Net Spend guff...

[sloth]

he's probably still trying to think up a viable response. You might have to wait a while. Excellent post btw, and your point is the root cause of accusations of lack of transparency at the club. Where is this money going? Wages, to a degree, yep. But if the rest is going towards the stadium then why not say so, instead of stating the stadium won't affect our capacity to keep the squad competitive?

You ask questions, but the answers are public knowledge, you just have to be arsed to look.

Anyway, as per our independently audited accounts, you'll see we spend all we earn. We have spent a small amount on the interest of the loans we took out to build the training facility and initial stadium works, but in fact that borrowing has largely been paid off by outside money pumped in by Lewis. So, no, day to day football operations have not been effected by infrastructure projects, as the money spent has come from outside the club.

 

[SpurSince57]

Is there any reason you have not responded to my previous post, Sloth? Did Tottenham Hotspur not earn 90 million pounds in television revenue last season, as opposed to the 57 million it earned in the 2013 financials that SS57 cited earlier in this thread?

Someone make the case to me that a windfall of 33 million pounds for a four year stretch (2013-2016) should have zero impact on our net spend? If we were guaranteed entry in the Champions League from 2013-2016 (with guaranteed revenues) and proceeded to engage in zero net spending, do you think we'd have numerous people here talking about how prudent a policy of engaging in no net spending is?

Unfortunately, the CL5 have also received the extra £30m, so the differential in turnover remains exactly the same as it was. We could have spent ours on players, but that rather ignores several rather important facts: we'd just indulged the Bearded Wonder to the tune of around £170m in just two windows (almost twice what was spent on Ramos in the same period*), and most of the players we'd signed last summer hadn't exactly distinguished themselves—were we to move on Paulinho, Soldado, Chiriches, Lamela and Chadli as well as Sig and Fryers, and sign replacements on top of Dier, Davies, Vorm, Yedlin and Stambouli? That would be like buying five new cards at draw poker in the hope of getting a straight flush. Pochettino, sensibly, also wanted the chance to check out the squad properly.

There are other calls on our money, and I don't think too many on here have had to juggle a multi-million pound budget, or are ever likely to get the chance. You're also ignoring the possibility that the TV cash, or a fair chunk of it, is in the kitty for January.

*Harry got about £100m in seven windows, Jol around the same in six—and if any of our recent managers has cause to complain about getting players they didn't want and didn't need foisted on him, it was BMJ.)

 

[SpurSince57]

According to http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-2003-to-date.html , which covers practically the whole of ENIC's tenure, our gross spend has been the fifth highest in the EPL, at £505.55m, and our net spend the sixth highest, at £100.3m. Other than Chelsea, City, Liverpool and United, only Villa have a higher net, but their gross is only half those—and look at their finances after Lerner's honeymoon period with MON.

Arsenal are sixth in terms of gross (£337m) and 10th in net (£71m). This is possibly down to building the Emirates, but also Wenger's policy of bringing through youth and his tendency to spend the club's money as if it's coming out of his own pocket.

NOTE: those figures may not square precisely with those on Topspurs list of transfers, but I doubt they can be too far out.

 

[cliff jones]

this is all helpful perspective. This thread has come a long way.

My point remains that more recently we have comparatively under-invested in the squad, and as others have also said mid-table teams are spending the prem tv cash well, notably West Ham. As a layman, I don't fully understand the complexities of accounting, and the lines seem blurred to me as to what is Big Joe's or ENICs money and what is actually the Club's. We all know he won't lose out.

As per DLs MO, it doesn't look like we have a kitty per se, rather we sell/get assets off the wage bill to create opportunity to bring some in. Let's hope Pauli doesn't become another Gomes, I'd also like to get Kaboul, Capoue and Chiriches out the door even on creative loans. Benteke might well offer the best value, coming back to form, no ACN etc.., assuming they could get a replacement in. Rabiot loan to buy in the summer. But the two elephants in the room remain Ade, and our dodgy CBs...

No or limited activity would likely indicate DL is over-pricing those we want rid of and/or under-pricing our targets. That would be a real shame but let's wait and see.

 

[Mullers]

I really liked the original thread title, made me chuckle.

 

[SpurSince57]

this is all helpful perspective. This thread has come a long way.

My point remains that more recently we have comparatively under-invested in the squad, and as others have also said mid-table teams are spending the prem tv cash well, notably West Ham. As a layman, I don't fully understand the complexities of accounting, and the lines seem blurred to me as to what is Big Joe's or ENICs money and what is actually the Club's. We all know he won't lose out.

As per DLs MO, it doesn't look like we have a kitty per se, rather we sell/get assets off the wage bill to create opportunity to bring some in. Let's hope Pauli doesn't become another Gomes, I'd also like to get Kaboul, Capoue and Chiriches out the door even on creative loans. Benteke might well offer the best value, coming back to form, no ACN etc.., assuming they could get a replacement in. Rabiot loan to buy in the summer. But the two elephants in the room remain Ade, and our dodgy CBs...

No or limited activity would likely indicate DL is over-pricing those we want rid of and/or under-pricing our targets. That would be a real shame but let's wait and see.

Almost £200m in three windows is under-investing? How much more do you think we should have forked out? You could make that argument in Harry's last season, when we made £35.5m and spent just eight (and make up various conspiracy theories about why that was), but the fact is that in most ENIC seasons there has been a net spend—almost £150m between 2001-02 and 2010-11, according to the figures on http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html I'm not sure these are quite correct (and the total is higher than on their Premier League table), but they clearly demonstrate that it's only the last four seasons and 09-10 that we haven't made a net spend. In those four seasons we spent £230m. Would some people prefer that we had incurred a crippling debt in order to make the same outlay?

 

[Maske2g]

WALOB. We've spent well over £100m on players, and fortunately our previous player investments were able to pay for it.

Paying more for fewer better players is not a net spend argument, it's an argument for a better spend. In fact if you do a better spend your net spend will go down not up.

We haven't been conned, we're competing at the top end of the league year after year with an access to resource no greater than Everton's or Villa's, but higher income than them, but much less than five richer PL teams.

I would love to know how you do them Maths with our ticket prices and Villas shocking attendance's.

If you are genuinely happy with the signings this season go free. It is not investment by any sense of the word. You are starting to view it through the eyes of the business rather than the fans. You may as well give up now.
If you wanna go back to the 100 mil for a sec. Where we lost more players than the 7 we got in,, and they earnt more money by far, we finished lower in the league, and we had our best CB at left back for half a season. Yes you are right we put it back in badly, but we still had massive gaps in the squad. Again, if you are happy with that, fill your boots.

We aren't competing at the top, you are absolutely buzzing if you think that. We are 2nd rate, and we have missed at least 3 opportunities to capitalise on the dips in form of other clubs. We have settled for it. And you as a fan have settled for it. Must be chaffing on the arse to sit on the fence of mediocrity.

 

[sloth]

this is all helpful perspective. This thread has come a long way.

My point remains that more recently we have comparatively under-invested in the squad, and as others have also said mid-table teams are spending the prem tv cash well, notably West Ham. As a layman, I don't fully understand the complexities of accounting, and the lines seem blurred to me as to what is Big Joe's or ENICs money and what is actually the Club's. We all know he won't lose out.

As per DLs MO, it doesn't look like we have a kitty per se, rather we sell/get assets off the wage bill to create opportunity to bring some in. Let's hope Pauli doesn't become another Gomes, I'd also like to get Kaboul, Capoue and Chiriches out the door even on creative loans. Benteke might well offer the best value, coming back to form, no ACN etc.., assuming they could get a replacement in. Rabiot loan to buy in the summer. But the two elephants in the room remain Ade, and our dodgy CBs...

No or limited activity would likely indicate DL is over-pricing those we want rid of and/or under-pricing our targets. That would be a real shame but let's wait and see.

We haven't under-invested imo, though we are prudent. No blurred lines, it's all in black or white.

Don't you see the connection between "DL is over-pricing those we want rid of and/or under-pricing our targets."? It's because he over-valued those previous targets that we can't get rid of them now? Ade's on high wages in the arse end of his career and so has no incentive to move. I think the other's can come good. I feel that we've hired a coach who can do this, and I'm not a massive fan of the massive squad overhaul every couple of years approach - but that's a debate for another thread.

 

[StartingPrice]

1) My biggest criticism of Levy has been his managerial appointments, 2) I truly believe he doesn't have a clue what he's looking for.

1) I agree. Unfortunately, germane to the discussion of revenues, there is a place we are as a club: as the sixth wealthiest club, we cannot compete in attracting managers/head coaches at the peak of their powers who have proven themselves at the highest level. Nothing illustrated this better than our attempts to lure LvG to the Lane last season. This is a man who claims to have supported us, or at least had a distinct fondness for us, when he was a kid. He claims his methodology means he is just as happy with youth as with big money signings and we have one of the msot highly rated academies in England, if not Europe. But none of this prevented him from not only not coming to us, but using us like a sad little bait-worm with which to catch the Salmon of Knowledge. He knew that if he kept us dangling a bigger fish would become available, it did, he jumped at it and left us hanging. So, we either make safe, sensible appointments at our level and just chug along as the sixth best financed club in the EPL and looking to make par, or we take some risks. And risks quite often don't come off. Accepting this, his managerial appointments haven't really worked out...to date*.

2) I disagree, I think he has a pretty good idea of what he is looking for. He wants a manager/head coach who is au fait with the Continental system he has put into place, who has shown signs of promise and who is more than happy to work with the stated aims of the club in regard to youth development. And this last point is vital, as Levy has put so many eggs, and investment of time, energy and money, into developing the youth system (which is IMHO our best means of competing). It is not for nothing that AVB and Pochettino made public statements to this effect (no matter how AVB subsequently isolated the 1st team form the youth). If you look at all the appointments, from Jol on, they all fit this pattern in one way or another*. Unfortunately, they have all, also, been risks (see 1, above) and none of them has quite taken - but the same thing happened to Chelsea after sacking Mourinho, just with a higher level and experience of managers.

*The exception, in both cases, was Mr Redknapp. He was an experienced EPL manager. He did work out - to a certain extent (though his best players came via the DoF system, Bale, Modric, through the academy, Ledders, or via the much decried Levy-last minute shopping). He refused to work under the Continental set-up, he didn't make much noise about the youth set-up and was better known for buying short-term-fix older players, and it was debatable that he was ever envisioned as being someone who had a lot of improvement in him. Rather, we were in the doo-daa, thanks to Wandery Ramos, and there was good reason to believe that he could come in and galvanize us immediately and pick up our talented but totally demoralised squad.

 

[shelfmonkey]

SP, I agree with most of what you say there, maybe where I stated he doesn't have a clue I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say, so here goes! What I meant was that I'm pretty sure Levy doesn't know what to look for in a manager beyond working within the continental system, ie his track record with man management, coaching methods etc. I'm not saying he didn't change tac when going for Poch, but Poch's appointment smacks of a 'he's done well at a lesser club, let's get him in' approach. Now I'm not knocking Poch here, I want him to make a success of us, I just question Levy's thoroughness and methodology when it comes to managerial appointments.

 

[StartingPrice]

Along with the info a couple of folks have posted above, the frustration many feel is based on:
1. Transfer Fee Net Spend All Prem Teams last 5 years: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html (hint we are bottom)

2. player salaries since 2011 - tottenham in 6th http://www.tsmplug.com/football/premier-league-player-salaries-club-by-club/

SO - how can you be the 6th in wages, bottom in net spend and then:

3. Set a realistic target of 4th

Once you add in the fact that Spurs are

4. the second costliest team to watch:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eague-ticket-prices--complete-guide-club.html

5. while being the 13th most valued club: http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/

one can see why fans are cheesed off

1 - For me, the point isn't where we are in net spend, it is where we are in quality of squad. Honestly, I know this wasn't quite the point Slothio was making, but I couldn't give a shaved fig how much or how little net-spend we have. If we buy three players at Tesco's garage for £2 each, £5 for the three, but they turn out to be Messi, Ronaldo and Bale, why be peeved that that puts our net spend down. I hope for the majority of our players to be home produced. All this means, in effect, is we are bottom of the net spend chart while punching above our weight in terms of league finish (Hint: 6th wealthiest club, 6th highest wage bill, more often than not finishing 4th or 5th). Why is this a bad thing? Why is it a bad thing to be in better shape than our rivals - apart from just because they are doped so it doesn't matter so we should do the same (in which case ENIC aren't the owners for us).

2/3 - IMHO there is no set realistic target of 4th, there is an aspiration of 4th, seen as feasible based on level of players signed plus investment in, and aspirations for, the youth set-up. And it has been feasible, we finished 4th twice and narrowly missed out on finishing 4th on several other occasions in the last decade. There is also a realistic target that we be improving and at least looking like we can challenge the top 4.

Some fans, ignoring Daniel Levy's frequent statements that 4th isn't a requisite, insist that it has been made a sackable offence to fail to achieve it. This despite the facts not tallying with it at all. No manager has been sacked with a finishing position that wasn't 4th, whereas one has been dismissed after finishing 4th. Jol, Ramos and AVB left the club after the start of the season, and so not for finishing position. Jol and Ramos were in dire straits on the pitch, and certainly didn't look like they could at least challenge the top - indeed, things looked to be going backwards. I felt a bit sorry for Jol, at the time (and he is the one, IMHO, who comes anywhere near close to fitting the template of having been sacked for not finishing 4th). But Wanders Ramos had us on 2 points form 8 games, as 'Arry would happily remind you, and the minute he said we were not in a relegation struggle only to be followed by Jonathan Woodgate saying this club is most definitely in a relegation struggle I knew he had lost the dressing room. Mr Redknapp was dismissed for a host of reasons which had nothing to do with his finishing league position - which had been fourth. AVB parted by mutual consent, apparently, and hubris seems to have played a part.

4 - That is surely partly to do with London weighting, though???

5 - We are the 6th wealthiest club in the EPL, that is the relevant information - but situated in London. 13th in Europe. Just shows how relatively strong our league is. We are the 3rd wealthiest club in London, but Chelsea are financed as an oil mafioso's plaything and don't really count, so maybe being second most expensive to watch shouldn't be so much of a surprise.

One can see that some fans get cheesed off because they fail to understand the finances and bigger picture while overestimating a small number of largely irrelevant variables and at the same time refuse to acknowledge or give due consideration to the number of ways in which the club has improved and punched above its weight.

 

[StartingPrice]

SP, I agree with most of what you say there, maybe where I stated he doesn't have a clue I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say, so here goes! What I meant was that I'm pretty sure Levy doesn't know what to look for in a manager beyond working within the continental system, ie his track record with man management, coaching methods etc. I'm not saying he didn't change tac when going for Poch, but Poch's appointment smacks of a 'he's done well at a lesser club, let's get him in' approach. Now I'm not knocking Poch here, I want him to make a success of us, I just question Levy's thoroughness and methodology when it comes to managerial appointments.

Then, yes, I agree with you.

The difference between Pochettino and AVB/Ramos is that he did relatively well with a smaller club in the EPL, whereas the latter had what success they had in leagues other than the EPL. But hindsight is a wonderful thing: Ramos had success with a club of similar stature to us, in a big league dominated by a couple of massive clubs. This made it appear like he was a good fit for us. Unfortunately, the differences between the Spanish and English leagues, plus his lack of English (and other issues) proved too much. AVB had success with one of the big playas in a small league, including in Europe, and there were reasons at the time for feeling that his failings at Chelsea were as much due to that caustic club as with him.

What we have to hope, and I, personally, like what I have seen so far, is that Levy is slowly getting better at choosing/being advised on which manager/head coach top chose. But, as said, any appointment we make, due to our situation, is a bit of a risk.

 

[Mullers]

1 - For me, the point isn't where we are in net spend, it is where we are in quality of squad. Honestly, I know this wasn't quite the point Slothio was making, but I couldn't give a shaved fig how much or how little net-spend we have. If we buy three players at Tesco's garage for £2 each, £5 for the three, but they turn out to be Messi, Ronaldo and Bale, why be peeved that that puts our net spend down. I hope for the majority of our players to be home produced. All this means, in effect, is we are bottom of the net spend chart while punching above our weight in terms of league finish (Hint: 6th wealthiest club, 6th highest wage bill, more often than not finishing 4th or 5th). Why is this a bad thing? Why is it a bad thing to be in better shape than our rivals - apart from just because they are doped so it doesn't matter so we should do the same (in which case ENIC aren't the owners for us).

2/3 - IMHO there is no set realistic target of 4th, there is an aspiration of 4th, seen as feasible based on level of players signed plus investment in, and aspirations for, the youth set-up. And it has been feasible, we finished 4th twice and narrowly missed out on finishing 4th on several other occasions in the last decade. There is also a realistic target that we be improving and at least looking like we can challenge the top 4.

Some fans, ignoring Daniel Levy's frequent statements that 4th isn't a requisite, insist that it has been made a sackable offence to fail to achieve it. This despite the facts not tallying with it at all. No manager has been sacked with a finishing position that wasn't 4th, whereas one has been dismissed after finishing 4th. Jol, Ramos and AVB left the club after the start of the season, and so not for finishing position. Jol and Ramos were in dire straits on the pitch, and certainly didn't look like they could at least challenge the top - indeed, things looked to be going backwards. I felt a bit sorry for Jol, at the time (and he is the one, IMHO, who comes anywhere near close to fitting the template of having been sacked for not finishing 4th). But Wanders Ramos had us on 2 points form 8 games, as 'Arry would happily remind you, and the minute he said we were not in a relegation struggle only to be followed by Jonathan Woodgate saying this club is most definitely in a relegation struggle I knew he had lost the dressing room. Mr Redknapp was dismissed for a host of reasons which had nothing to do with his finishing league position - which had been fourth. AVB parted by mutual consent, apparently, and hubris seems to have played a part.

4 - That is surely partly to do with London weighting, though???

5 - We are the 6th wealthiest club in the EPL, that is the relevant information - but situated in London. 13th in Europe. Just shows how relatively strong our league is. We are the 3rd wealthiest club in London, but Chelsea are financed as an oil mafioso's plaything and don't really count, so maybe being second most expensive to watch shouldn't be so much of a surprise.

One can see that some fans get cheesed off because they fail to understand the finances and bigger picture while overestimating a small number of largely irrelevant variables and at the same time refuse to acknowledge or give due consideration to the number of ways in which the club has improved and punched above its weight.

This is not aimed at you in particular but people seem to forget that Ramos won us the only trophy in ENIC's reign and what's more he did it in style. Yes he failed in the league but replacing two top strikers with a load of cack didn't help him any. He tried to change the culture of the club but ultimately the players resisted, perhaps if he was a better English speaker with a bit better man management skills he would have done better. I certainly don't think he's a bad manager.

 

[StartingPrice]

This is not aimed at you in particular but people seem to forget that Ramos won us the only trophy in ENIC's reign and what's more he did it in style. Yes he failed in the league but replacing two top strikers with a load of cack didn't help him any. He tried to change the culture of the club but ultimately the players resisted, perhaps if he was a better English speaker with a bit better man management skills he would have done better. I certainly don't think he's a bad manager.

No, I agree - wasn't trying to paint it all as unremitting disaster, or Wandery as a complete bumbling idiot. That said, Johnathan Woodgate's face played a large and mostly unaware part in our success

 

[ebzrascal]

People keep writing they want us to have a net spend on players each year as if that should be the goal... what a load of bollocks.

You can't have a net spend on players each year without going out of business, not in the way people mean it anyway. Net spend in the narrow sense that it's bandied on here means you're spending more on players then you're getting by selling them, so where's this money to come from? In the real world player expenditure should include wages and at the moment we spend all the money we make on players, meanwhile we've borrowed a little to build some infrastructure.

In fact spending more on players than you get for them is a sign of failure, it's the lower league clubs that all suffer from a net spend on players, and that's because they keep spending on players who when sold turn out to be worth less than what they cost. Explain to me a business that thrived by spending more on stock than it got from selling it. The whole notion is inane. The only successful clubs with a net spend on players are those for whom money is no object because they're being bankrolled, and UEFA's trying to clamp down on that. Of the other big clubs none of them have a net spend, but they do have bigger incomes.

Part of the problem is that people look at transfer fees and not wages when estimating player expenditure, and then they only consider income from player sales. Which is absurd of course. But even by that idiotic measure spending more on players than you get back is stupid, as it means you're presumably also paying higher wages, but now this has to be sustained by other revenue. Ah, but we could qualify for CL if only we risked a bit... he who dares wins Rodders!!! Except that spend more on the hope that we qualify, or after we did qualify, and then don't qualify the spending more doesn't go away, we're spending more on those players for every year of their contract, and so then we have to get rid if we can, which means a fire-sale, which means a positive net spend (whoopy-do!), and now where's that money we want to spend to get us in the CL? It's going on the interest we have to pay to furnish the debt we got into when we didn't qualify for CL every year! Genius.

I think you are wrong on this one because if you sell players you lose them off the wage bill and as Spurs have a tight wage structure money spent on new players is unlikely to increase it.. In my view people are correct in saying that making a £10 million profit on player sales every season while financially prudent does not do much for our performance on the pitch unless you have a miracle worker like Wenger and even he has now started to spend big. The problem is will refuse to do a deal over a differnce of £5 million when the potential rewards are enormous. I truly believe there were times when we had a chance of actually going for the league title a few seasons back had we been a little more ambitious in the January transfer window.

 

[SpurSince57]

I think you are wrong on this one because if you sell players you lose them off the wage bill and as Spurs have a tight wage structure money spent on new players is unlikely to increase it.. In my view people are correct in saying that making a £10 million profit on player sales every season while financially prudent does not do much for our performance on the pitch unless you have a miracle worker like Wenger and even he has now started to spend big. The problem is will refuse to do a deal over a differnce of £5 million when the potential rewards are enormous. I truly believe there were times when we had a chance of actually going for the league title a few seasons back had we been a little more ambitious in the January transfer window.

The wage bill has jumped from £44m in 2007 to £96m last year, and risen in percentage terms from about 40% to 65%. The figures are in the public domain. I've posted them in this and other threads for people who can't be arsed to find the information for themselves. The wage structure myth was exploded three-four years ago by a very knowledgeable poster on COYS (if he was making it up, he was the most accomplished bullshitter we've ever had); there's a wage budget, and as long as it's not exceeded there's no theoretical upper limit.

If you truly thought that you are, sorry, delusional. Liverpool tried it. it didn't work and they ran up a £90m loss over two seasons and had to be rescued by Fenway. It's bad enough that we spent £45m on Soldado and Paulinho and kept within our means. Would you sooner we'd gone into debt to sign them?

 

[cliff jones]

We haven't under-invested imo, though we are prudent. No blurred lines, it's all in black or white.

Don't you see the connection between "DL is over-pricing those we want rid of and/or under-pricing our targets."? It's because he over-valued those previous targets that we can't get rid of them now? Ade's on high wages in the arse end of his career and so has no incentive to move. I think the other's can come good. I feel that we've hired a coach who can do this, and I'm not a massive fan of the massive squad overhaul every couple of years approach - but that's a debate for another thread.

agree to disagree on degree of investment in players, particularly this past summer when Poch needed the support. Benny is another example of over-pricing an outgoing. Clear before no-one's gonna pay 2 or 3 mill, so give him away for free to save on wages, or even sub his wages just to get rid. Gomes was the same. I don't think we over paid for anyone with the Bale money, we just paid what it took to do the deals.

Where I do agree with you is that the turnover of players is way too high. We should look to add two at the most each season, but they have to be for the first team/a clear upgrade on what we already have. Not Fazios and Stamboulis, but MM and Alex Song instead. We can afford the 30 mill, minus whatever we raise from sales, based on the tv money. Unless the money's going on the stadium instead? Rhetorical question, I've already read your answer.

 

[SpurSince57]

agree to disagree on degree of investment in players, particularly this past summer when Poch needed the support. Benny is another example of over-pricing an outgoing. Clear before no-one's gonna pay 2 or 3 mill, so give him away for free to save on wages, or even sub his wages just to get rid. Gomes was the same. I don't think we over paid for anyone with the Bale money, we just paid what it took to do the deals.

Where I do agree with you is that the turnover of players is way too high. We should look to add two at the most each season, but they have to be for the first team/a clear upgrade on what we already have. Not Fazios and Stamboulis, but MM and Alex Song instead. We can afford the 30 mill, minus whatever we raise from sales, based on the tv money. Unless the money's going on the stadium instead? Rhetorical question, I've already read your answer.

Bloody hell, we've spent £200m in just three windows, and Pochettino seemed pretty clear that he wanted time with the squad to evaluate what he'd inherited before splashing out on new players. On the one hand you claim we've under-invested, and on the other say the turnover's too high. You can't have it both ways. Yes, I agree we could have done better with Benny and Gomes (except there have been constant rumours that Benny wouldn't get past a fitness test, which would certainly explain his big drop-off in form), but ultimately their wages are pretty small beer in the great scheme of things.

We needed a new CB last summer (frankly, I wish we'd kept Daws as a squad player and offloaded Kaboul); Villareal weren't keen to sell Musacchio, there seems to have been some third-party ownership nonsense as usual, and he didn't want to come anyway. I'm happy enough with the way Fazio's progressing. We had ITK that Pochettino wanted Stambouli—and more telling than that, Bielsa went apeshit when he found out his president had let us get in first. That's plenty of recommendation for me. He could develop into another Schneiderlin for all any of all any of us know. it seems crazy to me that people are saying we should have splurged £25m-£30m on a player hardly anyone on SC had heard of about 18 months ago, and that's assuming Southampton would have let him go, even at that price.

 

[cliff jones]

Almost £200m in three windows is under-investing? How much more do you think we should have forked out? You could make that argument in Harry's last season, when we made £35.5m and spent just eight (and make up various conspiracy theories about why that was), but the fact is that in most ENIC seasons there has been a net spend—almost £150m between 2001-02 and 2010-11, according to the figures on http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html I'm not sure these are quite correct (and the total is higher than on their Premier League table), but they clearly demonstrate that it's only the last four seasons and 09-10 that we haven't made a net spend. In those four seasons we spent £230m. Would some people prefer that we had incurred a crippling debt in order to make the same outlay?

you don't need to take the trouble to claw out more stats mate, I read your last lot and understand we're shooting par in finishing 5th or 6th given our accounting constraints. Please don't keep ignoring the enormous loss of Bale in making your point though. Without selling him you can knock a good half off recent spend, it just wouldn't have happened. I just don't see the point of signing the Fazios and Stamboulis. I'd rather sign the Diers and Rabiots, put them in and give them a real chance to develop. And of course the occasional big un, like Benteke or Schneiderlin, because the tv deal means we can. Then there are proven players going for a good price like Song who we managed to miss. Fingers crossed Mitchell works out. Cheers.

 

[ebzrascal]

The wage bill has jumped from £44m in 2007 to £96m last year, and risen in percentage terms from about 40% to 65%. The figures are in the public domain. I've posted them in this and other threads for people who can't be arsed to find the information for themselves. The wage structure myth was exploded three-four years ago by a very knowledgeable poster on COYS (if he was making it up, he was the most accomplished bullshitter we've ever had); there's a wage budget, and as long as it's not exceeded there's no theoretical upper limit.

If you truly thought that you are, sorry, delusional. Liverpool tried it. it didn't work and they ran up a £90m loss over two seasons and had to be rescued by Fenway. It's bad enough that we spent £45m on Soldado and Paulinho and kept within our means. Would you sooner we'd gone into debt to sign them?

Well... in 2007-2008 season Spurs made £36 million in TV Revenue and in 2013-2014 Spurs made £90 million in TV Revenue.. So I am sure we are making alot more money.. My point is we are wasting money on too many average players when I would rather fewer higher quality players on the same wage bill............. ie.. Sell Capoue don`t buy Stambouli = Scnhiederlin when you add up the pot for wages, transfer fees etc..