NASDAQ: Fireside Chat with Levy and Ledley

bubble07 said:

Mourinho

"I think until now they spent zero pounds, right? For me the dimension of their investment is amazing. They keep everybody they want to keep. They keep Dele Alli, Kane and Alderweireld, they keep Eric Dier, they keep everyone they want to keep.

"They sold Kyle Walker [to Manchester City] I think because they wanted to sell. And probably because they think Trippier is as good as Walker. And he's younger than Walker. They keep everyone they want to keep"

He is scared of us

Click to expand...

Mourinho is always about Mourinho.

Firstly, he's having a dig at Woodward for not prising Dier away from us.

Secondly, he's playing mind games, bigging us up for keeping our best players whilst spending nothing, but also seeding the ground for future attacks on coaches & clubs who have spent huge money, such as Pep & City, and possibly Klopp, Wenger etc as the summer plays out.

Having said that, I think Mourinho does respect us and Poch - in as much as he respects anyone.

Finally, I remember when he was at Barca, Mourinho's critics used to rile him by calling him "The Translator", so you've gotta love that AVB-esque phrase making:

"For me the dimension of their [Spurs'] investment is amazing."

robertgoulet said:

He mentioned that the current transfer climate is unsustainable, and seemed to infer that is the reason they haven't been as aggressive.

I don't know that I agree with him about the sustainability. I understand that the money is dumb, but there's no sign that there is going to be a market crash. Has that ever happened in sport? If there is a decline, it seems it would happen relatively slowly, not a giant crash where "oh you just paid 200M for Mbappe but now no one can afford to pay more than 20M for him". You may not make a profit on the player, but you should at least be able to get CLOSE to what you paid for him if you want to sell in a year or two.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of when Sugar said the same thing and decided to make a start to get prices lowered by selling Teddy to Manu for a bargain £3.5m!! Luckily Levy isn't that stupid.

robertgoulet said:

He mentioned that the current transfer climate is unsustainable, and seemed to infer that is the reason they haven't been as aggressive.

I don't know that I agree with him about the sustainability. I understand that the money is dumb, but there's no sign that there is going to be a market crash. Has that ever happened in sport? If there is a decline, it seems it would happen relatively slowly, not a giant crash where "oh you just paid 200M for Mbappe but now no one can afford to pay more than 20M for him". You may not make a profit on the player, but you should at least be able to get CLOSE to what you paid for him if you want to sell in a year or two.

Click to expand...

Just because it's never happened before that absolutely doesn't mean it can't happen at all.

Most of the money is coming from the TV revenue, and for them to continue to pay these vast amounts the companies (such as Sky) need revenue themselves. There has been recent rumours that the Sky rebranding was due to concerns about slipping customer numbers and customer concerns over the exorbitant prices charged.

The truth is there is only so much TV people can watch, and only so much money they have to pay for it. The cracks are already starting to show maybe and when the TV revenue starts to slow or worse fall, eventually the only choice for these companies will be to cut back on the lucrativeness of the TV deal they offer due to being unable to meet those obligations with the necessary revenue. Additionally any problems could be escalated in the UK for example if the housing crisis starts to deepen, inflation continues to rise, student debt causes problems and the availability of live online streaming improves further. If people are cutting back on TV subscriptions significantly then that will have the knock on effects I described earlier. It would not surprise me at all to see some very strict legislation soon on live streaming, as it is very much in the interests of big broadcasting business.

So if those TV deals do begin to drop significantly, then football, particularly the Premier League could be hit hard. I can guarantee there will be plenty of football clubs who are banking on TV revenue to continue as it is or worse expect it to increase further. It is those clubs who will be in the most trouble, as they will be paying average players ridiculous wages on very long contracts. They now have to meet those obligations for the rest of their players contracts regardless of how much revenue they are getting and so I think that will massively affect the clubs' ability to be active in the transfer market. There will be a few clubs that get into a lot of financial trouble as a result. I'd say it remains to be seen how that will affect prices in the transfer market.

Since players are now very much seen as financial assets with monetary value, there is absolutely a possibility of an asset bubble not dissimilar to that of the housing market in 2008. This is the problem with football becoming increasingly capitalist and money based in nature, there is now that susceptibility to market crashes.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I think there's every chance it could. TV revenue cannot simply continue at the rate it is going now.

tototoner said:

Serie A 30 years ago was the top league financially

Click to expand...

True I remember David Platt going to Italy on 30k a week!

WiganSpur said:

Just because it's never happened before that absolutely doesn't mean it can't happen at all.

Most of the money is coming from the TV revenue, and for them to continue to pay these vast amounts the companies (such as Sky) need revenue themselves. There has been recent rumours that the Sky rebranding was due to concerns about slipping customer numbers and customer concerns over the exorbitant prices charged.

The truth is there is only so much TV people can watch, and only so much money they have to pay for it. The cracks are already starting to show maybe and when the TV revenue starts to slow or worse fall, eventually the only choice for these companies will be to cut back on the lucrativeness of the TV deal they offer due to being unable to meet those obligations with the necessary revenue. Additionally any problems could be escalated in the UK for example if the housing crisis starts to deepen, inflation continues to rise, student debt causes problems and the availability of live online streaming improves further. If people are cutting back on TV subscriptions significantly then that will have the knock on effects I described earlier. It would not surprise me at all to see some very strict legislation soon on live streaming, as it is very much in the interests of big broadcasting business.

So if those TV deals do begin to drop significantly, then football, particularly the Premier League could be hit hard. I can guarantee there will be plenty of football clubs who are banking on TV revenue to continue as it is or worse expect it to increase further. It is those clubs who will be in the most trouble, as they will be paying average players ridiculous wages on very long contracts. They now have to meet those obligations for the rest of their players contracts regardless of how much revenue they are getting and so I think that will massively affect the clubs' ability to be active in the transfer market. There will be a few clubs that get into a lot of financial trouble as a result. I'd say it remains to be seen how that will affect prices in the transfer market.

Since players are now very much seen as financial assets with monetary value, there is absolutely a possibility of an asset bubble not dissimilar to that of the housing market in 2008. This is the problem with football becoming increasingly capitalist and money based in nature, there is now that susceptibility to market crashes.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I think there's every chance it could. TV revenue cannot simply continue at the rate it is going now.

Click to expand...

West Ham are paying Arnautovic £130K a week for 5 years

I’m a self confesses Levy lover. I’d have a portrait of him on my wall if my partner would allow it. However he needs to realise that the market is going to be like this for (imo) the next 5 years. If a crash happens it certainly won’t be over night. I love the way the club is run but you can only rely on your academy for so much. It would be stupid to think we can keep producing youth players that can replace players that are challenging for a champions league place or even the title. I’m not saying go out and spend £50m on sissguardson, but when we seem to be holding back on spending £25m for Periera and looking to spend around £3m for Toljan it starts to annoy me and penny pinching springs to mind.

Obviously spending big doesn’t guarantee success as we as fans know.. but some intent would be nice.

tototoner said:

West Ham are paying Arnautovic £130K a week for 5 years

Click to expand...

No they're not we are!

Normally id assume that private companies being hosted at Nasdaq have plans to go public and raise money in the proceeds.
Id guess they must be considering it as a way to fund the stadium?

Edit: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." (Keynes)

Paul C‏@clifton_paul 17h17 hours ago
When Sergio Aguero slammed that 93rd min title winner in , all I could think of was "I hope one day we can balance the books like Spurs do"

WiganSpur said:

Just because it's never happened before that absolutely doesn't mean it can't happen at all.

Most of the money is coming from the TV revenue, and for them to continue to pay these vast amounts the companies (such as Sky) need revenue themselves. There has been recent rumours that the Sky rebranding was due to concerns about slipping customer numbers and customer concerns over the exorbitant prices charged.

The truth is there is only so much TV people can watch, and only so much money they have to pay for it. The cracks are already starting to show maybe and when the TV revenue starts to slow or worse fall, eventually the only choice for these companies will be to cut back on the lucrativeness of the TV deal they offer due to being unable to meet those obligations with the necessary revenue. Additionally any problems could be escalated in the UK for example if the housing crisis starts to deepen, inflation continues to rise, student debt causes problems and the availability of live online streaming improves further. If people are cutting back on TV subscriptions significantly then that will have the knock on effects I described earlier. It would not surprise me at all to see some very strict legislation soon on live streaming, as it is very much in the interests of big broadcasting business.

So if those TV deals do begin to drop significantly, then football, particularly the Premier League could be hit hard. I can guarantee there will be plenty of football clubs who are banking on TV revenue to continue as it is or worse expect it to increase further. It is those clubs who will be in the most trouble, as they will be paying average players ridiculous wages on very long contracts. They now have to meet those obligations for the rest of their players contracts regardless of how much revenue they are getting and so I think that will massively affect the clubs' ability to be active in the transfer market. There will be a few clubs that get into a lot of financial trouble as a result. I'd say it remains to be seen how that will affect prices in the transfer market.

Since players are now very much seen as financial assets with monetary value, there is absolutely a possibility of an asset bubble not dissimilar to that of the housing market in 2008. This is the problem with football becoming increasingly capitalist and money based in nature, there is now that susceptibility to market crashes.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I think there's every chance it could. TV revenue cannot simply continue at the rate it is going now.

Click to expand...

Yep, I'm pretty much your average Joe and if the purse strings start to get tighter, sky and BT sport will be the first things to go, I pay £150 a month for them on average which is crazy when I think about it!

Indacupfortottenham said:

Yep, I'm pretty much your average Joe and if the purse strings start to get tighter, sky and BT sport will be the first things to go, I pay £150 a month for them on average which is crazy when I think about it!

Click to expand...

i think youre being overcharged mate....for what its worth...my BT, Sky and broadband (30Meg+ version) costs me half what youre paying.

Disappointing News.
Football is played for glory and success. For the first time in my living memory we are on the cusp of greatness - the closest we've ever been and perhaps the closest we will be for a number of years to follow with the situation we face.

Selling the romance of youth prodigies is fairytale. 1/100+ become top quality PL players.

All this rhetorical of a sustainable business model comes with its consequences. Its almost preparing us for a downward spiral - preserving profits to plug a loss in revenue if the team fails on the pitch. It feels like ebitda margins and profit margins are being put ahead of the game, strengthened to improve the valuation for a future sale - securing shareholders greater returns.

I am more risk taking then most. What we need right now is 2-3 new players fighting for first 11 football - pushing the talent we've got to the next level.
The gamble to succeed is worth the risk. PL championship and CL progress brings revenue, brand awareness and ability to grow the team with top talent.

I'd go as far to say staying still is a bigger gamble then being brave and putting money down and going for glory.

WiganSpur said:

Just because it's never happened before that absolutely doesn't mean it can't happen at all.

Most of the money is coming from the TV revenue, and for them to continue to pay these vast amounts the companies (such as Sky) need revenue themselves. There has been recent rumours that the Sky rebranding was due to concerns about slipping customer numbers and customer concerns over the exorbitant prices charged.

The truth is there is only so much TV people can watch, and only so much money they have to pay for it. The cracks are already starting to show maybe and when the TV revenue starts to slow or worse fall, eventually the only choice for these companies will be to cut back on the lucrativeness of the TV deal they offer due to being unable to meet those obligations with the necessary revenue. Additionally any problems could be escalated in the UK for example if the housing crisis starts to deepen, inflation continues to rise, student debt causes problems and the availability of live online streaming improves further. If people are cutting back on TV subscriptions significantly then that will have the knock on effects I described earlier. It would not surprise me at all to see some very strict legislation soon on live streaming, as it is very much in the interests of big broadcasting business.

So if those TV deals do begin to drop significantly, then football, particularly the Premier League could be hit hard. I can guarantee there will be plenty of football clubs who are banking on TV revenue to continue as it is or worse expect it to increase further. It is those clubs who will be in the most trouble, as they will be paying average players ridiculous wages on very long contracts. They now have to meet those obligations for the rest of their players contracts regardless of how much revenue they are getting and so I think that will massively affect the clubs' ability to be active in the transfer market. There will be a few clubs that get into a lot of financial trouble as a result. I'd say it remains to be seen how that will affect prices in the transfer market.

Since players are now very much seen as financial assets with monetary value, there is absolutely a possibility of an asset bubble not dissimilar to that of the housing market in 2008. This is the problem with football becoming increasingly capitalist and money based in nature, there is now that susceptibility to market crashes.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I think there's every chance it could. TV revenue cannot simply continue at the rate it is going now.

Click to expand...

Just to back up your good post:

Norway is a perfect example of TV-revenue chrashing/declining.

2-3 years ago all top clubs with 2-3 exceptions were either bankrupt or atleast struggling a lot.

There was a TV-deal back in 2010 (or there about) which created enormous revenues compared to earlier.

Shit players were earning 200-300 000 pounds per year. Now only a handfull make that kind of money, and most players earn similar to ordinary workers in other industries...

bubble07 said:

Mourinho

"I think until now they spent zero pounds, right? For me the dimension of their investment is amazing. They keep everybody they want to keep. They keep Dele Alli, Kane and Alderweireld, they keep Eric Dier, they keep everyone they want to keep.

"They sold Kyle Walker [to Manchester City] I think because they wanted to sell. And probably because they think Trippier is as good as Walker. And he's younger than Walker. They keep everyone they want to keep"

He is scared of us

Click to expand...

He wants to be with us.

bubble07 said:

Mourinho

"I think until now they spent zero pounds, right? For me the dimension of their investment is amazing. They keep everybody they want to keep. They keep Dele Alli, Kane and Alderweireld, they keep Eric Dier, they keep everyone they want to keep.

"They sold Kyle Walker [to Manchester City] I think because they wanted to sell. And probably because they think Trippier is as good as Walker. And he's younger than Walker. They keep everyone they want to keep"

He is scared of us

Click to expand...

Its all to do with us not rolling over and giving them Dier. He's just being the slippery fucker that he is. Nobody should put any thought. into his words, thats what he wants

Tit&Ham said:

Just to back up your good post:

Norway is a perfect example of TV-revenue chrashing/declining.

2-3 years ago all top clubs with 2-3 exceptions were either bankrupt or atleast struggling a lot.

There was a TV-deal back in 2010 (or there about) which created enormous revenues compared to earlier.

Shit players were earning 200-300 000 pounds per year. Now only a handfull make that kind of money, and most players earn similar to ordinary workers in other industries...

Click to expand...

In this scenario, Norway is regional. It's a lot easier for things to go tits up in a smaller market. The PL is no longer just a "regional" league, like it or not. It's global.

A global market is just not going to fall off at the next contract. The next contract may be lower than the current (unlikely, but I'll grant you the possibility), but not low enough to bankrupt clubs b/c of overspending in the years leading up to the new deal.

"Too big to fail" eventually comes through. PL is quickly approaching that stage.

All that said, it looks like Levy's actual comment was that teams spending 200M more than they're bringing in is unsustainable. I agree with that.

Personally, I think Levy is 'spinning' a little when he suggests the stadium build is not affecting transfer spending. If the stadium costs 800M and that is paid over 10 years, that's 80M p.a.! Sure, revenue will rise over that period but the cost of the stadium is gonna be a drain on all spending for a long time, and the biggest expense items to be managed are transfers and player salaries.

Our model to compete for trophies and titles is different from Citeh etc. - it HAS to be different or else we are doomed to fail. Even when the stadium is built and paid for, we still won't be able to compete with Citeh etc. on a pure cash basis. We'll be a little closer, hopefully in the Arse bracket in terms of spending power, but we won't be able to outpay Citeh in transfer fees or wages. And trying to do so would be the road to financial (and sporting) disaster.

So, like it or not, our basic model will remain the same - take punts on the best young talent we can get our hands on (or produce in our Academy) and then give them opportunities to develop by playing them. We keep them as long as (i) they are good enough for us (e.g. Mason, Carroll, Bentaleb) or (ii) we can keep them happy to stay by paying them enough and having enough on field success (e.g. Bale). When they do go, we often make a shitload of money because we didn't pay much for them in the first place.

In the last couple of years, we have increased the pull factors (incremental wage increases and a more competitive team) so we are better able to hold on to a lot of great players for longer. Ultimately, though, someone like Alli is likely to go. Even if we are challenging for the title and getting to the latter stages of the CL, if the likes of Real/Barca or even MU come calling and he feels ready and they offer a greater likelihood of more success AND double the salary, he's going to want to go. I don't think it's as simple as saying we are a 'selling club' or that we should buy a couple of great players and pay them big bucks to 'take us to the next level'. We need a model that keeps us at the highest level we can reach - and sustain - given our financial resources.

The other key pillar of our model is the Academy. HK is of course the poster boy for this. But Winks and Onomah and KWP on the fringes mean that, even if they don't turn into world beaters, we save a lot of cash on squad players (and make a lot on selling players like Mason who have established themselves as PL standard but are not quite good enough for us). Levy mentions the affinity the Academy players have with the club and fans, which is another huge plus about this element of the model as compared to a 'buy buy buy' approach.

When the stadium is built and paid for, we will stabilise ourselves in a slightly higher wealth bracket. But our basic model will remain the same. Can we win the title using this model? Yes, I believe we can. Not as easily as the super rich clubs but, if we do manage it, it will be extra satisfying.

tototoner said:

West Ham are paying Arnautovic £130K a week for 5 years

Click to expand...

If there was ever evidence needed that those in charge of that club are morons then there it is.

Things to bear in mind:

1. It's not too long since the ITV Digital collapse, we shouldn't forget what happened there. Granted, that was a ridiculous business model to expect people to watch lower league football (think there was a story where they showed a Norwich game and for the amount they'd paid to show it they could have taken every viewer in a limo to Carrow Road and sat them in a box), but the fact is a lot of clubs were royally screwed over by what happened. It's not beyhond the realms of possibility to think that something similar could happen to the Premier League if viewing figures dry up.

2. Levy is smart to big up our academy and say we will look to promote players from there. One because it gives them hope and makes them want to work harder. Two because it's a negotiating tactic - teams like City get regularly stung because people know they have more money than sense, whereas if we play it cool and act like we're really not bothered if we sign anyone or not then teams will be less likely to quote us ridiculous prices. And thirdly because it's true - youngsters who come through the academy that actually support the team and haven't moved over just because they were offered a big pay day will work harder.

3. I think people forget sometimes that Levy has spent money when he's needed to. Yes we've had a low net spend recently but remember we splashed out in a big way to first back Comolli and then Redknapp. It might not seem all that much now but spending £45m net in the January window of 2009 was a big statement back then. People have complained that he hasn't backed Poch but he backed him with one of the most outrageous signings in our history with Sissoko, he could easily have said "Are you having a fucking laugh, this guy is shite, no way", but chose to back his man. At the end of the day, we're in a period of austerity. Now if we get to the end of it and start behaving like Arsenal have done over the last couple of years and just starts putting all the extra revenue into his retirement fund, then I'll join any protests that will inevitably take place, but I don't believe he is another Kroenke. He was a Spurs fan before he took over and he's been here for 16 years, even Sugar who had no problems saying that he didn't really like football and was only in it for the business in his early years, has developed an affinity for the club. I have little doubt that Levy wants nothing more than for Spurs to be successful and win trophies under his watch, and he should have earned the trust of all of us by now.