Is the slow build starting to even the financial gap?

[Roynie]

If we can fill Wembly to 70-80% capacity in all our home games next season, it should greatly increase our revenue.

I'm not convinced. IIRC it is going to cost us £15m to rent Wembly for the season. If we average say £40 a seat then we would need 20,000 more people over and above what we get at WHL for each of the league games just to break even. So that would be about 55,000 per league game. Eighty % capacity would only leave an additional 17000 fans over that 55000. At £40 a seat that brings in £680k per game. It's an increase, but not that great to be able to do much with.

Of course if we get CL and home FA cup games then it would improve, but at this stage of the season nothing is a given yet.

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

Our great net spending track record is for me more than slightly tainted knowing how much money we have spent on transfers that did not work out. It will come back and haunt us - it might already do so.

I know, I know. Nobody gets all the transfers right. It's true. Some transfers fail. But the way we have failed is truly nothing short of an outstanding accomplishment.

In my view, we would have been better off spending less on fewer but better players.

We spend a lot of money being a failure in the transfer market. Look at Manchester United you would say. THEY spend a lot. And we mock them day in and day out, "Pogba cost 89, Kane cost 0". But in principal, not necessarily in the extensiveness of the outcome, but in principle, how much better are we really than they are?

We are wasting money on transfer, screaming that we have nothing to waste. "We can't do this, we can't do that, haven't got the finances". Well apparently, we have more than enough money to squander on failures, don't we.

So until we not only have a net spend result but start buying players that actually matters, our financial status as a sound and sober club only goes so far.

I'm sure some of our fans stay awake all night thinking of things to moan about.....ffs

How anyone can question our transfer success over the last 5 years or so baffles me. Sure we've made a few mistakes, but to have a zero net spend over the last 5 years and be top 5 with the squad we have is pretty amazing.

Take a look at the 90's if you want to see a team with a bad strategy.

 

[Always Offside]

I don't buy into the spend more on less players scenario. We're playing for 4 trophies each season, so if we have less players it means less players to rotate/rest. If one of our big buys gets injured for a length of time not only do we have 1 player less in our smaller squad, we have a lesser quality replacement taking his place.

All clubs have successes and failures in the transfer market. The fact that we have had zero net spend indicates that our failures have been minimal, either by recouping most of the money spent on the "failures" or making profits on other players.

I think we're the best run club in the Premier league (if not in football) & I think Levy, Poch et al have got things just about right. We have a world class training ground, and soon to have a world class stadium. The sky is the limit.

I've never been prouder to be a Spurs fan.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

I think you're making an over simplistic argument of this. It's a squad game and of that money Sissoko, Son and Janssen(30, 22, 18.5) make up more than half the figure. Of all those players you could argue that N'Jie was the only confirmed failure and we'll probably make our money back on him.

Janssen, N'koudou, Wimmer were all signed as players that would take up squad positions with the possibility of picking up game time and developing into more expensive/vital players and they probably all will.

Arguably of the list Wanyama, Alderweireld and Trippier have all done what they were bought for. Two first team and one competition/backup and Trippier has been unlucky to have Walker improving so much.

Son I think contributes whenever called upon and has a decent goals to game return and is an excellent back up to Kane.

Disappointments would be Sissoko as he was bought to go straight into the first team as evidenced by Poch and he doesn't look close.

To do well in the league you need players that can fill in when you have injuries and play games in the cup comps etc. I think the fact we are second in the league losing only two games despite losing Kane, Alderweireld and Vertonghen to lengthy injuries and also Rose to a shorter one says we are doing ok. I don't see how signing two 50m pound players would of been better than having the options we do for when we are hit with injuries.

The two that are in the first team are the only two who were bought as first team players. All the others were bought as squad players.

apart from Njie, Sissoko and Janssen, we would make an profit on the other 6.

Of course my argument was simplistic, because it was a response to another simplistic idea, namely that we don't have the finances to buy players and that we are building a stadium.

As I have clearly outlined already, and repeatedly referred to during transfer windows as well, we must certainly do have money. Finances and building a stadium is not prohibiting us from having money for transfers, that much is plain to see by simply looking at the facts of past transactions.

Equally, yes we needed squad players. But that's exactly what spurred this discussion. The catch 22, circle arguments goes like so:
"We should have bought better squad players". -> "We couldn't, because we don't have money". -> "Well, look at what we actually have spent, we most certainly do have money".

I'm not arguing that we don't need squad players. I'm countering the argument that we are strapped for money, and I'm alluding to the possibility of us lacking the power of good squad transfer skills, but not lacking financial power.

 

[Lilbaz]

If we can fill Wembly to 70-80% capacity in all our home games next season, it should greatly increase our revenue.

Corporate baby. Those prawn sandwitches don't pay for themselves.

 

[philip]

Of course my argument was simplistic, because it was a response to another simplistic idea, namely that we don't have the finances to buy players and that we are building a stadium.

As I have clearly outlined already, and repeatedly referred to during transfer windows as well, we must certainly do have money. Finances and building a stadium is not prohibiting us from having money for transfers, that much is plain to see by simply looking at the facts of past transactions.

Equally, yes we needed squad players. But that's exactly what spurred this discussion. The catch 22, circle arguments goes like so:
"We should have bought better squad players". -> "We couldn't, because we don't have money". -> "Well, look at what we actually have spent, we most certainly do have money".

I'm not arguing that we don't need squad players. I'm countering the argument that we are strapped for money, and I'm alluding to the possibility of us lacking the power of good squad transfer skills, but not lacking financial power.

I don't think we do lack the transfer skills. I just think that what we have is by and large difficult to upgrade on

Where we are let down financially is in wages. Sadio Mane and Wijnuldum, both players we preferred to Sissoko, went to Liverpool rather than us because they paid wages we simply cannot afford.

If we paid higher wages to these new players, it would have a knock on effect on all existing players

 

[lukespurs7]

For a long time now under Levy's leadership we have had a zero net spend.

Rather than just throwing a high net spend in a hope of improvement a more gradual improvement was sought.

In 2004/2005 the DOF system started to take place. Cheaper, short term signings like Mendes, Stalteri and Davids were brought in and some longer term options like Carrick, Dawson and Zielger were brought in. Naturally not all worked out but we came 5th twice in a row quickly so improvement was on the way.

Move forward a couple of seasons and our net spend was still around £0 but instead of buying players for £3-5m we were buying players for £10m. Through a gradually improving wage bill and selling players for a profit we were buying in higher quality of player without financially hurting ourselves in the long run.

Aston Villa at a similar time spent big and came 6th 3 seasons running but once O'neill wanted to continue spending the board had to say no, he left and they went downhill undoing all their improvement very quickly.

Since then we have sold Berbatov, Modric and Bale for very big money and replaced with higher quality players.

We are now at a stage where our squad is largely internationals and highly coveted young players. Top teams in Europe would gladly have Lloris, Rose, Walker, Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Dembele, Eriksen, Alli and Kane.

The title challenge discussions regularly discuss our low net spend. But I believe this has become less of a debilitating factor.

Chelsea, Man Utd and City have all looked for short-term results and regardless of their financial security they have had to continuously had to rebuild their squad. We are settled but they are always looking for another big signing to take them to the top. They want to buy, we want to hold onto our players.

Our squad is good enough and strong enough to compete with the top Prem teams. We haven't quite got to the top yet but next season I expect us to continue competing at the top regardless of how much Utd, City and Chelsea spend.

Its a more financially viable stable strategy for long-term success, dare i say similar to how Man.U were under Fergie and then as his sides started to age he'd gradually replace those he needed to with a combination of younger prospects and short-term fixes, some work out well, others dont.

We have a truely excellent squad base to now keep building on and improving.
We're at a point where only really top top class players can improve us which is a very nice situation to be in, it provides better squad stability which helps players get used to each other and forms a better team bond. Probably a big part of why we're doing better and are more consistent.

We just lack 1-2 world class players the likes of Sanchez, De Bruyne, Hazard/Pedro, Mane/Coutiniho who can change a game. Alli and Kane and to and extent Eriksen are close to this bracket but we still miss one.

ISCO where are you? White Hart Lane is waiting for you.

 

[DogsOfWar]

I think we are at a stage where if a big gun comes in for one of our players the money we would get would fund the replacement and give us nice profit as well whilst not having a detrimental effect on the overall team. As a result we can spend big on players.

But the important part is how we spend that money. Our track record for spending on players over £15 million is not great.
Lamela, Son, Soldado, Paulinho, Janssen, and Sissoko are probably around £150 million in outlay and I think it is fair to say don't measure up as well when put up against our sub £15 million players such as Lloris, Verts, Eriksen, Alli, Toby, Wanyama etc.

My view is that if we can't pick up an Isco level player for the big money we should stick to up and coming players such as Oliver Burke, Sessegnon, Dembele etc or the European equivalents (which I don't know much about but Coric etc).

I think the problem is that a genuine £30 million player would either be wanted by a top club or they would want to go to a top club (which is why I don't believe we will pick up Isco) so if we are paying that kind of money it is on a player that probably isn't worth it.

I also believe that if we can stick around in the top four for another couple of seasons until the stadium is unveiled we will start to be considered a top club and will be able to attract those players then.

 

[Danners9]

suppose this is the best place for the link, instead of starting a new thread: http://www.football365.com/news/which-player-earns-the-most-at-every-pl-club

It says Kane and Lloris are the highest earners, 120k. Meanwhile Rooney (300k), Aguero/Toure (240k) are the top three earners in the league.

Last line: Oh, and Crystal Palace’s best-paid player earns the same money as Tottenham’s. They really are working miracles down at White Hart Lane.

 

[Lilbaz]

suppose this is the best place for the link, instead of starting a new thread: http://www.football365.com/news/which-player-earns-the-most-at-every-pl-club

It says Kane and Lloris are the highest earners, 120k. Meanwhile Rooney (300k), Aguero/Toure (240k) are the top three earners in the league.

Last line: Oh, and Crystal Palace’s best-paid player earns the same money as Tottenham’s. They really are working miracles down at White Hart Lane.

We heavily load on performance based bonuses (i'm led to believe).

 

[dontcallme]

We heavily load on performance based bonuses (i'm led to believe).

Possibly the most important factor to consider is we haven't sold a player to a domestic rival since Keane and Berbatov in 2008.

If the clubs we are competing with are such a huge step up then they'd have taken our players since then.

Like I say the financial gap isn't as big a game changer anymore that some believe it to be. Our squad and togetherness can match those around us.

Had a Manu Utd fan start in my office this week talking the usual nonsense about Kane to Utd, Lloris to Arsenal etc. I asked why no one had left in the last 9 years, he just didn't seem to understand it.

 

[crokey]

I don't buy into the spend more on less players scenario. We're playing for 4 trophies each season, so if we have less players it means less players to rotate/rest. If one of our big buys gets injured for a length of time not only do we have 1 player less in our smaller squad, we have a lesser quality replacement taking his place.

All clubs have successes and failures in the transfer market. The fact that we have had zero net spend indicates that our failures have been minimal, either by recouping most of the money spent on the "failures" or making profits on other players.

I think we're the best run club in the Premier league (if not in football) & I think Levy, Poch et al have got things just about right. We have a world class training ground, and soon to have a world class stadium. The sky is the limit.

I've never been prouder to be a Spurs fan.

That makes sense when you are a team like Everton when the majority of your team is 7/10 and you want to buy a selection of 7.5 or 8's. But when your team is already full of 8 or 9/10's like ours, you want to focus your spending on buying 1 or 2 more 9's instead of 3 or 4 more 8's.

 

[spids]

In my view, we would have been better off spending less on fewer but better players.

Whilst I do agree with that sentiment to a certain degree, it is very difficult without the benefit if hindsight to say who we should not have bought though. Would the cheaper buys like ... Alli (£5M), Eriksen (£11M), Vertonghen (£11M), Alderweireld (£11M), Rose (£1M), Walker (£2M), Wanyama (£11M), Dier (£3.5M), Lloris (£8M) etc. have been sacrificed for more Jannsen's (£17M), Soladado's (£27M), Sissoko's (£30M), Lamela's(£30M) etc.?

Without looking at too much detail, I think it is fair to say that we have been on a journey of progressive improvement playing squad wise over the last 10 years. We have also seen a decrease in the average age of players, increase in number of 'home developed' youth players joining the first team. Whilst TV money has massively increased in the last 10 years, our net spend has stayed at zero, meaning bigger profits each year.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

That makes sense when you are a team like Everton when the majority of your team is 7/10 and you want to buy a selection of 7.5 or 8's. But when your team is already full of 8 or 9/10's like ours, you want to focus your spending on buying 1 or 2 more 9's instead of 3 or 4 more 8's.

We are now getting to the point where we just need to tinker with the team and make very minor changes. Poch's indifference to the January transfer window evidences this. We appear to have 15+ players who the manager is very happy with for the foreseeable future.

However, I do think spids makes a good point, in that our most expensive signings have often not been as successful as hoped and may have meant missing out on other cheaper but more successful signing.

We do appear to be using academy players to plug gaps in the squad, rather than signing fairly average squad players, as we did in the past. I see this as positive for the team, as well as making better financial sense.

I actually expect our transfer windows to carry on in roughly the same vein:

• Summer - one expensive player each summer (like Sissoko and Son), along with a quality player at below market value (like Lloris, Wanyama, Alderweireld, Alli, Eriksen, Vertonghen etc). We normally compliment this by taking a gamble on a couple of mid-priced players who are only proven in a weaker league...this is where we are likely to see a change in tact, as the overall squad gradually strengthens.
  Next summer, we will probably see yet another striker and winger/AM signed. One of the two is likely to be our big signing, with the other being a gamble. If one of the two pays off, that's one less signing needed the following summer. If we sign a quality winger/AM who walks into the starting line-up, we might see someone like Son move on, in which case we may sign another relatively unproven player.

• January - no signings, unless we are getting in early for someone with a contract running down etc, but are really signing them for the next season (e.g. like we did with Alli).

 

[spids]

We are now getting to the point where we just need to tinker with the team and make very minor changes. Poch's indifference to the January transfer window evidences this. We appear to have 15+ players who the manager is very happy with for the foreseeable future.

However, I do think spids makes a good point, in that our most expensive signings have often not been as successful as hoped and may have meant missing out on other cheaper but more successful signing.

We do appear to be using academy players to plug gaps in the squad, rather than signing fairly average squad players, as we did in the past. I see this as positive for the team, as well as making better financial sense.

I actually expect our transfer windows to carry on in roughly the same vein:

• Summer - one expensive player each summer (like Sissoko and Son), along with a quality player at below market value (like Lloris, Wanyama, Alderweireld, Alli, Eriksen, Vertonghen etc). We normally compliment this by taking a gamble on a couple of mid-priced players who are only proven in a weaker league...this is where we are likely to see a change in tact, as the overall squad gradually strengthens.
  Next summer, we will probably see yet another striker and winger/AM signed. One of the two is likely to be our big signing, with the other being a gamble. If one of the two pays off, that's one less signing needed the following summer. If we sign a quality winger/AM who walks into the starting line-up, we might see someone like Son move on, in which case we may sign another relatively unproven player.

• January - no signings, unless we are getting in early for someone with a contract running down etc, but are really signing them for the next season (e.g. like we did with Alli).

Totally agree with this. And the point you made (that I have bolded) means we can get significant fees for youth developed players who do not become significant first team players. Showcased by the fees we have received for the likes of Bentaleb (£1M loan fee with £17M permanent option), Mason (£13M), and Carroll (£5M rising to £9M).

It will be interesting if Levy does decide to cash in on high-value, long contract players as they approach 30 (e.g. Lloris, Vertoghen, Dembele) and replace with the youth coming through (e.g. Pau, Wimmer, Winks). I personally really doubt this will happen, but Arsenal took a similar approach through necessity when they were paying for their new stadium so i would not rule it out.

Maybe a better example, imagine if a big club offered £30-£40M for Kyle Walker and Poch told Levy he could make Kyle Walker-Peters as good a player inside 12-18 months. Looking at what Poch already achieved with Shaw and Clyne at Soton, and Rose and Walker with us, it would be hard not to back him.

Plus Levy would get the extra "Peters" in lettering revenue at the club shop (tongue in cheek comment!)

 

[Luka Van der Bale]

Its a more financially viable stable strategy for long-term success, dare i say similar to how Man.U were under Fergie and then as his sides started to age he'd gradually replace those he needed to with a combination of younger prospects and short-term fixes, some work out well, others dont.

We have a truely excellent squad base to now keep building on and improving.
We're at a point where only really top top class players can improve us which is a very nice situation to be in, it provides better squad stability which helps players get used to each other and forms a better team bond. Probably a big part of why we're doing better and are more consistent.

We just lack 1-2 world class players the likes of Sanchez, De Bruyne, Hazard/Pedro, Mane/Coutiniho who can change a game. Alli and Kane and to and extent Eriksen are close to this bracket but we still miss one.

ISCO where are you? White Hart Lane is waiting for you.

Pedro, Mane and Coutinho are of a level with Alli and Eriksen.

 

[hakano]

I'm not convinced. IIRC it is going to cost us £15m to rent Wembly for the season. If we average say £40 a seat then we would need 20,000 more people over and above what we get at WHL for each of the league games just to break even. So that would be about 55,000 per league game. Eighty % capacity would only leave an additional 17000 fans over that 55000. At £40 a seat that brings in £680k per game. It's an increase, but not that great to be able to do much with.

Of course if we get CL and home FA cup games then it would improve, but at this stage of the season nothing is a given yet.

But don't forget the incremental revenue - not just seats but F&B, hospitality, programmes, merchandise etc. They will all add.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Totally agree with this. And the point you made (that I have bolded) means we can get significant fees for youth developed players who do not become significant first team players. Showcased by the fees we have received for the likes of Bentaleb (£1M loan fee with £17M permanent option), Mason (£13M), and Carroll (£5M rising to £9M).

It will be interesting if Levy does decide to cash in on high-value, long contract players as they approach 30 (e.g. Lloris, Vertoghen, Dembele) and replace with the youth coming through (e.g. Pau, Wimmer, Winks). I personally really doubt this will happen, but Arsenal took a similar approach through necessity when they were paying for their new stadium so i would not rule it out.

Maybe a better example, imagine if a big club offered £30-£40M for Kyle Walker and Poch told Levy he could make Kyle Walker-Peters as good a player inside 12-18 months. Looking at what Poch already achieved with Shaw and Clyne at Soton, and Rose and Walker with us, it would be hard not to back him.

Plus Levy would get the extra "Peters" in lettering revenue at the club shop (tongue in cheek comment!)

I don't think we will sell any of our key players unless they are no longer a guaranteed starter and want to move on (i.e. they are no longer a key player).

The stadium financing was put in place before the new increased TV deal was announced, so we should be in a strong position to turn keep our players. If a silly bid comes in (like £90m for Bale), we might entertain it, if it's not from a direct rival.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

We just lack 1-2 world class players the likes of Sanchez, De Bruyne, Hazard/Pedro, Mane/Coutiniho who can change a game. Alli and Kane and to and extent Eriksen are close to this bracket but we still miss one.

Out of those players, I honestly think only Sanchez, De Bruyne or Hazard would be a guaranteed regular for our team (at the expense of Lamela/Son, with us playing 4-2-3-1). Coutinho would be back-up for Eriksen. Mane would be an impact sub / rotation player. Pedro would be a rotation player.

 

[Mullers]

Possibly the most important factor to consider is we haven't sold a player to a domestic rival since Keane and Berbatov in 2008.

If the clubs we are competing with are such a huge step up then they'd have taken our players since then.

Like I say the financial gap isn't as big a game changer anymore that some believe it to be. Our squad and togetherness can match those around us.

Had a Manu Utd fan start in my office this week talking the usual nonsense about Kane to Utd, Lloris to Arsenal etc. I asked why no one had left in the last 9 years, he just didn't seem to understand it.

I think I can answer that. One reason is Real Madrid, they came in for Bale and Modric. If they didn't probably United would have. Modric and Bale would have pushed for a move, we would have no choice but to sell. Kane is young and very loyal to spurs at the moment but if he comes to the peak of his career and we still haven't achieved anything apart from the odd CL appearance and 5th place finishes he will, think about moving on, same with Alli. Last seasons top four achievement as well as Poch being a stable fixture at the club as really settled down the likes of Lloris and Verts. If Tim Sherwood was our manager and we just achieved 6th place, I think it would be a different story.