Net Spend guff...

[Dan Yeats]

I read somewhere recently that someone had done a bit of analysis and found that wages are a far better indicator of the likelihood of success than transfer fees. Which is unsurprising when you think about it - players wages tend to go up with each move, so you can end up with a player at the end of the career but on high wages, alongside a 'hot rising star' bought for big money but not earning anywhere near as much. For example I'd not be surprised if The Great Dane was earning a lot less than Younes Kaboul, despite being the most valuable outfield asset we have at present.

 

[SpurSince57]

Stopped reading here, load of rubbish. But anyway let's go through these points one at a time.

1.) "Where does this money come from?". How about the hundreds of millions in revenue that we make from sources beside player trading. TV money, advertising, how about the fucking money that people pay to go to games expecting that their expenses get reinvested into the team that they are supporting?

2.) We aren't a player wholesale distributor, so your point makes no sense. Players aren't what we are selling or how we are making money as a business. It's about performances. In case you haven't noticed, the teams that play the best football historically are the biggest and make by far the most money. Look at how Sir Alex Ferguson built up Man United in his time there. Financial success follows sporting success, you can't do it the other way around. Anyway, players are investments, not inventory.

Buying players is more like having an office in a prime location. It costs you a lot of money but the point that the financial benefit is greater than the cost, assuming you don't fuck up in your assessment of the location.

'Hundreds of millions'?



Our turnover in the financial year ending June 2013 was £147m. That's £33m in gate receipts, £57m from TV and media, and £57m from commercial activities. £96m, or 65% of it, went on wages. We made a big fat £4m profit, as opposed to a £7m loss the previous year. Oh, and we were running a £55m debt, with £8m going on interest.

Back in 2008 the turnover was just under £115m, from £28.6m in gate receipts, £40.3m from TV, £27.8m in sponsorship and corporate, and £9.7m in merchandising; wages accounted for £52.9m, up from £43.8m the previous year, just 46% of turnover. Debt was £65m, with £3.95m paid in interest. Profit was £3m.

Now you know where the money comes from, and where it goes. You could, of course, have spent a few minutes looking it up yourself.

 

[Maske2g]

Burnley and Leicester aren't our of business and they spent more than us.....

As many point out, in general its all about wages.

I don't see how our wages have not decreased significantly between 2013 and 2014, since we got rid of lots 50-70 grand players like bale, Dempsey, Parker, Gallas, Defoe, etc. And got in a load of players from much poorer clubs and leagues. I doubt we will see the figures this year, now we are not listed.

The net spend is a factor. We have continually sold quality and bought in unknowns, who have failed us. Rather than paying more and getting proven players.

Yes, it's more of an achievement/glorious/romantic if you pluck players from nowhere, and they become stars, but in reality, you are more likely to get relegated if you try that year after year.

We have been the 19th and 20th biggest transfer spenders in the league for 2 years , while probably maintaining our wage bill in line with our relatvie wealth. Twist the PnL all you like, you've been conned.

 

[Wheeler Dealer]

Burnley and Leicester aren't our of business and they spent more than us.....

As many point out, in general its all about wages.

I don't see how our wages have not decreased significantly between 2013 and 2014, since we got rid of lots 50-70 grand players like bale, Dempsey, Parker, Gallas, Defoe, etc. And got in a load of players from much poorer clubs and leagues. I doubt we will see the figures this year, now we are not listed.

The net spend is a factor. We have continually sold quality and bought in unknowns, who have failed us. Rather than paying more and getting proven players.

Yes, it's more of an achievement/glorious/romantic if you pluck players from nowhere, and they become stars, but in reality, you are more likely to get relegated if you try that year after year.

We have been the 19th and 20th biggest transfer spenders in the league for 2 years , while probably maintaining our wage bill in line with our relatvie wealth. Twist the PnL all you like, you've been conned.

Soldado, Lloris, Lamela, Paulinho and Erikson, will be on a decent wage, particularly the first two..

 

[Harry Barber]

'Hundreds of millions'?



Our turnover in the financial year ending June 2013 was £147m. That's £33m in gate receipts, £57m from TV and media, and £57m from commercial activities. £96m, or 65% of it, went on wages. We made a big fat £4m profit, as opposed to a £7m loss the previous year. Oh, and we were running a £55m debt, with £8m going on interest.

Back in 2008 the turnover was just under £115m, from £28.6m in gate receipts, £40.3m from TV, £27.8m in sponsorship and corporate, and £9.7m in merchandising; wages accounted for £52.9m, up from £43.8m the previous year, just 46% of turnover. Debt was £65m, with £3.95m paid in interest. Profit was £3m.

Now you know where the money comes from, and where it goes. You could, of course, have spent a few minutes looking it up yourself.

Good stuff!
I don't really know all the facts and figures to make any argument against what you're saying, so I'll take your word for it. What I am intrigued about though is, where is the other £51m being spent and how have ENIC managed to quadruple the value of their investment in us, if we basically aren't making any profit?

 

[tiger666]

Good stuff!
I don't really know all the facts and figures to make any argument against what you're saying, so I'll take your word for it. What I am intrigued about though is, where is the other £51m being spent and how have ENIC managed to quadruple the value of their investment in us, if we basically aren't making any profit?

We spent 11m on agent fees alone in 2014.

 

[mpickard2087]

Soldado, Lloris, Lamela, Paulinho and Erikson, will be on a decent wage, particularly the first two..

Added to the fact that we seem to give the likes of Walker, Townsend etc. new contracts fairly regularly (In the past it was the likes of Dawson and Lennon. Kane will no doubt be the next to get a new contract after only recently signing one), and they will be getting pay increases.

I think its pretty clear from the little we read and hear that, whilst we don't pay the mega wages, most of our players are paid on roughly similar scales. I reckon we pay most players between £40-60k a week, with a few players (Lloris, Soldado, Adebayor) higher than that still.

 

[Harry Barber]

We spent 11m on agent fees alone in 2014.

That was an exception as we spent a £100m. If revenues are the same this year, then there's no way we'd be spending anywhere near that sum again on agents fees.
I'm just trying to gauge an overall picture of how and where the balance of the money is being spent.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

Swearing in thread titles isn't allowed so i've reworded it accordingly.

Boring fucker...............................

 

[Kendall]

Good thread, Neil.

 

[tiger666]

That was an exception as we spent a £100m. If revenues are the same this year, then there's no way we'd be spending anywhere near that sum again on agents fees.
I'm just trying to gauge an overall picture of how and where the balance of the money is being spent.

It's not an exception. We spent 9.8m in 2013. It's just another big outlay of money that fans seem to forget when moaning about our spending.

 

[Harry Barber]

It's not an exception. We spent 9.8m in 2013. It's just another big outlay of money that fans seem to forget when moaning about our spending.

Ok, thanks

 

[SpurSince57]

Burnley and Leicester aren't our of business and they spent more than us.....

As many point out, in general its all about wages.

I don't see how our wages have not decreased significantly between 2013 and 2014, since we got rid of lots 50-70 grand players like bale, Dempsey, Parker, Gallas, Defoe, etc. And got in a load of players from much poorer clubs and leagues. I doubt we will see the figures this year, now we are not listed.

The net spend is a factor. We have continually sold quality and bought in unknowns, who have failed us. Rather than paying more and getting proven players.

Yes, it's more of an achievement/glorious/romantic if you pluck players from nowhere, and they become stars, but in reality, you are more likely to get relegated if you try that year after year.

We have been the 19th and 20th biggest transfer spenders in the league for 2 years , while probably maintaining our wage bill in line with our relatvie wealth. Twist the PnL all you like, you've been conned.

Probably because over the last 20 years Burnley have spent £31.8m on players and received £32m in sales; this enabled them to go raving mad and spend a whole £6.5m net in preparation for this season. Leicester's figures are £78m, £60m and £11m.

Ours? £609m, £443.7m (giving a 20-year net of £116.48m), and £7.5m net on an outlay of £31.95m.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/football-transfers/leicester-city-transfers.html

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/burnely-transfers.html

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/burnely-transfers.html

Whether the money has been well spent is a completely different matter.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

That was an exception as we spent a £100m. If revenues are the same this year, then there's no way we'd be spending anywhere near that sum again on agents fees.
I'm just trying to gauge an overall picture of how and where the balance of the money is being spent.

What you ask about is publicly available:
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/upl...cuments/Annual_Reports/annual-report-2013.pdf

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

The point is Levy does haggle to protect the club against players who flop. If we just pay what the buying clubs and player want then it will make it even harder to get rid of players who don't make it. And we will end up writing off millions on bad investments. Which would have a knock affect on our future transfer budgets. Basically it makes terrible business sense.

I think what pisses most fans off about our transfer policy is the very fact, and without any shadow of a doubt is that the "B" list of so called talent being recommended and brought in to the Club by Mr Baldini are quite fucking "D" list.

It's not the crazy, stupid amount actually being spent to acquire these players, but the colossal clusterfucks they turn out to be the day after they slip into a nice, crisp, new Spurs shirt. I know of no other team (though Liverpool are trying very hard) who waste so much money on players who quite frankly are shocking in the extreme. This simply has to be the case given the fact of Levy's latest recruit from Southampton will by all accounts will be working with a Visa Card rather than an American Express Platinum one.

The odd Rebrov signing is inevitable, but over the past five seasons for whatever reason the Club, be it the Director Of The Asylum Football or The Chairman appear to want to prove everyone wrong, and that they can indeed go out and trump the Rebrov transfer times ten.

 

[DCSPUR]

Along with the info a couple of folks have posted above, the frustration many feel is based on:
1. Transfer Fee Net Spend All Prem Teams last 5 years: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html (hint we are bottom)

2. player salaries since 2011 - tottenham in 6th http://www.tsmplug.com/football/premier-league-player-salaries-club-by-club/

SO - how can you be the 6th in wages, bottom in net spend and then:

3. Set a realistic target of 4th

Once you add in the fact that Spurs are

4. the second costliest team to watch:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eague-ticket-prices--complete-guide-club.html

5. while being the 13th most valued club: http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/

one can see why fans are cheesed off

 

[Blake Griffin]

i don't think you can realistically expect to improve if you're forever breaking even on transfer fees, unless you're somehow much better at scouting and valuing players than every other club. you can get lucky and hit a hot streak on players but you'll eventually regress to the mean. our only hope of beating that trend is by bringing through talented youngsters.

 

[NEVILLEB]

I defended net gain to a point, and that point was selling Luka Modric & Rafael van der Vaart and replacing them with Mousa Dembele & Clint Dempsey. That was the point where I realised Levy's not as smart a businessman as I thought.

You can't spend big consistently without money coming in, obviously - however, you can't sell big and regress or even stand still in such a competitive market. Which is all we've done for the past few years. People don't talk of net spend as in they want to just see money spunked everywhere, they're saying it because selling world class players and replacing them with less than world class players only leads to a poorer team. Which, in turn, leads to us making less money. It actually would have been more prosperous for Levy to dig in and sign Musacchio/Moutinho/Schneiderlin/Cahill/Llorente when given the chance, because falling a few places is a bigger hit than the 30% more we pay on the alternative.

Hopefully a youth team paying dividends means we can stop throwing money at stopgaps like Stambouli and Chiriches and instead can pursue good players that will actually make a difference.

Totally agree.

There's some real muppets on here who see everything in black and white. Asking your Investor to 'invest' some cash does not mean you want the club to be the next Leed's Utd.

 

[Harry Barber]

What you ask about is publicly available:
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/upl...cuments/Annual_Reports/annual-report-2013.pdf

Thanks. That amortisation looks like a good scam.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

Thanks. That amortisation looks like a good scam.

It's actually not. Quite the opposite, every company small or large, in any industry, has a post exactly the same. It's quite a natural way of accounting, and it makes sense when you really get into it. Granted, it doesn't mean that actual tangible funds necessarily left the club, but it's sound accounting none the less.