The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[peter w]

Someone will come up with a name straight away but in the last 3 season have we actually sold a player that hasn't wanted to go to a rival club, or has fallen out with O'Neill in order to get them off the wage bill through hardly being used?

[KevinGage]

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.

Haven't Everton finished in the top six consistently for the past few years, or was I hallucinating again?  Tottenham last year. We've also spent considerably more than Everton, Arsenal and even Man U in recent seasons.

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.

So Milner moved for £32 million?

Calculator not working again VD, or are you just firing out random numbers now?

[JJ-AV]

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.

While some of those were signed on massive wages (Parker and Distin) and some seemed questionable at the time (Jagielka and Santa Cruz) it really does put it into perspective what a waste that Summer was.

It seemed to set the tone for the new Villa didn't it? After the January where we got Ash, Carew and Maloney the media were building us up big in the Summer (links to Saviola, Sneijder, VDV, Jovaonvic, Dica - all exciting players) and MON went in the complete opposite direction.

Opportunity wasted.

[JUAN PABLO]

The legacy of Martin O'Neil   -  one word-    Heskey


Thats when I changed my mind 100 % about him... 

[Villa'Zawg]

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.

I'll stop going on about it when

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.

Have I bollocks had it explained that I'm talking nonsense. What I've had is people saying that the 1000 extra staff accounted for in Villa's figures is irrelevant and that they have no idea how much and in what way the two clubs account for signing-on fees and image rights.

We know for a fact that the two figures are not like for like comparisons, that's all we know.

[pauliewalnuts]

Have I bollocks had it explained that I'm talking nonsense. What I've had is people saying that the 1000 extra staff accounted for in Villa's figures is irrelevant and that they have no idea how much and in what way the two clubs account for signing-on fees and image rights.

We know for a fact that the two figures are not like for like comparisons, that's all we know.

Well, it's come down to an experienced accountancy professional explaining to you the error of your ways over and over again, and you alone - a lone voice in the wilderness - stubbornly refusing to believe what he says, no matter how many times he tells you, no matter how many times he explains to you your failure to grasp the image rights thing.

Is it that big a deal? Our wage bill is bigger than theirs.

[Matt C]

I've always thought that January window where we were perfectly poised around the top four and Arsenal signed Arshavin/we signed Heskey was the major window faux pas but looking at that list from Summer '07, I might need to think again.

[hilts_coolerking]

Have I bollocks had it explained that I'm talking nonsense. What I've had is people saying that the 1000 extra staff accounted for in Villa's figures is irrelevant and that they have no idea how much and in what way the two clubs account for signing-on fees and image rights.

We know for a fact that the two figures are not like for like comparisons, that's all we know.

No, that's all you know.  Everyone else has accepted it long ago.  The reason you haven't is that you're on a one-man crusade to prove that Spurs spend more on wages than we do in order to demonstrate how you think O'Neill worked a minor miracle in acheiving 6th place given the perceived financial advantages enjoyed by other clubs.

Your starting point is that Spurs must pay their players more than we do.  What the basis is for that assumption I have no idea.  Even if they do pay their players a lot, it's entirely possible that we pay our players more.  In fact it's common knowledge that we pay our players a lot - in many cases far in excess of what they are worth.  And that's the issue: not that Spurs spend a lot on wages but that we spend more and, due to O'Neill's questionable judgment, a lot of it on inferior players.

[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.

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.

The "staff costs" figure does not necessarily represent all of the payments to players. Are you able to understand that?

The £119.3m does have to represent the amount spent on player acquisitions. Are you able to understand that also?

If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?

Why do you think we should have a squad of comparable quality when Spurs and Man City have spent so much more on theirs? What possible rationalisation can you have for that statement?

[TheSandman]

The 1,000 fewer staff is an interesting stat. It sounds really great until you look at the actual figures.

If you account for only full time employees we have 445 staff. If you add the people who work on match and event days that's another 953 employees. Maybe spurs subcontract that work out? And maybe despite the vast number of employees accounted for there they couldn't set us back much saying as they work a limited number of hours and are predominantly not in managerial and higher paid positions it makes scant difference.

[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.

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.

The "staff costs" figure does not necessarily represent all of the payments to players. Are you able to understand that?

The £119.3m does have to represent the amount spent on player acquisitions. Are you able to understand that also?

If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?

Why do you think we should have a squad of comparable quality when Spurs and Man City have spent so much more on theirs? What possible rationalisation can you have for that statement?

Mate, it's not about being able to understand it, it is about the fact that your stuff about signing on fees and amortisation is fundamentally flawed, as has been explained to you god knows how many times.

I didn't say anything about the cost of acquisition of the squads - I'm entirely familiar with your flawed logic on that subject, so don't need you to bring conversation around to that - I merely pointed out that:

1. Our wage bill is bigger than theirs.
2. Your theories re how they might actually pay their players more are precisely that - theories.
3. They're theories not based on any fact.

So, yes, I understand entirely.

I suspect you understand the facts yourself, too, you just refuse to believe them, as in your view, Spurs pay more than we do because, because, because they just do ... they must do!

[hilts_coolerking]

The "staff costs" figure does not necessarily represent all of the payments to players. Are you able to understand that?

The £119.3m does have to represent the amount spent on player acquisitions. Are you able to understand that also?

If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?

Why do you think we should have a squad of comparable quality when Spurs and Man City have spent so much more on theirs? What possible rationalisation can you have for that statement?

What you don't appear to understand is that you have singularly failed to demonstrate that any of the above 'possibilities' have actually taken place.  Until you do, I'm afraid you're not going to convince anyone other than yourself.

The reason we should have a good squad is because £120M is a fuck of a lot of money, even in today's market.  Couple that with the fact that we also spend an large proportion of our turnover on player salaries.  What on earth are we doing with all that money if not acquiring a bloody good squad?

Wasting it on mediocre players, as it happens.  We should have a very good squad for that outlay but we don't, and there's only one man who should take responsibility for that.

[Villa'Zawg]

Have I bollocks had it explained that I'm talking nonsense. What I've had is people saying that the 1000 extra staff accounted for in Villa's figures is irrelevant and that they have no idea how much and in what way the two clubs account for signing-on fees and image rights.

We know for a fact that the two figures are not like for like comparisons, that's all we know.

Well, it's come down to an experienced accountancy professional explaining to you the error of your ways over and over again, and you alone - a lone voice in the wilderness - stubbornly refusing to believe what he says, no matter how many times he tells you, no matter how many times he explains to you your failure to grasp the image rights thing.

Is it that big a deal? Our wage bill is bigger than theirs.

I am perfectly capable of understanding a set of company accounts thanks. I recognise what they tell you and what they don't tell you. Risso offered one possible explanation of how Spurs might account for image rights and signing on fees, I offered another. The fact is we do not have enough detail.

It isn't that big a deal, Spurs definitely pay more for players in combined transfer fees and wages, shall we leave it at that?

[Chris Smith]

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.

The "staff costs" figure does not necessarily represent all of the payments to players. Are you able to understand that?

The £119.3m does have to represent the amount spent on player acquisitions. Are you able to understand that also?

If it suited them, £20m+ of that £119.3m could have been signing on fees, which are then amortised of the length of the players contract and wouldn't be reflected in "staff costs". Are you able to understand that?

Why do you think we should have a squad of comparable quality when Spurs and Man City have spent so much more on theirs? What possible rationalisation can you have for that statement?

Mate, it's not about being able to understand it, it is about the fact that your stuff about signing on fees and amortisation is fundamentally flawed, as has been explained to you god knows how many times.

I didn't say anything about the cost of acquisition of the squads - I'm entirely familiar with your flawed logic on that subject, so don't need you to bring conversation around to that - I merely pointed out that:

1. Our wage bill is bigger than theirs.
2. Your theories re how they might actually pay their players more are precisely that - theories.
3. They're theories not based on any fact.

So, yes, I understand entirely.

I suspect you understand the facts yourself, too, you just refuse to believe them, as in your view, Spurs pay more than we do because, because, because they just do ... they must do!

This stuff really makes ne laugh. Some people are so keen to believe that somehow we're run like shit and Spurs are run brilliantly that they will not countenance for a second that their might be something in what VD says. That a rich club from London might actually pay their players very well. No, of course that can't possibly be true, they've limped along like paupers while we've been lighting cigars with £50 notes.

The truth is none of us can know for certain yet Paulie and Risso feel confident enough to dismiss what he says as theories while claiming their own interpretation as cold hard facts.

[KevinGage]

The 1,000 fewer staff is an interesting stat. It sounds really great until you look at the actual figures.

If you account for only full time employees we have 445 staff. If you add the people who work on match and event days that's another 953 employees. Maybe spurs subcontract that work out? And maybe despite the vast number of employees accounted for there they couldn't set us back much saying as they work a limited number of hours and are predominantly not in managerial and higher paid positions it makes scant difference.

You're wrong Sandman.

Spurs are cooking the books, paying their catering staff footballer-type wages but doing it through third parties.

Or paying their players peanuts on the official books but working some kind of financial voodoo with image rights.

Either way they're up to something and VD is on to them.

He's come this far and he can't be seen to backtrack now.

Actually it's quite fun to see him keep digging.