lp_villa830 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 People keep going on about us having the 6th highest wage bill, but does anyone know what our wage bill was in comparison to those in 7th, 8th place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Not sure how that would be relevant to the argument? People keep going on about us having the 6th highest wage bill, but does anyone know what our wage bill was in comparison to those in 7th, 8th place? You can get the answer to that, season by season, by clicking here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 NB the first piece of commentary on that link The chart shows that if clubs want to place in the top six positions for a season, their spending generally has to rank within the top six on both wages and transfers. Which is what I think a number of posters have been saying over and over again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 NB the first piece of commentary on that link The chart shows that if clubs want to place in the top six positions for a season, their spending generally has to rank within the top six on both wages and transfers. Which is what I think a number of posters have been saying over and over again. yeah but that doesnt have to mean go buy a load of 20k players and put them on 40k just so your wages are top 6 level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tayls Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I love this stuff. I have just heard whilst working all day from a high up person who just had to risk everything in order to tell me about some serious secret shit. Can't say anything though. So errr, yea, stop asking me!! Actually, The only people I will tell, are the Russians, about this secret shit. I will probably get some kind of reward I would imagine. **** it, just heard that MON was forced out of the club because he was an expensive mother-trucker to please. And there is also some other secret shit on top of this secret shit. Which will become clear by 2020. Ahhhhhhhhh I love that film. Burn after reading, who's seen it?! MagicMushrooms if you are 100% genuine, then you have to give us more info. Because what you have said is nothing new. No ambiguity either!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 NB the first piece of commentary on that link The chart shows that if clubs want to place in the top six positions for a season, their spending generally has to rank within the top six on both wages and transfers. Which is what I think a number of posters have been saying over and over again. yeah but that doesnt have to mean go buy a load of 20k players and put them on 40k just so your wages are top 6 level Yeah, It couldn't actually be that a lot of the players on top 6 wages contributed to us finishing top 6. And of course there's no way it could be mentioned that we had some players on wages probably lower than what they deserved. It's like VT has gone back in time for a few years. I guess our owner and manager and most of the current team are so obviously shit this season we may as well argue about a man who left 3 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 NB the first piece of commentary on that link The chart shows that if clubs want to place in the top six positions for a season, their spending generally has to rank within the top six on both wages and transfers. Which is what I think a number of posters have been saying over and over again. yeah but that doesnt have to mean go buy a load of 20k players and put them on 40k just so your wages are top 6 level Yeah, It couldn't actually be that a lot of the players on top 6 wages contributed to us finishing top 6. And of course there's no way it could be mentioned that we had some players on wages probably lower than what they deserved. It's like VT has gone back in time for a few years. I guess our owner and manager and most of the current team are so obviously shit this season we may as well argue about a man who left 3 years ago. they certainly did contribute, but you're missing out on the fact that they were being paid wages far beyond their worth, individually. we definitely didnt have anyone on wages lower than they deserved during that time frame, there were a handful earning fair wage and the rest were getting stupid money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickyhell Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Yeh I was i the same Gaff as Magic, we were half way through the 2nd Tangerine Dream Album man, and this cat starts spinning the umbrella in front of the lamp like really spinning it fast, some cat shouted he was hungry and Randy said he would nip down the shop to get some munchies, never been seen again and a lot of guys had a real bad trip man and there is some bad Karma coming his way dude. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lp_villa830 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Not sure how that would be relevant to the argument? People keep going on about us having the 6th highest wage bill, but does anyone know what our wage bill was in comparison to those in 7th, 8th place? You can get the answer to that, season by season, by clicking here Not meant to to help either argument just curious. 07/08 5th Everton £44.5m 6th Villa £50.4m 7th Blackburn £39.7m 8th Portsmouth £54.7m 08/09 5th Everton £49m 6th Villa £70.5m 7th Fulham £46.2m 8th Spurs £62.5m 09/10 5th Man City £133m 6th Villa £80m 7th Liverpool £121m 8th Everton £54m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 NB the first piece of commentary on that link The chart shows that if clubs want to place in the top six positions for a season, their spending generally has to rank within the top six on both wages and transfers. Which is what I think a number of posters have been saying over and over again. yeah but that doesnt have to mean go buy a load of 20k players and put them on 40k just so your wages are top 6 level Yeah, It couldn't actually be that a lot of the players on top 6 wages contributed to us finishing top 6. And of course there's no way it could be mentioned that we had some players on wages probably lower than what they deserved. It's like VT has gone back in time for a few years. I guess our owner and manager and most of the current team are so obviously shit this season we may as well argue about a man who left 3 years ago. they certainly did contribute, but you're missing out on the fact that they were being paid wages far beyond their worth, individually. we definitely didnt have anyone on wages lower than they deserved during that time frame, there were a handful earning fair wage and the rest were getting stupid money What a balanced opinion you have. All our good players were on the exact wages they deserved and anyone who didn't perform well were on wages too high for their ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Another way to look at these figures is to rank teams by amount spent and compare with league performance: 2007/8 1. Chelsea £172.1m (2nd) 2. Man U. £121.1m (1st) 3. Arsenal £101.3m (3rd) 4. Liverpool £90.9m (4th) 5. Newcastle £74.6m (12th) 6. Portsmouth £54.7m (8th) 7. Man C £54.2m (9th) 8. W Ham £53.6m (10th) 9. Spurs £52.9m (11th) 10.Villa £50.4m (6th) 2008/9 1. Chelsea £167.2m (3rd) 2. Man U £123.1m (1st) 3. Liverpool £107.2m (2nd) 4. Arsenal £104m (4th) 5. Man C £82.6m (10th) 6. Newcastle £83.3m (18th) 7. Villa £70.5m (6th) 8. W Ham £70m (9th) 9. Portsmouth £65.1m (14th) 10.Spurs £62.5m (10th) 2009/10 1. Chelsea £174m (1st) 2. Man C £133m (5th) 3. Man U £132m (2nd) 4. Liverpool £121m (7th) 5. Arsenal £110.7m (3rd) 6. Villa £80m (6th) 7. Spurs £67m (4th) 8. Sunderland £54m (13th) 9. W Ham £54m (17th) 10.Everton £54m (8th) (NB no wage figures for Portsmouth for this season so we don't know if they are in the top 10 spenders again – they came bottom in the league) Looked at that way, I am more perplexed than ever by those who want to characterise these years as ones of foolish overspending of wages on players who failed to deliver what might be expected of them. There are 4 or 5 clubs who spend well above the level of any other clubs and who (generally) regularly get top 5 places for their reward. Villa spent 10th, 7th and 6th highest on wages in those years and got 6th, 6th and 6th. Underperformance relative to wages paid? It doesn't seem so. Compare with West Ham (8th, 8th, 9th wages/10th, 9th, 17th position); Portsmouth (6th, 9th,?th/8th/14th/17th); Spurs (9th, 10th, 7th/12th, 10th, 4th); Newcastle (5th, 6th,-/12th, 18th, -).; even Man C (7th, 5th, 2nd/9th, 10th, 5th) - although they showed if you keep on upping the spending you get there in the end. Lerner's spending never got us anywhere near the levels spent by really big clubs but, for the more modest wages he once thought he could afford, we performed more consistently than many of the other clubs trying to buy success at around the same wage levels. The key problem for us appears to have been his realisation he wasn't wealthy enough to keep it going. (Plus his utterly disastrous efforts at selecting managers, of course ) Edited March 15, 2013 by briny_ear 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 this 6th highest wage bill to finish 6th justification is bullshit. That squad didn't come close to warranting the 6th highest wage bill in englanddidnt come close? So being the sixth highest placed league team did not come close to warranting the sixth highest wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Another way to look at these figures is to rank teams by amount spent and compare with league performance: 2007/8 1. Chelsea £172.1m (2nd) 2. Man U. £121.1m (1st) 3. Arsenal £101.3m (3rd) 4. Liverpool £90.9m (4th) 5. Newcastle £74.6m (12th) 6. Portsmouth £54.7m (8th) 7. Man C £54.2m (9th) 8. W Ham £53.6m (10th) 9. Spurs £52.9m (12th) 10.Villa £50.4m (6th) 2008/9 1. Chelsea £167.2m (3rd) 2. Man U £123.1m (1st) 3. Liverpool £107.2m (2nd) 4. Arsenal £104m (4th) 5. Man C £82.6m (10th) 6. Newcastle £83.3m (18th) 7. Villa £70.5m (6th) 8. W Ham £70m (9th) 9. Portsmouth £65.1m (14th) 10.Spurs £62.5m (10th) 2009/10 1. Chelsea £174m (1st) 2. Man C £133m (5th) 3. Man U £132m (2nd) 4. Liverpool £121m (7th) 5. Arsenal £110.7m (3rd) 6. Villa £80m (6th) 7. Spurs £67m (4th) 8. Sunderland £54m (13th) 9. W Ham £54m (17th) 10.Everton £54m (8th) (NB no wage figures for Portsmouth for this season so we don't know if they are in the top 10 spenders again – they came bottom in the league) Looked at that way, I am more perplexed than ever by those who want to characterise these years as ones of foolish overspending of wages on players who failed to deliver what might be expected of them. There are 4 or 5 clubs who spend well above the level of any other clubs and who (generally) regularly get top 5 places for their reward. Villa spent 10th, 7th and 6th highest on wages in those years and got 6th, 6th and 6th. Underperformance relative to wages paid? It doesn't seem so. Compare with West Ham (8th, 8th, 9th wages/10th, 9th, 17th position); Portsmouth (6th, 9th,?th/8th/14th/17th); Spurs (9th, 10th, 7th/12th, 10th, 4th); Newcastle (5th, 6th,-/12th, 18th, -).; even Man C (7th, 5th, 2nd/9th, 10th, 5th) - although they showed if you keep on upping the spending you get there in the end. Lerner's spending never got us anywhere near the levels spent by really big clubs but, for the more modest wages he once thought he could afford, we performed more consistently than many of the other clubs trying to buy success at around the same wage levels. The key problem for us appears to have been his realisation he wasn't wealthy enough to keep it going. (Plus his utterly disastrous efforts at selecting managers, of course ) End of the arguement for me ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Thing is people like to try and say that the manager of three or four years ago is to blame for our current state because he wildly overpaid on wages in some sort of reckless abandon. When n actual fact what we actually saw was a team performing about to the level at which they were being remunerated , what a strange concept. That is we got what we paid for. What is to blame for our current situation is that our owner was not prepared to even sustain that level of spending for that level of performance. That is not he fault of Marin O'neill. What that is is an uncomfortable truth for a lot of people it seems 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) this 6th highest wage bill to finish 6th justification is bullshit. That squad didn't come close to warranting the 6th highest wage bill in englanddidnt come close? So being the sixth highest placed league team did not come close to warranting the sixth highest wages? Correct. The players in the 6th placed team did not warrant the 6th highest wages. Our squad was made up of good to average players, on good players wages, motivated to overperform by a good man-motivator. Plus a handful of poor players on good wages. If the 'good player wages' had been given to a few more good players, or if the poor players were given lower wages, more in line with their ability, then we could probably still be competing in the upper half of the table. Everton/ Spurs had decent squads of a similar wage bill, I imagine, but they didn't have rubbish players like Habib Beye, Steve Sidwell & Curtis Davies on contracts so large that they either ran their contracts down, or sat on the bench not contributing until they left for a fraction of the amount we paid for them. Edited March 15, 2013 by Rob182 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 How utterly perplexing. In a time when players wages are at an astronomical amount, when "ordinary" people are struggling to get by and there are calls for wage caps and performance related pay for footballers i would have thought that a team performing at that level getting paid at that level was the ultimate sign of performance related pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Another way to look at these figures is to rank teams by amount spent and compare with league performance: 2007/8 1. Chelsea £172.1m (2nd) 2. Man U. £121.1m (1st) 3. Arsenal £101.3m (3rd) 4. Liverpool £90.9m (4th) 5. Newcastle £74.6m (12th) 6. Portsmouth £54.7m (8th) 7. Man C £54.2m (9th) 8. W Ham £53.6m (10th) 9. Spurs £52.9m (12th) 10.Villa £50.4m (6th) 2008/9 1. Chelsea £167.2m (3rd) 2. Man U £123.1m (1st) 3. Liverpool £107.2m (2nd) 4. Arsenal £104m (4th) 5. Man C £82.6m (10th) 6. Newcastle £83.3m (18th) 7. Villa £70.5m (6th) 8. W Ham £70m (9th) 9. Portsmouth £65.1m (14th) 10.Spurs £62.5m (10th) 2009/10 1. Chelsea £174m (1st) 2. Man C £133m (5th) 3. Man U £132m (2nd) 4. Liverpool £121m (7th) 5. Arsenal £110.7m (3rd) 6. Villa £80m (6th) 7. Spurs £67m (4th) 8. Sunderland £54m (13th) 9. W Ham £54m (17th) 10.Everton £54m (8th) (NB no wage figures for Portsmouth for this season so we don't know if they are in the top 10 spenders again – they came bottom in the league) Looked at that way, I am more perplexed than ever by those who want to characterise these years as ones of foolish overspending of wages on players who failed to deliver what might be expected of them. There are 4 or 5 clubs who spend well above the level of any other clubs and who (generally) regularly get top 5 places for their reward. Villa spent 10th, 7th and 6th highest on wages in those years and got 6th, 6th and 6th. Underperformance relative to wages paid? It doesn't seem so. Compare with West Ham (8th, 8th, 9th wages/10th, 9th, 17th position); Portsmouth (6th, 9th,?th/8th/14th/17th); Spurs (9th, 10th, 7th/12th, 10th, 4th); Newcastle (5th, 6th,-/12th, 18th, -).; even Man C (7th, 5th, 2nd/9th, 10th, 5th) - although they showed if you keep on upping the spending you get there in the end. Lerner's spending never got us anywhere near the levels spent by really big clubs but, for the more modest wages he once thought he could afford, we performed more consistently than many of the other clubs trying to buy success at around the same wage levels. The key problem for us appears to have been his realisation he wasn't wealthy enough to keep it going. (Plus his utterly disastrous efforts at selecting managers, of course ) I look forward to people arguing against this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Stat attack. I take it you agree that Bannan is our best midfielder because he has been involved in more wins than any other in our team? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Well was still more than Spurs and Everton at time who finished over us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob182 Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 The bottom line, for me, is that we had a handful of players contributing to this '6th highest wage bill' that weren't contributing AT ALL to the team. Beye, Davies, L Young, Sidwell, Harewood, NRC and, at times, Carew were all on decent wages but were either not good enough or not liked by the manager. I think you'd be pushed to find another team in the league that had so many players, on decent contracts, that were seemingly not wanted by our manager or any other in the Premier League. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts