NASDAQ: Fireside Chat with Levy and Ledley

[YiddoInPoland]

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.

This.

I understand people want to spend the fuck out of the summer window but i don't think we are in that dire need, we need some players no doubt and i am sure we will bring them in, but i like the way out club is run.

 

[Indacupfortottenham]

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

Cheers gonna have a word with them.

 

[thebenjamin]

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.

Yeah but who's he talking about there? He can only be referring to City which is completely disingenuous because they're privately funded by a trillionaire.

 

[Ben1]

Also bear in mind that doing a 'david gold' and screaming we have 70 million, we need players, we will spend is literally the worst negotiation tactic in existence. We won't overpay, we don't need players, the market is stupid seems a more sensible media approach.

 

[Phomesy]

It's going to be really interesting to see how Levy copes with the club's wage bill in the next 2-3 years. I'm also interested in whether the club even ratchets up spending once a large portion of the stadium is paid off and revenues surpass 400 million pounds a year. There's been this long-standing belief among Spurs fans that additional gate receipts and other ancillary stadium revenues will allow the club to massively increase the wage bill and compete with top clubs in the transfer market when it comes to fees. I don't think this is going to be the case. There's nothing binding ENIC to take the windfall from the new stadium and plough it right back into the playing squad (Arsenal's board/ownership certainly didn't). They've seen a 500% increase in the last decade in television money coming into the club's coffers, but corresponding spending on wages and transfers has been just a fraction of that (our wage bill has only risen roughly 10% from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 according club financial statements). Now one can argue that they are taking that surplus cash and building a debt free stadium, which they will 100% own (great for them), and once the debt is cleared, they'll begin spending massive amounts in earnest. I don't know if Levy's own words in the above article and history suggest he'll be overseeing that.

As far as future television deals, I think it's folly to project a collapse. Look at the NBA, MLB and NFL. All have had sagging or flat ratings for some time and all have seen exponential increases in television revenue because they are established brands with loyal followings. The EPL is going through a worldwide boom. Just read this article on a projected tripling of overseas television money in the next 5 years (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ue-earn-billions-thanks-foreign-TV-deals.html). What I think is more likely to happen than a collapse in television revenue is a massive fan backlash to all the money being earned and spent that ultimately results in clubs acquiescing to ticket price caps. Gate receipts already make up a dwindling share of the top clubs revenues. Placating supporters with cheap tickets while gobbling up television and commercial cash seems like a way to keep fans loyal, and we've already seen the league implement this for away tickets starting this past season.

There will have to be a rise in the wage structure but, if I'm being really honest, I don't want Spurs to get caught up in the obscene spending that is infesting the football world. If that costs us titles because we can't compete with the slave trading owners of PSG and Man City then so be it. Don't want my club's success built on the blood of developing world workers - and, frankly, would stop watching football if we did.

 

[robertgoulet]

Yeah but who's he talking about there? He can only be referring to City which is completely disingenuous because they're privately funded by a trillionaire.

Ultimately this is a business for all but a select few, so I reckon that he's being a bit hyperbolic. If teams are steady losing a few million every season that is eventually going to catch up to them.

 

[thebenjamin]

Ultimately this is a business for all but a select few, so I reckon that he's being a bit hyperbolic. If teams are steady losing a few million every season that is eventually going to catch up to them.

But not with anyone we're competing with.

 

[npearl4spurs]

It's going to be really interesting to see how Levy copes with the club's wage bill in the next 2-3 years. I'm also interested in whether the club even ratchets up spending once a large portion of the stadium is paid off and revenues surpass 400 million pounds a year. There's been this long-standing belief among Spurs fans that additional gate receipts and other ancillary stadium revenues will allow the club to massively increase the wage bill and compete with top clubs in the transfer market when it comes to fees. I don't think this is going to be the case. There's nothing binding ENIC to take the windfall from the new stadium and plough it right back into the playing squad (Arsenal's board/ownership certainly didn't). They've seen a 500% increase in the last decade in television money coming into the club's coffers, but corresponding spending on wages and transfers has been just a fraction of that (our wage bill has only risen roughly 10% from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 according club financial statements). Now one can argue that they are taking that surplus cash and building a debt free stadium, which they will 100% own (great for them), and once the debt is cleared, they'll begin spending massive amounts in earnest. I don't know if Levy's own words in the above article and history suggest he'll be overseeing that.

As far as future television deals, I think it's folly to project a collapse. Look at the NBA, MLB and NFL. All have had sagging or flat ratings for some time and all have seen exponential increases in television revenue because they are established brands with loyal followings. The EPL is going through a worldwide boom. Just read this article on a projected tripling of overseas television money in the next 5 years (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ue-earn-billions-thanks-foreign-TV-deals.html). What I think is more likely to happen than a collapse in television revenue is a massive fan backlash to all the money being earned and spent that ultimately results in clubs acquiescing to ticket price caps. Gate receipts already make up a dwindling share of the top clubs revenues. Placating supporters with cheap tickets while gobbling up television and commercial cash seems like a way to keep fans loyal, and we've already seen the league implement this for away tickets starting this past season.

This is a good post and you may be right that TV money won't go down a lot but I do want to make some points:

MLB is in a bad place viewer wise and it probably won't get better any time soon. The older generation is somewhat loyal to baseball but those fans, to be blunt, are dying out. And the games are very long, especially in today's society with today's viewers, and are dreadfully boring to watch on TV. No one watches the regular season which is 162!!! games long. I don't see TV money lasting for them but what do I know?

NBA: Ratings fell iirc last year and this year. ESPN paid a lot of money for those rights and was mad that teams would sit stars during TV games. 82 game regular season too. People don't watch until playoffs because everyone knows which teams will be there.

NFL: Ratings were down this year. They keep changing the rules and all the news coming out about long term effects of head injuries means more kids playing soccer (I know) and lacrosse than American football. I don't think their revenues are going to keep increasing. But again, what do I know?

EPL will probably get more money from America though. Interest seems to be going through the roof.

 

[guiltyparty]

No just respectful and condescending at the same time!

Pure Jose. Ferguson always used to big up Spurs, so they would roll over. He does love Fergie

 

[guiltyparty]

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

Full Sky Q with sports, broadband and multi room is £88 a month unless you're on a limited deal. BT is £55 top whack with broadband. So even if you paid for your broadband twice it wouldn't cost £150 a month. So yes he definitely is

Best option budget wise is to get BT broadband (get sport included) and then get now tv/basic sky package with sports. Altho I hate BT broadband so I've ended up going full sky for my sins

 

[Ionman34]

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.

Sorry but I can't agree with a single word you've posted there. At the risk of ridicule, because this is posted so often when this subject comes up, Leeds are the prime example. They leveraged beyond their means, gambling on the CL revenue to keep them afloat. When they failed, they crashed big time and, after roughly 20 years(?) they are still to get anywhere near recovery. Chelsea went exactly the same way, digging a 9 figure pit for themselves and achieving nothing. It was pure luck that brought Abramovich along at just the right time to bail them out.
Liverpool almost paupered themselves spending beyond their means to try and keep up with Utd and Chelsea, even with regular CL. They had a series of owners who spent heavily and still failed, having to sell on because of their heavy losses.
Remember Blackburn Rovers? They bought a title, investing heavily. Where are they now?
History, and not just the recent kind, has shown that gambling has a far higher failure rate than success. The lower leagues are littered with clubs that spent beyond their means and got crucified as a result, Pompey and QPR being further examples. You could even say that Sunderland and, to a lesser degree, Newcastle have been victims to this "put it all on Black" gambling attitude.

The most successful team in the modern era gre their brand to get where they are today, Utd. They are only in debt because Glazer leveraged their value to buy them or, more to the point, he's mortgaged them. The goons have grown their brand, achieved success well within their means, and are now in a cash rich position where they could challenge the big spenders, but they choose not to mostly.
Chelsea and City are the anomalies. They have had huge cash injections that allowed them to shoot straight to the head of the queue, then grow their brand from there. There was no gamble involved for them as the money spent really was a drop in the oil well to them. For us it is different, trying to match the fees and, more importantly, the wage structures of our top end rivals would be a massive gamble which, as history has shown, is close to an odds on to fail. I know you are only talking about 2-3 players, but you have to factor in the knock on effect. Bring in 2-3 World class players, and that's what they'd need to be to be "difference makers" to this team, would mean having to pay World class wages. Kane, Eriksen and Alli would then need to be paid comparable wages as they are effectively lauded as World class now (at least World class demand anyway). Then players like Dier, Wanyama, Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Lloris, Rose et al would need to be paid comparable wages.

In one fell swoop you've gone into an unsustainable wage structure that we are most definitely not ready for yet, and probably won't be ready for for the next 3-5 years.

Slippery slopes and all that.

Now there are those who'd cite the additional TV revenue as the reason why we should be able to afford this, but firstly, buying 2-3 players would wipe that out in the transfer fees alone. Then the wage spiral wipes the rest of it out. Then those players are "just not quite enough" because everyone else has done that and more, so the next year we gamble on "just another 2-3 World class players" to get us across the line. Suddenly we're totally reliant on TV money and constant CL revenue just to stay afloat whilst managing our stadium debt...

What then should the revenue stream start drying up? It doesn't have to crash, it just has to be less than our expenditure, then the debts mount and we start chasing our losses, to borrow a poker parlance.

It's not an unrealistic scenario, history, as I've already touched upon, has proven this unequivocally.

We all want that glory, we're so tantalisingly close we can almost smell the Silver polish, but I don't want it if it means we become the next Blackburn Rovers, or the next Pompey or, God forbid, the next Leeds, who gambled everything on one throw and lost the lot, with absolutely nothing but fond memories of what could have been to show for it.

 

[Ionman34]

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.

Like America? Weren't they the global market leaders and "too big to fail."

When they crashed they took the entire World with them.

 

[robertgoulet]

Like America? Weren't they the global market leaders and "too big to fail."

When they crashed they took the entire World with them.

Sports leagues seemed to come out of it alright.

 

[Ionman34]

Sports leagues seemed to come out of it alright.

Yeah they did.

I just have an issue with this "too big to fail" belief that IMHO, is a fairytale really. Lots believed that of Barings bank, Nick Leeson put them straight there. America almost single handedly destroying the global economy is just the latest to put the lie to the belief, though I'm perhaps being a trifle unfair to the septics as they didn't force anyone else to hedge all their bets on them.

The common denominator is gross mismanagement, which I feel is the path that Football is heading down. Unrestricted spending, living beyond your means in the pursuit of glory when the odds, in truth, are stacked against you, unchecked avarice at every level, it really is unsustainable if some checks and measures are not applied, and they need to be far more stringent than the FFP farce.

Weve seen it with the World economy and countless other examples, it only takes one piston to stop firing before, soon enough, the whole engine blows up.

Ok this is Football, but I've lived through 2 recessions. The first I didn't see coming, the second I did, and moved my family to Australia just in time, where we rode out the worst of it because Queensland's prosperity was tied into China's growth. Even there though the bubble burst because avarice took over and no one gave a thought to the evetuality that China's growth had to slow down.

I digress, but I'm seeing the same sort of symptoms, the unchecked overspending, the unshakable belief that it will never go pop. Irresponsible mismanagement that no one is prepared to check because they're all too busy scrambling for their own ever bigger slice of the pie.

Ignoring all previous lessons because all anyone is interested in is getting as rich as possible as fast as possible. Typical Western World short termism, and it is hugely depressing.

When a club that lives within its means, progresses through exemplary management and looks to set up a system for long term sustainability is questioned on its ambition because it isn't spending like a lottery winner with 6 months left to live, then I truly despair at the mindset of those doing the questioning, and let's face it, it is the majority rather than the minority doing this.

In this, I truly believe that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

 

[SamR]

Sorry but I can't agree with a single word you've posted there. At the risk of ridicule, because this is posted so often when this subject comes up, Leeds are the prime example. They leveraged beyond their means, gambling on the CL revenue to keep them afloat. When they failed, they crashed big time and, after roughly 20 years(?) they are still to get anywhere near recovery. Chelsea went exactly the same way, digging a 9 figure pit for themselves and achieving nothing. It was pure luck that brought Abramovich along at just the right time to bail them out.
Liverpool almost paupered themselves spending beyond their means to try and keep up with Utd and Chelsea, even with regular CL. They had a series of owners who spent heavily and still failed, having to sell on because of their heavy losses.
Remember Blackburn Rovers? They bought a title, investing heavily. Where are they now?
History, and not just the recent kind, has shown that gambling has a far higher failure rate than success. The lower leagues are littered with clubs that spent beyond their means and got crucified as a result, Pompey and QPR being further examples. You could even say that Sunderland and, to a lesser degree, Newcastle have been victims to this "put it all on Black" gambling attitude.

The most successful team in the modern era gre their brand to get where they are today, Utd. They are only in debt because Glazer leveraged their value to buy them or, more to the point, he's mortgaged them. The goons have grown their brand, achieved success well within their means, and are now in a cash rich position where they could challenge the big spenders, but they choose not to mostly.
Chelsea and City are the anomalies. They have had huge cash injections that allowed them to shoot straight to the head of the queue, then grow their brand from there. There was no gamble involved for them as the money spent really was a drop in the oil well to them. For us it is different, trying to match the fees and, more importantly, the wage structures of our top end rivals would be a massive gamble which, as history has shown, is close to an odds on to fail. I know you are only talking about 2-3 players, but you have to factor in the knock on effect. Bring in 2-3 World class players, and that's what they'd need to be to be "difference makers" to this team, would mean having to pay World class wages. Kane, Eriksen and Alli would then need to be paid comparable wages as they are effectively lauded as World class now (at least World class demand anyway). Then players like Dier, Wanyama, Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Lloris, Rose et al would need to be paid comparable wages.

In one fell swoop you've gone into an unsustainable wage structure that we are most definitely not ready for yet, and probably won't be ready for for the next 3-5 years.

Slippery slopes and all that.

Now there are those who'd cite the additional TV revenue as the reason why we should be able to afford this, but firstly, buying 2-3 players would wipe that out in the transfer fees alone. Then the wage spiral wipes the rest of it out. Then those players are "just not quite enough" because everyone else has done that and more, so the next year we gamble on "just another 2-3 World class players" to get us across the line. Suddenly we're totally reliant on TV money and constant CL revenue just to stay afloat whilst managing our stadium debt...

What then should the revenue stream start drying up? It doesn't have to crash, it just has to be less than our expenditure, then the debts mount and we start chasing our losses, to borrow a poker parlance.

It's not an unrealistic scenario, history, as I've already touched upon, has proven this unequivocally.

We all want that glory, we're so tantalisingly close we can almost smell the Silver polish, but I don't want it if it means we become the next Blackburn Rovers, or the next Pompey or, God forbid, the next Leeds, who gambled everything on one throw and lost the lot, with absolutely nothing but fond memories of what could have been to show for it.

I can completely appreciate this view shared, but you are taking some pretty bold examples of Leeds and Blackburn here case and point. Both clubs were further away from challenging for a title before the money was invested into the playing staff. I completely agree that their super high risk approach was awfully implemented and daft.
Manchester City & Chelsea were indeed anomalies and need to be left out of the discussion.

If we look at it purely financial for a moment - Financial Year 30 Jun 16 was pretty healthy for us. Significant profit growth, positive increase in Ebitda and Sales Revenue. This was based on our EL year.

One can assume that the Year end 30 Jun 17 will be rosy with all of the benefits reaped from a higher place PL finish, CL entry and increased marketing/ sponsorship revenue from our growing brand. How much of an estimated increase I don't know - but I would say significant....and this is before the TV revenue increase!

With this in mind, and with the sales of Walker, N'Jie, Bentaleb & possibly Sissoko - We have significant revenue to invest in playing staff without breaking the bank. We also have increased revenue to offset against salary increases. It needs to be well managed but there is room to reward.
We may need to further trim the squad and sell on some youngsters with value who can't make it here, but I fully believe we have the financial clout to make the necessary improvements. In doing so, i expect us to finish amongst the top 4 again and push further on in the CL - generating further revenue and sponsorship appeal on a Global Scale.

I may have over staked the risk element in my last post. I don't actually feel it's hugely damaging to buy 2-3 first team challenging players if we lose Sissoko too. What better way to protect against potential TV Revenue diminishes than with better performances on the pitch - spurring growth across all other revenue channels?

 

[Ionman34]

I can completely appreciate this view shared, but you are taking some pretty bold examples of Leeds and Blackburn here case and point. Both clubs were further away from challenging for a title before the money was invested into the playing staff. I completely agree that their super high risk approach was awfully implemented and daft.
Manchester City & Chelsea were indeed anomalies and need to be left out of the discussion.

If we look at it purely financial for a moment - Financial Year 30 Jun 16 was pretty healthy for us. Significant profit growth, positive increase in Ebitda and Sales Revenue. This was based on our EL year.

One can assume that the Year end 30 Jun 17 will be rosy with all of the benefits reaped from a higher place PL finish, CL entry and increased marketing/ sponsorship revenue from our growing brand. How much of an estimated increase I don't know - but I would say significant....and this is before the TV revenue increase!

With this in mind, and with the sales of Walker, N'Jie, Bentaleb & possibly Sissoko - We have significant revenue to invest in playing staff without breaking the bank. We also have increased revenue to offset against salary increases. It needs to be well managed but there is room to reward.
We may need to further trim the squad and sell on some youngsters with value who can't make it here, but I fully believe we have the financial clout to make the necessary improvements. In doing so, i expect us to finish amongst the top 4 again and push further on in the CL - generating further revenue and sponsorship appeal on a Global Scale.

I may have over staked the risk element in my last post. I don't actually feel it's hugely damaging to buy 2-3 first team challenging players if we lose Sissoko too. What better way to protect against potential TV Revenue diminishes than with better performances on the pitch - spurring growth across all other revenue channels?

Nice post.

The crux is careful management, which is why I used Leeds and Blackburn as the main examples. It is the "we've got to take a gamble" mindset that sets my teeth on edge, as history has proven that those gambles rarely, if ever, pay off.

I can certainly get on board with your argument that we could potentially push the boat out on some established quality, but I don't think now is the time to do it, if I'm honest. We've had some ricketts when we've spent big money in recent years, of the £25 million plus players we've bought, only Lamela has worked out, kind of, and "kind of" is a huge gamble if we're shelling out in excess of £40 million apiece on 2-3 players.
Then, at the risk of repeating myself, their wages, and the knock on wage increases to others, blows that out again.

I just feel that it's a little too early in the piece to take that gamble.

 

[hellava_tough]

Nice post.

The crux is careful management, which is why I used Leeds and Blackburn as the main examples. It is the "we've got to take a gamble" mindset that sets my teeth on edge, as history has proven that those gambles rarely, if ever, pay off.

I can certainly get on board with your argument that we could potentially push the boat out on some established quality, but I don't think now is the time to do it, if I'm honest. We've had some ricketts when we've spent big money in recent years, of the £25 million plus players we've bought, only Lamela has worked out, kind of, and "kind of" is a huge gamble if we're shelling out in excess of £40 million apiece on 2-3 players.
Then, at the risk of repeating myself, their wages, and the knock on wage increases to others, blows that out again.

I just feel that it's a little too early in the piece to take that gamble.

Depends what you mean by 'paying off'

Bearing in mind that you'll get utility (appearances) out of the player and also potentially sell him in the future, thus recouping a sizeable chunk of the transfer and wages spent

There is a scale here; an amazing 'star player' at one end and a complete financial disaster of a player at the other

I'd wager that most players in the PL are somewhere in the middle - even the ones that people assume are complete disasters

Take for instance the likes of Soldado and Paulinho. Bought for £26m and £17m respectively; sold for £10m a piece. 97 appearances between them and 13 goals. So basically a loss of £23m over a couple of years (£11.5m a year)

Yeah, they weren't that great, but you couldn't call that a financial disaster because the club has the ability to absorb the losses and move on

All depends on your risk appetite and how you've structured your risk response plan (yeah, I'm a risk analyst btw )

PS Also wanted to say that I'm enjoying you and Samr's posts

 

[Ionman34]

Depends what you mean by 'paying off'

Bearing in mind that you'll get utility (appearances) out of the player and also potentially sell him in the future, thus recouping a sizeable chunk of the transfer and wages spent

There is a scale here; an amazing 'star player' at one end and a complete financial disaster of a player at the other

I'd wager that most players in the PL are somewhere in the middle - even the ones that people assume are complete disasters

Take for instance the likes of Soldado and Paulinho. Bought for £26m and £17m respectively; sold for £10m a piece. 97 appearances between them and 13 goals. So basically a loss of £23m over a couple of years (£11.5m a year)

Yeah, they weren't that great, but you couldn't call that a financial disaster because the club has the ability to absorb the losses and move on

All depends on your risk appetite and how you've structured your risk response plan (yeah, I'm a risk analyst btw )

PS Also wanted to say that I'm enjoying you and Samr's posts

Thanks.

It's not so much the risk of those players failing within their own remit that I'm concerned about, it's the additional risk associated with the additional revenue that would need to be paid out to the other players that I have no doubt would be demanded. Factor in the further risk that, with other teams improving, our chances of consolidating a top 4 position are fairly sketchy, then the risk increases exponentially.

I understand that, at some point, we need to make those additions, I just don't think that that time is now. It's too early, particularly with the additional outlay of the development.
As I said in my earlier post, I feel we're a few years away from being able to take risks like that without putting ourselves in a difficult financial position.
Whilst DL may say that the stadium costs will not impact on our player trading, and I'm not convinced by that either, I'm certain that taking that gamble, increasing our wage to turnover percentage ratio, will have an impact on our debt management, which would have a greater negative long term impact.

Ultimately I'm speculating here, but I think that the way DL has operated over the last few years bears that out.

I can certainly accept that I'm wrong if someone can show me how the debt management would work, but I doubt anyone could as we really have no idea what our outstanding debt will be. As it is, it is only going to be DL and THFC that will have all of these answers, and they're not yet prepared to take the gamble, which speaks volumes to me.

 

[hellava_tough]

Thanks.

It's not so much the risk of those players failing within their own remit that I'm concerned about, it's the additional risk associated with the additional revenue that would need to be paid out to the other players that I have no doubt would be demanded. Factor in the further risk that, with other teams improving, our chances of consolidating a top 4 position are fairly sketchy, then the risk increases exponentially.

I understand that, at some point, we need to make those additions, I just don't think that that time is now. It's too early, particularly with the additional outlay of the development.
As I said in my earlier post, I feel we're a few years away from being able to take risks like that without putting ourselves in a difficult financial position.
Whilst DL may say that the stadium costs will not impact on our player trading, and I'm not convinced by that either, I'm certain that taking that gamble, increasing our wage to turnover percentage ratio, will have an impact on our debt management, which would have a greater negative long term impact.

Ultimately I'm speculating here, but I think that the way DL has operated over the last few years bears that out.

I can certainly accept that I'm wrong if someone can show me how the debt management would work, but I doubt anyone could as we really have no idea what our outstanding debt will be. As it is, it is only going to be DL and THFC that will have all of these answers, and they're not yet prepared to take the gamble, which speaks volumes to me.

But would we have to pay any additional wages to current squad members?

I had in my mind that any new players would be in the £50k to £100k a week bracket, which is basically within our current pay structure. I hadn't envisioned breaking our salary policy any time soon.

Therefore it wouldn't rock the boat too much with the current squad.

 

[Ionman34]

But would we have to pay any additional wages to current squad members?

I had in my mind that any new players would be in the £50k to £100k a week bracket, which is basically within our current pay structure. I hadn't envisioned breaking our salary policy any time soon.

Therefore it wouldn't rock the boat too much with the current squad.

That's my point though. The type of players being extolled are the "marquee" signings that would be demanding wages comparable with our peers. Wages well upwards of £100K, even £150K plus, which would have our other key players demanding comparable. As I said in my first post, it's a slippery slope that has no guarantee of success and, IMHO, is a little too early for us as we do not yet have the structure in place to absorb and mitigate should a failure to achieve required goals occur.

It's about the timing, and our time for this type of calculated gamble is not yet, again IMO.