What's new

Spurs now the highest revenue generating club in London

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
ITK has stated that Eriksen said he wouldn't re-sign after his last contract, he should have be sold the summer after our last season at the lane (I think I have the timeline right?) His value was probably at it's highest, it would have massively sucked. But a simple statement advising why he was sold would have been all that was needed and then that money properly invested, like Pool did with the Coutinho cash

the only way he would have been sold is if Barca or RM came in for him. think RM did the summer we never bought, but either way below our price, or possibly when our window had closed and we couldn't have replaced.

with Poch we made 2 finals, and lost in 3 other semis, the only time he never got any backing was the season we lost the CoC semi, and the CL final, and rumour has it because we couldn't get Poch targets he decided on no 1. the crazy thing is when I look at the semis and finals we have lost, the only time we never had a strong team out was because Poch (not Levy) played Son at left back. spending unless it's like what Chelsea, Liverpool, City & United guarantees nothing
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
ITK has stated that Eriksen said he wouldn't re-sign after his last contract, he should have be sold the summer after our last season at the lane (I think I have the timeline right?) His value was probably at it's highest, it would have massively sucked. But a simple statement advising why he was sold would have been all that was needed and then that money properly invested, like Pool did with the Coutinho cash
ITK has stated that Eriksen said he wouldn't re-sign after his last contract, he should have be sold the summer after our last season at the lane (I think I have the timeline right?) His value was probably at it's highest, it would have massively sucked. But a simple statement advising why he was sold would have been all that was needed and then that money properly invested, like Pool did with the Coutinho cash
So you would have sold him at his peak before it was clear that he wouldn’t re-sign ?

People on here would have accused you of lacking ambition and only in it for the money. He was indispensable to the way we played.

I doubt you thought the same at the time . If you did you were in a tiny minority.
 

Dillspur

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2004
3,747
9,926
So you would have sold him at his peak before it was clear that he wouldn’t re-sign ?

People on here would have accused you of lacking ambition and only in it for the money. He was indispensable to the way we played.

I doubt you thought the same at the time . If you did you were in a tiny minority.

Read what I said. And if a player tells me this is his last contract, i would look to sell him when we can get the most for him.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,957
An article in the Athletic details how we are shitting all over arsenal financially. An enjoyable read. As are the comments if you have an account. Arsenal fans are really preoccupied with us.

Arsenal’s income has ‘flatlined for five years’ as Spurs race away from them in the money league
https://theathletic.com/1533380/202...venue-champions-league/?source=shared-article

Leaving Europe, however, is a much more expensive affair for the Premier League’s top clubs, as this year’s Deloitte Football Money League report makes clear — none more so than for London’s big three.
Tottenham, on the back of their breathless run to the Champions League final, have climbed to a best-ever position of eighth in the table, which has been ranking Europe’s clubs by their broadcasting, commercial and matchday income for 23 years.
They might not have won anything since the 2008 League Cup but the North London side have qualified for European football for 11 years in a row and this season’s campaign is their third straight in the highly lucrative Champions League. This Mauricio Pochettino-planned purple patch has enabled Spurs to double their revenue from £227 million to £459 million in five years.
Broadcast cash, particularly from UEFA’s deals, has been the key to their flourishing fortunes, up more than a fifth on 2018. Commercial income also grew by nearly a third last year, again fuelled by those European exploits. Just as agents ask for performance bonuses in their stars’ contracts, clubs want more money from their main sponsors and kit suppliers when they advertise their wares on a grander stage.
Chelsea and Arsenal had to make do with the slightly lesser stage of the Europa League last season but they did at least occupy it all the way to the final, where West London beat North London 4-1 in Baku.
By going all the way in the competition, both teams were able to minimise their year-on-year losses for broadcast and matchday income but the overall revenue picture was flat. Chelsea slipped to ninth in the table, while Arsenal slumped to 11th, their lowest position since 2001.
Chelsea’s total for the three main revenue streams was £452 million, up £4 million on 2018, largely thanks to putting Hyundai on their shirt sleeves. But the real cost of missing a season in Europe’s premier competition was revealed in their full accounts last week — not Deloitte’s snapshot of only the good bits — as they recorded their worst loss for nearly 15 years, a sobering £102 million. That figure would have been even worse without a £60 million boost from a revenue stream Deloitte ignores: selling players, in this instance Thibaut Courtois to Real Madrid.
Luckily for them, Chelsea can always fall back on their benefactor, and this time they fell on Roman Abramovich to the tune of £247 million. The Russian is worth about £10 billion, so he can afford it, but he will no doubt be delighted to see his team back in the Champions League this season, in the top four of the Premier League and firmly in the black on the player-trading front again now their transfer ban has been lifted.
Which brings us to Arsenal, where, as Deloitte’s Tim Bridge, one of the authors of the report, explained: “There is nothing standing out, nothing driving things forward, and income has flatlined for five years.”
This is a sorry state of affairs for a club that enjoyed 19 straight seasons of Champions League football until 2017, when Arsenal were sixth in the Money League. But they have spent the last two years slumming it in the Europa League and they are back again for an unwanted hat-trick this season — not that anyone at the Emirates is complaining too loudly, as they may have to actually win the competition this year to get European football next season.
Revenue grew by an anaemic one per cent to just under £393 million last season, with Visit Rwanda’s shirt-sleeve sponsorship being the commercial highlight. The £40 million earned in broadcast and matchday income from the Europa League run was clearly better than nothing but it was £16 million worse than the TV cheque for reaching the last 16 of the Champions League three years ago.
As Deloitte explains: “Arsenal find themselves in a challenging position in the middle of the Money League where those below them are aspiring to challenge and grow by using innovative methods to develop and change the way they operate, and those above have the buffer of the Champions League providing financial security.
“The club’s strategy will likely have to react to the threats from behind them in the absence of improved on-pitch performance in the coming years.”
In other words, the club once famous for its marble halls, aristocratic air and tidy balance sheets is drifting.
John Purcell, the co-founder of financial analysis firm Vysyble, puts it like this: “Two aspects of Arsenal’s business performance in recent years suggest serious improvement in performance is required. The lack of Champions League football is obvious when you look at the payments from UEFA to the Premier League’s ‘Big Six’ — for the last two years, Arsenal have received the lowest payment.
“The second aspect is Arsenal’s commercial revenue. Looking at their most recently published accounts, (this) accounts for 30 per cent of total revenue, compared with Manchester United’s 44 per cent, Manchester City’s 42 per cent and Chelsea’s 41 per cent. Liverpool’s and Spurs’ percentages are similar to Arsenal’s, although we don’t have last year’s numbers yet, and both are sure to rise thanks to their on-field success.
“Spurs’ success, the spell at Wembley and now the move into the new stadium have brought a step change in revenue generation. No doubt improved commercial numbers will follow. Arsenal need to improve their commercial proposition just to keep pace with their peers.”
And it is not as if nobody saw it coming. The Arsenal Supporters’ Trust’s financial expert Simon Hill recognised the warning signs in last year’s accounts.
“In 2019, there is a new increased level of Champions League distributions that, given our anticipation of a fall in Arsenal’s revenues, is likely to see Tottenham overtake Arsenal in turnover,” wrote Hill on the AST website.
“That is frankly shocking and, although new commercial contracts should add 50 million euros from 2019-20, Arsenal will still firmly be playing catch-up unless there is a return to the Champions League. That is why the chairman’s report emphasised such a return is the sole focus of everyone at the club.”
That chairman was, and still is, Sir Chips Keswick, and his presence on the board is a reminder of the days of yore. Arsenal looked and sounded like the type of the club that could build a posh, new home — relatively on time and budget — while still playing attractive football under Arsene Wenger, an economics graduate, no less.
Arsenal, of course, have been under American ownership since 2011, when sports entrepreneur Stan Kroenke outmanoeuvred Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov to take control of a club many thought was the Premier League’s best bet to prosper in the financial fair play era. After all, the club had a new 60,000-seat stadium, generating £3 million a game, a naming-rights deal and a North London property portfolio to sell off.
The club’s former chief executive Ivan Gazidis thought Arsenal would become like Bayern Munich, a commercial powerhouse and serial winner. He has gone now, though, and so has Wenger, tired of waiting for FFP to level the playing field once more. So has Wenger’s replacement Unai Emery, although he will appear in next year’s accounts as a cost related to staff turnover after he was sacked in November. Kroenke is still there, “doing absolutely nothing”, in the opinion of one financial expert who spoke to The Athletic this week.
Spurs, meanwhile, press on. Sure, there has been a significant reset in terms of the man in the dugout and Premier League form has been patchy, but the club that once spent too much time talking about its past now seems focused on the future.
“The club’s recent trajectory of growth is expected to continue driven largely by 2019-20 marking Spurs’ first full season in the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and matchday revenue is expected to surpass £100 million for the first time,” wrote Deloitte.
Arsenal’s men have not visited their rivals’ new home yet but will get that chance at the end of April, by which time both clubs could be out of Europe this season and next. But even if that is the case, which one would you bet on now to bounce back?
“Spurs currently enjoy the luxury of profits and a high level of on-pitch performance,” says Purcell. “Arsenal have a lot of work to do to try and at least match them in both areas.”
 

RichieS

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2004
11,916
16,436
What results have improved? We've won less trophies unless you count the 4th place trophy? We sacked the best manager we have had in my lifetime as a direct result of not refreshing the squad over the last number of windows and are now in serious danger of regressing back down to 5/6th spot.

Liverpool, City, Chelsea, UTD, Leicester, Arsenal, Wigan, Birmingham and Portsmouth have all won more or at least the same as us in the last 19 years.
Those teams render the trophies argument pointless. We had better squads than all of them the seasons they won those trophies, so there's clearly more to it than signing better players.
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,357
38,298
Those teams render the trophies argument pointless. We had better squads than all of them the seasons they won those trophies, so there's clearly more to it than signing better players.
We have come close but there is definitely a mentality issue at least in part. Maybe, as mentioned previously by someone we could do with an Edgar Davids type player who has experience in winning major trophies.
 

hakano

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2005
727
1,517
1. What would you have done differently with Eriksen and Vertonghen and how would that have reached better results? Remember you have an adavantage Levy didn’t have - hindsight.

2. I am going to assume you have no experience with major infrastructure projects. Neither do I. Do you think there are good reasons why we might have been reluctant to spend before the new stadium opened ?

I’m not Levy, nor am I claiming to be smarter than him. After Campbell he did say that it would not happen on his watch again. Hindsight is wonderful indeed.

My gripe with Levy stems from the last 19 yrs, not the last 2. Great off the pitch, not so great on the pitch. He then lucked out massively with Poch and then fucked him over. Take away the Poch era beause that will cloud people’s judgement on how great and successful we’ve been on the field (top 4) in comparison to previous regimes.
 
Top