My concern (Money, Future etc.)

[si_yidarmy]

Another season already gone!

The end of this season however is alot different to ones we have experienced in the past. Hear me out!

Leeds United, in my eyes, were stupid at the time to buy players for very high prices. (Some cases sold for more) never the less, i was thinking the other day and especially today as alot of my mates were thinking the same thing....

What if Spurs overspend, and do it wrong like leeds did. My main thought however was, did Leeds United spend big, to try and break away from the other bunch and try to claim a title charge for years to come.

As much as i do not like leeds, i feel we are in a similar situation and i now realise they had huge ambitions. Not thought out well enough though.

So to my point... I trust (i hope you all do to) Ramos. I worry sometimes about our board and other members of the round table, only because of the Jol fiasco, and alot of players coming in that were 'potential' but in the end no where near.

The last two season we have D.Bent 16.5m and Modric 16.2m? AND MORE, with potentially more to come. I know we are generally a rich club, and probably have a much bigger back-up than leeds had back in the day. (By that i mean, if for some gay reason ENIC go bank-rupt :duh: then we would have a series of investors ready to pounce because of who we are) but are we doing the right thing? Are we risking ALOT of money? Well we plunge?

I feel we are doing the right thing, the time has come to get serious, splash the cash. Show we mean business! Roy Keane spent 45million just to stay up by 5 points. But it worked! BUT at the same time I hope its the right thing.

Do we just do it? Really push for 4th and if it fails big time, atleast we had a real go at it!? Are all the mid-table finishes (on average) over the last decade desirable? We have had the taste of 5th x2. We want more, we should be having more. So DO IT!

I supose the only thing i can say from this, and at the end of the day, its what counts, as he is the one that affects players the most... is IN RAMOS I TRUST!

Forgive me in the past for some rubbish posts and sorry for this long one. But, hey spurs chat n all that! Hope it has made you think somewhat.

YID ARMY THFC TILL I DIE

 

[si_yidarmy]

forgot to mention the potential stadium scenario! Thats not cheap either!

 

[Bulletspur]

I understand your concerns, but personally I think the two scenarios are different.

What Leeds did amongst other things was to spend money before they got! What I mean is when they got in the CL they speculated that they would be in the CL for years and burrowed and spent on the strength that. When this didnt materialise they were basically fucked as they had to repay this loans and interests. They also remortgaged their ground and rented it back, therefore losing more revenue.

Spurs fortunately is no where near this position as for one thing, the board isnt going to play Russian roulette with their share holders dividends etc.

In a nut shell, whilst you have reasonable grounds to be concerned, I would not begin to worry......well not quite yet!!

 

[Gambler]

I'd imagine if you looked at the standings of football's richest clubs we'd be the richest club who aren't in the Champions League.

 

[nicdic]

Completely different.

Ridsdale = Idiot

Levy = Astute Businessman

 

[talkshowhost86]

People make alot of the money we've spent over the years but we've also made alot of money by selling on players. If you look at people like Postiga, Mendes, Davis, Davies, Pamarot etc we've generally sold them on for not alot less than we bought them. It annoys me when the press make so much of the amount we spend but if you take the net spending it's a much more sensible number.

This Summer should be the same. In another thread I've listed 11 players who will almost certainly be leaving this summer and for those players we should get in 40-50m. If Levy and the board invest 30-40m of their own money then the press will go all mental and say 'Spurs have spent 80m again' but we've actually financed most of it sensibly.

 

[nickspurs]

People make alot of the money we've spent over the years but we've also made alot of money by selling on players. If you look at people like Postiga, Mendes, Davis, Davies, Pamarot etc we've generally sold them on for not alot less than we bought them. It annoys me when the press make so much of the amount we spend but if you take the net spending it's a much more sensible number.

This Summer should be the same. In another thread I've listed 11 players who will almost certainly be leaving this summer and for those players we should get in 40-50m. If Levy and the board invest 30-40m of their own money then the press will go all mental and say 'Spurs have spent 80m again' but we've actually financed most of it sensibly.

Agree with this point. I'd even add that the 30-40M you talk about isn't even their own money. It's financed by ongoing operations. I haven't looked at the accounts for a while but I think the club can currently put these levels of squad investment in without seeking extra external financing or significant increases in leverage.

If we talk about a genuine injection, for me that's Lewis throwing some cash in from his own finances.

We're a fan base-rich and asset-rich club and well-run too so I don't worry too much in answer to the original post.

 

[NickHSpurs]

The key difference between us and Leeds being Daniel Levy, who would not let that happen.

 

[si_yidarmy]

I suppose we would have to start breaking the 60,000 a week salary cap soon too

 

[nickspurs]

I suppose we would have to start breaking the 60,000 a week salary cap soon too

The whole salary cap thing is misleading. There was an excellent piece posted on one of the other sites which one of our members posted here explaining how Levy thinks about player costs. The salary cap concept is a simplistic phrase that journo's talk about but I think Levy has a more sophisticated view on it.

Just found it and I recommend reading. Of course, taken on trust but very plausible and I believe it. There's more than one post in thread so read on if you're keen. Here's the link.

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=26249

 

[SpurSince57]

I understand your concerns, but personally I think the two scenarios are different.

What Leeds did amongst other things was to spend money before they got! What I mean is when they got in the CL they speculated that they would be in the CL for years and burrowed and spent on the strength that. When this didnt materialise they were basically fucked as they had to repay this loans and interests. They also remortgaged their ground and rented it back, therefore losing more revenue.

Spurs fortunately is no where near this position as for one thing, the board isnt going to play Russian roulette with their share holders dividends etc.

In a nut shell, whilst you have reasonable grounds to be concerned, I would not begin to worry......well not quite yet!!

Leeds also paid a lot of very average players ridiculous wages.

 

[yanno]

Leeds also paid a lot of very average players ridiculous wages.

The Spammers are an even more recent example. They want to pay Ljungberg £3 million to tear up his contract and leave the club! mg:

And it sounds as if Lucas Neill & Boa Morte (two players who define average) will be the next who are paid money to leave....

 

[Bill_Oddie]

The wage thing is crucial. The only way clubs now look at wages and costs is as percentage of revenue. In that regard, ours has to be amongst the lowest in the league. Even if we were to start paying half a dozen players 60-70k a week, we'd not be worse off than the likes of West Ham (who also are about to give Ljungberg 3m quid never to play for them again :lol: ), Newcastle or maybe, Man City.

TSH also makes the excellent point about investment. And when you take into account our generally low(ish) wages, then it really isn't that tragic.

Darren Bent is the ultimate example of this. He signed for us for what, a five year deal? Worth, I think 35k a week to him. Thats 15.5m up front. 1m at a later date and about 1.8m a year in wages. Over five years, therefore he would cost us 25.5m pounds.

Compare that firstly with the fact that West Ham wanted to pay him 70k a week. He would have cost them more than 3.6m a year in wages and overall 34.5m. Almost 10m pounds more.

And what did they do instead? Buy Craig Bellamy, an injury prone player on 70k a weeks wages. I would guess he's on a four year deal, so along with his 7m (I think it was - do correct me if this is tosh) signing fee, he will cost WHU a total of 21.5m. 84% of the cost for only 80% of the time he'll be at the club (not to mention that he'll be older, slower and less use during this time.

And how about comparing him to, say Mark Viduka? A much older, fatter player. He apparently commanded 90k a week for a three year deal, albeit on a free transfer. His cost to Newcastle will be 4.7m a year. An overall cost of 14.1 million squids.

Now, compare the players worth at the end of their contract. Viduka (and to a lesser extent Bellamy) will be worthless, but if we were to compare, we'd have got extra years out of Benty and still only have paid 10m or 4m more. A figure which we are almost 100% certain to recoup in a transfer should he decide to move on.

Hypothetical and pointless given the Bosman ruling, but a more clear way of looking at a players' 'value'.

 

[Kendall]

ENIC? bankrupt? don't make me larf

They are backed by tavistock & while that doesn't mean we get handouts, it does provide a certain degree of security.

 

[DC_Boy]

wages are a key point as has been mentioned - plus the figures for our club are fairly transparent compared to non-plc clubs

those figures consistently point to a sound business model

my gripe is that that model won't crack the top 4 for us - we need a massive cash injection from some 'sugar daddy financier' or team of financiers or whatever

 

[JJ1978]

Not sure how accurate this is...

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/34/biz_soccer08_Soccer-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

But out debt to value is pretty damn good.

 

[yanno]

wages are a key point as has been mentioned - plus the figures for our club are fairly transparent compared to non-plc clubs

those figures consistently point to a sound business model

my gripe is that that model won't crack the top 4 for us - we need a massive cash injection from some 'sugar daddy financier' or team of financiers or whatever

Howdy DC_Boy

The problem with "sugar daddy financiers" is their reasons for buying football clubs. Call me a cynic, but I doubt there's a single EPL sugar daddy who's involved because of their love for a club and its supporters.

All the American owners want a Return On Investment greater than that which can be achieved by putting their money into other businesses. And in the case of the Glazers, Man Utd's interest on their debt repayments is almost as large as their profit after turnover. That's potentially crippling, and of course it means the Glazers didn't even use their own money - they borrowed it at high (and presumably variable) rates of interest.

I'm going to be careful about how I phrase this, but there's considerable evidence that certain non-American sugar daddies are essentially washing their laundry at clubs. They may like the fame and high profile that club ownership gives them, but they also had to find a safe haven for their cash outside the jurisdiction of their home nation fairly pronto. :wink:

I have my criticisms of Levy, especially some of his decision-making with regard to key appointments, but he seems to be running the financial side of Spurs as effectively as any chairman in the EPL. And he's a genuine fan. Personally, I wouldn't swap him for a fly-by-night, dodgy, sugar daddy who'd need a map to find White Hart Lane.

I also think that given rapidly declining commercial and residential property values, the fact we haven't yet committed to a massive new stadium may prove to be very lucky indeed.

 

[DOX]

Completely different.

Ridsdale = Idiot

Levy = Astute Businessman

:hump:

 

[DC_Boy]

Hi yanno as I've said I've no probs with Levy as a sound finance man - it's just I can't see us breaking the top 4 on this model - but I can also see that the 'sugar daddy' route is fraught with possible dangers - are there not enough rich and genuine Spurs fans out there to bridge the gap?

-I don't know to be honest what's for the best - all I do know is that I think that at the current type of financing the top 4 will continue to elude us - I think we need something like £200m extra on the playing side spread over a couple of year and £200/350m on the stadium side - it's a big ask for anyone and even then there are no guarantees

I'd rather any 'sugar daddy' money go first on the stadium as that would stand us in good stead on a long term future basis

 

[Allen]

The last two season we have D.Bent 16.5m and Modric 16.2m? AND MORE, with potentially more to come. I know we are generally a rich club, and probably have a much bigger back-up than leeds had back in the day. (By that i mean, if for some gay reason ENIC go bank-rupt :duh: then we would have a series of investors ready to pounce because of who we are) but are we doing the right thing? Are we risking ALOT of money? Well we plunge?

I feel we are doing the right thing, the time has come to get serious, splash the cash. Show we mean business! Roy Keane spent 45million just to stay up by 5 points. But it worked! BUT at the same time I hope its the right thing.

I see where you're coming from and I understand; but, please realise Spurs have not YET paid £16.5 for Bent and it looks likely we will pay some £2m less than the initial figure (as Bent looks unlikely to accomplish things which would give Charlton the 'full' return). Modric, same thing - a four year remit plan.

Our spending to date under Levy has been exceptional I feel - that's spending and not what it's been spent on. Our accounts are healthy; the club / board have done a great job with the 'brand' which has been necessary considering the size of or stadium and subsequent depleted gate revenue.

Money isn't the full story. Keane has spent much and just kept Sunderland afloat, but consider what Sunderland had? Other managers have spent without significant reward too, but, every coin has two sides and you need only look at our neighbours who have spent less (the last I checked) on players over the Wenger tenure yet the achievements speak for themselves.

Yeah we have the right manager now - trust Ramos to spend effectively, so I'm with you on that one. Summer will never be this good :wink: