Net spend

[Sanj]

Well we could have sold Modric for 40m and got a 24m profit on him.

Would that have made you happy?

no - of course not.
But the players we have bought recently have been overpriced and not good enough for moving to the next level. They have been at a good level and at their peak - with not much room for improvement.
I'm not attacking Harry or Levy, nor defending them - just pointing out some issues that show how hard it is for a club like ours to progress with our stadium/ budget constraints and having to build short term v long term.
Harry's short term signings got us 4th, but he seemed to lack a long term plan which could sustain our success. if we'd secured 4th at the end of last season - the short term could've been claimed to have worked - but we need to infuse new younger/ cheaper quality players to the squad to keep it evolving - and this is where Harry/Levy may have disagreed/ failed over this and the last window.
The signings in this window are again PL proven short term signings - Good for Harry now - but what will it leave us when he goes?

 

[zymraan]

tho if you look at the net profit/ loss on the players we let go - we probably made a huge loss.
How much did we pay for hutton? 9m? and sold for 4m?
plus wilson, bentley, jj, etc.

totally different to the profit/loss on teh players bought pre-redknapp, when we purchased quality players developed them and then sold for huge profits.

Of all the players you mention only Wilson was signed under Redknapp.

 

[Mr Gamgee]

tho if you look at the net profit/ loss on the players we let go - we probably made a huge loss.
How much did we pay for hutton? 9m? and sold for 4m?
plus wilson, bentley, jj, etc.

totally different to the profit/loss on teh players bought pre-redknapp, when we purchased quality players developed them and then sold for huge profits.

Thats all very well, but what did we acheive, pre redknapp?

 

[ShayLaB]

The problem is, that even with the illusive 'new stadium' we aren't out of the woods for quite some time.

Arsenal have been there, what? 5 years now? And they had to get Arteta to take a wage cut. An ex-everton player took a wage cut to join them!

So I don't think we'll ever see a return to big expenditure unless we get a free spending billionaire.

Arsenal's debt repayments and projected income from the old site were probably based on projections before the biggest economic collapse in 80 years. It would not be surprising if they experience some unforeseen financial issues.

 

[Sanj]

Of all the players you mention only Wilson was signed under Redknapp.[/
very true - and i am not using this to have a go at Harry.
Just pointing out net spend of this transfer window but also need to look at how much we spent for these players and how much we sold them for, and how hard it is to strike a balance for our club.
My posts obviously seem to imply its all harry's fault (looking at the responses) - and this was definately not my intention. i would like Harry to expand his scouting outside the PL - but his short term signings got us 4th. we have a very difficult balance we have to strike - and the manager and board are doing a great job - despite the negativity of many in this transfer window.

 

[Sanj]

Thats all very well, but what did we acheive, pre redknapp?

I'd say pre-redknapp we started laying down some very good foundations.
Harry came in and added a few more players to achieve success. But we need to strike a financial and experience balance that allows us to continually improve.

 

[ardiles]

tho if you look at the net profit/ loss on the players we let go - we probably made a huge loss.
How much did we pay for hutton? 9m? and sold for 4m?
plus wilson, bentley, jj, etc.

totally different to the profit/loss on teh players bought pre-redknapp, when we purchased quality players developed them and then sold for huge profits.

The players that we sold / loaned out during this TW would all be fringe players and their aggregate playing time for the first team would not be enough to cover for the wages that we would have spent on them during this period if we had not got them off our payroll.. There are better players for each and every one of them in their respective playing positions in the team. In addition, their sell off value would have dropped at each passing TW.

 

[DoublePivot]

Who would have thought we were the team who made the biggest profit this window?

Spent 5m
sold 30m

Net profit of 25m

My lord, you have no idea of net profit. We lost 9 million pound late last night.

Harry has spent 100 million pounds since joining.

Here are his sales (second number is profit/loss)

Peter Crouch Stoke City £10,000,000.00 profit £1,000,000.00
Robbie Keane L.A. Galaxy (USA) £2,500,000.00 -£9,500,000.00
Pascal Chimbonda Blackburn Rovers £2,000,000.00 -£1,000,000.00
Wilson Palacios Stoke City £8,000,000.00 -£4,000,000.00
Gilberto de Silva Melo Released £0.00 -1800000
Alan Hutton Aston Villa £3,000,000.00 -6000000
Jonathan Woodgate Released £0.00 -7000000
Chris Gunter Nottingham Forest £1,750,000.00 -250000
Kevin-Prince Boateng Portsmouth £4,000,000.00 -500000
Darren Bent Sunderland £10,000,000.00 -6500000
Ricardo Rocha Released £0.00 -3250000
Adel Taarabt Queens Park Rangers £1,000,000.00 evens
Jamie O'Hara Wolverhampton Wanderers £5,000,000.00 5000000
Dorian Dervite Villarreal £0.00 -250000
Didier Zokora Sevilla £8,620,000.00 3420000


I often hammered Harry on not having made a profit on a sale until I realized that Zokora was a profit. So Crouch is his 2nd profit. Yay, Go Team Twitchy

Otherwise, he has brought in £55 million pounds ( £21 late yesterday). So he has cost us £45 million pounds so far.

Meanwhile of the people he has let go, he has lost us £30 million pounds on them. We used to turn a profit on everyone. We made £200k on Tommy Forecast. And that's considering O'Hara, who you can't mark as pure profit as of developmental fees. Let's say any kid costs a million 5 to train. Well he's still a profit but we've let a half dozen others go for free.

So talk about the big payday yesterday all you want. But as much as we made £21 million late yesterday, we also threw away £9 million late yesterday too.

So please stop acting like Levy is naked in his office bathing in cash. Harry fucked this up by being a wheeler but not a dealer. His massive losses are what have hand-cuffed us. And while many of them aren't his fault (Woodgate, Rocha, etc), this negative activity in sales is what has made us turn to loans. Blame Comolli if you want. Although note all the loses on Harry purchases too. I don't care. But don't act like we have been rolling in dough. Until last night we were some £75 million in the hole under Harry.

Also, I think Bent may have come close to breaking even with sell-on and Taraabt could be profitable in the future for the same reason. And as SS57 has pointed out, long term Robbie was an even purchase between initial fee, Liverpool sale, Liverpool buy back and LA sell. But under Harry we lost a shitload on him.

 

[brett.spurs]

We broke even on Bent.

 

[StockSpur]

if i remeber correctly, hudd cost 4mill and lennon cost 1 mill. probably worth 30 mill for the pair right now.

 

[RickyVilla]

if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle.

:up:

 

[robin09]

Arsenal's debt repayments and projected income from the old site were probably based on projections before the biggest economic collapse in 80 years. It would not be surprising if they experience some unforeseen financial issues.

True, but I don't think that is a major factor for the restraints they've faced since moving into the emirates.

They always knew they'd be saddled with large debt and would have to play the waiting game for a long term benefit. The problem being, that if they can't keep competing in the meantime, they'll be left with a half empty stadium and a 35 year old Arteta at the heart of their team.

I don't blame Levy for being cautious, and I really don't think a big stadium will be the golden goose that people expect.

You need rich owners who don't care about personal debt, if you want to be in the top 4 regularly.

 

[worcestersauce]

We have picked up a couple of youngsters this window though haven't we?
I'm quite puzzled by this profit and loss thing as well but don't we include amortization(is that the word?) so a player who's value is £10million because that's what we paid for him is worth less and less each year in the financial accounts therefore if we pay £10 million and sell him for £8 million three years later we haven't made a loss of £2m we've made a profit of maybe £3m as by that stage he's worth only £5m on paper?

I need to lay down now

 

[johno]

the lack of ambition in the last 3 windows has been appalling

 

[3Dnata]

There's a table in the evening Standard paper which isn't on their website which shows us in 18th place for Spending this window with only Wigan and Everton below us.
We top the table balance book wise with the sales. I don't believe loan spending has been factored into that.

 

[Twizzle]

I wonder if our impressive balance sheet will encourage Luka to stay.

 

[Spursidol]

There's a table in the evening Standard paper which isn't on their website which shows us in 18th place for Spending this window with only Wigan and Everton below us.
We top the table balance book wise with the sales. I don't believe loan spending has been factored into that.

Under Harry Spurs have spent about £100m so far and about the same under Ramos. On all the players sold in that time period (other than on Crouch where we got £1m more than we bought him for) the sales value has been less than we bought the player for (eg Keane puchase £12m sale £3.5m = loss £8.5m, Wilson £12m purchase £8m sale = loss £4m - both Harry's purchases by the way, Woodgate puchase £7m released = loss £7m) and total losses on the ones sold from Harry/Ramos purchases so far are about £30m....and that is without considering losses on Bentley £17m or Giovani £9m (both Ramos/Commoli purchases) if we could find buyers.

Of course there have been successes, but other than the Levy purchases of VDV, Sandro etc where current values are more than purchase price, they have been few and far between.

Over the last 4 years Spurs have bought players at inflated prices and struggled when we try to sell them when the manager says he doesn't want them any more.

Over that 4 year time period Spurs are one of the top spenders with £200m purchases...but also a big loser when the manager wants to sell the player.

 

[Gollorius]

Keane was bought for 7m, sold for 19m, bought back for 12m, and sold again for 3.5m. I make that an overall profit of 3.5 million pounds

 

[Spursidol]

Keane was bought for 7m, sold for 19m, bought back for 12m, and sold again for 3.5m. I make that an overall profit of 3.5 million pounds

We had made £12m profit...but Harry (for maybe understandable reasons at the time) then purchaesed him again..but at a high price and lost most of the monety again. Maybe a player who could retain his value would have been a better option ? Unless you have £10m to lose personally you want to lose which you can donate ?

 

[DoublePivot]

Keane was bought for 7m, sold for 19m, bought back for 12m, and sold again for 3.5m. I make that an overall profit of 3.5 million pounds

He was about even overall. But he was a 12-13 profit that was turned into a net zero player by Redknapp. He should have never brought him back. That massive loss of profit did a lot to hamstring us. And he was 2.5 m pound to the Galaxy the dollar sign/pound sign has caused some confusion. Not that big a deal to your point though.

And next up we will hear that he was brought back to avoid losing money becuase Liverpool were about to fold.....that's a load of horseshit. Nobody else cancelled transfers with Liverpool during that time. It was Harry's choice based on a Liverpool suggestion because Rafa was looking for an out after a massive error in judgement.