What's new

Salaries at Spurs

macspurs

Member
Aug 6, 2005
316
7
I think the whole system of players wages is obscene. To think it could take a nurse 10 years to earn what John Terry earns in a week. WTF !!!!!
Bravo for Spurs not joining the madness, but they ALL get paid too much in the prem.
It is way too late to change it now though. A monster !
A monster I tells ye.
 

Chimbo!

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,558
3,291
Levy strikes me as a fantastic negotiater and someone who knows the limits, this will benefit us in the long-term whilst the mass spending sprees of West Ham and Newcastle will cause more damage then good whether or not they are successful on the pitch, will no1 learn from leeds?
 

Krafty

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2004
4,768
2,099
How many clubs make a profit in the prem? How many clubs outside of the champions league places make a profit every season? How many of them have a stadium that is far too small for their needs and could double their match day income by expansion?

If we had paid Petrov 50k a week everyone else would have wanted 50 k a week. Even for the top players, an increae of only 10k a week works at half a mill. Multiple that by 6 or 7 players that would ask for a 10k increase and thats us in debt. We are one of the few clubs that doesnt owe a massive amount, we put money away for the stadium increase, and we still spend biug all the while making a profit.

In the end all the other teams are hoping someone comes in and ploughs money down the drain to keep them going year on year. If abramovich leaves chelsea they will be stuffed. The same can be said for a lot of teams. Look at a team like Blackburn. They had their sugar daddy, did well for a few years but then had to rebuild, and now they are a 7th place team. Whereas we could keep on progressing, a lot of teams are gambling on making it big now to cover their spending.

Look at the players we have missed out on because we would not play top dollar. How have they got on? Would it have been worth ruining our long term stability for them?

I applaud Levy and the board for their stance. If we had spent big the young players we have brought through, and that we are so proud of, would not have gotten their chance. We pay good wages on based on performances. I can see no problem with the way our club is run.
 

j777777

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
8
0
But what does that say about those players?

...

I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want a player like that at our club. I want a player to come to Spurs to play for the club, to play to win games and, possibly, trophies and to play to succeed as a footballer, not because we were the club desperate enough to throw the most money at them.

Precisely
 
Jan 27, 2007
167
4
How many clubs make a profit in the prem? How many clubs outside of the champions league places make a profit every season? How many of them have a stadium that is far too small for their needs and could double their match day income by expansion?

If we had paid Petrov 50k a week everyone else would have wanted 50 k a week. Even for the top players, an increae of only 10k a week works at half a mill. Multiple that by 6 or 7 players that would ask for a 10k increase and thats us in debt. We are one of the few clubs that doesnt owe a massive amount, we put money away for the stadium increase, and we still spend biug all the while making a profit.

In the end all the other teams are hoping someone comes in and ploughs money down the drain to keep them going year on year. If abramovich leaves chelsea they will be stuffed. The same can be said for a lot of teams. Look at a team like Blackburn. They had their sugar daddy, did well for a few years but then had to rebuild, and now they are a 7th place team. Whereas we could keep on progressing, a lot of teams are gambling on making it big now to cover their spending.

Look at the players we have missed out on because we would not play top dollar. How have they got on? Would it have been worth ruining our long term stability for them?

I applaud Levy and the board for their stance. If we had spent big the young players we have brought through, and that we are so proud of, would not have gotten their chance. We pay good wages on based on performances. I can see no problem with the way our club is run.


You make good points here regarding how well the club has been run up to this point but I think all of us agree that this is a make or break season. The hard work of all at THFC has put us in a great position BUT a string of bad luck here, an injury there, we face ignomy in mid table.

My personal opinion is that we were a bit fortunate to finish as high as we did last year, going right down to the wire, we were'nt as consistent as the previous year. The pressure is on from other clubs who look like they have raised their game. If we stand still we will risk losing out.

Isn't now the time, what with the quality of lennon, berbatov, chimbs, all the guys who other clubs are scoping out as future targets, to lay our balls on the poker table, buy some chips and go all in. :eek:mg:

All we gotta do is get champions league spot and we're off on the gravy train, the media lappin us up a-la scum five yrs back or so.
 

Kendall

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2007
38,502
11,933
Berbatov has actually been outspoken about the silly money people are willing to pay him. It's not at the forefront of his mind, I believe he and others are starting to understand that they can get by on £20/30k per week.....just.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
A lot of good replies to this column already.

We don't need to sign every damned star player who is available. And we're doing just fine signing the Bents and Berbatovs who put their football before extreme riches.

I expect that Levy will increase the wage cap when we qualify for the Champions League. When our players show that they are worth that kind of money by helping the club to earn that kind of money, they will get it. Levy has an established record of offering steep increases in wages to players (in exchange for extended contracts) after they have proved that they have what it takes to succed at Spurs: Dawson, Lennon, Robinson, Keane, King, Huddlestone, Defoe and Carrick all got such offers and only Defoe and Carrick have not accepted them.

And the Leeds analogy is irrelevant. Leeds re-mortgaged their stadium to fund player acquisitions. Then they couldn't pay the mortgage and lost their main fixed asset. That's the root of their continuing financial crisis. It's a completely different financial situation. Spurs are properly capitalised and, even if we wanted or needed to, we aren't in a position to re-mortgage the stadium, because we're hoping to rebuild it soon.
 

lionsno1

New Member
Oct 6, 2006
13
0
If the player only signs for money, then i dont want them at WHL. Much rather have players who want to play for the club because of the club itself and not because the will get a fat pay cheque. The West Ham sitution is ridiculous, offering average already over paid footballers stupid amounts of money, hope they do a Leeds!!!!!
 

striebs

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2004
4,504
667
.....I don’t condone the inflated figures offered by most other clubs, .....
.....


Many but surely not most .

There are rumours that the wages Spurs are paying players they wish to dispose of are an obstacle to buying sides too .
 

akie

Member
Mar 13, 2005
285
19
the main point that should be made is that...man city/west ham and chelsea can only afford to pay the wages that they can due to a single person ( eg abramovic/magnusson etc). however i feel that players should be paid based on performance of the individual and the team, why should a strikr have a huge wage when he doesnt do the job of scoring goals?

Tottenham will be able to increase the salary cap if we make the champs lge due to the revenue, which the players will have earnt by breaking into the top 4!! if berba scores 20 goals a season, he should have a goal scoring bonus ( eg£2.5k per goal) Money and wages should be relative to the success of player and club!
 

Chimbo!

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,558
3,291
Isn't now the time, what with the quality of lennon, berbatov, chimbs, all the guys who other clubs are scoping out as future targets, to lay our balls on the poker table, buy some chips and go all in. :eek:mg:

All we gotta do is get champions league spot and we're off on the gravy train, the media lappin us up a-la scum five yrs back or so.

Exactly, our wage structure will fit in with the clubs finances and income and when we qualify for the champions league our wage budget will increase. We have steadily built up to this season and now is the time to make the step up and get top 4, we are capable so lets not b shy about it and go all out 4 it!
 

JuanRebelde

Member
Apr 10, 2006
978
2
I think some of you live in a dream world where players (who lets face have a fairly short career span as footballers) are perfectly happy to get paid less. Berbatov was not expecting to walk into the prem at 60k/wk, he was underrated prior to last year but rightly at this stage deserves a pay rise, I am actually quite surprised (gladly so) that he is still here.

Look at the business world (which spurs are part of) the best CEOs in the business get headhunted by the best companies which pay the best salaries. Companies have to in order to keep the best talent. With the new money floating around the prem it is the same as inflation, everything costs more.

So if we were to sign, for example (only!) say, Ronaldinho and pay him more than our wage cap amount (which some argue we will have to do to attract 'top 4' type players) the other members of the team will feel rightly aggrieved.

So what I propose is simple, a large increase to the win bonus so that all players in the team benefit and this can be included as part of Ronaldinho's salary negotiations.

Yes, players do want to be part of a team going somewhere like we are this year, hence Bent's decision. But he is an exception to the rule. If we were to qualify with Champions League this year I suggest we reward firstly our current players and then offer a new wage cap of say 60k next year we would stand a chance of keepin Berbs et. all next year. Maybe we would have to renegotiate a few contracts but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

In short, with more money in the game and salary inflation, to keep our current wage structure would be risky in the long run.

We are in good, even great hands with Jol, Levy and co but remember nine times out of ten, the talent always follows the money.

There's a lot of things wrong with your post such as the assumption that players don't move for footballing reasons but are on the whole money orientated. Frankly, as any top professional will tell you, football is the ONLY thing that they are interested in. They want to be in winning teams with other good players.

For the last few years we have opted for a strategy of attracting young players with potential and blending a team which with their improvement sees the side / club improve year on year. If he doesn't progress then he is moved on usually without a loss but in the case of Carrick (who also moved for footballing reasons remember) we turnover over a massive profit.

Your view that paying big bucks is what is needed for success by attracting so-called top four players is in business terms a disaster. Why? You create an unsustainable inflation in the price of your raw material (i.e. players). You own income does not rise as fast as wage or transfer price levels. It is unsustainable - just ask a Leeds fans and eventually a Chelski and Wet Spam fan they'll know what I am talking about. Manure and until recently, the Goons lived within their means and still one titles, Liverpool have tried several times to buy the league and failed even after following the strategy you are advocating. Your approach is to effectively gamble your future against the short-term as you will not have built of the long term like we are doing now with our youngsters.

In short a strategy like that who never be adopted by the top ceos you have mentioned, instead they use prudence and planning to plot their way to success. Fools like the Leeds chairman and the rest of the boards at Chavski and spam have ignored those fundamentals of business to live the short-term unsustainable dream.

On that note, what do you called a top four player exactly? Sidwell? Cygan? and many others? The fact is the term is fictious and as football has always been in a state of premanent transition as powers rise and fall my advice to you is to call us a top team as we have always but for a brief recent period been just that in England and Europe.


Levy and co are right on this and we are still unique in what we are doing. When (not if) we win something serious and nail down our top four place we will have done so with financial stability and with the funds to go to a new stadium without going bankrupt like us and other have almost done in the past.
 

liewser

Member
Oct 14, 2004
315
5
There's a lot of things wrong with your post such as the assumption that players don't move for footballing reasons but are on the whole money orientated. Frankly, as any top professional will tell you, football is the ONLY thing that they are interested in. They want to be in winning teams with other good players.

Surely u dont honestly believe that? Of course footballers aren't gona come out and say "i moved for the money."

At the end of the day trophies and money both come into the equation, but if they were honest i reckon there'd be more players putting money on top of the priority list.

The thing is, the winning teams tend to be the richest teams and vice versa, they go hand in hand, and so the top players never really have to choose between the two, they get both.

However, if united were paying their players with the wage budget of the Wigan squad, do you honestly think they'd stick around at the club even though they stand the best chance of winning trophies there? They'd head off to chelsea or liverpool or to one of the top foreign clubs. And if they had the choice of winning trophies on low wages, or signing for west ham on £100+k a week, i have no doubt theyd sign that contract, knowing that in time West Ham's money would build a half decent squad.
 

tevezito

In the cup for Tottingham
Jun 8, 2004
927
1,536
You scupper your own argument - yes, they would go to Chelsea or Liverpool because they could still play with good players and win things, but no, they wouldn't sign the contract at West Ham because they wouldn't want to play in a 'half decent squad'.
 

Bilko

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2004
951
614
Congratulations to all the opinions before me.
You`re an educated lot-I`ve just had an interesting half hour read.
 

ginolaboy

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2005
1,438
61
The fact that John Terry is making £135,000 a week is insane, and from what we all heard of several more of their players earn over £100,000 a week. I am sure as soon as the Russian jumps off the ship, they will be in serious troubles.
Yes, Chav$ki were on the verge of joining Leeds Utd on melt down before they hit the Russian jackpot. If he ever upped and left with his roubles then it would be bye bye Chav$!
 
Jan 27, 2007
167
4
Frankly, as any top professional will tell you, football is the ONLY thing that they are interested in. They want to be in winning teams with other good players.
:violin:
Yeah and I just want a wife who can cook and clean, but not look like Scarlett Johannsen too!

On that note, what do you called a top four player exactly?
Sidwell? Cygan? and many others? The fact is the term is fictious and as football has always been in a state of premanent transition as powers rise and fall my advice to you is to call us a top team as we have always but for a brief recent period been just that in England and Europe.

A top 4 football player is anyone who when he comes on the market, us spurs fans go, well he will never come to us, Valencia/Barcelona/other top 4 clubs in the Europeanleagues, will get him.

Simple enough. And I want spurs to be one of these clubs more than anything.
 

will8587

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,342
419
Secondly your point about Petrov isnt really valid. Berbatov would have got paid more going Man U, so in coming to us (a lesser team) he was actually the complete opposite of a mercenary. He came to us for footballing reasons, not monetary gain! Petrov on the other hand chose Man City over us, and will get paid 20k (?) a week more. Its not hard to see why people are calling him a mercenary! Personally i think it wasnt just the money, I'm sure Sven still has pulling power :wink:, and in theory they could be challenging for a place in Europe this season.

I wasn't calling Berbatov a mercenary at all, but I agree Petrov and Berbatov weren't in identical situations, but they were largely similar. I used the comparison to bring up the point, that monetary gain isn't always the biggest factor in a player's decision. What if Petrov was really impressed with SGE when he met with the club? City are headed in the right direction, and Petrov has the potential to lead the club for the next few years. I can't blame him from taking that route, although I'd have loved it if he had signed for Spurs.
 

liewser

Member
Oct 14, 2004
315
5
You scupper your own argument - yes, they would go to Chelsea or Liverpool because they could still play with good players and win things, but no, they wouldn't sign the contract at West Ham because they wouldn't want to play in a 'half decent squad'.

They go to Chelsea or Liverpool because they can get trophies AND money.

Given the (hyperthetical) choice between trophies OR money, imo they'd choose the £80k weekly wage (and therefore a club like west ham) rather than winning trophies on £15-£20k a week.

Players have a shelf life of 15 years or so, after which the large majority will not be able to maintain their wage level, and therefore lifestyle. This is their living and imo the majority are looking to maximise their earnings for the long run.
 

JuanRebelde

Member
Apr 10, 2006
978
2
Surely u dont honestly believe that? Of course footballers aren't gona come out and say "i moved for the money."

At the end of the day trophies and money both come into the equation, but if they were honest i reckon there'd be more players putting money on top of the priority list.

The thing is, the winning teams tend to be the richest teams and vice versa, they go hand in hand, and so the top players never really have to choose between the two, they get both.

However, if united were paying their players with the wage budget of the Wigan squad, do you honestly think they'd stick around at the club even though they stand the best chance of winning trophies there? They'd head off to chelsea or liverpool or to one of the top foreign clubs. And if they had the choice of winning trophies on low wages, or signing for west ham on £100+k a week, i have no doubt theyd sign that contract, knowing that in time West Ham's money would build a half decent squad.


Fact is players look at the club and the football side first when they are moving and money does come second. In fact Wet Spam, Wigan and even Sunderland are finding this out as the game is awash with money. After the football decision is made only then are the terms discussed. Chelsea distorted the picture recently but for example the Goons or Liverpool never historically paid the amount Chelski and Manure do but still attracted the best players around based on football reasons. So it is not the case that money is the be all and end all as many non-financial factors come in to play.

So Yes I do believe it and Spurs are increasingly the proof that it is so. Infact, I really wouldn't be surprised if berbatov stayed far longer than the papers and Sky would have you believe because it is clear that the football and human factors at Spurs are what drive him and are keeping him happy.
 
Top