Realistic expectations for 2020-21?

stov said:

Do you know what that 400m profit is being spent on?

Click to expand...

MK Yid said:

No, and neither do you, because it has gone into the reserves on the Balance Sheet to increase the value of the club.
You are going to say it is against the stadium, well no, that is funded by long-term structured debt underpinned by future trading operational cash reserves (and quite possibly a shareholder guarantee)

Click to expand...

stov said:

Debt which will need to be paid back. Matchday revenue is much more important to Tottenham compared to many top clubs the loss of that revenue has cost the club massively. So you could say maintaining an operating profit and keep salary costs low was prudent given the clubs limited revenue sources.

Click to expand...

MK Yid said:

I am not saying keeping operating and salary costs at the lowest level as percentage of turnover in the Premier League is not prudent from a business point of view, far from it, but from a sporting point of view it has hurt us, and I support this club for sporting not business reasons.

However I do object to when people then try and spin things to say that we have invested more in players than other teams, when that is clearly not the case.
Truth be told have invested the least in the League on players based on our available resources, (and backed up by our subsequent profits), and the 6th highest in actual terms, slightly more than Everton (but much closer to 7th than 5th)

Click to expand...

DogsOfWar said:

But if you look at what we have spent to try to replace the players from our second place of 4 years ago:

Wanyama - Sissoko - £30 million
Dembele - Ndombele - £42 million
Eriksen - Lo Celso - £40 million
Walker - Aurier - £25 million
Rose - Sessegnon - £25 million
Jan - Sanchez - £40 million

That's £200 million on 6 players and breaking our transfer record 3 times and not one has made a major contribution to the first team.

Our problem isn't spending but the quality of the players we have spent it on.

Click to expand...

DogsOfWar said:

But if you look at what we have spent to try to replace the players from our second place of 4 years ago:

Wanyama - Sissoko - £30 million
Dembele - Ndombele - £42 million
Eriksen - Lo Celso - £40 million
Walker - Aurier - £25 million
Rose - Sessegnon - £25 million
Jan - Sanchez - £40 million

That's £200 million on 6 players and breaking our transfer record 3 times and not one has made a major contribution to the first team.

Our problem isn't spending but the quality of the players we have spent it on.

Click to expand...

Neon_Knight_ said:

Valid point, but I don't think you've factored in the sale prices - net spend is the true cost of a rebuild, not outgoings alone. Also, I know you were focusing on direct replacements of our core starting XI, but the squad rebuild has also included replacements of subs (essential changes) and a reduction in the overall squad size.

Also Sissoko wasn't a replacement for Wanyama - he was part of our squad that finished 2nd. Hojbjerg is Wanyama's replacement.
Wanyama and Sissoko both signed in Summer 2016, with Mason, Bentaleb and Caroll leaving in the same window (Bentaleb went on loan for the season, then was sold a year later).
Paulinho, Holtby, Capoue and Stambouli were sold a year earlier, without us signing a single CM to replace them, so we were already very light on CMs.
Wanyama was brought in to resolve hole left by earlier sales of Sandro and Capoue. Until then, Poch made do with square pegs in round holes for two seasons (Bentaleb then Dier).
Sissoko was a back-up for Dembele (injury prone & unable play two games per week), with versatility to cover other positions.

Wanyama - Hojbjerg - £15m (£15m - £0m)
Dembele - Ndombele - £42.8m (£53.8m - £11m)
Eriksen - Lo Celso - £26.3m (£43.2m [£14.4m loan + £28.8m transfer] - £16.9m)
Walker - Aurier - +£25m (£22.5m - £45m)
Rose - Sessegnon - £25m (Rose not sold yet)
Jan - Sanchez - £43.2m (£43.2m - £0m)
Nkoudou - Moura - £21.9m (£25.5m - £3.6m)
Onomah - Clarke - £8.5m (£8.5 - £0m)
Wimmer - Foyth - +£10m (£8m - £18m)
Janssen - Llorente - £3.35m (£12.1m - £10.35m [£2.25m loan + £6.5m fee])
Vorm - Gazzaniga - £2.5m (£2.5m - £0m)
Fazio - +£2.75m (Sanchez indirectly replaced him at the time, but is counted above for Jan)
Trippier - +£20m (not yet replaced)
Llorente - £0m (not yet replaced)
KWP - +£12m (not yet replaced)

£118.8m net spend for 11 players, not £200m for 6 players). Obviously we haven't finished rebuilding yet, but that will include further sales as well as signings.

Click to expand...

MK Yid said:

And dare I say it, but that list is littered with players (Ndombele apart, who has been very disappointing, but lot more was expected from) which were always a downgrade on what we had, and dare I say it, the cheaper option, that other clubs at our level (apart from Everton wanting Sissoko), or the level we want to be at, had little to no interest in.

£40m capital is nothing nowadays for a club with our turnover for a resalable, and hopefully appreciating asset, basically £40m now, is the equivalent of £20m 5 years ago since the new TV deals, and prices of players inflated accordingly.

In the same period you quote just look at the prices, wages and therefore invariably quality of players some of our rivals at home and abroad went for. (Chelsea bought badly in same period mind you) We have not stagnated, we have gone significantly backward, that season of non-activity was a disaster. That is why they are now looking at us in their rear view mirrors with the gap to the top echelon of clubs now being bigger that for a couple of decades.

Do you think we would have gone for those players, or aimed for better, if our player budget (fees and wages) was anywhere near the same percentage of turnover as our rivals were over the period ?

We basically decided that paying large amount of tax on profits for 3 consecutive years was a better use of our funds than significant player improvements, let that sink in.

Click to expand...

MK Yid said:

Not a chance.
Again you are just taking capital expenditure, rather than wages alongside into account.
You do actually have to pay players, that is part of the investment, alongside agents fees and PL Transfer levy.

Liverpool are averaging approx 65% of revenue (with significantly greater revenue than us), us at 55% of turnover taking capital and wages into account. Leicester invest every penny they have available in players.

Premier League wages-to-turnover ratio (2018-19)
Everton - 85%
Leicester - 84%
Bournemouth - 83%
Crystal Palace* - 78%
Southampton - 77%
Brighton - 72%
West Ham - 71%
Fulham - 68%
Chelsea - 64%
Burnley - 64%
Man City - 59%
Arsenal - 59%
Liverpool - 58%
Watford - 57%
Huddersfield - 54%
Man Utd - 53%
Wolves - 53%
Newcastle* - 52%
Cardiff - 42%
Tottenham - 38%


And then take into account the profit we made, that season, the previous and following (total of over £400m by the way), and still tell me honestly that we have invested in players in comparison.

Click to expand...

yido_number1 said:

Well to be fair Chelsea have greatly improved their squad with two very good signings. City have signed and Liverpool have signed. Doesn't really make your point.

Regardless let's wait till the end of the window to make the same point about how we are behind our competition again who will probably all have dealt better than us in the market.

Click to expand...

yido_number1 said:

Wow the BSODL are clubbing together these days. No point discussing anything with people that think Levy makes no mistakes and that we are anything other than an investment.

Click to expand...

MK Yid said:

And dare I say it, but that list is littered with players (Ndombele apart, who has been very disappointing, but lot more was expected from) which were always a downgrade on what we had, and dare I say it, the cheaper option, that other clubs at our level (apart from Everton wanting Sissoko), or the level we want to be at, had little to no interest in.

£40m capital is nothing nowadays for a club with our turnover for a resalable, and hopefully appreciating asset, basically £40m now, is the equivalent of £20m 5 years ago since the new TV deals, and prices of players inflated accordingly.

In the same period you quote just look at the prices, wages and therefore invariably quality of players some of our rivals at home and abroad went for. (Chelsea bought badly in same period mind you) We have not stagnated, we have gone significantly backward, that season of non-activity was a disaster. That is why they are now looking at us in their rear view mirrors with the gap to the top echelon of clubs now being bigger that for a couple of decades.

Do you think we would have gone for those players, or aimed for better, if our player budget (fees and wages) was anywhere near the same percentage of turnover as our rivals were over the period ?

We basically decided that paying large amount of tax on profits for 3 consecutive years was a better use of our funds than significant player improvements, let that sink in.

Click to expand...

DogsOfWar said:

But if you look at what we have spent to try to replace the players from our second place of 4 years ago:

Wanyama - Sissoko - £30 million
Dembele - Ndombele - £42 million
Eriksen - Lo Celso - £40 million
Walker - Aurier - £25 million
Rose - Sessegnon - £25 million
Jan - Sanchez - £40 million

That's £200 million on 6 players and breaking our transfer record 3 times and not one has made a major contribution to the first team.

Our problem isn't spending but the quality of the players we have spent it on.

Click to expand...

DiVaio said:

What's your thinking behind Sissoko as Wanyama replacement and Sanchez as Vertonghen replacement? This doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

DogsOfWar said:

But just taking Leicester as an example over that timeframe, in 5 out of 6 of those positions (as Chilwell is home grown I think):

Ndidi - £15 million
Maguire - £13 million
Pereira - £20 million
Maddison - £22 million
Tielemans - £40 million

That's £110 million on 5 players who performed at a higher standard last year than the 5 we bought.
Had we bought those 5 instead we would have come in the top 4, and had enough left to pay £60 million for a significant upgrade such as Bruno and still spent less than the £200 million we did.

Or we could have spent £200 million on 3 players as United did on Wan-Bissaka, Maguire, and Bruno and we would have still came in the top 4.

I don't disagree that prices have risen in the last few years, but whatever amount you spend has to be spent wisely.
And the reason we are in this current position is that we didn't.

I doubt we will spend significant amounts this summer but I bet we'll be a better team by getting in the right players in the right places than last summer after spending over £100 million.

Click to expand...

DogsOfWar said:

Don't get drawn into the details, it's generally to show 6 starting players in and 6 starting players out and that we spent a fair amount of money on the ones coming in with little return.

Click to expand...