The legacy of Martin O'Neill

[Villa'Zawg]

 KevinGage: ---  ---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?


No sorry, I found the Spurs and Everton annual accounts reports on the net. I didn't find the same staff number/cost info for another couple of clubs I looked at.

[Risso]

The 2009/10 accounts will be out soon.

*hides*

No they won't.

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.

Eh? 

Your post above states that our wage bill to May 2009 can't be possibly be higher than Spurs in reality, and your reason for this is the make up of the respective squads this season.  Surely even you can see that that's as inaccurate as all your other theories?

[hilts_coolerking]

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.

So your argument is that we finished well ahead of Spurs in 08/09 despite their financial superiority and finished behind them in 09/10 because of their financial superiority?

[Villa'Zawg]

Well yes it is just as inaccurate as you saying thàt Spurs did better than Villa on a lower wage bill based on the 2008/9 accounts. We finished well ahead of Spurs during that season.

[Villa'Zawg]

 hilts_coolerking: --- Quote from: Villadawg on Today at 09:21:27 PM ---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.--- End quote ---So your argument is that we finished well ahead of Spurs in 08/09 despite their financial superiority and finished behind them in 09/10 because of their financial superiority? 


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Their continued spending in the transfer market has had a cummulative effect.

[hilts_coolerking]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Their continued spending in the transfer market has had cummulative effect.

Sorry that just sounds like you're making excuses for O'Neill, as you are wont to do.  In other words, Spurs' greater spending - which we are told they have been doing for a lot longer than us - wasn't a factor when we finished above them, but is trotted out as a factor when we finish below them. 

I'm reminded of the fact that you didn't mention this financial superiority when predicting we'd get enough points to finish 4th, or maybe even 3rd, last season.  At no point did you even mention Spurs or their spending.  And as soon as we finished below them out it came.

[Risso]

Well yes it is just as inaccurate as you saying thàt Spurs did better than Villa on a lower wage bill based on the 2008/9 accounts. We finished well ahead of Spurs during that season.

What on earth are you going on about now?  Have you been drinking all afternoon?

[TheSandman]

In the transfer windows prior to their 4th place finish they spent just over £4million to our £22million.

[dave.woodhall]

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.

On one hand you're saying the stewards & burger bar boyz don't have any impact, but then you say their numbers are part of your (the only?) evidence that Spurs' wages are calculated differently to ours.

[Villa'Zawg]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Their continued spending in the transfer market has had cummulative effect.

Sorry that just sounds like you're making excuses for O'Neill, as you are wont to do.  In other words, Spurs' greater spending - which we are told they have been doing for a lot longer than us - wasn't a factor when we finished above them, but is trotted out as a factor when we finish below them. 

I'm reminded of the fact that you didn't mention this financial superiority when predicting we'd get enough points to finish 4th, or maybe even 3rd, last season.  At no point did you even mention Spurs or their spending.  And as soon as we finished below them out it came.

Who is telling you it wasn't a factor when we finished above them? It was a factor. It's just that we were able to finish above them in 07/08 and 08/09 despite that factor but weren't able to last season. The correlation between spending and success in the Premier League isn't some crackpot theory I've created for my own ulterior motives, it has been thoroughly researched and proven.


You keep bringing up what I said at the beginning of last season in unrelated threads as if it is something I should be ashamed of. What I said was, I hoped we'd be able to get 70 points and that 70 points should be enough for 4th place if not 3rd.  I'm well aware that we fell 6 points short of my ambitious hope for 70 points, so what is the point you are trying to make? Is that I was wrong to hope for 70 points or I was wrong about what getting 70 points would mean or is it something else?

[Villa'Zawg]

Well yes it is just as inaccurate as you saying thàt Spurs did better than Villa on a lower wage bill based on the 2008/9 accounts. We finished well ahead of Spurs during that season.

What on earth are you going on about now?  Have you been drinking all afternoon?

It is rather confusing isn't it. We're comparing 2008/2009 wages with 2009/2010 finishing positions and 2010/2011 transfer spending.

[pauliewalnuts]

Villadawg - you're not much of a romanticist where football is concerned, are you? Spending = success, and results are absolutely everything, who cares if the product is unentertaining,

You're clearly not an accountant, but you probably should be. I think you'd enjoy it. *wink*

[Villa'Zawg]

In the transfer windows prior to their 4th place finish they spent just over £4million to our £22million.

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.

On one hand you're saying the stewards & burger bar boyz don't have any impact, but then you say their numbers are part of your (the only?) evidence that Spurs' wages are calculated differently to ours.

That's not quite right. When we started this discussion people were insisting that the "staff cost" figures had to represent the same things, that it was the law. The burger boys don't have a significant material impact on the overall wage bill but they show by virtue of the fact we include them and Spurs don't, that the "staff cost" figures do not represent the same thing.

I've also explained that we have 173 more full-time employees on the non playing side that will also have an impact on the comparison. Maybe £2-£3m

I don't know what or if other things impact on the wage bill figures but I do know that Spurs wage bill figure appears out of kilter, not just with Villa's wage bill and squad comparison but also with Liverpool and Arsenal's.

[Villa'Zawg]

Villadawg - you're not much of a romanticist where football is concerned, are you? Spending = success, and results are absolutely everything, who cares if the product is unentertaining,

You're clearly not an accountant, but you probably should be. I think you'd enjoy it. *wink*

It's all and always in the numbers. :smile:

[hilts_coolerking]

You keep bringing up what I said at the beginning of last season in unrelated threads as if it is something I should be ashamed of. What I said was, I hoped we'd be able to get 70 points and that 70 points should be enough for 4th place if not 3rd.  I'm well aware that we fell 6 points short of my ambitious hope for 70 points, so what is the point you are trying to make? Is that I was wrong to hope for 70 points or I was wrong about what getting 70 points would mean or is it something else?

No, my point is that in making that prediction you clearly didn't think Spurs' finances would present any obstacle to us finishing 4th or 3rd.  And now you're saying it was, and was always going to be.

As for what is proven, I understand that the most indicative correlation is that the more you pay in salary, as opposed to the amount you spend on transfer fees, the higher you are likely to finish.  And as we spend more on player salaries than Spurs do, they are bucking the trend in that respect.