Not seen any source on this, but i ASSUME that this is talking about operating profit.
That is made up of the revenues gained and then day to day costs of running the club (wages being the largest cost), but what it will exclude is player trading.
The figure after player trading will not amount to the $414m 3 year profit figure (about £325m) I have seen published.
If you look at what our net player trading has been then according to Tranfsermkt, that is 386m euros in 3 seasons, or about £320m.
So some very 'back of fagpacket' calculations gets you to operating profit = money spent on transfers.
Don't start to think that we've made $414m in profit and done nothing with it.
I’ve seen the list, it’s Forbes, pretty similar to last year.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 12 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by rooney_hernandez (U7012)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by rooney_hernandez (U7012)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 hour, 52 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 15 minutes ago
How was this calculated? There's a star at the bottom suggesting it's simply earnings before deductibles. I mean United on this and they're over half a billion in debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s incredibly misleading. How can they use the words ‘most profitable’ when the figures are before any deductions?
Bit of a sh article if we’re being honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s based on EBITDA, which is not a “strange” or “misleading” way of viewing profitability at all. It’s used in myriad financial models, appraisal models, and is the foremost metric used in financial due diligences of target acquisitions in both the private and public equity spaces.
Also, be careful not to conflate profitability - an income statement phenomenon - with net asset value (or similar), which incorporated the balance sheet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what EBITDA is, we began using it at the company I work at a few years back, I was questioning what data they were using to arrive at their conclusion that Spurs are the most 'profitable' football club in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, well now you know it’s done in EBITDA and it is by absolutely no means a strange way to calculate profitability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But aren’t profitability and profitable two different things?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EBITDA will also strip out one off items including things like profit on player sales because such sources of revenues cannot be relied on. I think why Spurs figures are strong is because they have diversified their revenues, possibly more than any other club, and such sources from other uses of the stadium - NFL. music, other sports, F1, as well the use of their training facilities by others - and these will be assessed as strong, steady sources of income, as opposed to selling academy players which is far less predictable.
Whichever way you slice these numbers, what's clear is that spending money on players in that 'second rung', those just below top tier, are a CHOICE, not a financial requirement. There's absolutely no grounds for the club to have such a low wage to revenue ratio. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to spend on a transfer fee if we're not willing to match the wages of the best players.
There's absolutely no excuse. We have the money. I'm kinda sick of Levy getting defended time and time again. Yes, the club is richer than it was when he first came in. Yes he's built a magnificent stadium, unrivalled training ground and can host multiple events to increase revenue ...BUT these are all financial guarantees. If you build a stadium like that, you're guaranteed revenue. That's where Levy falls down ultimately as a football club owner. He's not a gambler and the most successful owners need to be to some extent. Putting your money into bricks and mortar guarantees return. Putting your money into a player doesn't. I'm sure Levy would like success but he won't gamble in order to do it which means ultimately he'll never achieve it. That's the nature of football.
This article basically confirms something we already knew. The money is there but it won't be spent. Levy's Tottenham.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 3 minutes ago
Whichever way you slice these numbers, what's clear is that spending money on players in that 'second rung', those just below top tier, are a CHOICE, not a financial requirement. There's absolutely no grounds for the club to have such a low wage to revenue ratio. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to spend on a transfer fee if we're not willing to match the wages of the best players.
There's absolutely no excuse. We have the money. I'm kinda sick of Levy getting defended time and time again. Yes, the club is richer than it was when he first came in. Yes he's built a magnificent stadium, unrivalled training ground and can host multiple events to increase revenue ...BUT these are all financial guarantees. If you build a stadium like that, you're guaranteed revenue. That's where Levy falls down ultimately as a football club owner. He's not a gambler and the most successful owners need to be to some extent. Putting your money into bricks and mortar guarantees return. Putting your money into a player doesn't. I'm sure Levy would like success but he won't gamble in order to do it which means ultimately he'll never achieve it. That's the nature of football.
This article basically confirms something we already knew. The money is there but it won't be spent. Levy's Tottenham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate. You are wrong.
If you take our wages at about £225m and our amortisation at about £125m annually, that's a budget of £350m within a set of figures that has us breaking even (if you exclude depreciation which shows us making losses).
If you want to boost what we spend on wages (which i guess you mean we should be buying better players) then something has to give, and that something would be actual transfer spend. You then end in a bit of a paradox of increasing quality of player, who attract higher wages, but decreasing transfer spend.
While I think this this is possible over time, it has not been at a time when so many changes have been made to the squad. The poor football decisions have led to a lot of wasted resources and what we have had has not always been spent well. High numbers of changes to a squad usually mean more money being spent on transfers and wages. The decisions that have lead to this we can be critical of.
But it is too simple to say we should be spending more on wages, particularly as our low ratio is a legacy from a massive jump in revenues delivered by the stadium.
Commercial & matchday have jumped about £200m since the new place opened. Just to maintain the ratio at the time would require an extra £100m going on wages immediately, which is of course not going to happen. Wages change over time as contracts expire/improved/added.
What has happened is that since the stadium opened, total wages have gone up from around £145m o £250m, and that is a more natural change. It will inevitably continue in that direction of travel.
The hope will be that as the squad evolves, the need for change is less extensive and more targeted.
What is imperative to everything is the targeting of the right players. United wage bill is vast yet they hold little real quality and have the likes of Antony, Casemiro Mount on £200k - £375k a week. Johnson, Kulusevski and Bentancur may be on much lesser wages but they are superior players.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Whichever way you slice these numbers, what's clear is that spending money on players in that 'second rung', those just below top tier, are a CHOICE, not a financial requirement. There's absolutely no grounds for the club to have such a low wage to revenue ratio. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to spend on a transfer fee if we're not willing to match the wages of the best players.
There's absolutely no excuse. We have the money. I'm kinda sick of Levy getting defended time and time again. Yes, the club is richer than it was when he first came in. Yes he's built a magnificent stadium, unrivalled training ground and can host multiple events to increase revenue ...BUT these are all financial guarantees. If you build a stadium like that, you're guaranteed revenue. That's where Levy falls down ultimately as a football club owner. He's not a gambler and the most successful owners need to be to some extent. Putting your money into bricks and mortar guarantees return. Putting your money into a player doesn't. I'm sure Levy would like success but he won't gamble in order to do it which means ultimately he'll never achieve it. That's the nature of football.
This article basically confirms something we already knew. The money is there but it won't be spent. Levy's Tottenham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Whichever way you slice these numbers, what's clear is that spending money on players in that 'second rung', those just below top tier, are a CHOICE, not a financial requirement. There's absolutely no grounds for the club to have such a low wage to revenue ratio. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to spend on a transfer fee if we're not willing to match the wages of the best players.
There's absolutely no excuse. We have the money. I'm kinda sick of Levy getting defended time and time again. Yes, the club is richer than it was when he first came in. Yes he's built a magnificent stadium, unrivalled training ground and can host multiple events to increase revenue ...BUT these are all financial guarantees. If you build a stadium like that, you're guaranteed revenue. That's where Levy falls down ultimately as a football club owner. He's not a gambler and the most successful owners need to be to some extent. Putting your money into bricks and mortar guarantees return. Putting your money into a player doesn't. I'm sure Levy would like success but he won't gamble in order to do it which means ultimately he'll never achieve it. That's the nature of football.
This article basically confirms something we already knew. The money is there but it won't be spent. Levy's Tottenham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
Even after all the profits. We still have to cut the oap concessions and raise ticket prices way over inflation
Levy is driven by money. That’s the only stat he gives a f a ck about.
You make good points Dev and all very well explained but much of what you talk about is how we operate in the black and the breakdown of those costs. As a business, I couldn't fault it. It's perfect. Revenue is increasing. The problem is that it's not business, it's football, and the system operates differently. Aside from Liverpool in the past 10 years or so, the only real way of seeing tangible success in the game is to sit comfortably in the red having gambled on big money players, both in terms of fee and wages, and HOPE that Champions League qualification offsets that spend. Once there you go again, as Arsenal did, continuing in the red to climb higher, to hit the ultimate goal of a Prem title. Obviously they're not there yet but they've come close and the only way they've done that is by taking that leap of faith financially. If, when Arteta joined, they'd operated entirely in the black, I guarantee they'd be fighting with us for the other European places. Now, it remains to be seen whether the high wage costs of bringing in more premium players will eventually see them have to curtail spending at some point but what you can't deny is their determination to give it a go.
We all laughed at Boehly but I always knew Chelsea would get back up there before we did because the priority was winning over profit. That too could backfire but you can't question the intent.
Now I know that our taste for flip-flopping in recent years has stalled progress, where wholesale changes to squad profiles has meant a dent in the finances but we're still doing all that in the black. There is still wiggle room to go further, as the most successful clubs do. Getting in Raya, Neto or Eze might have seen us in the red but they could have been the difference in those games we lost this year. I just think you have to flirt with financial failure to gain on field success. There are very few exceptions in Premier League history. Eventually money talks. I just don't think we'll ever have it under Levy.
I understand the financial difficulties pre-stadium build under Poch but it's been open five years and we're still seeing the same caution in the market. Is it even worth it? We pass on sure-fire successes and go for cheaper alternatives and end up having to buy again and again the same position to correct that overly frugal approach. The amount we've spent in total at right back since Walker left is just obscene so trying to cut costs is actually counterproductive, both in a financial and sporting sense.
You should take a look at Paul O'Keefe on X regarding our wage policy. He's very close to the inner workings at the club and he's suggesting the wages will decrease further in order to make investment more palatable for potential buyers. So that contradicts your sense that wages will increase. Essentially the only way of doing that, and therefore combatting the natural inclination to improve the contractual terms for our best players, is to sell and replace them with younger ones, which is really not good news if he is to be believed. I don't take issue with how much we spend. You don't need £100m players to win but you do need to be open to paying good money because even if these top players started on peanuts, eventually performance dictates a need to give them more. If we don't, they'll just leave. That's ultimately my concern over the long term.
Coincidentally just seen this, which supports my point. Unsure of the validity of the account though…
https://x.com/sb8308715342770/status/1856770423851257892?s=46
what’s the point on this?
We’re still going to flea markets to find players not in expensive places
We have been buying young players the cheapies which that will just continue
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
what’s the point on this?
We’re still going to flea markets to find players not in expensive places
We have been buying young players the cheapies which that will just continue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumours also that we're cutting Werner's loan in January. Big wages replaced with Yang's peanuts. This is Levy through and through. I'm surprised so many are surprised at this stage.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
what’s the point on this?
We’re still going to flea markets to find players not in expensive places
We have been buying young players the cheapies which that will just continue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumours also that we're cutting Werner's loan in January. Big wages replaced with Yang's peanuts. This is Levy through and through. I'm surprised so many are surprised at this stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or Werner is shat and the club would rather try the youngster instead
Isn’t that what we all want (Werner binned)
Not sure this is a stick to beat levy with
Here’s the full rundown of how much each Premier League club pays in wages for the upcoming 2024-25 season
1. Manchester City – £201,864,000
2. Manchester United – £185,580,000
3. Arsenal – £172,146,000
4. Chelsea – £171,210,000
5. Liverpool – £128,804,000
6. Tottenham – £104,806,000
7. Aston Villa – £104,676,000
8. Newcastle United – £103,272,000
9. West Ham United – £90,220,000
10. Crystal Palace – £69,810,000
11. Everton – £69,342,000
12. Fulham – £68,406,000
13. Leicester City – £65,416,000
14. Nottingham Forest – £63,492,000
15. Brighton – £60,658,000
16. Southampton – £56,030,000
17. Bournemouth – £54,704,000
18. Wolves – £53,222,000
19. Brentford – £41,470,000
20. Ipswich Town – £33,176,000
Not sure where Levyshire is getting his fantasy wage stats from
https://x.com/sb8308715342770/status/1856993656474919080?s=46
Interesting post here too. People are really starting to notice this. This never has been about building something for success. It’s only ever been about penny pinching.
We are doomed until that bald cvnt leaves. Simple as that. Worst part is he seems to have the same kind of determination to stick around as an international despot wanted for war crimes. Real Gadafi energy.
comment by ●Billy The Spur● LEVY OUT- ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 12 hours, 41 minutes ago
Here’s the full rundown of how much each Premier League club pays in wages for the upcoming 2024-25 season
1. Manchester City – £201,864,000
2. Manchester United – £185,580,000
3. Arsenal – £172,146,000
4. Chelsea – £171,210,000
5. Liverpool – £128,804,000
6. Tottenham – £104,806,000
7. Aston Villa – £104,676,000
8. Newcastle United – £103,272,000
9. West Ham United – £90,220,000
10. Crystal Palace – £69,810,000
11. Everton – £69,342,000
12. Fulham – £68,406,000
13. Leicester City – £65,416,000
14. Nottingham Forest – £63,492,000
15. Brighton – £60,658,000
16. Southampton – £56,030,000
17. Bournemouth – £54,704,000
18. Wolves – £53,222,000
19. Brentford – £41,470,000
20. Ipswich Town – £33,176,000
Not sure where Levyshire is getting his fantasy wage stats from
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My figures come from the official club accounts and cover all wages.
What''s your source because actually no one knows the ins and outs of a players wages, most of it is guess work and speculation.
Did the OP mistake profligate with profitable?
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 10 hours, 43 minutes ago
https://x.com/sb8308715342770/status/1856993656474919080?s=46
Interesting post here too. People are really starting to notice this. This never has been about building something for success. It’s only ever been about penny pinching.
We are doomed until that bald cvnt leaves. Simple as that. Worst part is he seems to have the same kind of determination to stick around as an international despot wanted for war crimes. Real Gadafi energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is just a spin on a process of rebuilding.
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 38 minutes ago
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romero was signed before the decision to lower the wage bill began. It's only a recent thing to accelerate investment. What will be interesting is how Levy approaches contract renewal talks. There's a lot of noise about Romero. My feeling is that, unlike the past, Levy will sell and replace with another youngster on peanuts. He'd love nothing better than to shift Romero, Maddison and Son off the books given their wages.
Then he'll find out that you can't finish even remotely close to 4th if you've got a team full of kids with no experience to nurture them.
I just cannot fathom how you can defend Levy to this degree. It's plain to see what he's doing to this club.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 38 minutes ago
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romero was signed before the decision to lower the wage bill began. It's only a recent thing to accelerate investment. What will be interesting is how Levy approaches contract renewal talks. There's a lot of noise about Romero. My feeling is that, unlike the past, Levy will sell and replace with another youngster on peanuts. He'd love nothing better than to shift Romero, Maddison and Son off the books given their wages.
Then he'll find out that you can't finish even remotely close to 4th if you've got a team full of kids with no experience to nurture them.
I just cannot fathom how you can defend Levy to this degree. It's plain to see what he's doing to this club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What decision to lower the wage bill?
You talk about this strategy as if its fact. It aint. This may surprise you but twitter sometimes doesnt post truths, and that journalists will write things that will attract interest and clicks and the gullible flock to it.
It is an idiotic stance to say that players Levy would love nothing more than to sell the players he's sanctioned to buy
It is not plain to see what he's doing. You hang on to spun comparisons between wages, and in response to the ones i have identified which counter your claimed waged trimming trend, you say he'd love nothing more than to sell these players. You ignore anything that goes against your narrative. Look at the overall strategy. Its not based on trimming wages and you cannot prove it does, without be uber selective.
It is beyond stupid to highlight that Spurs have got rid of 33 year Perisic, who we got for free but on huge wages and replaced him with Udogie, a far superior LB but young and on lesser wages as some sort of wage stripping strategy. Or that to have sold Dier and replaced him with VDV on half the wages is also part of that same strategy.
You're blinkered mate. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just looking at the whole picture to form my judgement, not being duped by some cherry-picked comparisons.
https://x.com/vdvisking/status/1857169519136878844?s=46
Surprise surprise!
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 38 minutes ago
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romero was signed before the decision to lower the wage bill began. It's only a recent thing to accelerate investment. What will be interesting is how Levy approaches contract renewal talks. There's a lot of noise about Romero. My feeling is that, unlike the past, Levy will sell and replace with another youngster on peanuts. He'd love nothing better than to shift Romero, Maddison and Son off the books given their wages.
Then he'll find out that you can't finish even remotely close to 4th if you've got a team full of kids with no experience to nurture them.
I just cannot fathom how you can defend Levy to this degree. It's plain to see what he's doing to this club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What decision to lower the wage bill?
You talk about this strategy as if its fact. It aint. This may surprise you but twitter sometimes doesnt post truths, and that journalists will write things that will attract interest and clicks and the gullible flock to it.
It is an idiotic stance to say that players Levy would love nothing more than to sell the players he's sanctioned to buy
It is not plain to see what he's doing. You hang on to spun comparisons between wages, and in response to the ones i have identified which counter your claimed waged trimming trend, you say he'd love nothing more than to sell these players. You ignore anything that goes against your narrative. Look at the overall strategy. Its not based on trimming wages and you cannot prove it does, without be uber selective.
It is beyond stupid to highlight that Spurs have got rid of 33 year Perisic, who we got for free but on huge wages and replaced him with Udogie, a far superior LB but young and on lesser wages as some sort of wage stripping strategy. Or that to have sold Dier and replaced him with VDV on half the wages is also part of that same strategy.
You're blinkered mate. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just looking at the whole picture to form my judgement, not being duped by some cherry-picked comparisons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well time will prove one of us right. Neither of us can be certain at this stage because, as you say, a rebuild naturally sees wages drop anyway.
I should make it clear that this isn't something I've dreamt up myself looking at the stats. It's information fed by Paul O'Keefe, who is very close to the club, or at the very least knows someone influential enough to be pretty bang on with targets and incoming transfers. He's recently been pretty scolding about ENIC's plans, which is pretty out of character. He's usually quite measured in response to club drama so that suggests whatever he's got wind of isn't great news. So anyway, this isn't pub chat between Spurs fans with wild conspiracy theories. It's reliably-informed warnings about where the club is ACTUALLY heading. You can close your eyes to it, fine. You do you. But let's see where we are a year or two from now because if I'm right and the wage bill is about to plummet, then looking at the wage bill table above, it's a pretty good measure of where clubs finish (aside from United). If we're mid table spenders, we'll be mid-table finishers. Then we'll know who's right.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 15 minutes ago
https://x.com/vdvisking/status/1857169519136878844?s=46
Surprise surprise!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually ignore this. Think it's a parody post.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 38 minutes ago
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romero was signed before the decision to lower the wage bill began. It's only a recent thing to accelerate investment. What will be interesting is how Levy approaches contract renewal talks. There's a lot of noise about Romero. My feeling is that, unlike the past, Levy will sell and replace with another youngster on peanuts. He'd love nothing better than to shift Romero, Maddison and Son off the books given their wages.
Then he'll find out that you can't finish even remotely close to 4th if you've got a team full of kids with no experience to nurture them.
I just cannot fathom how you can defend Levy to this degree. It's plain to see what he's doing to this club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What decision to lower the wage bill?
You talk about this strategy as if its fact. It aint. This may surprise you but twitter sometimes doesnt post truths, and that journalists will write things that will attract interest and clicks and the gullible flock to it.
It is an idiotic stance to say that players Levy would love nothing more than to sell the players he's sanctioned to buy
It is not plain to see what he's doing. You hang on to spun comparisons between wages, and in response to the ones i have identified which counter your claimed waged trimming trend, you say he'd love nothing more than to sell these players. You ignore anything that goes against your narrative. Look at the overall strategy. Its not based on trimming wages and you cannot prove it does, without be uber selective.
It is beyond stupid to highlight that Spurs have got rid of 33 year Perisic, who we got for free but on huge wages and replaced him with Udogie, a far superior LB but young and on lesser wages as some sort of wage stripping strategy. Or that to have sold Dier and replaced him with VDV on half the wages is also part of that same strategy.
You're blinkered mate. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just looking at the whole picture to form my judgement, not being duped by some cherry-picked comparisons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well time will prove one of us right. Neither of us can be certain at this stage because, as you say, a rebuild naturally sees wages drop anyway.
I should make it clear that this isn't something I've dreamt up myself looking at the stats. It's information fed by Paul O'Keefe, who is very close to the club, or at the very least knows someone influential enough to be pretty bang on with targets and incoming transfers. He's recently been pretty scolding about ENIC's plans, which is pretty out of character. He's usually quite measured in response to club drama so that suggests whatever he's got wind of isn't great news. So anyway, this isn't pub chat between Spurs fans with wild conspiracy theories. It's reliably-informed warnings about where the club is ACTUALLY heading. You can close your eyes to it, fine. You do you. But let's see where we are a year or two from now because if I'm right and the wage bill is about to plummet, then looking at the wage bill table above, it's a pretty good measure of where clubs finish (aside from United). If we're mid table spenders, we'll be mid-table finishers. Then we'll know who's right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, but you need to look at the whole picture.
That picture includes a club that earns a lot but is now spending just as much meaning we are hovering around break even. SO its not as if the bosses are being cheap in either transfers or wages as we cannot carry much more of either without putting us, for example, where Newcastle ended up this summer, unable to do any serious business.
We have had to rebuild and there has been a big churn of players, and that churn has seen a mix of quality coming in. Some Snr pros and some kids. But as a team that is looking to rebuild and build up to a peak, that is usually through a slightly longer term view. It is not possible to move us from where we ended with Conte to where we want to be in 1 or even 2 windows without spending massively. As above, our ability to spend massively is limited, especially given the number of players being moved on.
As a club owners, Levy is not stupid. We know he will not put us at risk, which some might have a problem with. But at the same time he knows the value of success, particularly now that we have exploited almost every part of the clubs ability to increase revenues. The only missing piece financially is stadium sponsorship and no-one is handing them out anymore. To move us on we need success. Why are City's so wealthy? Their matchday is less than ours, their TV money is similar, the non-football revenues is well below ours.....its down to the other commercial revenues generated from successful and being of the highest profile.
We cannot dope ourselves to that position like they did and Levy will not put us at risk financially in chasing that goal, but he knows the promised land is reached through success.
In my head I have drawn a line under the pre-Ange era. It was a messy time where many mistake were made post-Poch. The strategy has clearly changed, the personnel at all levels of the club have changed and with a new team from Boardroom to coaching pitch, we are in a building phase. Arsenal didnt buy Rice after one season of Arteta, these sort of statement signings are all about timing. At the same time we have had to make changes, but its not fantasy football, a degree of pragmatism has to come into play, its not just about identifying 7 MVPs and buying them all, it's a blend, it has to be.
I think Arsenal are a good example. Have a look at their chronology of signings since Arteta. Initially its a mix of the odd big signing like Partey & White, mixed in with some kids, and some to do a job (many of which are now gone). They got the likes of Odegarrd who was a kid at the time, they got Gabriel in quite cheap and had Saliba as a kid out on loan somewhere.
When you review what they have done you can see a clear strategy, which has also included shifting some expensive unwanted_Aubam, Lacazette, Pepe etc, and you can see the path they have taken. 8th 8th 5th 2nd 2nd.
There is clearly work to be done. Both with this squad and in terms of improving the squad. The over reaction to every bump in the road is just ridiculous and spawns these flimsy narratives about shrinking wages and investment value.
There is a reason why Spurs fans are mocked for a lack of trophies when the likes of Newcastle and Villa are not, despite having way longer droughts...it's because so many of our fans act like entitled <surfers>
I share every fans frustration at the baron time we have had, and i want success, but realism about the timeframe to deliver that has to come into play. I think most fans should be willing to see where this current cycle takes us, rather than calling for the head of players/coach/Levy after ever setback.
That's part of the issue though Dev. You might be willing to draw a line pre-Ange but the rest of us use those years, going all the way back to Levy's start around 2001, as a barometer for what to expect going forward. To ignore it as a rocky period rather than the mean average is naive. The reason most fans have this level of scepticism is because we've seen it all too often before. Now you might argue we're in a different financial world than before, owed to wise decisions Levy made regarding stadium revenue etc, but as I'd said before, I think those investments were absolutes. They were guaranteed returns. It's one thing to plough 300m into a hotel knowing that profits are almost guaranteed off the back of stadium events, and quite another to commit say 100m on a player when he could flop. Those are the grey areas Levy tends to sweat over.
You're right. Arsenal did build in stages but once they got European football, even finishing 5th behind us, they didn't sit and admire the view, they strengthened. When they usurped us in the CL positions, they really invested that extra revenue and kicked on. The only reason they've yet to win a title is because they're up against the best club side this country has ever seen, but you can't deny their ambition. The outlays Rice, Havertz, Timber & Raya were big and they'd only been in the CL for two years previous to that. They were by no means guaranteed to continue finishing in those positions but they gambled and now they're CL dead certs. I don't think Levy gambles. That's the issue. You might say that's because we're early on in the rebuild but we'd been in the CL year after year under Poch but if anything, our spending slowed down. Some will say that was the stadium but our repayment plan is generous. It barely impacts our spend and certainly doesn't impact PSR rules, given it sits under a different umbrella of club debt.
Maybe you're right but history tells us Levy just operates in a different way, a more cautious way and it's that caution, that hesitancy, that will ultimately trip us over time and time again as it always has done in the past.
Sign in if you want to comment
Most Profitable Football Club in The World!
Page 2 of 3
posted on 14/11/24
Not seen any source on this, but i ASSUME that this is talking about operating profit.
That is made up of the revenues gained and then day to day costs of running the club (wages being the largest cost), but what it will exclude is player trading.
The figure after player trading will not amount to the $414m 3 year profit figure (about £325m) I have seen published.
If you look at what our net player trading has been then according to Tranfsermkt, that is 386m euros in 3 seasons, or about £320m.
So some very 'back of fagpacket' calculations gets you to operating profit = money spent on transfers.
Don't start to think that we've made $414m in profit and done nothing with it.
posted on 14/11/24
I’ve seen the list, it’s Forbes, pretty similar to last year.
posted on 14/11/24
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 12 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by rooney_hernandez (U7012)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by rooney_hernandez (U7012)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 hour, 52 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 15 minutes ago
How was this calculated? There's a star at the bottom suggesting it's simply earnings before deductibles. I mean United on this and they're over half a billion in debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s incredibly misleading. How can they use the words ‘most profitable’ when the figures are before any deductions?
Bit of a sh article if we’re being honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s based on EBITDA, which is not a “strange” or “misleading” way of viewing profitability at all. It’s used in myriad financial models, appraisal models, and is the foremost metric used in financial due diligences of target acquisitions in both the private and public equity spaces.
Also, be careful not to conflate profitability - an income statement phenomenon - with net asset value (or similar), which incorporated the balance sheet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what EBITDA is, we began using it at the company I work at a few years back, I was questioning what data they were using to arrive at their conclusion that Spurs are the most 'profitable' football club in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, well now you know it’s done in EBITDA and it is by absolutely no means a strange way to calculate profitability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But aren’t profitability and profitable two different things?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EBITDA will also strip out one off items including things like profit on player sales because such sources of revenues cannot be relied on. I think why Spurs figures are strong is because they have diversified their revenues, possibly more than any other club, and such sources from other uses of the stadium - NFL. music, other sports, F1, as well the use of their training facilities by others - and these will be assessed as strong, steady sources of income, as opposed to selling academy players which is far less predictable.
posted on 14/11/24
Whichever way you slice these numbers, what's clear is that spending money on players in that 'second rung', those just below top tier, are a CHOICE, not a financial requirement. There's absolutely no grounds for the club to have such a low wage to revenue ratio. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to spend on a transfer fee if we're not willing to match the wages of the best players.
There's absolutely no excuse. We have the money. I'm kinda sick of Levy getting defended time and time again. Yes, the club is richer than it was when he first came in. Yes he's built a magnificent stadium, unrivalled training ground and can host multiple events to increase revenue ...BUT these are all financial guarantees. If you build a stadium like that, you're guaranteed revenue. That's where Levy falls down ultimately as a football club owner. He's not a gambler and the most successful owners need to be to some extent. Putting your money into bricks and mortar guarantees return. Putting your money into a player doesn't. I'm sure Levy would like success but he won't gamble in order to do it which means ultimately he'll never achieve it. That's the nature of football.
This article basically confirms something we already knew. The money is there but it won't be spent. Levy's Tottenham.
posted on 14/11/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 3 minutes ago
Whichever way you slice these numbers, what's clear is that spending money on players in that 'second rung', those just below top tier, are a CHOICE, not a financial requirement. There's absolutely no grounds for the club to have such a low wage to revenue ratio. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to spend on a transfer fee if we're not willing to match the wages of the best players.
There's absolutely no excuse. We have the money. I'm kinda sick of Levy getting defended time and time again. Yes, the club is richer than it was when he first came in. Yes he's built a magnificent stadium, unrivalled training ground and can host multiple events to increase revenue ...BUT these are all financial guarantees. If you build a stadium like that, you're guaranteed revenue. That's where Levy falls down ultimately as a football club owner. He's not a gambler and the most successful owners need to be to some extent. Putting your money into bricks and mortar guarantees return. Putting your money into a player doesn't. I'm sure Levy would like success but he won't gamble in order to do it which means ultimately he'll never achieve it. That's the nature of football.
This article basically confirms something we already knew. The money is there but it won't be spent. Levy's Tottenham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate. You are wrong.
If you take our wages at about £225m and our amortisation at about £125m annually, that's a budget of £350m within a set of figures that has us breaking even (if you exclude depreciation which shows us making losses).
If you want to boost what we spend on wages (which i guess you mean we should be buying better players) then something has to give, and that something would be actual transfer spend. You then end in a bit of a paradox of increasing quality of player, who attract higher wages, but decreasing transfer spend.
While I think this this is possible over time, it has not been at a time when so many changes have been made to the squad. The poor football decisions have led to a lot of wasted resources and what we have had has not always been spent well. High numbers of changes to a squad usually mean more money being spent on transfers and wages. The decisions that have lead to this we can be critical of.
But it is too simple to say we should be spending more on wages, particularly as our low ratio is a legacy from a massive jump in revenues delivered by the stadium.
Commercial & matchday have jumped about £200m since the new place opened. Just to maintain the ratio at the time would require an extra £100m going on wages immediately, which is of course not going to happen. Wages change over time as contracts expire/improved/added.
What has happened is that since the stadium opened, total wages have gone up from around £145m o £250m, and that is a more natural change. It will inevitably continue in that direction of travel.
The hope will be that as the squad evolves, the need for change is less extensive and more targeted.
What is imperative to everything is the targeting of the right players. United wage bill is vast yet they hold little real quality and have the likes of Antony, Casemiro Mount on £200k - £375k a week. Johnson, Kulusevski and Bentancur may be on much lesser wages but they are superior players.
posted on 14/11/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Whichever way you slice these numbers, what's clear is that spending money on players in that 'second rung', those just below top tier, are a CHOICE, not a financial requirement. There's absolutely no grounds for the club to have such a low wage to revenue ratio. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to spend on a transfer fee if we're not willing to match the wages of the best players.
There's absolutely no excuse. We have the money. I'm kinda sick of Levy getting defended time and time again. Yes, the club is richer than it was when he first came in. Yes he's built a magnificent stadium, unrivalled training ground and can host multiple events to increase revenue ...BUT these are all financial guarantees. If you build a stadium like that, you're guaranteed revenue. That's where Levy falls down ultimately as a football club owner. He's not a gambler and the most successful owners need to be to some extent. Putting your money into bricks and mortar guarantees return. Putting your money into a player doesn't. I'm sure Levy would like success but he won't gamble in order to do it which means ultimately he'll never achieve it. That's the nature of football.
This article basically confirms something we already knew. The money is there but it won't be spent. Levy's Tottenham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
posted on 14/11/24
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Whichever way you slice these numbers, what's clear is that spending money on players in that 'second rung', those just below top tier, are a CHOICE, not a financial requirement. There's absolutely no grounds for the club to have such a low wage to revenue ratio. It doesn't matter how much you're willing to spend on a transfer fee if we're not willing to match the wages of the best players.
There's absolutely no excuse. We have the money. I'm kinda sick of Levy getting defended time and time again. Yes, the club is richer than it was when he first came in. Yes he's built a magnificent stadium, unrivalled training ground and can host multiple events to increase revenue ...BUT these are all financial guarantees. If you build a stadium like that, you're guaranteed revenue. That's where Levy falls down ultimately as a football club owner. He's not a gambler and the most successful owners need to be to some extent. Putting your money into bricks and mortar guarantees return. Putting your money into a player doesn't. I'm sure Levy would like success but he won't gamble in order to do it which means ultimately he'll never achieve it. That's the nature of football.
This article basically confirms something we already knew. The money is there but it won't be spent. Levy's Tottenham.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
Even after all the profits. We still have to cut the oap concessions and raise ticket prices way over inflation
Levy is driven by money. That’s the only stat he gives a f a ck about.
posted on 14/11/24
You make good points Dev and all very well explained but much of what you talk about is how we operate in the black and the breakdown of those costs. As a business, I couldn't fault it. It's perfect. Revenue is increasing. The problem is that it's not business, it's football, and the system operates differently. Aside from Liverpool in the past 10 years or so, the only real way of seeing tangible success in the game is to sit comfortably in the red having gambled on big money players, both in terms of fee and wages, and HOPE that Champions League qualification offsets that spend. Once there you go again, as Arsenal did, continuing in the red to climb higher, to hit the ultimate goal of a Prem title. Obviously they're not there yet but they've come close and the only way they've done that is by taking that leap of faith financially. If, when Arteta joined, they'd operated entirely in the black, I guarantee they'd be fighting with us for the other European places. Now, it remains to be seen whether the high wage costs of bringing in more premium players will eventually see them have to curtail spending at some point but what you can't deny is their determination to give it a go.
We all laughed at Boehly but I always knew Chelsea would get back up there before we did because the priority was winning over profit. That too could backfire but you can't question the intent.
Now I know that our taste for flip-flopping in recent years has stalled progress, where wholesale changes to squad profiles has meant a dent in the finances but we're still doing all that in the black. There is still wiggle room to go further, as the most successful clubs do. Getting in Raya, Neto or Eze might have seen us in the red but they could have been the difference in those games we lost this year. I just think you have to flirt with financial failure to gain on field success. There are very few exceptions in Premier League history. Eventually money talks. I just don't think we'll ever have it under Levy.
I understand the financial difficulties pre-stadium build under Poch but it's been open five years and we're still seeing the same caution in the market. Is it even worth it? We pass on sure-fire successes and go for cheaper alternatives and end up having to buy again and again the same position to correct that overly frugal approach. The amount we've spent in total at right back since Walker left is just obscene so trying to cut costs is actually counterproductive, both in a financial and sporting sense.
You should take a look at Paul O'Keefe on X regarding our wage policy. He's very close to the inner workings at the club and he's suggesting the wages will decrease further in order to make investment more palatable for potential buyers. So that contradicts your sense that wages will increase. Essentially the only way of doing that, and therefore combatting the natural inclination to improve the contractual terms for our best players, is to sell and replace them with younger ones, which is really not good news if he is to be believed. I don't take issue with how much we spend. You don't need £100m players to win but you do need to be open to paying good money because even if these top players started on peanuts, eventually performance dictates a need to give them more. If we don't, they'll just leave. That's ultimately my concern over the long term.
posted on 14/11/24
Coincidentally just seen this, which supports my point. Unsure of the validity of the account though…
https://x.com/sb8308715342770/status/1856770423851257892?s=46
posted on 14/11/24
what’s the point on this?
We’re still going to flea markets to find players not in expensive places
We have been buying young players the cheapies which that will just continue
posted on 14/11/24
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
what’s the point on this?
We’re still going to flea markets to find players not in expensive places
We have been buying young players the cheapies which that will just continue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumours also that we're cutting Werner's loan in January. Big wages replaced with Yang's peanuts. This is Levy through and through. I'm surprised so many are surprised at this stage.
posted on 14/11/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
what’s the point on this?
We’re still going to flea markets to find players not in expensive places
We have been buying young players the cheapies which that will just continue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumours also that we're cutting Werner's loan in January. Big wages replaced with Yang's peanuts. This is Levy through and through. I'm surprised so many are surprised at this stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or Werner is shat and the club would rather try the youngster instead
Isn’t that what we all want (Werner binned)
Not sure this is a stick to beat levy with
posted on 14/11/24
Here’s the full rundown of how much each Premier League club pays in wages for the upcoming 2024-25 season
1. Manchester City – £201,864,000
2. Manchester United – £185,580,000
3. Arsenal – £172,146,000
4. Chelsea – £171,210,000
5. Liverpool – £128,804,000
6. Tottenham – £104,806,000
7. Aston Villa – £104,676,000
8. Newcastle United – £103,272,000
9. West Ham United – £90,220,000
10. Crystal Palace – £69,810,000
11. Everton – £69,342,000
12. Fulham – £68,406,000
13. Leicester City – £65,416,000
14. Nottingham Forest – £63,492,000
15. Brighton – £60,658,000
16. Southampton – £56,030,000
17. Bournemouth – £54,704,000
18. Wolves – £53,222,000
19. Brentford – £41,470,000
20. Ipswich Town – £33,176,000
Not sure where Levyshire is getting his fantasy wage stats from
posted on 14/11/24
https://x.com/sb8308715342770/status/1856993656474919080?s=46
Interesting post here too. People are really starting to notice this. This never has been about building something for success. It’s only ever been about penny pinching.
We are doomed until that bald cvnt leaves. Simple as that. Worst part is he seems to have the same kind of determination to stick around as an international despot wanted for war crimes. Real Gadafi energy.
posted on 15/11/24
comment by ●Billy The Spur● LEVY OUT- ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 12 hours, 41 minutes ago
Here’s the full rundown of how much each Premier League club pays in wages for the upcoming 2024-25 season
1. Manchester City – £201,864,000
2. Manchester United – £185,580,000
3. Arsenal – £172,146,000
4. Chelsea – £171,210,000
5. Liverpool – £128,804,000
6. Tottenham – £104,806,000
7. Aston Villa – £104,676,000
8. Newcastle United – £103,272,000
9. West Ham United – £90,220,000
10. Crystal Palace – £69,810,000
11. Everton – £69,342,000
12. Fulham – £68,406,000
13. Leicester City – £65,416,000
14. Nottingham Forest – £63,492,000
15. Brighton – £60,658,000
16. Southampton – £56,030,000
17. Bournemouth – £54,704,000
18. Wolves – £53,222,000
19. Brentford – £41,470,000
20. Ipswich Town – £33,176,000
Not sure where Levyshire is getting his fantasy wage stats from
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My figures come from the official club accounts and cover all wages.
What''s your source because actually no one knows the ins and outs of a players wages, most of it is guess work and speculation.
posted on 15/11/24
Did the OP mistake profligate with profitable?
posted on 15/11/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 10 hours, 43 minutes ago
https://x.com/sb8308715342770/status/1856993656474919080?s=46
Interesting post here too. People are really starting to notice this. This never has been about building something for success. It’s only ever been about penny pinching.
We are doomed until that bald cvnt leaves. Simple as that. Worst part is he seems to have the same kind of determination to stick around as an international despot wanted for war crimes. Real Gadafi energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is just a spin on a process of rebuilding.
posted on 15/11/24
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
posted on 15/11/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 38 minutes ago
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romero was signed before the decision to lower the wage bill began. It's only a recent thing to accelerate investment. What will be interesting is how Levy approaches contract renewal talks. There's a lot of noise about Romero. My feeling is that, unlike the past, Levy will sell and replace with another youngster on peanuts. He'd love nothing better than to shift Romero, Maddison and Son off the books given their wages.
Then he'll find out that you can't finish even remotely close to 4th if you've got a team full of kids with no experience to nurture them.
I just cannot fathom how you can defend Levy to this degree. It's plain to see what he's doing to this club.
posted on 15/11/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 38 minutes ago
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romero was signed before the decision to lower the wage bill began. It's only a recent thing to accelerate investment. What will be interesting is how Levy approaches contract renewal talks. There's a lot of noise about Romero. My feeling is that, unlike the past, Levy will sell and replace with another youngster on peanuts. He'd love nothing better than to shift Romero, Maddison and Son off the books given their wages.
Then he'll find out that you can't finish even remotely close to 4th if you've got a team full of kids with no experience to nurture them.
I just cannot fathom how you can defend Levy to this degree. It's plain to see what he's doing to this club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What decision to lower the wage bill?
You talk about this strategy as if its fact. It aint. This may surprise you but twitter sometimes doesnt post truths, and that journalists will write things that will attract interest and clicks and the gullible flock to it.
It is an idiotic stance to say that players Levy would love nothing more than to sell the players he's sanctioned to buy
It is not plain to see what he's doing. You hang on to spun comparisons between wages, and in response to the ones i have identified which counter your claimed waged trimming trend, you say he'd love nothing more than to sell these players. You ignore anything that goes against your narrative. Look at the overall strategy. Its not based on trimming wages and you cannot prove it does, without be uber selective.
It is beyond stupid to highlight that Spurs have got rid of 33 year Perisic, who we got for free but on huge wages and replaced him with Udogie, a far superior LB but young and on lesser wages as some sort of wage stripping strategy. Or that to have sold Dier and replaced him with VDV on half the wages is also part of that same strategy.
You're blinkered mate. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just looking at the whole picture to form my judgement, not being duped by some cherry-picked comparisons.
posted on 15/11/24
https://x.com/vdvisking/status/1857169519136878844?s=46
Surprise surprise!
posted on 15/11/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 38 minutes ago
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romero was signed before the decision to lower the wage bill began. It's only a recent thing to accelerate investment. What will be interesting is how Levy approaches contract renewal talks. There's a lot of noise about Romero. My feeling is that, unlike the past, Levy will sell and replace with another youngster on peanuts. He'd love nothing better than to shift Romero, Maddison and Son off the books given their wages.
Then he'll find out that you can't finish even remotely close to 4th if you've got a team full of kids with no experience to nurture them.
I just cannot fathom how you can defend Levy to this degree. It's plain to see what he's doing to this club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What decision to lower the wage bill?
You talk about this strategy as if its fact. It aint. This may surprise you but twitter sometimes doesnt post truths, and that journalists will write things that will attract interest and clicks and the gullible flock to it.
It is an idiotic stance to say that players Levy would love nothing more than to sell the players he's sanctioned to buy
It is not plain to see what he's doing. You hang on to spun comparisons between wages, and in response to the ones i have identified which counter your claimed waged trimming trend, you say he'd love nothing more than to sell these players. You ignore anything that goes against your narrative. Look at the overall strategy. Its not based on trimming wages and you cannot prove it does, without be uber selective.
It is beyond stupid to highlight that Spurs have got rid of 33 year Perisic, who we got for free but on huge wages and replaced him with Udogie, a far superior LB but young and on lesser wages as some sort of wage stripping strategy. Or that to have sold Dier and replaced him with VDV on half the wages is also part of that same strategy.
You're blinkered mate. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just looking at the whole picture to form my judgement, not being duped by some cherry-picked comparisons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well time will prove one of us right. Neither of us can be certain at this stage because, as you say, a rebuild naturally sees wages drop anyway.
I should make it clear that this isn't something I've dreamt up myself looking at the stats. It's information fed by Paul O'Keefe, who is very close to the club, or at the very least knows someone influential enough to be pretty bang on with targets and incoming transfers. He's recently been pretty scolding about ENIC's plans, which is pretty out of character. He's usually quite measured in response to club drama so that suggests whatever he's got wind of isn't great news. So anyway, this isn't pub chat between Spurs fans with wild conspiracy theories. It's reliably-informed warnings about where the club is ACTUALLY heading. You can close your eyes to it, fine. You do you. But let's see where we are a year or two from now because if I'm right and the wage bill is about to plummet, then looking at the wage bill table above, it's a pretty good measure of where clubs finish (aside from United). If we're mid table spenders, we'll be mid-table finishers. Then we'll know who's right.
posted on 15/11/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 15 minutes ago
https://x.com/vdvisking/status/1857169519136878844?s=46
Surprise surprise!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually ignore this. Think it's a parody post.
posted on 15/11/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 38 minutes ago
you could easily look at Porro vs Emerson/Doherty, Maddison vs GLC , Richarlison vs Bergwijn, Bissouma vs Winks and see the opposite trend. Romero is our best paid CB ever, whoever you deem him to have replaced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Romero was signed before the decision to lower the wage bill began. It's only a recent thing to accelerate investment. What will be interesting is how Levy approaches contract renewal talks. There's a lot of noise about Romero. My feeling is that, unlike the past, Levy will sell and replace with another youngster on peanuts. He'd love nothing better than to shift Romero, Maddison and Son off the books given their wages.
Then he'll find out that you can't finish even remotely close to 4th if you've got a team full of kids with no experience to nurture them.
I just cannot fathom how you can defend Levy to this degree. It's plain to see what he's doing to this club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What decision to lower the wage bill?
You talk about this strategy as if its fact. It aint. This may surprise you but twitter sometimes doesnt post truths, and that journalists will write things that will attract interest and clicks and the gullible flock to it.
It is an idiotic stance to say that players Levy would love nothing more than to sell the players he's sanctioned to buy
It is not plain to see what he's doing. You hang on to spun comparisons between wages, and in response to the ones i have identified which counter your claimed waged trimming trend, you say he'd love nothing more than to sell these players. You ignore anything that goes against your narrative. Look at the overall strategy. Its not based on trimming wages and you cannot prove it does, without be uber selective.
It is beyond stupid to highlight that Spurs have got rid of 33 year Perisic, who we got for free but on huge wages and replaced him with Udogie, a far superior LB but young and on lesser wages as some sort of wage stripping strategy. Or that to have sold Dier and replaced him with VDV on half the wages is also part of that same strategy.
You're blinkered mate. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just looking at the whole picture to form my judgement, not being duped by some cherry-picked comparisons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well time will prove one of us right. Neither of us can be certain at this stage because, as you say, a rebuild naturally sees wages drop anyway.
I should make it clear that this isn't something I've dreamt up myself looking at the stats. It's information fed by Paul O'Keefe, who is very close to the club, or at the very least knows someone influential enough to be pretty bang on with targets and incoming transfers. He's recently been pretty scolding about ENIC's plans, which is pretty out of character. He's usually quite measured in response to club drama so that suggests whatever he's got wind of isn't great news. So anyway, this isn't pub chat between Spurs fans with wild conspiracy theories. It's reliably-informed warnings about where the club is ACTUALLY heading. You can close your eyes to it, fine. You do you. But let's see where we are a year or two from now because if I'm right and the wage bill is about to plummet, then looking at the wage bill table above, it's a pretty good measure of where clubs finish (aside from United). If we're mid table spenders, we'll be mid-table finishers. Then we'll know who's right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, but you need to look at the whole picture.
That picture includes a club that earns a lot but is now spending just as much meaning we are hovering around break even. SO its not as if the bosses are being cheap in either transfers or wages as we cannot carry much more of either without putting us, for example, where Newcastle ended up this summer, unable to do any serious business.
We have had to rebuild and there has been a big churn of players, and that churn has seen a mix of quality coming in. Some Snr pros and some kids. But as a team that is looking to rebuild and build up to a peak, that is usually through a slightly longer term view. It is not possible to move us from where we ended with Conte to where we want to be in 1 or even 2 windows without spending massively. As above, our ability to spend massively is limited, especially given the number of players being moved on.
As a club owners, Levy is not stupid. We know he will not put us at risk, which some might have a problem with. But at the same time he knows the value of success, particularly now that we have exploited almost every part of the clubs ability to increase revenues. The only missing piece financially is stadium sponsorship and no-one is handing them out anymore. To move us on we need success. Why are City's so wealthy? Their matchday is less than ours, their TV money is similar, the non-football revenues is well below ours.....its down to the other commercial revenues generated from successful and being of the highest profile.
We cannot dope ourselves to that position like they did and Levy will not put us at risk financially in chasing that goal, but he knows the promised land is reached through success.
In my head I have drawn a line under the pre-Ange era. It was a messy time where many mistake were made post-Poch. The strategy has clearly changed, the personnel at all levels of the club have changed and with a new team from Boardroom to coaching pitch, we are in a building phase. Arsenal didnt buy Rice after one season of Arteta, these sort of statement signings are all about timing. At the same time we have had to make changes, but its not fantasy football, a degree of pragmatism has to come into play, its not just about identifying 7 MVPs and buying them all, it's a blend, it has to be.
I think Arsenal are a good example. Have a look at their chronology of signings since Arteta. Initially its a mix of the odd big signing like Partey & White, mixed in with some kids, and some to do a job (many of which are now gone). They got the likes of Odegarrd who was a kid at the time, they got Gabriel in quite cheap and had Saliba as a kid out on loan somewhere.
When you review what they have done you can see a clear strategy, which has also included shifting some expensive unwanted_Aubam, Lacazette, Pepe etc, and you can see the path they have taken. 8th 8th 5th 2nd 2nd.
There is clearly work to be done. Both with this squad and in terms of improving the squad. The over reaction to every bump in the road is just ridiculous and spawns these flimsy narratives about shrinking wages and investment value.
There is a reason why Spurs fans are mocked for a lack of trophies when the likes of Newcastle and Villa are not, despite having way longer droughts...it's because so many of our fans act like entitled <surfers>
I share every fans frustration at the baron time we have had, and i want success, but realism about the timeframe to deliver that has to come into play. I think most fans should be willing to see where this current cycle takes us, rather than calling for the head of players/coach/Levy after ever setback.
posted on 15/11/24
That's part of the issue though Dev. You might be willing to draw a line pre-Ange but the rest of us use those years, going all the way back to Levy's start around 2001, as a barometer for what to expect going forward. To ignore it as a rocky period rather than the mean average is naive. The reason most fans have this level of scepticism is because we've seen it all too often before. Now you might argue we're in a different financial world than before, owed to wise decisions Levy made regarding stadium revenue etc, but as I'd said before, I think those investments were absolutes. They were guaranteed returns. It's one thing to plough 300m into a hotel knowing that profits are almost guaranteed off the back of stadium events, and quite another to commit say 100m on a player when he could flop. Those are the grey areas Levy tends to sweat over.
You're right. Arsenal did build in stages but once they got European football, even finishing 5th behind us, they didn't sit and admire the view, they strengthened. When they usurped us in the CL positions, they really invested that extra revenue and kicked on. The only reason they've yet to win a title is because they're up against the best club side this country has ever seen, but you can't deny their ambition. The outlays Rice, Havertz, Timber & Raya were big and they'd only been in the CL for two years previous to that. They were by no means guaranteed to continue finishing in those positions but they gambled and now they're CL dead certs. I don't think Levy gambles. That's the issue. You might say that's because we're early on in the rebuild but we'd been in the CL year after year under Poch but if anything, our spending slowed down. Some will say that was the stadium but our repayment plan is generous. It barely impacts our spend and certainly doesn't impact PSR rules, given it sits under a different umbrella of club debt.
Maybe you're right but history tells us Levy just operates in a different way, a more cautious way and it's that caution, that hesitancy, that will ultimately trip us over time and time again as it always has done in the past.
Page 2 of 3