The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[dave.woodhall]

So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?

I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.

It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.

Have you ever thought to ask?

[sfx412]

So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?

I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.

It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.

Have you ever thought to ask?

Would that be constructive though ?

Its hardly of world import to the majority I'd have thought?

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Please God, make it stop.

I'm giving you a mission Mark, to go up the river and terminate Villadawgs command.

With extreme prejudice.

Woodhall can be part of the team and have his head sliced off.

[Risso]

I'd love to have a good rummage through the Villa accounts.  Phwooooooar.

[Dave]

So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?

I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.

It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.

Have you ever thought to ask?

Would that be constructive though ?

Its hardly of world import to the majority I'd have thought?

You don't think that it's at all interesting that we are employing nearly twice as many staff as our closest rivals?

For a supposedly well-run business I think it's pretty eye-opening. I'd certainly be interested in hearing the reason.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

I'd love to have a good rummage through the Villa accounts.  Phwooooooar.

Cue Risso 'interfering' with himself over the Villa catering audits.

[freakypete]

mon legacy was he shit on us big time,he was gonna go in may but being a selfish self centred twat wanted to cause as much disruption as possible

[dave.woodhall]

So our wagebill is too big because we give exorbitant wages to mediocre players AND employ an unnecessarily vast number of employees off the pitch?

I'm sure that we'll be told they were all MON's butlers and footmen and that the true figure is 6.

It is an odd discrepancy, like so much at Villa at the moment we've got no fucking chance of finding out why.

Have you ever thought to ask?

Would that be constructive though ?

Its hardly of world import to the majority I'd have thought?

You don't think that it's at all interesting that we are employing nearly twice as many staff as our closest rivals?

For a supposedly well-run business I think it's pretty eye-opening. I'd certainly be interested in hearing the reason.

The reasons have been given.

[Villa'Zawg]

Please God, make it stop.

You complain about us paying mega wages but aren't interested in why we have 85-90% more staff than Spurs and Everton?

It's been explained to you many times, but you don't take any notice. Spurs employ agency, we employ direct. I would also guess that our conference business is far greater than theirs, stuck out in Harringey with no parking and the motorway network an hour away.

It hasn't been explained to me, I haven't needed it explained to me.

The 577 part-time staff at Spurs may or may not be agency staff, it isn't made clear in the accounts. There is nothing in the Spurs or Everton accounts to indicate that they have additional agency staff over and above those figures I posted. Do you know something different?

What we do know is that the "staff cost" figure in the Spurs accounts relates specifically to those 286 full-time employees, nothing else. The Villa "staff costs" figure relates to 445 full time and 953 part-time employees.

[dave.woodhall]

Please God, make it stop.

You complain about us paying mega wages but aren't interested in why we have 85-90% more staff than Spurs and Everton?

It's been explained to you many times, but you don't take any notice. Spurs employ agency, we employ direct. I would also guess that our conference business is far greater than theirs, stuck out in Harringey with no parking and the motorway network an hour away.

It hasn't been explained to me, I haven't needed it explained to me.

The 577 part-time staff at Spurs may or may not be agency staff, it isn't made clear in the accounts. There is nothing in the Spurs or Everton accounts to indicate that they have additional agency staff over and above those figures I posted. Do you know something different?

What we do know is that the "staff cost" figure in the Spurs accounts relates specifically to those 286 full-time employees, nothing else. The Villa "staff costs" figure relates to 445 full time and 953 part-time employees.

And who on this planet,  except you, cares about it?

[Villa'Zawg]

Please God, make it stop.

You complain about us paying mega wages but aren't interested in why we have 85-90% more staff than Spurs and Everton?

It's been explained to you many times, but you don't take any notice. Spurs employ agency, we employ direct. I would also guess that our conference business is far greater than theirs, stuck out in Harringey with no parking and the motorway network an hour away.

It hasn't been explained to me, I haven't needed it explained to me.

The 577 part-time staff at Spurs may or may not be agency staff, it isn't made clear in the accounts. There is nothing in the Spurs or Everton accounts to indicate that they have additional agency staff over and above those figures I posted. Do you know something different?

What we do know is that the "staff cost" figure in the Spurs accounts relates specifically to those 286 full-time employees, nothing else. The Villa "staff costs" figure relates to 445 full time and 953 part-time employees.

And who on this planet,  except you, cares about it?

The issue in question is whether we are spending enough money to compete at the top end of the league. I would have thought some other people might be interested. In fact several people on this thread have said they would be interested to understand it. 

Why is it so important to you that we don't discuss and understand why reducing wages has suddenly become the big issue at Villa Park, when Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are spending and investing much, much more than we are?

[pauliewalnuts]

Why is it so important to you that we don't discuss and understand why reducing wages has suddenly become the big issue at Villa Park, when Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are spending and investing much, much more than we are?

That's not the point though. There's obvious merit in discussing the wage bill situation.

There's a bit less merit in you refusing to accept the fact that our wage bill is bigger than Spurs' to the point that we're now discussing how many minimum wage teenagers we have selling botulism burgers and undercooked chips at half time.

[Villa'Zawg]

Why is it so important to you that we don't discuss and understand why reducing wages has suddenly become the big issue at Villa Park, when Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are spending and investing much, much more than we are?

That's not the point though. There's obvious merit in discussing the wage bill situation.

There's a bit less merit in you refusing to accept the fact that our wage bill is bigger than Spurs' to the point that we're now discussing how many minimum wage teenagers we have selling botulism burgers and undercooked chips at half time.

That's not quite how I would characterise it. My query was why are so many insisting that Villa's wage bill and transfer spending is too high when it is well below the average for the top 6 or top 8. The responses have been to point specifically to Spurs "staff costs".

My position all along has been that it probably isn't a like for like comparison.

We all seemingly agree that it is senior first team squad members that make up the bulk of the wage bill. I look at the Spurs squad and they have several more senior experience players than we do. They also have 14 more employees listed in the managers, trainers and players category in total.  They appear to have a similar wage structure with their top earners perhaps on slightly more than we pay, so I'd like to understand why that anomaly is there. 

The fact we include 445 full-time and 953 part-time employees in our "staff costs" figure, whilst Spurs include just 286 full-time employees in their "staff costs" is clearly relevant to the comparison.

The fact we have so many more staff in every category other than "playing staff" raises a different question.

[jonzy85]

Why is it so important to you that we don't discuss and understand why reducing wages has suddenly become the big issue at Villa Park, when Liverpool, Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are spending and investing much, much more than we are?

That's not the point though. There's obvious merit in discussing the wage bill situation.

There's a bit less merit in you refusing to accept the fact that our wage bill is bigger than Spurs' to the point that we're now discussing how many minimum wage teenagers we have selling botulism burgers and undercooked chips at half time.

That's not quite how I would characterise it. My query was why are so many insisting that Villa's wage bill and transfer spending is too high when it is well below the average for the top 6 or top 8. The responses have been to point specifically to Spurs "staff costs".

My position all along has been that it probably isn't a like for like comparison.

We all seemingly agree that it is senior first team squad members that make up the bulk of the wage bill. I look at the Spurs squad and they have several more senior experience players than we do. They also have 14 more employees listed in the managers, trainers and players category in total.  They appear to have a similar wage structure with their top earners perhaps on slightly more than we pay, so I'd like to understand why that anomaly is there. 

The fact we include 445 full-time and 953 part-time employees in our "staff costs" figure, whilst Spurs include just 286 full-time employees in their "staff costs" is clearly relevant to the comparison.

The fact we have so many more staff in every category other than "playing staff" raises a different question.

This argument seems to have been going on for weeks and yet no one has been able to contradict Villadawg's point.

[TheSandman]

This argument seems to have been going on for weeks and yet no one has been able to contradict Villadawg's point.

How much do we pay to the matchday staff who almost entirely make up the shortfall? I have no idea how much a steward or vendor will earn and what that adds up to over the year and would quite like to know what difference that makes.

The difference in numbers is obviously explained by the fact Spurs and Everton subcontract work. Most clubs seem to do that in particular for security and catering purposes.

And weeks? It has been months. Months of torture.