Gary O'Neil

CherryBare said:
My issue with your comments are the absolute belief that you’re right and everyone else is wrong, you know no more than the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Do other people comment believing they are wrong and everyone else is right? Just checking as would hate to be out of sync? ;)
 
DJ said:
More recent article…

View attachment 9225
Click to expand...

To further explore an earlier point there are interesting back-of-fag-packet calculations to be done here. Anyone know how long Tindall's contract was? On the assumption that you stop paying managers when they get a new job, which I'm sure is the case but has been questioned on here.

He got a new job something like 14 months after Howe left and so if he'd have left with Howe and waited until Newcastle we'd have been paying him all that time too anyway.

So the only difference in payout to Tindall is the difference in his assistant manager wages as compared to his manager wages. From this you'd need to subtract the cost of a manager during the period he was manager - because you'd have to pay someone to do it if not him.

Chances are it worked out cheaper over this period than the alternative. Obviously he was a very poor appointment from a football perspective but not necessarily a poor financial decision.
 
DJ said:
Well it is, as that was actually published September 2018.

https://m.allfootballapp.com/amp/ne...-new-£4m-a-season-Bournemouth-contract/788545

Link to original source for the above article…

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/eddie-howe-set-new-bournemouth-13213418.amp
Click to expand...
And the Scottish one?

Eddie was paid more than Defoe and Wilshere. Rightly so. So it boils down to what you believe they were on with us.

Trust me Eddie was on 4m plus. Remember some report basic wages and others will take into account staying up bonuses. His basic may have been less than 4 but his total wasn’t.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
To further explore an earlier point there are interesting back-of-fag-packet calculations to be done here. Anyone know how long Tindall's contract was? On the assumption that you stop paying managers when they get a new job, which I'm sure is the case but has been questioned on here.

He got a new job something like 14 months after Howe left and so if he'd have left with Howe and waited until Newcastle we'd have been paying him all that time too anyway.

So the only difference in payout to Tindall is the difference in his assistant manager wages as compared to his manager wages. From this you'd need to subtract the cost of a manager during the period he was manager - because you'd have to pay someone to do it if not him.

Chances are it worked out cheaper over this period than the alternative. Obviously he was a very poor appointment from a football perspective but not necessarily a poor financial decision.
Click to expand...
Tindall is difference between his assistant and manager wage plus also the fact we had to pay an assistant Graham Jones to replace him as an assistant.

Ultimately he was also a lot cheaper than Eddie (I’d imagine @Istabraq will know more) so you can throw that in as well but it’s a bit of a false economy if you are not as good. Woodgate was also another cheaper option than both but again I think subjectively a better man than JW might have got that squad up. It should have gone up.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
To further explore an earlier point there are interesting back-of-fag-packet calculations to be done here. Anyone know how long Tindall's contract was? On the assumption that you stop paying managers when they get a new job, which I'm sure is the case but has been questioned on here.

He got a new job something like 14 months after Howe left and so if he'd have left with Howe and waited until Newcastle we'd have been paying him all that time too anyway.

So the only difference in payout to Tindall is the difference in his assistant manager wages as compared to his manager wages. From this you'd need to subtract the cost of a manager during the period he was manager - because you'd have to pay someone to do it if not him.

Chances are it worked out cheaper over this period than the alternative. Obviously he was a very poor appointment from a football perspective but not necessarily a poor financial decision.
Click to expand...

Tindall signed a new 3 year deal when he was named manager. This of course would have been made on the back of relegation.

Howe’s contract expired in 2021, so he could well have just sat on his deal until it expired.

It’s likely that Purches, Weatherstone, Moss, Hard’s contracts could have expired at the same time so there may well have been no pay off required.
 
DJ said:
Tindall signed a new 3 year deal when he was named manager. This of course would have been made on the back of relegation.

Howe’s contract expired in 2021, so he could well have just sat on his deal until it expired.

It’s likely that Purches, Weatherstone, Moss, Hard’s contracts could have expired at the same time so there may well have been no pay off required.
Click to expand...

I ment Tindall's assistant manager deal, presumably the same as Howes so the calcs still stand.
 
Neil Dawson said:
Tindall is difference between his assistant and manager wage plus also the fact we had to pay an assistant Graham Jones to replace him as an assistant.

Ultimately he was also a lot cheaper than Eddie (I’d imagine @Istabraq will know more) so you can throw that in as well but it’s a bit of a false economy if you are not as good. Woodgate was also another cheaper option than both but again I think subjectively a better man than JW might have got that squad up. It should have gone up.
Click to expand...

No because the assumption is that the alternative to employing Tindall as manager is that he leaves with Howe and therefore we need to pay another manager and assistant manager. It doesn't matter if he was cheaper than Eddie because they were still paying Eddie.

I don't agree about Woodgate. No manager would have got us auto from that position and saying a better manager wouldn't have conceded a dodgy pen and had a player sent off is a big stretch. Woodgate did as much as could have been expected of any manager.
 
Neil Dawson said:
Sorry to be pedantic but it doesn’t. It reads to me as if that would have been on top.
View attachment 9226View attachment 9226
Click to expand...

We’ve done this before. If you want to take the one report of £100,000-a-week as gospel, which equates to £5.2million to back up your £4million claim then go for it.

Various other reports, maybe from more reliable sources go with £3million.

As for Defoe’s wages, I can’t be bothered to do that again…

https://bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk/threads/jermain-defoe.4187/page-71#post-396381

As for Wilshere, his loan ended before Howe signed his most recent AFCB contract, so I doubt that’s relevant.
 
DJ said:
We’ve done this before. If you want to take the one report of £100,000-a-week as gospel, which equates to £5.2million to back up your £4million claim then go for it.

Various other reports, maybe from more reliable sources go with £3million.

As for Defoe’s wages, I can’t be bothered to do that again…

https://bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk/threads/jermain-defoe.4187/page-71#post-396381

As for Wilshere, his loan ended before Howe signed his most recent AFCB contract, so I doubt that’s relevant.
Click to expand...

I don’t need to take any reports as gospel, I know he was on 4m. It’s other people that are querying it. There’s a variety of news articles varying between 3m and 5m. Wonder what the average of that is :) Some reports include PL retention bonuses others don’t.

What do you think he was on total pay?
 
Neil Dawson said:
From a noteworthy point though I don’t like to see the club I support ran so badly. We were left a legacy from Eddie that has kept us straight. When those players and the cash runs out we could be in a tricky place. Let’s hope Foley signs and we move on.
Click to expand...

How can you say the club is being run badly ? We have a friendly owner debt that should shortly be settled. We're mid table in the top tier of English football having just achieved promotion again. Perhaps ignore "the noise" and forget what happened after Eddie unfortunately got us relegated. It doesn't matter how Max / Blake et al got us back - they did and put the club on a plate for a new owner.

I presume the board / CEO are also instrumental in the sales process of the club and they don't appear to have done a bad job if Foley is what we hope he is.
 
Neil Dawson said:
Fair enough agree with that:
Click to expand...
Sorry I can’t reply on your response to me on the other post.
Too many adverts or whatever on there.
But, you say you have contacts.
Again you fail to answer, a friend of a friend is not a contact. How many times removed from Blake, Hughs Max or Eddie is your contact?
Why not just say.
 
borisatha said:
Sorry I can’t reply on your response to me on the other post.
Too many adverts or whatever on there.
But, you say you have contacts.
Again you fail to answer, a friend of a friend is not a contact. How many times removed from Blake, Hughs Max or Eddie is your contact?
Why not just say.
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by removed. One played with one played for, one knows from business. When their stories align I tend to believe them. Doesn’t mean it’s factual, never claimed it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;