.

Anyone else who isn't (still) trying to exonerate MON that is.

[JJ-AV]

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.

[Villa'Zawg]

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

Spurs have 29 senior squad players, everyone of them an U21 or full international.

Spurs Squad - Clicky

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

Spurs have spent more than £300m gross and almost £160m net during the same period.
 
Spurs transfer balance sheet - clicky

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?

[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.

[KevinGage]

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

Spurs have 29 senior squad players, everyone of them an U21 or full international.

Spurs Squad - Clicky

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

Spurs have spent more than £300m gross and almost £160m net during the same period.
 
Spurs transfer balance sheet - clicky

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.

[ronshirt]

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.

[Villa'Zawg]

 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.

[TheSandman]

The 2009/10 accounts will be out soon.

*hides*

[Toronto Villa]

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.