Net Spend guff...

[sloth]

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.

Where we can debate is whether this or that player was value for money. In terms of the over all picture however we're performing above expectations for a club with a 36k capacity stadium, this is because the vast majority of a standard PL club's income comes from TV money and that's pretty flat - not much difference between top and bottom - after that it's gate receipts and with a small stadium that's hard to increase, after that it's commercial, and here we wipe the floor with the Villas and Evertons of this world, and there's no reason for us to do so given we all piggyback the international exposure of the PL, rather than Spurs having an intrinsic international cache. Finally it's about player trading and keeping wages low relative to the quality of your squad. To judge how good you are at player trading you have to pay close attention to the gross as well as the net - if you can spend a lot but keep the net low it means earlier investments have been successful, if you have the same net, but your gross is also low it means the opposite ( which is part of the reason why net alone is a rubbish benchmark).

Until recently all of this has been in balance and we've over performed relative to the PL's equivalent clubs, reflected in the fact that we've regularly finished above clubs with much bigger budgets and rarely finished below those with more equivalent budgets. Where you have a point is the last two seasons where our income has risen but our spend hasn't, we'll see the effect in our next set of accounts, but I expect to see a big profit. The club then has a decision: use most of it on players, or put it towards the new stadium. At that time they'll also announce which it is. My guess is that it will be the stadium, but I also think the splash the announcement will make will be the catalyst for our sale, and thus in the end the profit will get used on players and the stadium will get built with outside money whilst the cash pile will mean we can keep buying players without triggering FFP rules.

 

[cliff jones]

Where we can debate is whether this or that player was value for money. In terms of the over all picture however we're performing above expectations for a club with a 36k capacity stadium, this is because the vast majority of a standard PL club's income comes from TV money and that's pretty flat - not much difference between top and bottom - after that it's gate receipts and with a small stadium that's hard to increase, after that it's commercial, and here we wipe the floor with the Villas and Evertons of this world, and there's no reason for us to do so given we all piggyback the international exposure of the PL, rather than Spurs having an intrinsic international cache. Finally it's about player trading and keeping wages low relative to the quality of your squad. To judge how good you are at player trading you have to pay close attention to the gross as well as the net - if you can spend a lot but keep the net low it means earlier investments have been successful, if you have the same net, but your gross is also low it means the opposite ( which is part of the reason why net alone is a rubbish benchmark).

Until recently all of this has been in balance and we've over performed relative to the PL's equivalent clubs, reflected in the fact that we've regularly finished above clubs with much bigger budgets and rarely finished below those with more equivalent budgets. Where you have a point is the last two seasons where our income has risen but our spend hasn't, we'll see the effect in our next set of accounts, but I expect to see a big profit. The club then has a decision: use most of it on players, or put it towards the new stadium. At that time they'll also announce which it is. My guess is that it will be the stadium, but I also think the splash the announcement will make will be the catalyst for our sale, and thus in the end the profit will get used on players and the stadium will get built with outside money whilst the cash pile will mean we can keep buying players without triggering FFP rules.

the tv money is relatively flat but as you say we've not spent it well in the past two years. The Bale money clearly distorted our position however. I don't mind the tv money being used to get the stadium built, because that's the most important factor in the development of our Club, but if this is the case I want ENIC to come clean about it. You used the phrases out there, black and white earlier on in this debate but the only thing I've read is that the budget for capital projects does not effect the board's intention to keep the squad competitive or some such. Stadium capacity is to an extent a red herring, given our fans pay through the nose compared to Clubs of a similar size. Think I read for example that our 36 pays more than the Barcodes 51K?

 

[sloth]

the tv money is relatively flat but as you say we've not spent it well in the past two years. The Bale money clearly distorted our position however. I don't mind the tv money being used to get the stadium built, because that's the most important factor in the development of our Club, but if this is the case I want ENIC to come clean about it. You used the phrases out there, black and white earlier on in this debate but the only thing I've read is that the budget for capital projects does not effect the board's intention to keep the squad competitive or some such. Stadium capacity is to an extent a red herring, given our fans pay through the nose compared to Clubs of a similar size. Think I read for example that our 36 pays more than the Barcodes 51K?

Bale money is an example of a good investment paying dividends.

As I said, the money to date has been spent on players, while the Training facility as well as the initial stadium works have been funded by the owner from a different source, however in the last 24 months we've have not spent any TV money. There has been the uncertainty surrounding AVB, TS and then Poch over that period, we also spent more in AVB's last summer in gross terms than ever before, there's the question of which players we could attract without CL football and a secured on going budget, but of course there's also the question of the stadium. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that we didn't want to get a whole load of TS players in last winter, and that having splurged the previous summer it was correct to give them a chance to prove themselves under Poch, and for Poch to make up his mind over who he wanted, however we do need to begin splashing the cash soon, or they need to explain to us they've taken the decision to spend some of it on the stadium.

Apart from that, isn't it a sign of success that we're rolling in money, we've built the training facility, and we can choose to spend the war-chest on players, the stadium, or some combination thereof? Rather be us right now than Villa, Everton, or Southampton, and telling that even money bags Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are hardly pulling up trees compared to us atm - semis of the CC, Knock out stages of the EL, four points off fourth with West Ham occupying the coveted spot, and the team coming into a bit of form with kids we've developed to the fore, and even some of those big money signings starting to look like the players we thought we'd bought!!!!

 

[SpurSince57]

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.

Of course it wouldn't—but is this really about the lack of a net spend, or about Baldy and Villas-Boas blowing £45m of the Bale money on two spectacular duds, and a further £26m on a kid who's split opinion right down the middle? Are you really telling me this thread would exist if Soldado and Paulinho had lived up to their billing, and Lamela had settled in and started delivering the goods and payback for his fee?

I don't think there was any possibility of Bale's staying, nor do I see how Villas-Boas could realistically have expected the club to keep him and fulfil the highly ambitious shopping list his pal Jason Burt outlined in his Telegraph article. The figures don't add up. We'd have had to sell Bale twice over. The Bearded Wonder's recent protestations sound pretty disingenuous to me—that, or he was living in some kind of fantasy world. Then, we had Ramos taking the job having apparently understood there were budgetary constraints, and then demanding we sign Villa and Eto'o!

You may not see the point of Fazio and Stambouli, but I imagine Pochettino does. Do you really think we might have a chance of signing Rabiot?

 

[cliff jones]

Of course it wouldn't—but is this really about the lack of a net spend, or about Baldy and Villas-Boas blowing £45m of the Bale money on two spectacular duds, and a further £26m on a kid who's split opinion right down the middle? Are you really telling me this thread would exist if Soldado and Paulinho had lived up to their billing, and Lamela had settled in and started delivering the goods and payback for his fee?

I don't think there was any possibility of Bale's staying, nor do I see how Villas-Boas could realistically have expected the club to keep him and fulfil the highly ambitious shopping list his pal Jason Burt outlined in his Telegraph article. The figures don't add up. We'd have had to sell Bale twice over. The Bearded Wonder's recent protestations sound pretty disingenuous to me—that, or he was living in some kind of fantasy world. Then, we had Ramos taking the job having apparently understood there were budgetary constraints, and then demanding we sign Villa and Eto'o!

You may not see the point of Fazio and Stambouli, but I imagine Pochettino does. Do you really think we might have a chance of signing Rabiot?

you're right in that Ramos and AVB both delivered some success but then went backwards, and subsequently blamed the latter on Levy breaking promises of big signings. We can all blame someone else for our own failings.

I think neither Fazio nor Stambouli represent a clear upgrade on what we already had. One man thinks this is strengthening squad depth, another thinks it's clogging the wage bill and pathway of development squad players. Although I certainly did see the point of Davies and Vorm, even if the former only shades Rose we didn't have any real cover in either position so that was good business in today's market.

L'Equipe is usually on the money but unless we have an option to deal permanently in the summer I don't see much point of developing Rabiot on behalf of the Parisiens/Qataris. If Wenger or Rogers get involved I can see us falling out of the picture regardless.

For me Bentaleb has a lot of the tools but needs to put tackles in, but I really do fear his absence in January in that we'll be a Mason injury away from seeing Carlton Capoue once again. I'd love to see him shipped out along with the grinning idiot. Has Harry spent all TF's dough yet?!

 

[sloth]

you're right in that Ramos and AVB both delivered some success but then went backwards, and subsequently blamed the latter on Levy breaking promises of big signings. We can all blame someone else for our own failings.

I think neither Fazio nor Stambouli represent a clear upgrade on what we already had. One man thinks this is strengthening squad depth, another thinks it's clogging the wage bill and pathway of development squad players. Although I certainly did see the point of Davies and Vorm, even if the former only shades Rose we didn't have any real cover in either position so that was good business in today's market.

L'Equipe is usually on the money but unless we have an option to deal permanently in the summer I don't see much point of developing Rabiot on behalf of the Parisiens/Qataris. If Wenger or Rogers get involved I can see us falling out of the picture regardless.

For me Bentaleb has a lot of the tools but needs to put tackles in, but I really do fear his absence in January in that we'll be a Mason injury away from seeing Carlton Capoue once again. I'd love to see him shipped out along with the grinning idiot. Has Harry spent all TF's dough yet?!

Why do you think they're at the same level as what we already have? Surely there's been no time to judge?

 

[Gbspurs]

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.

The mistake you have made is assuming that a football club is run with the same aims as other businesses (to produce profit for shareholders).

A Football Club has 2 sides to it. A business and a football team. The historical purpose of the business is to facilitate the growth of the football team, not the other way round.

People's concerns around net spend is that the revenues the business side of things generate is not always invested into the footballing side of things like other clubs.

Instead we treat the business as a separate entity rather than a vechicle for improving the footballing side of things and solely rely on player sales to invest in the team.

Not saying it's right or wrong but the more successful teams are the ones who abandon this principle unfortunately.

 

[sloth]

The mistake you have made is assuming that a football club is run with the same aims as other businesses (to produce profit for shareholders).

A Football Club has 2 sides to it. A business and a football team. The historical purpose of the business is to facilitate the growth of the football team, not the other way round.

People's concerns around net spend is that the revenues the business side of things generate is not always invested into the footballing side of things like other clubs.

Instead we treat the business as a separate entity rather than a vechicle for improving the footballing side of things and solely rely on player sales to invest in the team.

Not saying it's right or wrong but the more successful teams are the ones who abandon this principle unfortunately.

In the case of THFC the owners will make their money when they sell up, and they'll make the the most money if the club is successful when they sell, and they'll make sweet FA if the club is unsuccessful when they sell. Can you explain to me how the owners desire to turn a buck and the club's success on the pitch can be separated? Use concrete examples pertinent to us, as in stuff we've actually done.

In terms of net spend it's a ridiculous benchmark for all the reasons laid out in this thread by me and other's multiple times, but which, I'm guessing, you've yet to read.

 

[Gbspurs]

In the case of THFC the owners will make their money when they sell up, and they'll make the the most money if the club is successful when they sell, and they'll make sweet FA if the club is unsuccessful when they sell. Can you explain to me how the owners desire to turn a buck and the club's success on the pitch can be separated? Use concrete examples pertinent to us, as in stuff we've actually done.

In terms of net spend it's a ridiculous benchmark for all the reasons laid out in this thread by me and other's multiple times, but which, I'm guessing, you've yet to read.

I'm not doing homework on Christmas Eve.

I read it and I don't disagree that using net spend as a gauge for success is pointless, but I do think it highlights where investement is going and you can argue there is a direct correlation between investment and success in the premier league.

 

[sloth]

I'm not doing homework on Christmas Eve.

I read it and I don't disagree that using net spend as a gauge for success is pointless, but I do think it highlights where investement is going and you can argue there is a direct correlation between investment and success in the premier league.

Not homework, it was your point, not mine.

How does the net highlight where investment is going?

 

[cliff jones]

In the case of THFC the owners will make their money when they sell up, and they'll make the the most money if the club is successful when they sell, and they'll make sweet FA if the club is unsuccessful when they sell. Can you explain to me how the owners desire to turn a buck and the club's success on the pitch can be separated? Use concrete examples pertinent to us, as in stuff we've actually done.

In terms of net spend it's a ridiculous benchmark for all the reasons laid out in this thread by me and other's multiple times, but which, I'm guessing, you've yet to read.

Surely ENICs MO is to invest as little as they can, at the lowest possible risk, to generate as bigger return as possible. They will hope by buying Fazio and Stambouli that they could improve the squads competitiveness to the same degree as through buying MM and MS, but at a third or quarter of the cost. Capital projects on the other hand are more their forte, and are a pretty safe bet, particularly given the increasing shortage of land within the m25.

 

[Gbspurs]

Not homework, it was your point, not mine.

How does the net highlight where investment is going?[/QUOTE]

Call me stupid but surely if you are spending more on players than you bring in then it's pretty obvious that the club would have footed the bill and therefore invested in the squad?

 

[Franchise60]

Just waiting for the other 19 clubs to go bust with their irresponsible spending. Pretty brilliant plan tbh

If spending more on players than you sell is a sign of failure this table sure looks backwards, no?

 

[allatsea]

Just waiting for the other 19 clubs to go bust with their irresponsible spending. Pretty brilliant plan tbh

If spending more on players than you sell is a sign of failure this table sure looks backwards, no?

Using your five year time scale the net spends are almost nothing on an annual basis until you get upto Hull. Interesting that several in the top nine, QPR, Hull, Stoke, Liverpool ?, which have a reasonable net spend are struggling. How does that help your argument ?

 

[sloth]

Just waiting for the other 19 clubs to go bust with their irresponsible spending. Pretty brilliant plan tbh

If spending more on players than you sell is a sign of failure this table sure looks backwards, no?

You haven't read the thread at all have you?

In terms of your table, it's selective, if you take the ENIC years as your model we're the fifth biggest spenders of the period.

But anyway if we take the last five years as you have, then the top two don't have to break even because their owners are following strategies to maximise return in which the football club itself is only incidental, but in short they're looking to diversify their activity, and perhaps promote.

Liverpool got bailed out by Fenway otherwise they'd have been in serious trouble for over-spending, in the end they did alright despite their financial mismanagement, but it could easily have gone the other way; anyway, whichever way you look at it, you can't suggest we should follow a business model where we fuck it up and hope for a bail out! Finally on them, also worth noting that despite their bigger net and more significantly gross, they've finished below us all but one of those years.

Utd and Arsenal have massive income streams unrelated to TV money. In the case of Arsenal their stadium capacity and the commercial opportunities it presents means they can spend all that extra on players, but they had years of austerity to pay for that stadium during which time they were bottom of that list. There is an argument that we need to build a stadium, but we have to find a way to also be successful in the meantime; this is the tightrope we're attempting to walk.

The rest have all been far less successful than us despite their net spend being larger. This is because the net spend figure is a useless benchmark, you also need to look at the gross. The reason for this is that you may sell and spend £100m and sell and spend £1 and the net is the same. The other reason is that success is when you buy a player for £5m and sell him for £85m which reduces your net. Failure on the other hand is when you buy a player for £85m and sell him for £5m. Of course within that equation you've always got try and be successful on the pitch, but in fact success stems from the former and failure from the latter. To be explicit: if you've got money you can invest, if you don't, you can't. So as I say the rest have been less successful than we, have spent a fraction of our gross - just look at the gross figure in the table you posted - have poorer squads, poorer prospects and yet their net has been higher... what does that tell you about net as benchmark for success?