Levy/ENIC Discussion in here!

[robotsonic]

The spending has increased because the general level of spending in the PL has gone up significantly and so has the money PL clubs receive. We haven't made a conscious effort to spend more, it is just general PL 'inflation'.

Genuinely, have you looked at the figures that support that?

To do it quite crudely (from Transfermarkt data as it includes transfer spend only of clubs in the PL this year over the period) for the sake of expediency, Prem net spend in the 5 years to 19/20 was £3570.61m. In the subsequent 5 years to date it was £5635.22m.

Tottenham spending in the 5 years to 19/20 was £113.8m in total. In the subsequent 5 years it's £581.08.

So spending across the PL between the two periods has increased 57.82% yet our spending has increased 415.14%

I'm not sure that "PL inflation" cuts it as an explanation.

 

[alfie103]

And here lies half of the problem. I'm seen as "defending" one side of a made-up problem by literally posting facts that have happened.

Hang on, you have posted one fact which is the amount we have spent on transfer fees in the last 5 years. The context around this has been explained and with the money you factually stated, we have also bought 35 players (not including free transfers and loans) which is roughly £15.8 million per player.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

The best thing about that interview is that he has backed himself into a corner. We don’t have to wait. We’re going to find out in the next six weeks or so just how many of those words he meant.

I agree he has backed himself into a corner but tbf he didn't give a timespan. I suspect he was advised to say that on camera to counter claims he is only interested in us finishing top 4. I believe he wants to win the league/champs league but I don't think there will be a huge change of strategy in the next few weeks, unless we do secure the minority investment. If that doesn't happen I think it's about staying on the same path allowing the young players (along with a few more £50-£70m price ranged players) to keep developing together until they are at the level of a league winning team in the next few years.

 

[allatsea]

Genuinely, have you looked at the figures that support that?

To do it quite crudely (from Transfermarkt data as it includes transfer spend only of clubs in the PL this year over the period) for the sake of expediency, Prem net spend in the 5 years to 19/20 was £3570.61m. In the subsequent 5 years to date it was £5635.22m.

Tottenham spending in the 5 years to 19/20 was £113.8m in total. In the subsequent 5 years it's £581.08.

So spending across the PL between the two periods has increased 57.82% yet our spending has increased 415.14%

I'm not sure that "PL inflation" cuts it as an explanation.

Possibly more important is how much each club is prepared to spend on agents fees. Some clubs, if rumours are correct, seem prepared spend many millions on agents fees and are therefore “preferred“ destinations for the agents clients.

 

[Ruducus]

I think our trajectory is pretty obvious

• We bought a talent from lower leagues & abroad who became elite players that we had to sell to bigger clubs, as we weren't regular CL & couldn't pay the wages: Carrick, Berba, Modric, Bale
• We increased our on pitch revenue & improved training facilitates which enabled us to then start to develop players & keep player longer due to being able to pay bigger wages & match ambition: Kane, Eriksen, Jan etc stayed longer. Still had to sell the likes of Walker
• We've moved into the stadium & increased our off pitch revenue, so it is less dependent on league performance. We've had to rebuild the squad so we've spent a lot of fees for young players on low wages. You would presume this is because we are leaving space in the budget to increase our wages when we give players bigger long-term contracts. We also needed to buy players who could become HG for Europe like: Odebert, Gray, Bergvall.

Logically, you'd expect the next phase of the squad building will be the crop of young players develop & we tie them down to long-term deals. Like we've seen with Udogie, this would then allow us to spend most of the budget on a few players that can improve the squad.

It is so obvious from our history in the market that a club of our size has to go down the route of buying prospects. When we shop in the market of the massive clubs, we don't attract the top players. Just look at our biggest signings. When we go for young talent & that is our whole model, we are one of the most attractive clubs in the world, for those player. We can buy the best young players from the championship & the players from abroad that the likes of Barca are looking at.

Great example for me is the rumours Pleat was recommending we buy the likes of: Watkins, Eze, Bowen, Maddison - But we went for the big more established players instead

Peterborough United chairman Darragh MacAnthony told the Hard Truth podcast this month: 'David Pleat saw Ivan Toney as a no-brainer. He thought the cost was low, his wages would be low, he would be an easy addition to the Tottenham squad. 'He was a good age and if it didn't come off for Tottenham they would probably sell him double the money to a Championship team.' - Jose wanted Vinicius instead.​

​

​

 

[alfie103]

I think our trajectory is pretty obvious

• We bought a talent from lower leagues & abroad who became elite players that we had to sell to bigger clubs, as we weren't regular CL & couldn't pay the wages: Carrick, Berba, Modric, Bale
• We increased our on pitch revenue & improved training facilitates which enabled us to then start to develop players & keep player longer due to being able to pay bigger wages & match ambition: Kane, Eriksen, Jan etc stayed longer. Still had to sell the likes of Walker
• We've moved into the stadium & increased our off pitch revenue, so it is less dependent on league performance. We've had to rebuild the squad so we've spent a lot of fees for young players on low wages. You would presume this is because we are leaving space in the budget to increase our wages when we give players bigger long-term contracts. We also needed to buy players who could become HG for Europe like: Odebert, Gray, Bergvall.

Logically, you'd expect the next phase of the squad building will be the crop of young players develop & we tie them down to long-term deals. Like we've seen with Udogie, this would then allow us to spend most of the budget on a few players that can improve the squad.

It is so obvious from our history in the market that a club of our size has to go down the route of buying prospects. When we shop in the market of the massive clubs, we don't attract the top players. Just look at our biggest signings. When we go for young talent & that is our whole model, we are one of the most attractive clubs in the world, for those player. We can buy the best young players from the championship & the players from abroad that the likes of Barca are looking at.

Great example for me is the rumours Pleat was recommending we buy the likes of: Watkins, Eze, Bowen, Maddison - But we went for the big more established players instead

Peterborough United chairman Darragh MacAnthony told the Hard Truth podcast this month: 'David Pleat saw Ivan Toney as a no-brainer. He thought the cost was low, his wages would be low, he would be an easy addition to the Tottenham squad. 'He was a good age and if it didn't come off for Tottenham they would probably sell him double the money to a Championship team.' - Jose wanted Vinicius instead.​

​

​

I would question why did we build the stadium if the transfer policy was going to be buying young prospects and developing them.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

I would question why did we build the stadium if the transfer policy was going to be buying young prospects and developing them.

it’s probably that ENIC the ‘investment’ company don’t want to invest unlike almost every other Premier League owner thus using the club to fund building the stadium allows revenues to be generated that keep us in the ball park of most other decent sized clubs in the league. Not building the stadium would have meant falling even further behind due to lack of investment compared to rivals.

In short we have to run to stand still and clearly we now have a model that is high spend low wages with the aim of building a squad that might be able to do something over the long term.

The alternative would be ENIC diluting their shares and allowing external investors to come in and invest but that would potentially decrease the profit they make when they sell as investing in players is very high risk and doesn’t always increase the value of the club if it doesn’t translate into success.

The ENIC model I think means we had no choice but to build a big stadium, the ‘game changer’ was just BS for the fans.

 

[thebenjamin]

I think our trajectory is pretty obvious

• We bought a talent from lower leagues & abroad who became elite players that we had to sell to bigger clubs, as we weren't regular CL & couldn't pay the wages: Carrick, Berba, Modric, Bale
• We increased our on pitch revenue & improved training facilitates which enabled us to then start to develop players & keep player longer due to being able to pay bigger wages & match ambition: Kane, Eriksen, Jan etc stayed longer. Still had to sell the likes of Walker
• We've moved into the stadium & increased our off pitch revenue, so it is less dependent on league performance. We've had to rebuild the squad so we've spent a lot of fees for young players on low wages. You would presume this is because we are leaving space in the budget to increase our wages when we give players bigger long-term contracts. We also needed to buy players who could become HG for Europe like: Odebert, Gray, Bergvall.

Logically, you'd expect the next phase of the squad building will be the crop of young players develop & we tie them down to long-term deals. Like we've seen with Udogie, this would then allow us to spend most of the budget on a few players that can improve the squad.

It is so obvious from our history in the market that a club of our size has to go down the route of buying prospects. When we shop in the market of the massive clubs, we don't attract the top players. Just look at our biggest signings. When we go for young talent & that is our whole model, we are one of the most attractive clubs in the world, for those player. We can buy the best young players from the championship & the players from abroad that the likes of Barca are looking at.

Great example for me is the rumours Pleat was recommending we buy the likes of: Watkins, Eze, Bowen, Maddison - But we went for the big more established players instead

Peterborough United chairman Darragh MacAnthony told the Hard Truth podcast this month: 'David Pleat saw Ivan Toney as a no-brainer. He thought the cost was low, his wages would be low, he would be an easy addition to the Tottenham squad. 'He was a good age and if it didn't come off for Tottenham they would probably sell him double the money to a Championship team.' - Jose wanted Vinicius instead.​

​

​

Generally the players man city sign should not be out of our reach. Age early 20s, 40/50m fees, not astronomical, the wages being higher is the only difference. We sign players for similar fees but on much lower wages. Which ends up costing us more because we then need to sign more players because the ones we got aren't quite up to it.

 

[Dunc2610]

Generally the players man city sign should not be out of our reach. Age early 20s, 40/50m fees, not astronomical, the wages being higher is the only difference. We sign players for similar fees but on much lower wages. Which ends up costing us more because we then need to sign more players because the ones we got aren't quite up to it.

Its not JUST the wages though is it? Its competitiveness, recent trophy/league wins, likelihood of winning something!!

 

[thebenjamin]

Its not JUST the wages though is it? Its competitiveness, recent trophy/league wins, likelihood of winning something!!

Obviously but those players wouldn't go there for 70k a week, would they? We sign Brennan Johnson for £50m and pay him 70k, whereas in reality £50m should get you a better standard of player (all due respect to Back Post Brennan). Even signing Solanke for £64m looks like a big splash of a signing but he's on 90k a week which is insanely low for a centre forward at that price point.

So we are shopping in a very narrow, very specific band of player who costs a lot in fees which we can spread over 5/6 years, and the maintenance costs (wages) are relatively low. Which seems great but in truth is the definition of a false economy because you have a squad full of players who you owe a lot of fees on but are generally not quite good enough, and you still need to bring in '3 top players' every single window, if you actually want to compete at the top.

And instead we never do, we sign more players who are potential or good enough to be squad players but not quite top class. And then our best players get bored and want to leave and the roundabout goes round again.

A football club with a £500m plus turnover shouldnt have to act in this way.

 

[Westmorlandspur]

Its not JUST the wages though is it? Its competitiveness, recent trophy/league wins, likelihood of winning something!!

But it is JUST the wages . We should be able to compete with Liverpool and Arsenal who have similar turnovers. They are 100m ahead of us in wages. It’s always been Levys problem . Never mind being in CL or whatever. Who did we buy when we were in CL for 6 years.
If he wants to win the league, pay the wages.
I remember Klopps reaction when Utd bought Pogba for 80-90m. Liverpool would never do that he said.
But they did eventually.

 

[Ruducus]

I would question why did we build the stadium if the transfer policy was going to be buying young prospects and developing them.

I don't understand that as the reason is obvious.

The difference is you aren't as impacted by on pitch performance, so you can spend to improve when you need to & it doesn't have to immediately result in a pay off. That's why we could spend £140m net, not make Europe at all & then spend another £150m net & finish 5th. It also means we can do things like buying Sarr, Udogie, Vuskovic - and then have them not come into the side for 12 months+. It gives you way more market flexibility. - So compare us to Villa & Newcastle who can't sign & have to sell when they don't make CL. Villa are getting in loanees on massive wages to make top 5, they can't sign for the long-term.

The other thing is the ability to retain developed talent. Our stadium is what stops us being like Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth. If one of our players has an unbelievable season, we sign them on a massive contract on big wages. We are trying to make world class players, to play for us.

 

[Ruducus]

Generally the players man city sign should not be out of our reach. Age early 20s, 40/50m fees, not astronomical, the wages being higher is the only difference. We sign players for similar fees but on much lower wages. Which ends up costing us more because we then need to sign more players because the ones we got aren't quite up to it.

I really don't agree with that.

You have to think about the market. If a player is in our price range & wage bracket - We also have to hope that a better club don't want them to come in and start for them. We only sign someone like Rayan Cherki if that bracket of elite European clubs don't also want him. I also think we do sign those players when we can. The likes of Marmoush, Gvardial, Dias, Haaland - they aren't in our reach. Massive wages & fees. Then kind of Akankji, Kovacic - at clubs at our level leaving for reasonable fees. We aren't a more attractive option than their original clubs.

Also you are ignoring the fact they can do things like spend: £60m on Nunes, 50 on Phillips & it doesn't really matter if they don't do much.


Basically we can buy players that: Are at a club that are below us. for a fee we can pay & wage we can pay + A club better than us don't also want him. - The caveat to that, is if we can offer playing time. So that's why we can compete for youth, or maybe get someone who'd start for us, but be a squad option elsewhere.

 

[thebenjamin]

I really don't agree with that.

You have to think about the market. If a player is in our price range & wage bracket - We also have to hope that a better club don't want them to come in and start for them. We only sign someone like Rayan Cherki if that bracket of elite European clubs don't also want him. I also think we do sign those players when we can. The likes of Marmoush, Gvardial, Dias, Haaland - they aren't in our reach. Massive wages & fees. Then kind of Akankji, Kovacic - at clubs at our level leaving for reasonable fees. We aren't a more attractive option than their original clubs.

Also you are ignoring the fact they can do things like spend: £60m on Nunes, 50 on Phillips & it doesn't really matter if they don't do much.


Basically we can buy players that: Are at a club that are below us. for a fee we can pay & wage we can pay + A club better than us don't also want him. - The caveat to that, is if we can offer playing time. So that's why we can compete for youth, or maybe get someone who'd start for us, but be a squad option elsewhere.

Is all that also the case for Arsenal and Liverpool? Or is that just a mindset that we are conditioned to believe in?

 

[Stamford]

Players dont grow up dreaming of playing for Man City or even a club like Wolves. Living in an area with mostly shit weather and without the cultural of a capital city. they go there for the wages they pay. It's really quite simple.

 

[Ruducus]

But it is JUST the wages . We should be able to compete with Liverpool and Arsenal who have similar turnovers. They are 100m ahead of us in wages. It’s always been Levys problem . Never mind being in CL or whatever. Who did we buy when we were in CL for 6 years.
If he wants to win the league, pay the wages.
I remember Klopps reaction when Utd bought Pogba for 80-90m. Liverpool would never do that he said.
But they did eventually.

Arsenal aren't £100m ahead of us in wages. Also Look at how Arsenal got to that point. It's only Rice, Havertz & Jesus that they signed because they paid a lot of money & massive wages. The rest of their players on big wages, like: Saka, Saliba, Gabriel, Odegaard were investments. They weren't signed on huge wages initially.

I really agree with the criticism of Levy around how he manages us when we are in top 4. Redknapp & Poch both were let down. I don't think its valid to criticise his approach to building a good team.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

I really don't agree with that.

You have to think about the market. If a player is in our price range & wage bracket - We also have to hope that a better club don't want them to come in and start for them. We only sign someone like Rayan Cherki if that bracket of elite European clubs don't also want him. I also think we do sign those players when we can. The likes of Marmoush, Gvardial, Dias, Haaland - they aren't in our reach. Massive wages & fees. Then kind of Akankji, Kovacic - at clubs at our level leaving for reasonable fees. We aren't a more attractive option than their original clubs.

Also you are ignoring the fact they can do things like spend: £60m on Nunes, 50 on Phillips & it doesn't really matter if they don't do much.


Basically we can buy players that: Are at a club that are below us. for a fee we can pay & wage we can pay + A club better than us don't also want him. - The caveat to that, is if we can offer playing time. So that's why we can compete for youth, or maybe get someone who'd start for us, but be a squad option elsewhere.

Chelsea and City are historically much smaller clubs than us. They got a huge lottery win, in the case of Chelsea two lottery wins and can now pretty much buy who they want. They offer the fee, big wages and big agent fees and bring in the players. Players aren't stupid they know clubs that offer big wages will not just enrich them but be mostly the ones to compete for titles, the shitshow of Man United excepted.

If we had good money I would be willing to bet a lot of elite players would be at our club. We have London as a base, great facilities, huge PSR room (this is what screws Newcastle currently) then add the big ingredient which is money and the change would be quite dramatic.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

Players dont grow up dreaming of playing for Man City or even a club like Wolves. Living in an area with mostly shit weather and without the cultural of a capital city. they go there for the wages they pay. It's really quite simple.

Man City are a Burnley of clubs. No-one cared about them and Paul Dickov then bang massive investment on a crazy scale and suddenly you have De Bruyne playing for them. It’s money. I appreciate a few clubs like Real Madrid have a special pull but that is very rare.

if Abramovich’s had bought Millwall and Abu Dhabi had bought Sunderland they would be the Champions League winning teams and not Chelsea or City.

 

[Ruducus]

Is all that also the case for Arsenal and Liverpool? Or is that just a mindset that we are conditioned to believe in?

We aren't anything like Liverpool. We aren't anywhere near as rich or successful. With arsenal, absolutely it was the same. That's changed as they've become CL regulars & title challengers.

This isn't about having a conditioned mindset. It's just understanding That if there is an elite player, who will be in the top bracket of prem player - they're really hard to buy & we are never going to be favourites to get them.

 

[WiganSpur]

We might have but this is down to Levy's 'buy cheap, buy twice' policy where he has consistently gone for players with mid level transfer fees and who will accept mid level wages. Funnily enough, these players turn out to be average and when it is decided we need to replace them, Levy just does the same thing and the cycle repeats itself.

We can't then shift these players as we pay them higher wages than they get at smaller clubs who would want to buy them and Levy won't take any hit on them so they end going for nothing. This has happened for six years and we have bought a lot of players with this method so it adds up.

We could have signed many players if we pay the wages but players and agents know we won't so they won't bother negotiating with us. Look at Manchester City in 2010/11, they managed to get Tevez who turned down Man Utd at their peak because they paid him the wages. Pay the wages and the players will come.

Additionally, this idea that signing only young prospects is an appropriate strategy would only work if Levy was actually able to tie down players to new contracts. And since the stadium build his record on that has been very mixed. We sold Kane a couple of years ago, and now Romero has no interest in signing because we aren't competitive. How then, is this strategy going to work if we are just treading water? If we sell Romero and use that money for 18 year olds, what's to say Kulusevski and Porro won't be the next ones wanting out next summer?

Since the stadium build, his failure has been the following:

- Buy cheap buy twice wasting transfer funds on squad players
- Holding onto players too long by demanding unrealistic fees and dragging out deals (We have improved slightly on this)
- Refusal to pony up for wage expenditure when it is required to build a competitive team on occasion
- Failure to address gaps in the squad by addressing short term needs, which end up having longer term consequences

I just don't see the risk how Levy sees it. If we spend more on wages then yes there is a chance of the risk not paying off and we then have to cut back like Villa might have to. That might involve selling senior players we don't want to sell. But the alternative is to do what we do now and have a player wanting out every summer, because we aren't a competitive team. I don't really see the difference. I'm not saying we go to the levels Villa have done, but spending more on wages would to me seem like the more logical choice. Same risk, more chance of success.