What's new

Spurs can’t compete financially – discuss.

Can Spurs compete financially with the other Top 6 Clubs?

  • Social Media and the Pundits are right. Spurs can never compete with the big boys.

    Votes: 20 15.5%
  • I think Levy and Poch know what they're doing. Spurs can compete. And soon.

    Votes: 109 84.5%

  • Total voters
    129

minesadouble

Drove my Chevy to the Levy
Jul 27, 2006
749
2,933
So, here’s what Pochettino said a few weeks ago:

“Daniel is the first person who is creating a massive club for us and the fans because he is thinking, in the next few years, to take the club to the final level. With our signings and our work, we are creating a team that can, when we get the new stadium, be one of the best teams in the world.”

Either our manager has been smoking some good stuff or the 'media narrative' is wrong. The widespread assumption is that we’ll be just like Arsenal were after their stadium was built, and our chairman is just a penny pincher anyway, so we’re doomed to lose all our best players.

Which is it?

Who would you bet on? Levy and Poch in the blue corner, or social media and pundits in the red? Who has the better track record?

My analysis suggests that Spurs will earn £400 million of income in 2019 (compared with £210m in 2016). That’s made up of £100m of Match Day income at the new stadium (v. £41m at WHL), £100m of Commercial income (v. £59m in 2016) and £200m of TV & Prize Money (split PL £150m, UEFA £50m).

In 2016 (and 2015) Spurs spent £100 million paying staff, giving us a ‘Staff Percentage Ratio’ of 48% (ie. total staff costs of £100m as a percentage of £210m total income). The Club has long operated on the basis of a 45-55% range. Put simply, for every £1 we earn, we budget to spend 50p on salaries.

Spurs employed around 900 people in 2016. About 500 temporary match day workers and 400 staff (coaches, physios, admin and commercial, store and warehouse guys, young players etc.). My estimate is that they all shared £37 million of our £100 million Staff Budget.

The balance of around £63 million was paid to our First Team Squad. That’s an average of about £2 ½ million p.a. per player, or £45k per week (+ Nat Insurance tax). So, we've guys at £100k+ and others at £20k per week.

The crucial point is that if our income doubles – as it will, easily – our First Team Squad budget can double too. £100k players can become £200k players, if Levy and Poch want. So it becomes a cultural question (about player wages, and the type of player) NO LONGER a question of affordability.

£400 million of income would put us in the same ballpark as Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal, still behind City and United. I think we’ll even catch those two by 2023 but that discussion’s for another day.

The stadium cost is not exactly a red herring, but I’d call it an orange one. Spurs are borrowing £400 million at say 3% interest. That’s £12 million per annum, or £230k per week. Call that one Rooney or Sanchez. I’d rather have a top player than pay the cash to a bank, but it’s hardly an amount that leaves Spurs skint.

My income projections ignore anything for Stadium Naming Rights. It’s entirely possible that Naming Rights and property profits / income (apartments, hotel, etc.) will pay off the debt within a few years. Although a Naming Rights contract would most likely be for £x per year spread over 15-20 years, Levy could take the legal contract to a bank and receive a lump sum for it (less interest) with which to pay off the £400m debt. I’m not saying that’s what he’ll do. I’m only saying it’s not the issue the ‘Spurs can’t compete' narrative depends on.

All of the workings I’ve summarised here are on my Blog. But you don’t need to read or understand them to reach this conclusion. It’s been a long and winding road, clawing our way back from the financial darkness of the Scholar debacle and the bitter Sugar years. It hasn’t even always been plain sailing since the ENIC takeover. However, the journey’s nearly over. Success is never guaranteed on the pitch. But, financially, we’re odds on.
 
Last edited:

Everlasting Seconds

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2014
14,914
26,616
When we can sign and commit to wages for Sissokos, N's and Fazios without bashing an eyelid, money isn't a problem. The cash is there.
 

cozzo

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
3,541
6,225
We don't go around throwing money around. Of course we make mistakes but we are moving in the right direction. Things will change once we are in the new stadium.
 

HildoSpur

Likes Erik Lamela, deal with it.
Oct 1, 2005
8,958
28,086
We already compete with them. I'm not sure what the point of this is. Just because we can't spunk £100 million on a player doesn't mean we are unable to achieve things.
 

Hot Spur

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2014
784
2,290
£400 million of income will not put us in the same "ball park" as Chelsea who are backed by a multi billionaire. As for catching Man City and Man Utd by 2023, dream on fella. Man Utd are light years ahead of us on commercial deals and income, it will take at least 20 years to catch them. As for Man City, they have literally a bottomless pit of money should they wish to use it, and I'm sure they will if the competition demands it. You are far too optimistic. We may catch Liverpool and Arsenal in about 5 years time, but as for the two Manc clubs, forget it.
 

Tucker

Shitehawk
Jul 15, 2013
31,134
146,038
We will never be able to compete financially with Manchester United, or the two financially doped clubs in the league (City and Chelsea)

Anyone else though and it's game on, especially once the stadium is paid for.
 

For the love of Spurs

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2015
3,444
11,252
Last season we came second to a team of financial dopers. We can easily compete when you remove the likes of City and Chelsea who are backed directly by a mega rich gangster and an actual government.

That the UK government didn't prevent these crooks coming in and damaging our game is not the fault of Tottenham Hotspur. if FFP actual worked we would have no trouble, as it is the likes of Chelsea and City can pay £50 mil for this guy and £60 mil for that guy and 250K wages.

Thing is with our new stadium being a lot bigger than theirs and with all the add one such as hospitality, NFL we might not exactly match them be we will get close enough to limit the effect of their cheating.
 

minesadouble

Drove my Chevy to the Levy
Jul 27, 2006
749
2,933
£400 million of income will not put us in the same "ball park" as Chelsea who are backed by a multi billionaire. As for catching Man City and Man Utd by 2023, dream on fella. Man Utd are light years ahead of us on commercial deals and income, it will take at least 20 years to catch them. As for Man City, they have literally a bottomless pit of money should they wish to use it, and I'm sure they will if the competition demands it. You are far too optimistic. We may catch Liverpool and Arsenal in about 5 years time, but as for the two Manc clubs, forget it.

Fair enough. We'll find out in a few years! But in the meantime, income is income, deep pockets are different, whether or not Financial Fair Play rules work or not. There's tension at Chelsea partly because the owner wants some payback from his investment in their academy rather than continuing to sink money in. Man United are well ahead of us in commercial deals but in Match Day Income we'll be similar and, from that, better commercial deals flow. It depends who has most success with the newer 'overseas fan' mainly US & Asia, rather than Europe and Africa which have more 'Sky 5' fans. I think you're far too pessimistic but, as I said in my OP, the 2023 discussion is for another day.
 

mil1lion

This is the place to be
May 7, 2004
42,344
77,598
Luckily we already signed players who in todays market are worth £50m +
 

Disconosebleed

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,553
2,569
I don't care about competing financially tbh.

Without competing financially you cannot compete full stop in the long term. The best we can hope for if we're not the financial equal of the top clubs is being the English Dortmund or Atletico, a team who can sign potential stars but only with a view to them eventually being sold to bigger clubs. In the long-term it's basically impossible to compete at the top level unless you're one of the richest clubs.
 

WalkerboyUK

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2009
21,658
23,476
Without competing financially you cannot compete full stop in the long term.

Two seasons in a row we have finished above some of the most well funded clubs in the Premier League.
All they have done recently is prove that throwing money around, and changing manager every other season, doesn't actually solve the problems.
Meanwhile we're building a team, on relatively lower wages/transfer fees, who work as a unit, and will compete together until the very end. Oh, and we're doing that while funding a brand new stadium.
Do we really think that if we stayed at the existing WHL we would be throwing £50-70 million on transfers, as well as £120k per week?!? No, we'd arguably be in a worse position in the long run.
 

Hot Spur

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2014
784
2,290
Fair enough. We'll find out in a few years! But in the meantime, income is income, deep pockets are different, whether or not Financial Fair Play rules work or not. There's tension at Chelsea partly because the owner wants some payback from his investment in their academy rather than continuing to sink money in. Man United are well ahead of us in commercial deals but in Match Day Income we'll be similar and, from that, better commercial deals flow. It depends who has most success with the newer 'overseas fan' mainly US & Asia, rather than Europe and Africa which have more 'Sky 5' fans. I think you're far too pessimistic but, as I said in my OP, the 2023 discussion is for another day.
Spurs revenue is over 400 million behind Man Utd, you really think we'll catch that up in the space of 5/6 years? No chance. Not even if their revenue stood still during that time, which it won't. Their's will increase, and there is nothing to say it won't increase by the same or nearly the same amount as ours. The point is that they have a huge advantage right now and that advantage could mean, if they buy the right players and get back to their winning ways, we will never catch them because it's success on the pitch that has made them the financial monster that they are. It's all very well quoting spurs performances compared to theirs since Fergie left but that won't last and they've still won more than spurs have in spite of their mediocre league performances. Winning trophies is what brings the financial rewards, companies that sponsor want to be associated with winners and the way it's going, Man Utd winning stuff and spurs not winning stuff, the gap will get wider, not closer. The other problem of course is apart from not winning anything spurs pay the players half of what Man Utd do. Low wages and no trophies, how long do you think spurs will keep their top players? Not very long.
 

RichieS

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2004
11,916
16,436
To answer your question(s) - I think I'll side with the bloke with the First Class Honours degree in Economics and Land Economy from Cambridge University...
 

bat-chain

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2009
2,232
9,478
We have competed by not competing, if we had tried to accommodate a few 'big' players and spend it would have destroyed everything.

Basically if a player joins Spurs it means they are hungry to improve an not solely motivated by money, it basically weeds out twats before they even get in the door.

I genuinely believe the fact we can't compete financially has created the conditions where bizarrely enough we compete absolutely. It's a symbiotic relationship that when you add Pochettino makes anything possible.

I know this post doesn't really fit the thread, but I hope we don't stray too far from the model.
 
Last edited:

spids

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
6,647
27,841
Is this thread a couple of years late? We couldn't compete financially without building a bigger stadium. We're spending money doing exactly that, which we committed to a while ago. So now we have to pay for it and we won't be able to compete financially until extra revenues kick in.
 

lukespurs7

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2006
4,833
4,259
So, here’s what Pochettino said a few weeks ago:

“Daniel is the first person who is creating a massive club for us and the fans because he is thinking, in the next few years, to take the club to the final level. With our signings and our work, we are creating a team that can, when we get the new stadium, be one of the best teams in the world.”

Either our manager has been smoking some good stuff or the 'media narrative' is wrong. The widespread assumption is that we’ll be just like Arsenal were after their stadium was built, and our chairman is just a penny pincher anyway, so we’re doomed to lose all our best players.

Which is it?

Who would you bet on? Levy and Poch in the blue corner, or social media and pundits in the red? Who has the better track record?

My analysis suggests that Spurs will earn £400 million of income in 2019 (compared with £210m in 2016). That’s made up of £100m of Match Day income at the new stadium (v. £41m at WHL), £100m of Commercial income (v. £59m in 2016) and £200m of TV & Prize Money (split PL £150m, UEFA £50m).

In 2016 (and 2015) Spurs spent £100 million paying staff, giving us a ‘Staff Percentage Ratio’ of 48% (ie. total staff costs of £100m as a percentage of £210m total income). The Club has long operated on the basis of a 45-55% range. Put simply, for every £1 we earn, we budget to spend 50p on salaries.

Spurs employed around 900 people in 2016. About 500 temporary match day workers and 400 staff (coaches, physios, admin and commercial, store and warehouse guys, young players etc.). My estimate is that they all shared £37 million of our £100 million Staff Budget.

The balance of around £63 million was paid to our First Team Squad. That’s an average of about £2 ½ million p.a. per player, or £45k per week (+ Nat Insurance tax). So, we've guys at £100k+ and others at £20k per week.

The crucial point is that if our income doubles – as it will, easily – our First Team Squad budget can double too. £100k players can become £200k players, if Levy and Poch want. So it becomes a cultural question (about player wages, and the type of player) NO LONGER a question of affordability.

£400 million of income would put us in the same ballpark as Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal, still behind City and United. I think we’ll even catch those two by 2023 but that discussion’s for another day.

The stadium cost is not exactly a red herring, but I’d call it an orange one. Spurs are borrowing £400 million at say 3% interest. That’s £12 million per annum, or £230k per week. Call that one Rooney or Sanchez. I’d rather have a top player than pay the cash to a bank, but it’s hardly an amount that leaves Spurs skint.

My income projections ignore anything for Stadium Naming Rights. It’s entirely possible that Naming Rights and property profits / income (apartments, hotel, etc.) will pay off the debt within a few years. Although a Naming Rights contract would most likely be for £x per year spread over 15-20 years, Levy could take the legal contract to a bank and receive a lump sum for it (less interest) with which to pay off the £400m debt. I’m not saying that’s what he’ll do. I’m only saying it’s not the issue the ‘Spurs can’t compete' narrative depends on.

All of the workings I’ve summarised here are on my Blog. But you don’t need to read or understand them to reach this conclusion. It’s been a long and winding road, clawing our way back from the financial darkness of the Scholar debacle and the bitter Sugar years. It hasn’t even always been plain sailing since the ENIC takeover. However, the journey’s nearly over. Success is never guaranteed on the pitch. But, financially, we’re odds on.
Great analysis.

Do you know what the top6 revenue breakdown is and how we compare now and how we will compare guesstimate in 2019?
 

Disconosebleed

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,553
2,569
Two seasons in a row we have finished above some of the most well funded clubs in the Premier League.
Yeah, and how long is that likely to go on for? We might do it a few more years, we might even win a title at some point - but without the riches of the elite clubs we cannot expect to stay there. Atletico won a title, Dortmund won a couple - that is what we're aspiring to at the moment. But ultimately they are still second fiddle to Real/Barca and Bayern, and won't ever be able to consistently challenge them without financial parity.

At the moment we're on the crest of a wave - a fantastic manager, and a fantastic squad, overseen by one of the best boards going. Pretty much all of whom are underpaid, relative to their quality. If you don't pay top wages, you don't keep top players or managers. That is the reality of the situation - you might get the odd Harry Kane who grows up with the club and loves it, maybe even the odd Hugo Lloris who has no local ties to the club but came to love it and stays loyal for the long term regardless of big offers. But generally footballers follow the money, and we cannot expect to keep, for example, Eriksen when he's being paid around a third of what Ozil gets, or Alderweireld who is good enough to grace any team in the world yet is paid less than half what Van Dijk is rumoured to be demanding from whatever team he ends up signing for. So at absolute best you end up in the Atletico/Dortmund situation, where you can cement yourself near the top, but accepting that you'll never keep your top players, that you're only ever a stepping stone.

That's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that, unlike those clubs, your transfer team doesn't consistently get it right and unlike Atletico's insane track record of signings (their striker record over the past decade is incredible, in order it reads something like Torres -> Aguero/Forlan -> Falcao -> Costa/Villa -> Griezmann) we end up losing our best players to teams who can double their wages, and the replacements aren't up to scratch so we drop back down to the chasing pack that we came from.

All they have done recently is prove that throwing money around, and changing manager every other season, doesn't actually solve the problems.
Chelsea spent a shit ton of money last season and went from midtable to champions inside a year. That is the difference. United and City can have the odd bad year and it won't really affect them, the crazy money they can offer means they will always be able to lure the top players and, over time, will get it right a lot more than they get it wrong (as shown by the league winners over the entire history of the PL - Leicester aside, it's always been won by teams with big money, and that isn't a coincidence).

Meanwhile we're building a team, on relatively lower wages/transfer fees, who work as a unit, and will compete together until the very end. Oh, and we're doing that while funding a brand new stadium.
Well that's kind of my point. It isn't sustainable. And sustainability is the word, ultimately: It's fantastic right now, and I'm so incredibly proud of my club for doing so well without financial doping. But in the long term it's not something we can reasonably expect to continue. It's possible to overcome the odds every now and then, but eventually if the odds are stacked against you for long enough, the bookies are going to win.
 

nicdic

Official SC Padre
Admin
May 8, 2005
41,857
25,919
I might be wrong, but I don't think that Poch was saying our aim is to compete financially at the top, but to compete as a team at the top, and become one of the most successful teams.
 

SPURSLIFE

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2011
1,578
2,132
I might be wrong, but I don't think that Poch was saying our aim is to compete financially at the top, but to compete as a team at the top, and become one of the most successful teams.
How do you consistently compete at the top and stay a successful team if you don't pay top wages?
 
Top