Looking at players we are linked with in this window and the those being brought in by our "rivals" I can't help but feel that it's time for a change in the boardroom.
Enic have brought us stability off the pitch but we need a rebrand, a change in culture and that comes from the top.
I didn't like Conte but he had some valid points with they type of players we look to recruit. Signing players in the 20m-40m range rather than the finished article is only going to get you so far. We need to think bigger and better if we are to eventually turn into title contenders. The managers coming in are ambitious but they are constantly hamstrung by the board.
As we look to once again stumble into a season where our key ambition is top 4, you can't help but feel a general acceptance of mediocrity - its time for change.
Would you accept a takeover now ?
posted on 6/8/24
what was it you were saying the other day - making it personal is a sign of conceding
you've conflated two completely different things (wage bill vs wage/turnover ratio) and pretended like that's what has been discussed the whole time when it just clearly isn't. if that was what llm meant why didn't he say that? why did he specifically complain that we were below west ham and Newcastle rather than just saying that we were bottom in the league for wage/turnover ratio?
And most importantly why are you so obsessed with trying to protect him and cover up his blunder when you could just correct him? What, you like him more than me because he's on the same side of this imaginary levy in vs out war?
posted on 6/8/24
comment by look like modric (U7431)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
Why is our wage bill so low, below villa, newcastle and west ham?
I'm sorry but thinking this is llm complaining that our wage to turnover ratio is bottom in the league is just absurd, seriously give your head a wobble.
posted on 6/8/24
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by look like modric (U7431)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
Why is our wage bill so low, below villa, newcastle and west ham?
I'm sorry but thinking this is llm complaining that our wage to turnover ratio is bottom in the league is just absurd, seriously give your head a wobble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im pretty sure it’s what he meant.
You never answered my question on this - why not push the boat out and spend more on wages and use more of our FFP advantage?
posted on 6/8/24
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 44 minutes ago
what was it you were saying the other day - making it personal is a sign of conceding
you've conflated two completely different things (wage bill vs wage/turnover ratio) and pretended like that's what has been discussed the whole time when it just clearly isn't. if that was what llm meant why didn't he say that? why did he specifically complain that we were below west ham and Newcastle rather than just saying that we were bottom in the league for wage/turnover ratio?
And most importantly why are you so obsessed with trying to protect him and cover up his blunder when you could just correct him? What, you like him more than me because he's on the same side of this imaginary levy in vs out war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You talk some shiete, go and have a lie down dear
posted on 6/8/24
ok
despite your accusations of flip flopping I've tried to keep it on topic to my initial problem which was llm just stating something plainly false but you seem insistent on me talking about something else instead so I'm happy to oblige.
Firstly I think it's important if we're gonna have this conversation to note that we don't have an FFP advantage because FFP no longer exists. We have a PSR advantage, and personally that's something I'm grateful for rather than having to do one of these tragic money laundering adjacent player swaps with Chelsea, Everton and Villa.
But yes we do have a lot of PSR headroom, and that's something I would like to maintain moving forward so we can be flexible, so yes I think it makes more sense to spend 60m on Solanke than theoretically spend 120m on Isak, who has had some concerning injury issues. I believe you were just speaking the other day about the importance of managing risk in the transfer market and not ending up making huge financial blunders, so dumping 120m into one injury prone player is not something I would be doing personally.
Obviously though that flexibility is only useful if you actually use it at some point, one in the hand better than two in the bush etc, but that's something I'm still expecting to see with Solanke rumours heating up and the expectation seeming to be we'll add another 1-2 on top of that. If we got to the end of the window and that hadn't happened I would of course be very frustrated and critical but I don't see the point in assuming that's going to happen right now when it seems unlikely.
In terms of wages, again I just don't find your wage/turnover ratio table (which I'm just noticing is a few seasons out of date fwiw) particularly meaningful. here are all of the teams listed, with their wage/turnover ratio ranking on the left and last season's league finish on the right
1st - Leicester - P
2nd - Forest - 17th
3rd - Everton - 12th
4th - Villa - 4th
5th - Southampton - P
6th - Wolves - 15th
7th - Chelsea - 6th
8th - Palace - 10th
9th - Newcastle - 7th
10th - Burnley - 19th
11th - Bournemouth - 12th
12th - Leeds - N/A
13th - Liverpool - 3rd
14th - Brighton - 11th
15th - Brentford - 16th
16th - Man City - 1st
17th - West Ham - 9th
18th - Man Utd - 8th
19th - Arsenal - 2nd
20th - Spurs - 5th
There just doesn't seem to be any clear correlation here other than maybe which stadiums are most and least likely to host a concert
Now, despite my criticisms of llm, I do think that wages, when represented accurately, are historically quite a strong predictor for league finish and I would like to see us get closer to Arsenal and Liverpool in that department. Personally though I don't think the way to do that is by buying big money players who come in and potentially flop leaving you with the impossible task of moving their salaries on a la Ndombele. Again I would refer back your previous comments on risk management.
Rather, I think the goal should be to continue our current recruitment model, which I am personally happy with and feel has led to a lot of really good signings without spending above and beyond, and then use that financial flexibility to retain these players long term. So again if that doesn't come to fruition and we end up losing players like VDV, Sarr, Udogie, Porro etc because we aren't willing to increase their wages to a competitive number then I will be very frustrated.
so yeah tldr I'm just a complete levy lover I guess
posted on 6/8/24
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 19 minutes ago
ok
despite your accusations of flip flopping I've tried to keep it on topic to my initial problem which was llm just stating something plainly false but you seem insistent on me talking about something else instead so I'm happy to oblige.
Firstly I think it's important if we're gonna have this conversation to note that we don't have an FFP advantage because FFP no longer exists. We have a PSR advantage, and personally that's something I'm grateful for rather than having to do one of these tragic money laundering adjacent player swaps with Chelsea, Everton and Villa.
But yes we do have a lot of PSR headroom, and that's something I would like to maintain moving forward so we can be flexible, so yes I think it makes more sense to spend 60m on Solanke than theoretically spend 120m on Isak, who has had some concerning injury issues. I believe you were just speaking the other day about the importance of managing risk in the transfer market and not ending up making huge financial blunders, so dumping 120m into one injury prone player is not something I would be doing personally.
Obviously though that flexibility is only useful if you actually use it at some point, one in the hand better than two in the bush etc, but that's something I'm still expecting to see with Solanke rumours heating up and the expectation seeming to be we'll add another 1-2 on top of that. If we got to the end of the window and that hadn't happened I would of course be very frustrated and critical but I don't see the point in assuming that's going to happen right now when it seems unlikely.
In terms of wages, again I just don't find your wage/turnover ratio table (which I'm just noticing is a few seasons out of date fwiw) particularly meaningful. here are all of the teams listed, with their wage/turnover ratio ranking on the left and last season's league finish on the right
1st - Leicester - P
2nd - Forest - 17th
3rd - Everton - 12th
4th - Villa - 4th
5th - Southampton - P
6th - Wolves - 15th
7th - Chelsea - 6th
8th - Palace - 10th
9th - Newcastle - 7th
10th - Burnley - 19th
11th - Bournemouth - 12th
12th - Leeds - N/A
13th - Liverpool - 3rd
14th - Brighton - 11th
15th - Brentford - 16th
16th - Man City - 1st
17th - West Ham - 9th
18th - Man Utd - 8th
19th - Arsenal - 2nd
20th - Spurs - 5th
There just doesn't seem to be any clear correlation here other than maybe which stadiums are most and least likely to host a concert
Now, despite my criticisms of llm, I do think that wages, when represented accurately, are historically quite a strong predictor for league finish and I would like to see us get closer to Arsenal and Liverpool in that department. Personally though I don't think the way to do that is by buying big money players who come in and potentially flop leaving you with the impossible task of moving their salaries on a la Ndombele. Again I would refer back your previous comments on risk management.
Rather, I think the goal should be to continue our current recruitment model, which I am personally happy with and feel has led to a lot of really good signings without spending above and beyond, and then use that financial flexibility to retain these players long term. So again if that doesn't come to fruition and we end up losing players like VDV, Sarr, Udogie, Porro etc because we aren't willing to increase their wages to a competitive number then I will be very frustrated.
so yeah tldr I'm just a complete levy lover I guess
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct it’s always 12/18 months behind - we have since lost all our highest earners bar Son, that’s Kane, Lloris, Ndombele, Dier, Perisic and the new players we have taken on are earning vastly less.
If you’re happy with our lot then good for you. Some of us though want to win trophies and we look at that and think we have been close on a few occasions - what if we had spent a bit more, we might have a few trophies a little less FFP headroom and a happier fan base overall
posted on 6/8/24
OP, believe me if you knew what the word rebrand meant, you and every true Spurs fan would be dead against it.
posted on 6/8/24
comment by Brother (U20548)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
OP, believe me if you knew what the word rebrand meant, you and every true Spurs fan would be dead against it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions of rebrand. verb. change the public image of a company, organization, or product to reintroduce it to consumers. verb. publicly name or represent a person or thing in a new way in order to attract positive attention.
This is what I meant by rebrand, not sure you what you were thinking.
Ange was right in what he said about the clubs mentality even from the top, it has to change to be successful. Starting with the board.
posted on 7/8/24
rebranding is very unlikely to happen. Who is going to do it?.
Spurs best plan is to sell the club to someone with ambition to turn it into a winning organization.
ATM things do not look bright for carrying on the same old way.
Son is a year older.
Maddison is not as good as he was.
Midfield is weak.
Attack is weaker.
The in comings so far are inadequate to bring the squad up to a winning level..
I predict a season of nothing much.
Good luck Aussieglue!!!
posted on 7/8/24
comment by Christopher (U20930)
posted 1 day, 8 hours ago
Why are we selling players undervalued in comprison to premier league and championship clubs?
because nobody is offering us more money for them
Why is our wage bill so low, below villa, newcastle and west ham?
it isn't, please provide a source for this because I can't find one.
https://fbref.com/en/comps/9/wages/Premier-League-Wages
https://www.capology.com/uk/premier-league/payrolls/
even the Mail (which I'm not going to link) has us above Newcastle and West Ham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey mate i will try and find it. It was very recent May or June.
Wages are usually indicitive of a baseline finish there or thereabouts.
Wages to turnover i do not find relevant as the likes of Forest for example will always be high with their wacky transfers. Juts highlights we should be doing more.