We do spend on players but we tend to buy a lot of players in the mid price range because Levy doesn't want to take a risk on a big loss. Again the financials are the priority, not the football team.
Spurs finances report 22/23 (swissramble writeup)
- Thread starter tom4s
- Start date
We do spend on players but we tend to buy a lot of players in the mid price range because Levy doesn't want to take a risk on a big loss. Again the financials are the priority, not the football team.
leffe186
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2004
- 5,358
- 1,820
Yes and no. He did take a risk with Ndombele etc and got burned.
We’ve tended to buy a lot of players in the mid-price range up to now because we were saving for the stadium and it was working. We’ve bought a lot of players in the mid-range since the Ndombele/Lo Celso splurge because we had to overhaul the squad again. Arguably twice.
Of our starting XI on Sunday, six players are completely new to us this year and Porro, Bissouma and Sarr have been here two years at most. Nearly nobody in the history of football has brought in nine top-dollar players in two years. We had to build with mid-range players. Why do you think this was a choice and not a necessity?
Look at Arsenal. Rice and Havertz were the cherries on top of a team that had been built with mid-range buys. It’s just bizarre that you’re ignoring all of this.
fridgemagnet
Well-Known Member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 2,417
- 2,867
We spent 60 odd million plus wages on a midfielder that Poch wanted who went MIA as soon as the ink was dry.
We spent 50 odd million on Gio who’s rarely been fit.
We rarely do that well buying players at big money it rarely seems to work for us. Why I’ve not a clue.
But narrative DL won’t spend big on signing a player is crap. Our best signings tend to be before they get to the big money point or homegrown through the academy. Which hasn’t been great for a while.
We spent 50 odd million on Gio who’s rarely been fit.
We rarely do that well buying players at big money it rarely seems to work for us. Why I’ve not a clue.
But narrative DL won’t spend big on signing a player is crap. Our best signings tend to be before they get to the big money point or homegrown through the academy. Which hasn’t been great for a while.
Yeah all of the top clubs have been burned by big money signings not working out, instead they are willing to take the risk again because it seems footballing success is more important to them. We had to overhaul the squad because we kept buying players in the mid-range and we didn't seemingly want to sell some when it might have been time for them to move on. As another poster alluded, there are only so many gems you can unearth and we aren't the only club looking for good players for lower prices.
Again my problem isn't necessarily about just spending lots of money, my issue is the financial aspects will generally take priority over the footballing aspects with ENIC.
Albertbarich
Well-Known Member
- Jul 4, 2020
- 5,210
- 19,762
I'm sorry to be thick but can someone explain the profit and loss bit. Did we make a loss overall ? If so why did we still make some sort of profit? It's the quoting of both that's confusing me.
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,173
- 7,721
Overall we made a loss , a lot of it due to buying players to invest in the squad and making very little on sales of players.
Financial results – year ended 30 June, 2023 | Tottenham Hotspur
www.tottenhamhotspur.com
leffe186
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2004
- 5,358
- 1,820
But if the opposite were true, how would that look different to what’s happened this year?
Liverpool spent Brennan Johnson money on Szoboszlai, Van der Ven money on McAllister and Gravenberch and Vicario money on Endo (a classic “Levy” buy). That’s basically all they spent this year. Is that not even worse?
Well I wouldn't have to put a weakened team out against Fulham.
I am annoyed the club prioritise qualifying for the champions league over anything else and the fans are happy just as long as we play entertaining football and the manager is a nice bloke who is good at press conferences. At least we are the richest club in London though, eh?
Last edited:
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,173
- 7,721
Is there a sack the manager and the owner thread somewhere ? 🡩
Last edited:
thebenjamin
Well-Known Member
- Jul 1, 2008
- 12,273
- 38,982
We owe more money on incoming transfers than any other team
leffe186
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2004
- 5,358
- 1,820
Now you’re confusing me again. Your argument is that we prioritize financial aspects too much over football aspects. That makes a certain amount of sense with the Davinson Sanchez sale in that it left us short of a CB. But doing that jeopardized qualifying for the Champions League, which you also think we prioritize over anything.
I can’t help but think you haven’t thought this through
. In a week where that nice bloke manager specifically said that he doesn’t really care about qualifying for the CL this year because he’s looking at the long term, you’re complaining that we’re doing the opposite?
Frozen_Waffles
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2005
- 3,784
- 9,630
I don't think anyone is that bothered about being the richest club in London, and although revenue wise we are, we still have a huge debt.
Looking at the finances and what it says is we have massively increased our spending for the last couple of seasons alongside out new revenue. Which is exactly what Levy said he would do.
Challenging City without a oil rich owner is almost impossible. Also with an owner like that and FFP its still impossible (see Newcastle)
So Liverpool and Arsenal are the only clubs currently ahead of us, who have been doing it the normal way. Arsenal are in their 4th season of a rebuild and have spent a huge amount. I won't be surprised if Arsenal fall foul of FFP as well.
Which leaves Liverpool and let's be honest it is Klopp, he is a world class manager. And even they have had their ups and down. I'd be surprised if without Salah and Klopp they will still be competing for titles next season.
City, on paper, should win everything, they have 5 top class centre backs on their books. Can you remember a team that has had that many, ever? A ridiculous team and a ridiculous manager. We could spend a billion and still not be as good as them.
So we gun for Arsenal and Liverpool, we are still behind but we are on the up. I would still expect us to invest around 100m in transfers in the Summer as well.
Are we competing now? No, do we have the potential to compete next season? Yes.
These reports back up what we've seen on the pitch, we have invested strongly and we will (hopefully) start reaping the rewards.
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,173
- 7,721
Man United have already tried the billion £ approach and failed to match City.
McFlash
In the corner, eating crayons.
- Oct 19, 2005
- 12,917
- 46,196
To be perfectly honest mate, it sounds like you're annoyed for the sake of being annoyed and nothing is going to change that.
You've got it in for Levy and Enic and whatever they do won't be right by you.
You're arguing round in circles, shifting and ignoring anything that counters what you've got set in your mind to the stage that I'm not sure anyone really understands what you want?
You want a trophy? Don't we all but it's really not as easy as that, when you consider the football landscape of the past decade or so.
If you can't see that we've made good progress and have grown in stature recently, well them you're being blinded by nobody but yourself.
We're finally at the point where we can actually compete financially but if we suddenly start spunking cash like Chelsea did, that's not going to last very long.
Westmorlandspur
Well-Known Member
- Feb 1, 2013
- 2,870
- 4,737
That’s because we bought a lot if players in the last financial year. 300m worth.
muppetman
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2011
- 9,062
- 25,296
Surely us earning more money is a good thing as long as it gets invested into the club and not into ENIC's pockets?
Also, isn't it the wage bill, rather than the purchase price of players which gives the biggest chance of success - ie the clubs with the highest wage bill tend to win the most as the quality of the whole squad is better, not just one or two superstars.
I thought the report shows that our spending on wages has increased dramatically, but I'm not a financial whizz and maybe have missed something?
Also, isn't it the wage bill, rather than the purchase price of players which gives the biggest chance of success - ie the clubs with the highest wage bill tend to win the most as the quality of the whole squad is better, not just one or two superstars.
I thought the report shows that our spending on wages has increased dramatically, but I'm not a financial whizz and maybe have missed something?
cliff jones
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 4,111
- 6,707
Don’t look that good, does it?
6m a year for presiding over Nuno, Stellini, Spence, while putting up 40% of what the Arse owners have injected into their club, 1 league cup, Frazier Campbell Andy Booth… ah fck it, even I’m running out of energy digging him out.
At least we ain’t got the Glazers, won’t do a Leeds, won’t waste our time competing with SWFs, and don’t have owners with blood on our hands.
CL (Group Stage) Revenue, here we come! Start the bus…
6m a year for presiding over Nuno, Stellini, Spence, while putting up 40% of what the Arse owners have injected into their club, 1 league cup, Frazier Campbell Andy Booth… ah fck it, even I’m running out of energy digging him out.
At least we ain’t got the Glazers, won’t do a Leeds, won’t waste our time competing with SWFs, and don’t have owners with blood on our hands.
CL (Group Stage) Revenue, here we come! Start the bus…
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,173
- 7,721
It has gone up quite a lot but so have staff levels from previous year
Players & Football admin now 320 up from 292,
stadium operators & support staff now 413 up from 358 ,
retail staff down to 60 from 69 .
Total staff for 2023 is 793, for 2022 total was 719 so an increase of 74 , wage bill up approx £40 million.
