Spurs can’t compete financially – discuss.

[Indacupfortottenham]

How do you consistently compete at the top and stay a successful team if you don't pay top wages?

I think by bringing through, developing and scouting youth, we have the infrastructure in place now, more Bale's, Dier's, Ali's and Kane's please!
Also by signing really good players that are at the end of their contracts, that have been overlooked by the big boys, like Lorrs, Eriksen, Vertonghen etc and giving them a crack at the Prem.
Our biggest signings never seem to live up to expectations - We can't afford the top bracket so go for the lesser players that rarely work out, I'd rather see us continue to give hungry young players a go, they always seem to surpass expectations unlike some of our record deals like, Bent, Bentley, Paulinho, Soldado, Sissoko etc.

Most important thing for me is the coaching staff and a style of play that the whole club from top to bottom buys into. Athletico are the prime example of how the right coaching
can compete with unlimited resources.
No club can keep players if they really want to leave, even the richest, UTD and Ronaldo is the prime example.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

I might be wrong, but I don't think that Poch was saying our aim is to compete financially at the top, but to compete as a team at the top, and become one of the most successful teams.

What he said, or meant was that we have to compete in a different way, and not by (to paraphrase) throw money at the problem. Finances regarding transfer policy may change once we move into the new stadium but we will never be paying eighty odd million for a player.

 

[tiger666]

How do you consistently compete at the top and stay a successful team if you don't pay top wages?

Here we go again ...

 

[Hot Spur]

How do you consistently compete at the top and stay a successful team if you don't pay top wages?

In short, you don't. Not in the long term.

 

[minesadouble]

Thanks for all the Comments.

Sorry for the long post but a few general points in response.

I think it’s quite clear Pochettino was referencing Spurs ‘financial’ situation with his quote. He’s talking about Levy ‘creating a massive club’ and taking it ‘to the final level’. He recognises that it will really only be ‘when we get the new stadium’ that we can be one of the best teams in the world (in short, we need the extra income). Of course, we want to win today too but we’re also laying the foundations for long term success.

A few people would like to know more about our situation versus, say, United's. It might take us 20 years to catch United. But it could be much quicker. Things can change must faster than you think. A little more than 10 years ago the I-phone didn't exist.

Man United’s income in 2016 was £515 million. This compares with Spurs £210 million. So, they had 2.45 times as much income as us.

Breaking it down, their Match Day income was £107m versus Spurs at £41m. However, by 2019, this gap will be much smaller, and probably closed entirely. United have a bigger capacity. Spurs will have higher average ticket prices. We’ll also have NFL games and more concerts, boxing, etc. Let’s call Match Day income ‘a draw’.

Man United’s Broadcasting revenues were £140 million versus Spurs £110 million. Broadcasting includes PL and UEFA Prize money. The gap in 2016 reflects United being in the CL and then Europa (losing to Liverpool) and Spurs only being in the Europa (losing to Dortmund). United also earned a little more PL prize money (higher in table). And United TV earns them more revenue than Spurs TV. In 2017, we already know the Broadcasting figures were much closer. In fact, Spurs probably earned more. Both clubs got PL pay-outs of around £150m. Spurs got CL but United won Europa. Basically, it almost depends on which club does better in Europe (assuming we both come Top 6 in PL). Again, I’d call that ‘a draw’.

So looking ahead to 2019, it’s not overly optimistic to expect Spurs and United to have similar Match Day + Broadcasting Revenues of say £300m each.

The big gap is in ‘Commercial’. United had £268m in 2016 while Spurs only had £60m. The critical question is whether Spurs can close that gap and, if so, how quickly? Could it take 5-6 years or must it take 20 years?

About two thirds of United’s commercial income comes from 3 contracts: a US$ 110m deal with Adidas, a US$ 80m deal with Chevrolet and a US$ 22m deal with Aon = say £165m per annum. Although United also lists a whole A-Z of other corporate sponsors on its website (http://www.manutd.com/en/Partners/Global-Partners.aspx) it doesn’t look as if the club earns much actual sponsorship income from them. The balance of United's commercial income comes from ‘retailing and licensing, probably including fees from those non-Kit partners’ (£97m) and ‘mobile’ (£11m). What that boils down to is shirt and mug sales, affiliate fees, and downloads of United content.

Spurs are obviously well behind. In 2016, we earned £48 million from corporate sponsors and only £12 million from merchandising. Our digital-mobile revenues aren’t itemised and are probably a small part of the £48m.

In Spurs’ case around £26m of commercial came from ‘Kit’; £10m from Under Armour and £16m from AIA. However, new deals with Nike (£25m) and AIA (£25m) have been signed, more or less doubling Spurs projected Kit revenues from 2017-18 season onwards. That’s £50 million compared with United’s £150 million.

Let’s assume that a shiny new stadium shop and website, plus Nike shirts, CL football and more overseas fans, Spurs can increase merchandise revenues from £12m to £20m by 2019-2020 (compared with United’s £60m from shirts?).

So United have 3 times the size kit deal and sell 3 times as many shirts as Spurs. That currently gives them a £180m income advantage that Match Days and TV money won’t close. In very round numbers, they're at £580m and we're at £400m.

I don’t have time here and now to discuss how that remaining gap can be closed within 5-6 years. But the facts and figures I’ve put here specify the problem. United don’t have a fixed £400 million advantage over Spurs. It’s less than half that. And their commercial revenues may be stalling (http://www.cityam.com/258878/have-manchester-united-reached-peak-noodle-partner-why), while Spurs have much more scope to grow theirs in relative terms. Spurs will never sell as many shirts in Africa as United. But in the key battlegrounds of Asia and USA United’s advantage is less clear cut.

Ultimately it still all depends on what happens on the pitch (thankfully). In the 1960s-70s, even the 80s, Spurs and United were comparable brands. In the years since, we've fallen behind. There are non-football reasons for that but the main reason is that United had 20 Seasons of fantastic success. We didn't. (although we do still share the same footballing tradition of being England's glamour clubs playing the 'right way', whereas Liverpool and Arsenal were about a different brand of football. Reputations can survive a few years of Van Gaal and AVB).

Like it or not, financial success and football success are totally linked. Or at least deep pockets and trophies are linked. Every single Spurs fan would love this team, home grown, well bought, brilliantly coached and non-mercenary to win things. That would be perfect. It may well happen.

But as Hot Spur says above, you can't base a long term strategy on that. Spurs are at a tipping point. We're either a kind of 'Southampton-plus'. Identifying talent, doing fine, but trading our best players eventually, reinvesting. Overall, Levy did a brilliant job at that. But now we have the chance to build our income and expenses to compete properly at the Top Table. Not blowing wads of dirty cash. But competing financially and on the pitch.

 

[TheHood]

In short, you don't. Not in the long term.

And only the most deluded would believe otherwise.

We are in the same position as the likes of Dortmund, A. Madrid, we have reached our financial ceiling and even the new stadium doesn't alter that. It is sensible to acknowledge what we rather than trying to convince ourselves we are not.

 

[Hot Spur]

Thanks for all the Comments.

Sorry for the long post but a few general points in response.

I think it’s quite clear Pochettino was referencing Spurs ‘financial’ situation with his quote. He’s talking about Levy ‘creating a massive club’ and taking it ‘to the final level’. He recognises that it will really only be ‘when we get the new stadium’ that we can be one of the best teams in the world (in short, we need the extra income). Of course, we want to win today too but we’re also laying the foundations for long term success.

A few people would like to know more about our situation versus, say, United's. It might take us 20 years to catch United. But it could be much quicker. Things can change must faster than you think. A little more than 10 years ago the I-phone didn't exist.

Man United’s income in 2016 was £515 million. This compares with Spurs £210 million. So, they had 2.45 times as much income as us.

Breaking it down, their Match Day income was £107m versus Spurs at £41m. However, by 2019, this gap will be much smaller, and probably closed entirely. United have a bigger capacity. Spurs will have higher average ticket prices. We’ll also have NFL games and more concerts, boxing, etc. Let’s call Match Day income ‘a draw’.

Man United’s Broadcasting revenues were £140 million versus Spurs £110 million. Broadcasting includes PL and UEFA Prize money. The gap in 2016 reflects United being in the CL and then Europa (losing to Liverpool) and Spurs only being in the Europa (losing to Dortmund). United also earned a little more PL prize money (higher in table). And United TV earns them more revenue than Spurs TV. In 2017, we already know the Broadcasting figures were much closer. In fact, Spurs probably earned more. Both clubs got PL pay-outs of around £150m. Spurs got CL but United won Europa. Basically, it almost depends on which club does better in Europe (assuming we both come Top 6 in PL). Again, I’d call that ‘a draw’.

So looking ahead to 2019, it’s not overly optimistic to expect Spurs and United to have similar Match Day + Broadcasting Revenues of say £300m each.

The big gap is in ‘Commercial’. United had £268m in 2016 while Spurs only had £60m. The critical question is whether Spurs can close that gap and, if so, how quickly? Could it take 5-6 years or must it take 20 years?

About two thirds of United’s commercial income comes from 3 contracts: a US$ 110m deal with Adidas, a US$ 80m deal with Chevrolet and a US$ 22m deal with Aon = say £165m per annum. Although United also lists a whole A-Z of other corporate sponsors on its website (http://www.manutd.com/en/Partners/Global-Partners.aspx) it doesn’t look as if the club earns much actual sponsorship income from them. The balance of United's commercial income comes from ‘retailing and licensing, probably including fees from those non-Kit partners’ (£97m) and ‘mobile’ (£11m). What that boils down to is shirt and mug sales, affiliate fees, and downloads of United content.

Spurs are obviously well behind. In 2016, we earned £48 million from corporate sponsors and only £12 million from merchandising. Our digital-mobile revenues aren’t itemised and are probably a small part of the £48m.

In Spurs’ case around £26m of commercial came from ‘Kit’; £10m from Under Armour and £16m from AIA. However, new deals with Nike (£25m) and AIA (£25m) have been signed, more or less doubling Spurs projected Kit revenues from 2017-18 season onwards. That’s £50 million compared with United’s £150 million.

Let’s assume that a shiny new stadium shop and website, plus Nike shirts, CL football and more overseas fans, Spurs can increase merchandise revenues from £12m to £20m by 2019-2020 (compared with United’s £60m from shirts?).

So United have 3 times the size kit deal and sell 3 times as many shirts as Spurs. That currently gives them a £180m income advantage that Match Days and TV money won’t close. In very round numbers, they're at £580m and we're at £400m.

I don’t have time here and now to discuss how that remaining gap can be closed within 5-6 years. But the facts and figures I’ve put here specify the problem. United don’t have a fixed £400 million advantage over Spurs. It’s less than half that. And their commercial revenues may be stalling (http://www.cityam.com/258878/have-manchester-united-reached-peak-noodle-partner-why), while Spurs have much more scope to grow theirs in relative terms. Spurs will never sell as many shirts in Africa as United. But in the key battlegrounds of Asia and USA United’s advantage is less clear cut.

Ultimately it still all depends on what happens on the pitch (thankfully). In the 1960s-70s, even the 80s, Spurs and United were comparable brands. In the years since, we've fallen behind. There are non-football reasons for that but the main reason is that United had 20 Seasons of fantastic success. We didn't. (although we do still share the same footballing tradition of being England's glamour clubs playing the 'right way', whereas Liverpool and Arsenal were about a different brand of football. Reputations can survive a few years of Van Gaal and AVB).

Like it or not, financial success and football success are totally linked. Or at least deep pockets and trophies are linked. Every single Spurs fan would love this team, home grown, well bought, brilliantly coached and non-mercenary to win things. That would be perfect. It may well happen.

But as Hot Spur says above, you can't base a long term strategy on that. Spurs are at a tipping point. We're either a kind of 'Southampton-plus'. Identifying talent, doing fine, but trading our best players eventually, reinvesting. Overall, Levy did a brilliant job at that. But now we have the chance to build our income and expenses to compete properly at the Top Table. Not blowing wads of dirty cash. But competing financially and on the pitch.

You've got that last sentence the wrong way round. The only way spurs will ever compete financially with Man Utd is by success on the pitch. That comes first, not the other way round as you've put it. There were idiots on this forum ( in a different thread), saying that spurs had a better season than Man Utd because spurs finished second and Utd fifth.What a load of cobblers. Utd season summary = Qualified for CL group stage and won 3 trophies, one of which a European cup. Spurs season summary = Qualified for CL group stage, won zero trophies. How can anybody with more than a single brain cell claim that spurs had the better season?? This is whole point though, Man Utd win things, even at their lowest for donkey's years since Fergie left, they still win things. While that continues, and spurs continue to fall short of winning anything, spurs will never, ever, catch Man Utd financially.

 

[Shadydan]

If you think we're going to get anywhere near Utd's turnover, now, 10 years or even 20 years you're simply living in a dream world, it's just not going to happen.

 

[dontcallme]

Can we perform financially? No. Can we compete on the pitch with our current setup? Yes.

The likes of Rose, Walker, Eriksen, Alli and Kane cost very little or nothing but are very highly coveted by top clubs and acknowledged as top stars.

Despite paper talk we have not lost any of our players to local rivals for 9 years.

Utd were hugely successful mixing high spending with bringing through youth. Since they have started spending big they have gone downhill.

So I believe our current can make us successful on the pitch. We will not be buying top players ahead of rivals and we should stop trying. But this has not stopped us getting 2 straight top 3 finishes.

 

[SPURSLIFE]

I think by bringing through, developing and scouting youth, we have the infrastructure in place now, more Bale's, Dier's, Ali's and Kane's please!
Also by signing really good players that are at the end of their contracts, that have been overlooked by the big boys, like Lorrs, Eriksen, Vertonghen etc and giving them a crack at the Prem.
Our biggest signings never seem to live up to expectations - We can't afford the top bracket so go for the lesser players that rarely work out, I'd rather see us continue to give hungry young players a go, they always seem to surpass expectations unlike some of our record deals like, Bent, Bentley, Paulinho, Soldado, Sissoko etc.

Most important thing for me is the coaching staff and a style of play that the whole club from top to bottom buys into. Athletico are the prime example of how the right coaching
can compete with unlimited resources.
No club can keep players if they really want to leave, even the richest, UTD and Ronaldo is the prime example.

If that's what you think you are going to be very dissapointed I'm afraid. The Ali's of this world are very rare and don't come along very often.How many Kane's have we produced in recent years? Ledley was probably the last.
You say no club can keep players if they want to leave but if the club is successful then they wont want to leave, You mention Ronaldo how many others have wanted to leave Utd?

 

[Japhet]

Levy is a very astute businessman and, IMO, right at the top of his priority list, is keeping Spurs in the black and safeguarding the investors interests. To do that we are constrained on transfer fees and wages and will not be throwing money around. I believe that if the right buyer turned up, the club would be sold, but I'd feel like a bit of its' soul would be lost. I'm also fairly confident that the 'right' buyer wouldn't necessarily be the one with the deepest pockets.

 

[millsey]

I don't care about competing financially tbh.

Madness. If we don't compete financially we wrong compete at the top. Yes we finished 2nd last year, but there's a reason the team with the money finish on top. Wages for one. We contribute to pay low wages compared to the rest, then don't even start a thread saying we may get Lemar ect. Also poch won't be around forever. New managers can't continue to make us challengers with a low budget and wages.

 

[lol]

we can, just that we dont use it wisely and rarely get it right. all that wasted money on sissoko, paulinho, soldado, too fucking many too named, consolidate all that money anf we could have funded a top signing.

 

[mpickard2087]

Madness. If we don't compete financially we wrong compete at the top. Yes we finished 2nd last year, but there's a reason the team with the money finish on top. Wages for one. We contribute to pay low wages compared to the rest, then don't even start a thread saying we may get Lemar ect. Also poch won't be around forever. New managers can't continue to make us challengers with a low budget and wages.

I couldn't care less if we sign a Lemar etc.

And most of the fans didn't rate Poch's chances at all - It shows there are good coaches out there. Who knows what the next one could achieve? He is out there somewhere. It's what executives are paid for, to find the next man.

We cant go toe-to-toe financially with about 10 clubs in the world, hardly poverty, even then with the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool we are capable of buying players they want as has been seen in recent years. More money to me just means football clubs feeling they have to spend it and doing what 99.9% of people in football do - throw enough money about and hope that more of it comes up trumps than your rivals.

We will still lag behind financially even with the new stadium, I reckon we should be pouring even more resources into youth development, scouting, and even coaching development. Do something long term.

 

[millsey]

I couldn't care less if we sign a Lemar etc.

And most of the fans didn't rate Poch's chances at all - It shows there are good coaches out there. Who knows what the next one could achieve? He is out there somewhere. It's what executives are paid for, to find the next man.

We cant go toe-to-toe financially with about 10 clubs in the world, hardly poverty, even then with the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool we are capable of buying players they want as has been seen in recent years. More money to me just means football clubs feeling they have to spend it and doing what 99.9% of people in football do - throw enough money about and hope that more of it comes up trumps than your rivals.

We will still lag behind financially even with the new stadium, I reckon we should be pouring even more resources into youth development, scouting, and even coaching development. Do something long term.

Football is the least long term business in the world. Poch will be long gone and our best players will leave. If we don't compete at the top then next year or two they will go

 

[millsey]

Levy is a very astute businessman and, IMO, right at the top of his priority list, is keeping Spurs in the black and safeguarding the investors interests. To do that we are constrained on transfer fees and wages and will not be throwing money around. I believe that if the right buyer turned up, the club would be sold, but I'd feel like a bit of its' soul would be lost. I'm also fairly confident that the 'right' buyer wouldn't necessarily be the one with the deepest pockets.

Lewis a pure businessman and would probably sell for the highest price

 

[mpickard2087]

Football is the least long term business in the world. Poch will be long gone and our best players will leave. If we don't compete at the top then next year or two they will go

Our best players always leave eventually, fans have a meltdown, wonder who could possibly replace them, and Tottenham Hotspur goes on... It's the frameworks you have in place to deal with this.

There is as much chance of us finishing 6th (say) and our players wanting to leave for 'better' teams, whether we are in our present situation or raking in another couple of hundred million pounds a year in my opinion.

 

[millsey]

Our best players always leave eventually, fans have a meltdown, wonder who could possibly replace them, and Tottenham Hotspur goes on... It's the frameworks you have in place to deal with this.

There is as much chance of us finishing 6th (say) and our players wanting to leave for 'better' teams, whether we are in our present situation or raking in another couple of hundred million pounds a year in my opinion.

We can't replace the quality we have as we don't pay the wages to bring in that quality

 

[mpickard2087]

We can't replace the quality we have as we don't pay the wages to bring in that quality

Life went on when sold Carrick, Berbatov, Modric, Bale...

You adapt and get on with it. You'll only struggle if you try and compete for the established premium players. Our best model has been taking players before they hit the big time, or developing our own.

 

[millsey]

Life went on when sold Carrick, Berbatov, Modric, Bale...

You adapt and get on with it. You'll only struggle if you try and compete for the established premium players. Our best model has been taking players before they hit the big time, or developing our own.

And we've never won the league doing that. Or had any real trophy since 1991. I want more than that