Let's talk about the wage bill

[dontcallme]

So what do we do? Get our own country? It's either that or run things within budget.

Lets get Switzerland. Secret bank accounts and ski-ing in the winter.

 

[vegassd]

This conversation is had every year... especially since we first broke into the CL under Redknapp.

And yet here we are, coming off the back of a 2nd place league finish with arguably the best first XI of last season.

I'm happy to let the club continue to manage the financial side of things.

 

[Dougal]

Also when a footballer starts talking about what he is 'worth' he needs a fucking slap. It's not what you are worth, it's what you can get. Is Danny Rose 'worth' the price of 140 nurses a year? Let's put all 141 of these people in a room for an hour and let him explain that. Then let another 140 nurses walk into the room (it's quite a big room) and let him explain that he needs to double his money as he's actually worth 280 of them. Maybe even 300 or 400 of them. Get a fucking grip and say what you mean or shut the fuck up. It's greed.

 

[jackson]

Well it is that simple. Either do it or don't. Build on what we have or lose it.

Liverpool's turnover isn't that much more than ours but their wage bill is £120m per season higher than ours. We have the lowest wages to turnover in the league, so there's clearly plenty of room for manoeuvre.

I suspect DL will be putting the club on the market as soon as the stadium's built so I don't think he really cares that much about anything else.

This is my suspicion as well, said it before, I think Levy/ENIC want to get to the new stadium looking as attractive as possible on paper and then sell up.

 

[dontcallme]

Also when a footballer starts talking about what he is 'worth' he needs a fucking slap. It's not what you are worth, it's what you can get. Is Danny Rose 'worth' the price of 140 nurses a year? Let's put all 141 of these people in a room for an hour and let him explain that. Then let another 140 nurses walk into the room (it's quite a big room) and let him explain that he needs to double his money as he's actually worth 280 of them. Maybe even 300 or 400 of them. Get a fucking grip and say what you mean or shut the fuck up. It's greed.

To be fair I don't think footballers are like politicians where they have to use perfect, inoffensive, sit on the fence terminology all the time.

We know what we means.

The capitalist economy sucks, it's not footballers' fault.

 

[Dougal]

This is my suspicion as well, said it before, I think Levy/ENIC want to get to the new stadium looking as attractive as possible on paper and then sell up.

It's what I'd do in their position. They've taken a run down club, renovated it and can sell it off as one of Europe's finest. They are business men after all and that's a great bit of business.

 

[Dougal]

To be fair I don't think footballers are like politicians where they have to use perfect, inoffensive, sit on the fence terminology all the time.

We know what he means.

The capitalist economy sucks, it's not footballers' fault.

We sure do.

 

[glospur]

Well it is that simple. Either do it or don't. Build on what we have or lose it.

Liverpool's turnover isn't that much more than ours but their wage bill is £120m per season higher than ours. We have the lowest wages to turnover in the league, so there's clearly plenty of room for manoeuvre.

I suspect DL will be putting the club on the market as soon as the stadium's built so I don't think he really cares that much about anything else.

From what I've seen this is categorically not true.

This from an article by Windy today, where he quotes an recent anaslysis of wages and turnover:

'Daniel Levy is hamstrung by our lack of revenue — hence the need for a new stadium. Swiss Ramble writes wonderfully about football finances and wrote in January of this year that we had a ‘wages to turnover ratio’ of 51%, with Manchester United 45% and Manchester City 50%. This means that the percentage of our turnover that goes toward wages is higher than that of the Manchester clubs; their huge turnovers make their higher wage bills possible/sustainable. For comparison, Arsenal’s ratio is 56%, Liverpool’s 56%, and Chelsea are an anomaly on 68%. When you see Premier League wages presented in this way it illustrates the market that we are working within.

If ‘market rate’ for Rose’s wages are £160k per week, reportedly around £95k per week more than what he earns currently, that would involve spending an additional £5m a year on him alone. Were we to make similar increases to all of our best players (which we would have to do were we to bump up his salary), we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for.'

Full opinion article from Windy on the Rose situation:

http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/

 

[Shadydan]

From what I've seen this is categorically not true.

This from an article by Windy today, where he quotes an recent anaslysis of wages and turnover:

'Daniel Levy is hamstrung by our lack of revenue — hence the need for a new stadium. Swiss Ramble writes wonderfully about football finances and wrote in January of this year that we had a ‘wages to turnover ratio’ of 51%, with Manchester United 45% and Manchester City 50%. This means that the percentage of our turnover that goes toward wages is higher than that of the Manchester clubs; their huge turnovers make their higher wage bills possible/sustainable. For comparison, Arsenal’s ratio is 56%, Liverpool’s 56%, and Chelsea are an anomaly on 68%. When you see Premier League wages presented in this way it illustrates the market that we are working within.

If ‘market rate’ for Rose’s wages are £160k per week, reportedly around £95k per week more than what he earns currently, that would involve spending an additional £5m a year on him alone. Were we to make similar increases to all of our best players (which we would have to do were we to bump up his salary), we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for.'

Full opinion article from Windy on the Rose situation:

http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/

This is really the crux of the situation I feel, we're gonna have to put up with players grumbling about their pay until we get more money.

 

[thebenjamin]

From what I've seen this is categorically not true.

This from an article by Windy today, where he quotes an recent anaslysis of wages and turnover:

'Daniel Levy is hamstrung by our lack of revenue — hence the need for a new stadium. Swiss Ramble writes wonderfully about football finances and wrote in January of this year that we had a ‘wages to turnover ratio’ of 51%, with Manchester United 45% and Manchester City 50%. This means that the percentage of our turnover that goes toward wages is higher than that of the Manchester clubs; their huge turnovers make their higher wage bills possible/sustainable. For comparison, Arsenal’s ratio is 56%, Liverpool’s 56%, and Chelsea are an anomaly on 68%. When you see Premier League wages presented in this way it illustrates the market that we are working within.

If ‘market rate’ for Rose’s wages are £160k per week, reportedly around £95k per week more than what he earns currently, that would involve spending an additional £5m a year on him alone. Were we to make similar increases to all of our best players (which we would have to do were we to bump up his salary), we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for.'

Full opinion article from Windy on the Rose situation:

http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/

Our turnover has increased massively over the last 12 months. Aia deal trebled, nike deal double under armour. Enormous prize money from coming second, largest tv money in history, champions league money, £80m in from transfer fees, 90k capacity this season.

So presumably our wage bill could be increased commensurate with the increase in our turnover.

Also, given our turnover is going to rocket further once the stadium's finished, would it really destroy the club to increase certain players wages one year early, keep the team together and keep the club in the cl and potentially win actual trophies?

 

[JonnySpurs]

From what I've seen this is categorically not true.

This from an article by Windy today, where he quotes an recent anaslysis of wages and turnover:

'Daniel Levy is hamstrung by our lack of revenue — hence the need for a new stadium. Swiss Ramble writes wonderfully about football finances and wrote in January of this year that we had a ‘wages to turnover ratio’ of 51%, with Manchester United 45% and Manchester City 50%. This means that the percentage of our turnover that goes toward wages is higher than that of the Manchester clubs; their huge turnovers make their higher wage bills possible/sustainable. For comparison, Arsenal’s ratio is 56%, Liverpool’s 56%, and Chelsea are an anomaly on 68%. When you see Premier League wages presented in this way it illustrates the market that we are working within.

If ‘market rate’ for Rose’s wages are £160k per week, reportedly around £95k per week more than what he earns currently, that would involve spending an additional £5m a year on him alone. Were we to make similar increases to all of our best players (which we would have to do were we to bump up his salary), we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for.'

Full opinion article from Windy on the Rose situation:

http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/

Our entire fanbase needs to see this!

it's not difficult to understand and shows that Levy is managing the club, and moreover the finances, to the best of his ability and fully in line with the expectations of the rest of the league. Our matchday revenues are some £100m less than our rivals and we are the ONLY club to the buck the trend that has teams finishing in league position relative to their wage bill. That is fucking admirable on so many levels.

We have to be patient as fans and frankly our players do as well. If they want to be part of something special and get their pay day at this club with this manager then it will come but it can't happen until we are IN the new stadium. If, like Danny Rose, they can't wait that long then go. Do what you need to do. BUT, make no fucking mistake, DO NOT come out in the papers 3 days before our season starts and talk shit about it for all the world to see!

 

[Dougal]

There was a time I believed Spurs wouldn't win the league in my lifetime. I wasn't alone. I know the sweet smell of success can be intoxicating but I found life bearable.

 

[Tucker]

So what do we do? Get our own country? It's either that or run things within budget.

It's Sophie's choice really isn't it. We can only do, what we can as a club. The question is, can we do any more than we currently are.

 

[Hazardousman]

This is really the crux of the situation I feel, we're gonna have to put up with players grumbling about their pay until we get more money.

http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/

"we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for."

This is opinion, not fact, the financial links he has shared are not only old and outdated but do not even once mention that it would be unaffordable for us to increase our wages, the only thing it suggests is that we lack revenue in comparison to clubs above us, this is obvious but isn't crippling enough when taking into account other factors such as TV money and CL money to explain why we couldn't increase wages.

I could be wrong here however, I am not an expert on finances, if I am, feel free to show me otherwise.

Also, Levy has already said that the stadium would not be impacting transfers

"Daniel Levy stated that the stadium issues had no bearing on transfer dealings. But success on the field was obviously important, as always,"

Now by that logic, how can he expect "success on the field" if we are not willing to do what is needed to keep our best players?

I remember him being quizzed about wages and his response was:

"Daniel Levy said no player would be sold who they didn’t want to sell for non-footballing reasons," read the minutes. "He said that all players were under contracts, contracts they were happy to sign at the time.

"They would be expected to honour those contracts. They wouldn’t have had a reduction if things had gone badly."

Whilst I agree with him on the contracts to a degree, I think it's fairly naive to think players wouldn't want to increase their wages when market value and performances dictate they are worth more in comparison to players who are half as good but get paid twice as much at other clubs, even clubs below us in the table.

I mean, like any job, when you first join you sign a contract, does that mean if within your first 2 years of signing that contract if you become the leading face in the company and have proven yourself to be a huge asset that you are not entitled to ask for a raise? And if that raise is not provided that you are not entitled to complain? Or look for other employment simply because of the original contract you signed? That seems a ridiculous notion to me.

This isn't something Levy can avoid, we can't have it both ways and I don't believe for one second we lack the ability to increase the wage structure, it's more like, Levy doesn't WANT to increase the wage structure, the reasoning behind which is open for interpretation but IN MY OPINION I don't see why increasing wages would put us into an unsustainable situation, I think that is a good excuse for not doing so from the top brass and little else.

But by all means, let's keep making excuses, once Poch leaves and the team gets dismantled what are we going to say? Victim of our own success in an overinflated market? Or reluctance to spend because we are run by a company who operates on one mantra only, profit over success?

 

[Graysonti]

"we’d be looking at over £50m. We cannot afford this; not least because we have £750m worth of stadium to pay for."

This is opinion, not fact, the financial links he has shared are not only old and outdated but do not even once mention that it would be unaffordable for us to increase our wages, the only thing it suggests is that we lack revenue in comparison to clubs above us, this is obvious but isn't crippling enough when taking into account other factors such as TV money and CL money to explain why we couldn't increase wages.

I could be wrong here however, I am not an expert on finances, if I am, feel free to show me otherwise.

Also, Levy has already said that the stadium would not be impacting transfers

"Daniel Levy stated that the stadium issues had no bearing on transfer dealings. But success on the field was obviously important, as always,"

Now by that logic, how can he expect "success on the field" if we are not willing to do what is needed to keep our best players?

I remember him being quizzed about wages and his response was:

"Daniel Levy said no player would be sold who they didn’t want to sell for non-footballing reasons," read the minutes. "He said that all players were under contracts, contracts they were happy to sign at the time.

"They would be expected to honour those contracts. They wouldn’t have had a reduction if things had gone badly."

Whilst I agree with him on the contracts I think it's fairly naive to think players wouldn't want to increase their wages when market value and performances dictate they are worth more in comparison to players who are half as good but get paid twice as much at other clubs, even clubs below us in the table.

This isn't something Levy can avoid, we can't have it both ways and I don't believe for one second we lack the ability to increase the wage structure, it's more like, Levy doesn't WANT to increase the wage structure, the reasoning behind which is open for interpretation but IN MY OPINION I don't see why increasing wages would put us into an unsustainable situation, I think that is a good excuse for not doing so from the top brass and little else.

But by all means, let's keep making excuses, once Poch leaves and the team gets dismantled what are we going to say? Victim of our own success in an overinflated market? Or reluctance to spend because we are run by a company who operates on one mantra only, profit over success?

Not read all of this but first sentence wrong lol

The £750m is total bill and more than £300m has already been paid - i.e. Cash movement

 

[Hazardousman]

Not read all of this but first sentence wrong lol

The £750m is total bill and more than £300m has already been paid - i.e. Cash movement

I know it's wrong, I quoted it from the article presented here http://windycoys.com/2017/08/danny-rose-a-stark-reminder/, the majority of the article is wrong in my opinion, it's just excuses, as per usual.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Why do we think that they don't increase the wage bill more than they do?

Does anyone actually believe that Levy is too thick to understand that the value of the company is directly related to how successful the team is on the pitch?

 

[Archibald Leitch]

Also, Levy has already said that the stadium would not be impacting transfers

"Daniel Levy stated that the stadium issues had no bearing on transfer dealings. But success on the field was obviously important, as always,"

Transfer dealings are one thing. Wages budget is another. You can't establish a wages policy based on money you might get it. You can only base it on money you know will come in. You could spend CL income on player purchases, but you can only agree wages over the next 5 years for that player based on commercial deals and known gate receipts over that period.

 

[Maxtremist]

Our turnover has increased massively over the last 12 months. Aia deal trebled, nike deal double under armour. Enormous prize money from coming second, largest tv money in history, champions league money, £80m in from transfer fees, 90k capacity this season.

So presumably our wage bill could be increased commensurate with the increase in our turnover.

Also, given our turnover is going to rocket further once the stadium's finished, would it really destroy the club to increase certain players wages one year early, keep the team together and keep the club in the cl and potentially win actual trophies?

I know Danny Rose is 'complaining' now, but did we not just negotiate deals with pretty much most of the first team last season or the season before last? So we're doing that. We're increasing the wage bill and tying down our players to long term contracts.

We we have increased our wage bill, and now some want it increased even more and we can't just keep doing that, nor can we just expect that the new stadium will fix everything. I mean we can increase all the wages now but then fail miserable this season or next season and lose a lot of our assets, and then what?

Not aimed at you, just a general point, but it feels like we're being punished for being practical.

 

[Hazardousman]

.

Why do we think that they don't increase the wage bill more than they do?

Does anyone actually believe that Levy is too thick to understand that the value of the company is directly related to how successful the team is on the pitch?

If he understood the value of the success of the team in relation to the value of the company then we wouldn't be going into the season without a RB and numerous other signings that we need to strengthen our depth.

This isn't rocket science, Poch is practically begging for signings at this point, this isn't the first time this has happened, Levy has a track record with this stuff in regards to signings and managers and it hasn't made the company lose value yet has it?

The fact is this, since Poch has been here our value has increased, Levy has a problem understanding that with increased success, comes increased demands and standing still isn't showing ambition, it's doing the opposite.

So I am not sure what Daniel is trying to achieve but if he thinks a stadium is all that matters well, he is naive and whilst our level of success might not be truly impacting our value, losing this squad and Poch truly will impact it because it will be a bigger drop off going from our position now back to 5th-7th than it ever was before and without this side being competitive we will be an average team with a huge stadium.