Tottenham Takeover Talk - New Poll Added

[MR_BEN]

Financial control always stays with the leadership. In business, especially ones involving high stakes, budget decisions and financial strategy remain centralised. The approach is about maintaining a balance between growth and operations without splitting responsibilities, Man United and Ineos is unique and unlikely to ever be repeated.

The idea of handing off control to separate parties sounds appealing, but in reality it is financial oversight drives strategic decisions. The financials dictate what’s feasible, and those in charge of the budget set the parameters for all other decisions. The business model stays unified, with financial authority steering the ship and keeping everything aligned.

The only way a minority shareholder could splash cash on players outside the budget is by dipping into their own pockets—and Staveley doesn’t have pockets anywhere near deep enough on her own. She’d be stuck going back to investors, pitching for every transfer deal. It’s not a case of writing a cheque; they could be scrambling for backing with a fresh pitch deck every time a target comes up. I can explain the problems with this too if anyone is actually interested.

Very well explained. I had started a response to the earlier post but gave up.

people wanting or expecting Levy and the majority shareholders to hand over total footballing responsibilities, including budget and sign off on huge cash outlays are going to be disappointed.

That simply isn’t how business works.

DL has already put in place a strong football leadership team. They will however always be accountable to be board, and the board will have final sign off. This would still be the case even with new minority shareholders.

If I recall correctly - DL’s involvement in transfers recently was at a negotiating level. Again - nothing unusual about that in business.

 

[mil1lion]

I thought the point of us looking for external investment was just to keep us financially stable so we can continue spending how we have with the stadium debts to pay.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

I thought the point of us looking for external investment was just to keep us financially stable so we can continue spending how we have with the stadium debts to pay.

The debts far as I am aware are low interest bonds over multiple decades and we make more money with the new stadium plus debt than with the old stadium and no debt. I am pretty sure we are financially stable already.

 

[mil1lion]

The debts far as I am aware are low interest bonds over multiple decades and we make more money with the new stadium plus debt than with the old stadium and no debt. I am pretty sure we are financially stable already.

But Levy said we need external investment so there's being financially stable and there's being able to compete with the top teams. I'm sure the extra investment is needed for the latter.

 

[alfie103]

But Levy said we need external investment so there's being financially stable and there's being able to compete with the top teams. I'm sure the extra investment is needed for the latter.

I thought we built the stadium to enable us to compete with the top teams?

 

[For the love of Spurs]

But Levy said we need external investment so there's being financially stable and there's being able to compete with the top teams. I'm sure the extra investment is needed for the latter.

ENIC are an asset growth model. We have a lot of land around the stadium we own that could be used to build new hotels, shops and other things so that is probably part of it. Now the stadium is done the main focus of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club will probably be to get value from other enterprises like Hotels, shops, restaurants.

As for investing more in the team in a way that would allow us to compete at the top that is wages and that would mean raising our wage ceiling to get elite players. At the moment we have been compressing our wage bill. According to Paul O’Kieffe it’s probably to fatten us for a sale or at least partial sale. So anything on those lines would assumably happen afterwards.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

According to Paul O’Kieffe it’s probably to fatten us for a sale or at least partial sale.

Paul O'Keefe knows lots of things that I don't - but this is not one of them.

No sophisticated buyer - and at the prices we are talking, they are all sophisticated buyers - will consider the current wage/earnings ratio when negotiating the price.

If anything - the lower wage ratio is hurting the sales price as it precludes us from signing "big name" players. There is a strong correlation between wages and success on the pitch - and the opportunity for commercial success hinges on the image of the club - is ti winning, are there a lot of players that everyone recognizes on the roster.

 

[absolute bobbins]

I thought the point of us looking for external investment was just to keep us financially stable so we can continue spending how we have with the stadium debts to pay.

The debt isn’t a drag, it’s a strategic lever that allows Spurs to maximise cash flow whilst getting all the benefits of a stadium that generates significant income from events far beyond football.

Think of it this way, the stadium debt is like having a mortgage on a profitable property. You secure a low-interest loan to buy a flat that pays for itself through rental income (or, in the clubs case, event and match day revenue). Paying off the mortgage early doesn’t make sense when the loan is cheap and cash can be used to expand the portfolio—investing in players, growing revenue streams (like the hotel and housing developments), and boosting the club’s overall value. The debt isn’t a problem; it’s a smart financial tool that lets Spurs keep growing without breaking the bank.

It is the exact opposite to what Arsenal did, they could not have done more wrong if they had tried.

 

[mil1lion]

I thought we built the stadium to enable us to compete with the top teams?

The stadium was planned a long time ago though. They possibly wouldn't have anticipated the inflation of football costs going as high as they have. I'm not sure the stadium will do enough to compete with the top teams. We're talking over 250k wages and over 100m on transfer fees over a 5-6 year contract to sign the top players needed. At the moment the stadium has only kept us around the same position we were 10-15 years ago such is the change of finances in this league. Why else would enic look for investment if the stadium is financially enough to keep us competing? Surely they would just keep their stake and let the stadium keep bringing in more money. I think they need the team to be regularly in Europe and fair amount in CL for that extra income but it's proving difficult.

 

[floydiohead]

The debt isn’t a drag, it’s a strategic lever that allows Spurs to maximise cash flow whilst getting all the benefits of a stadium that generates significant income from events far beyond football.

Think of it this way, the stadium debt is like having a mortgage on a profitable property. You secure a low-interest loan to buy a flat that pays for itself through rental income (or, in the clubs case, event and match day revenue). Paying off the mortgage early doesn’t make sense when the loan is cheap and cash can be used to expand the portfolio—investing in players, growing revenue streams (like the hotel and housing developments), and boosting the club’s overall value. The debt isn’t a problem; it’s a smart financial tool that lets Spurs keep growing without breaking the bank.

It is the exact opposite to what Arsenal did, they could not have done more wrong if they had tried.

Yet, here we are; and there they are.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

Paul O'Keefe knows lots of things that I don't - but this is not one of them.

No sophisticated buyer - and at the prices we are talking, they are all sophisticated buyers - will consider the current wage/earnings ratio when negotiating the price.

If anything - the lower wage ratio is hurting the sales price as it precludes us from signing "big name" players. There is a strong correlation between wages and success on the pitch - and the opportunity for commercial success hinges on the image of the club - is ti winning, are there a lot of players that everyone recognizes on the roster.

That seems on the basis any buyer is obsessed with the football side of the club. If we are offering football, NFL, F1, hotel, shops and restaurants and are able to make the whole enterprise profitable there isn’t going to be that concern like an average football team without all of this. Wages are an expense, if the football is only part of the deal keeping them low to help keep costs lower isn’t going to be the end of the world. If being successful was essential to us we’d have put more focus on it. Obviously if we start buying players of a higher calibre with bigger wages then clearly that won’t be the case but we seem to be going in the other direction at the moment.

 

[mil1lion]

The debt isn’t a drag, it’s a strategic lever that allows Spurs to maximise cash flow whilst getting all the benefits of a stadium that generates significant income from events far beyond football.

Think of it this way, the stadium debt is like having a mortgage on a profitable property. You secure a low-interest loan to buy a flat that pays for itself through rental income (or, in the clubs case, event and match day revenue). Paying off the mortgage early doesn’t make sense when the loan is cheap and cash can be used to expand the portfolio—investing in players, growing revenue streams (like the hotel and housing developments), and boosting the club’s overall value. The debt isn’t a problem; it’s a smart financial tool that lets Spurs keep growing without breaking the bank.

It is the exact opposite to what Arsenal did, they could not have done more wrong if they had tried.

Never said the debt was an issue just that us looking for investment suggests we need more financial backing. The reality is we've changed our transfer policy to sign young players on much lower wages. Sorry but I just don't see how we're growing when we've gone back to that model. I think we've gone that way because Enics model is to make as much as possible on ticket sales etc while spending the least they can on the squad. An extra investment for a stake in the club could be the only way they're willing to increase money on the team again. At the moment the only ones growing are Enic.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

That seems on the basis any buyer is obsessed with the football side of the club. If we are offering football, NFL, F1, hotel, shops and restaurants and are able to make the whole enterprise profitable there isn’t going to be that concern like an average football team without all of this. Wages are an expense, if the football is only part of the deal keeping them low to help keep costs lower isn’t going to be the end of the world. If being successful was essential to us we’d have put more focus on it.

Any buyer who is looking to buy Spurs at a £3-4B valuation is not going to look at the current wage/earning ratio as part of the valuation.

If you are looking to buy Spurs - you are looking at it from a sporting perspective - in which case you will immediately note that you would have to increase wages to be competitive at the top of the table - so when you do your financial forecast, you will immediately raise wages in that forecast (which influences the value of the business - its not past performance you pay for - its what you think it can do in the future).

Or, you are looking at Spurs as a property development company - looking at the potential with and around the stadium for development and growth, with the club ancillary to the main business. In that case, you are not focused on player wages, as the growth (and thus value) is in developing the surrounding property - so your valuation is going to focus on the costs and revenue potential for that development. You won't care about the current wage ratio - as it would not impact your valuation.

And, again, even a junior analyst is going to look at industry standards - what is the ratio amongst all PL clubs - and factor in that into any financial forecast - so, being "cheap" now is not fooling anyone.

Levy has always kept wages lower - because he believes that is a sound business strategy, not because he is trying to fatten up the club for sale.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

Never said the debt was an issue just that us looking for investment suggests we need more financial backing. The reality is we've changed our transfer policy to sign young players on much lower wages. Sorry but I just don't see how we're growing when we've gone back to that model. I think we've gone that way because Enics model is to make as much as possible on ticket sales etc while spending the least they can on the squad. An extra investment for a stake in the club could be the only way they're willing to increase money on the team again. At the moment the only ones growing are Enic.

that model makes sense and I am surprised ENIC never did it earlier across the board.

- heavy scouting
- large fee
- cheap wages
- long contract
- young so can be sold for as much or more later on if they do well

We are actually spending more now than prior to the stadium build, its just all on big fee, low wage players. It doesn’t matter how much money we generate we will always be finance first.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

I think we've gone that way because Enics model is to make as much as possible on ticket sales etc while spending the least they can on the squad

I would counter this by asking when was the last time ENIC took a dividend from the club?

Also, match receipts represent just 21% of total revenue. Its a pretty small pot, with very limited room for growth.

 

[vegassd]

Never said the debt was an issue just that us looking for investment suggests we need more financial backing. The reality is we've changed our transfer policy to sign young players on much lower wages. Sorry but I just don't see how we're growing when we've gone back to that model. I think we've gone that way because Enics model is to make as much as possible on ticket sales etc while spending the least they can on the squad. An extra investment for a stake in the club could be the only way they're willing to increase money on the team again. At the moment the only ones growing are Enic.

There has been a lot of "reading between the lines" I think with the wage bill this summer. The wage bill is a snapshot of our current crop of players, and doesn't have to imply a shift in transfer policy.

In our current team, would you rather see Lloris or Vic? Sanchez or VDV? Hojbjerg or Gray? GLC or Bergvall? My guess would be you prefer the second player in each instance... all of whom will be on lower wages than the first named player. So our wage bill can be a symptom of our recruitment rather than the focus of it.

The board has been pretty consistent in terms of spending earnings on the team over a long time frame I believe. Bringing in investment will be as much about bringing in knowledge/experience/contacts as any capital. If somebody is invested for £500m odd they are going to be bringing new commercial opportunities (e.g. extra sponsorship) which increases revenues that in turn get spent on the squad.

I don't believe that somebody investing the kind of money we would be looking at is doing so just to have a spending spree. It will be a very involved partnership with all sorts of nooks and crannies.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

So much talk about low wage bill at Spurs but is it and saying that Levy is reducing the wage bill to get ready for a sell off seems a bit far fetched.

No point in using Man U, City or Chelsea as a comparison, lets compare ourselves to our friends up the road Arsenal, similar size stadium and similar ticket prices.
Figures are from Deloitte Money league 2024 which are very reliable as they mirror the clubs financial accounts
Spurs total revenue £549 million, wage ratio 46%, wage bill £252 million
Arsenal total revenue £464 million , wage ratio 51%, wage bill £236 million

Spurs figures would still include Kane and Lloris wages so will most likely come down in the next accounts but are the mens 1st team squad wage bills so very different between the two clubs.
Think 2025 Deloitte comes out around March so have to see how they compare then.

 

[For the love of Spurs]

So much talk about low wage bill at Spurs but is it and saying that Levy is reducing the wage bill to get ready for a sell off seems a bit far fetched.

No point in using Man U, City or Chelsea as a comparison, lets compare ourselves to our friends up the road Arsenal, similar size stadium and similar ticket prices.
Figures are from Deloitte Money league 2024 which are very reliable as they mirror the clubs financial accounts
Spurs total revenue £549 million, wage ratio 46%, wage bill £252 million
Arsenal total revenue £464 million , wage ratio 51%, wage bill £236 million

Spurs figures would still include Kane and Lloris wages so will most likely come down in the next accounts but are the mens 1st team squad wage bills so very different between the two clubs.
Think 2025 Deloitte comes out around March so have to see how they compare then.

2024-25 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Payroll Table

An updated look at the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 2024-25 payroll table, including team totals, retained figures, and complete breakdowns of player salaries, and bonuses.

www.spotrac.com

It’s not the final result obviously but we look to have dropped around £30m so about 7th highest wages in the league right now.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

2024-25 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Payroll Table

An updated look at the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 2024-25 payroll table, including team totals, retained figures, and complete breakdowns of player salaries, and bonuses.

www.spotrac.com

It’s not the final result obviously but we look to have dropped around £30m so about 7th highest wages in the league right now.

Those wage bill sites have to be taken with a skip load of salt, according to sites like Capology, Richarlison has not had a rise in basic pay since 2018-19 season and in that Sportrac table Richy only earning a bit more than Dragusin !!!!!!

 

[brasil_spur]

2024-25 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Payroll Table

An updated look at the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 2024-25 payroll table, including team totals, retained figures, and complete breakdowns of player salaries, and bonuses.

www.spotrac.com

It’s not the final result obviously but we look to have dropped around £30m so about 7th highest wages in the league right now.

And that includes our players that are loaned out, which is PEH Solomon and Gil - so that's another £10m+ per year right there. Also we're paying Werner a massively inflated wedge (joint 3rd highest earner) because he's on loan. Take his number off and suddenly we're in proper mid-table spend territory.

We're currently spending like a 5th-8th placed team, so last seasons finish of 5th is back on what we can expect at the top end.

It is possible to crack top 4, and even be a title contender at around £130-150m wages spend, as Liverpool have shown. So realistically we need to sign 2-3 players in January on £150k+ per week wages. Which actually aligns with what we're seeing on the pitch.

LB - Someone like Estupian would want wages of around £100k per week and cost us around £45m in transfer fee.
CB - Someone like Guehi would want wages of around £100-120k per week and cost us around £50m in transfer fee.
MF - Someone like Palacios would want wages of around £120-150k per week and cost us around £65m in transfer fee.

Then in the summer we replace Werner with another £165k ish per week player, but this time someone that also comes with a big price tag to sign, like Bakayoko.

Suddenly we're a GK rotation player away from looking like a pretty serious top 4 team.