The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[Villa'Zawg]

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?" 

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.

[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.

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.

If he left because he didn't want Ireland I'm right behind him, if he left because of a drastic change of position from the board, I'm right behind him. If he left because the purse strings were tightened and he had to deal with reduced finances, I'm not behind him.

You have your suspicions as to why he left and so does everybody else, including me but like John Lennon, all I want is the truth.

[Ads]

The truth is irrelevant and it will not set you free. The fact is that this is the situation we find ourselves in because of the actions of O'Neill. His actions make any explanation short of an illness to his wife, totally irrelevant.
 

[hilts_coolerking]

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.

Rubbish. There is nothing to suggest that any conclusion should be drawn other than Spurs have a lower wage bill than us. However you might dress it up, and however much you repeat the allegation, you have totally and utterly failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to support it.

[adrenachrome]

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.

If he left because he didn't want Ireland I'm right behind him, if he left because of a drastic change of position from the board, I'm right behind him. If he left because the purse strings were tightened and he had to deal with reduced finances, I'm not behind him.

You have your suspicions as to why he left and so does everybody else, including me but like John Lennon, all I want is the truth.

Exactly.

No short haired yellow bellied some of tricky dicky's
Gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope

When Elvis sung we can't go on together with suspicious minds, he wasn't kidding around.

[KevinGage]

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?" 

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.

[Ads]

I feel the distrust of the board is born out of an inability to deal with what O’Neill did and how his actions conflict with the cult of personality he has created.
 

[peter w]

The truth is irrelevant and it will not set you free. The fact is that this is the situation we find ourselves in because of the actions of O'Neill. His actions make any explanation short of an illness to his wife, totally irrelevant.

Not really. If his actions were due to the baordbeing as poor 5 days before the season as they have been 5 or so weeks since it started then you can possibly see a reason.

As it is I don't buy into that but the only thing we do know is that we know very little.

[Risso]

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.

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.

[Ads]

The truth is irrelevant and it will not set you free. The fact is that this is the situation we find ourselves in because of the actions of O'Neill. His actions make any explanation short of an illness to his wife, totally irrelevant.

Not really. If his actions were due to the baordbeing as poor 5 days before the season as they have been 5 or so weeks since it started then you can possibly see a reason.

As it is I don't buy into that but the only thing we do know is that we know very little.

I’ve left you out of it. You’ve always been a tin foil hat wearer!

I don’t believe that hypothetical at all either. The only and genuine criticisms one could make are that too much faith was put in O’Neill. There were no checks and balances or even contingencies for him walking out. This is something Sir GT has talked about and I agree with him. The second is their naivety in what is a tricky business of appointing a new manager. While Steve Stride may have wanted to call it a day, the board should have sought another experienced mind in the game to have aided the processces such as this one.

The board have been exmploary in all other aspects for four years.

[Dave Clark Five]

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

Judging by the lack of information, it would seem that he was forced out and was given a substantial bung to say nothing. I'm just guessing but can't see any other reason why he wouldn't have opened up about the whole thing, unless that is all to come.  I haven't even heard any 'no comments' which is surprising as you would have thought the press would have set up around his house. There is a sting in the tail here somewhere, you mark my words.

[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.

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.

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?

[peter w]

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.

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?

But "costs associated..." is one sentence and not two different things otherwise it would have been grammtically different. So signing-on fees and agent fees may not, and probably aren't key football management staff registrations.

[Risso]

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?

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.

[Ads]

 Jesus how on Earth is this argument still rumbling?!