The Spurs thread | 2016-2017 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned

[GlastonSpur]

...
I just think it's funny that you claim united and city spend vast amounts of money, as if Spurs have a brilliant team all brought in for 5 million....

The cost of Pogba is more or less the cost of the entire Spurs first XI ... go figure.

 

[GlastonSpur]

How do you guys feel about Eriksen blowing open your wage budget?

Will the financial chickens come home to roost, @GlastonSpur ?

He isn't - it's just media click-bait. Thus the financial chickens are all happily roosting atop the cranes currently building our new stadium.

 

[Dec9003]

The cost of Pogba is more or less the cost of the entire Spurs first XI ... go figure.

not so sure about that 89 mil was it for Pogba? I know you payed 30 odd for your keeper and that Lamela, you payed at least 12 for Eriksen so thats already 72 on three players, I think someone is telling porkies.

 

[Nick7]

They paid €15m for Lloris.

 

[BigDub]

not so sure about that 89 mil was it for Pogba? I know you payed 30 odd for your keeper and that Lamela, you payed at least 12 for Eriksen so thats already 72 on three players, I think someone is telling porkies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-transfer-Tottenham-Lyon-agree-12-3m-fee.html

 

[SwansonsTache]

He isn't - it's just media click-bait. Thus the financial chickens are all happily roosting atop the cranes currently building our new stadium.

Why should he be happy with anything below £150k/week? Sooner or later the wage circus that we see in football and the PL will surely hit Tottenham as well?

I don't think the players playing for you are some sort of loyalists that will happily abide by £75k/week while even players at Leicester and West Ham are scooping up 100k/week paychecks.

 

[Vicar of Dibbly]

How do you guys feel about Eriksen blowing open your wage budget?

Will the financial chickens come home to roost, @GlastonSpur ?

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. He hasn't "blown open the wage budget".

 

[Dec9003]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-transfer-Tottenham-Lyon-agree-12-3m-fee.html

Was he that cheap? fair enough the money can easily be made up by the rest of the players I didn't mention anyway

 

[GlastonSpur]

You desperately look for contradictions where none exist. @Dec9003

My saying that United will eventually being in trouble if they keep on spending a lot more on players than they make from selling them, takes into account all of your income streams, not just that from players sales.

 

[Dec9003]

Why should he be happy with anything below £150k/week? Sooner or later the wage circus that we see in football and the PL will surely hit Tottenham as well?

I don't think the players playing for you are some sort of loyalists that will happily abide by £75k/week while even players at Leicester and West Ham are scooping up 100k/week paychecks.

True, plus if they fail to push on and win things their better players will look for move's to bigger, better things irregardless of cash.

 

[Vicar of Dibbly]

not so sure about that 89 mil was it for Pogba? I know you payed 30 odd for your keeper and that Lamela, you payed at least 12 for Eriksen so thats already 72 on three players, I think someone is telling porkies.

Yes you are. Lloris cost 12 million.

 

[thegregster]

I've said that United will eventually be in trouble if they keep on spending a lot more on players than they make from selling them. United have now spent a vast sum, in net terms, on additions to your last title-winning squad. You can keep up the current rate for a while, but not indefinitely, for accumulative-finance reasons I've explained previously (not sure if that was in this thread or elsewhere).

United dont have to spend hundred of millions on a new stadium. We dont need to make a profit on transfers to build a stadium.

£500mil to build the stadium.

Huge mistake by Spurs not to build in the 90s when construction costs were so cheap. They really have been badly run over the years.

 

[Dec9003]

You desperately look for contradictions where none exist. @Dec9003

My saying that United will eventually being in trouble if they keep on spending a lot more on players than they make from selling them, takes into account all of your income streams, not just that from players sales.

That isn't what you said though is it Glaston? You said if we continue to buy for more than we sell. It doesn't take all our income into account at all.

 

[Vicar of Dibbly]

United dont have to spend hundred of millions on a new stadium. We dont need to make a profit on transfers to build a stadium.

£500mil to build the stadium.

Huge mistake by Spurs not to build in the 90s when construction costs were so cheap. They really have been badly run over the years.

Easy to say that with hindsight isn't it? We are all genii with hindsight.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Why should he be happy with anything below £150k/week? Sooner or later the wage circus that we see in football and the PL will surely hit Tottenham as well?

I don't think the players playing for you are some sort of loyalists that will happily abide by £75k/week while even players at Leicester and West Ham are scooping up 100k/week paychecks.

I guess you'd better ask him, seeing as he's denied the media stories and that Poch has said "I think it's just a question of time for him to agree a new contract."

 

[SwansonsTache]

I guess you'd better ask him, seeing as he's denied the media stories and that Poch has said "I think it's just a question of time for him to agree a new contract."

Still, you have to admit that the Spurs wagebill likely will take a big hit in the coming years considering the monster wage influx in the PL? I reckon Delle Ali, Kane, Dembele, Alderweireld and Lloris will be looking for some healthy paybumps in the foreseable future. If you dont pay, other clubs will, simple as that.

Don't even try to convince yourself that Kane's head won't get turned if Woodie is whispering "300k\week" in his ear in two years time, while Spurs are offering 100k\week.

Even WH and Leicester has to cross the 100k\week limit for some of their players.

 

[GlastonSpur]

That isn't what you said though is it Glaston? You said if we continue to buy for more than we sell. It doesn't take all our income into account at all.

It does, because that it was I meant even if it wasn't tediously spelt out for you. As I've said, I explained it all in a post several weeks ago, where I took into account income from all streams.

 

[Dec9003]

It does, because that it was I meant even if it wasn't tediously spelt out for you. As I've said, I explained it all in a post several weeks ago, where I took into account income from all streams.

It doesn't Glaston, you can't say something and then claim it mean't something totally different because you said something different weeks ago to someone who isn't even me. That's not how conversations with people work.
You also said to me you didn't say United should be worried about money coming in, but according to you, you said to someone else we should because of our income streams?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Easy to say that with hindsight isn't it? We are all genii with hindsight.

It's not even that simple. Borrowing costs now are very cheap - cheaper than in the 90s. And in the 90s we wouldn't have been able to negotiate an NFL tie-up, whereas now there is the eventual and very real prospect of an NFL franchise being permanently based at our new stadium, which will be hugely lucrative if it materialises.

 

[AR87]

Honestly don't know why anybody is acting like Woodward doesn't understand how to manage the finances of Manchester United.

United's net spend over the last 3 years is around €370m or £320m according to transfermarkt. That's obviously not the greatest thing ever for business, but realistically speaking an average of approximately £110m per year over a 3-year period doesn't mean a whole lot to the financial stability of Manchester United. If you continued that every year for the next 10 years I can see how that'd become an issue, but really think the amount of discussion regarding how much this matters to the long-term financial viability of United is a useless discussion.

None of that is even accounting for how much added revenue the club has seen over that time from commercial and busniness partnerships or the increased amount of money simply from the new PL TV contract.

 

[MDFC Manager]

You desperately look for contradictions where none exist. @Dec9003

My saying that United will eventually being in trouble if they keep on spending a lot more on players than they make from selling them, takes into account all of your income streams, not just that from players sales.

Please put forward these calculations. Any old fool can make empty claims.

 

[BigDub]

Still, you have to admit that the Spurs wagebill likely will take a big hit in the coming years considering the monster wage influx in the PL? I reckon Delle Ali, Kane, Dembele, Alderweireld and Lloris will be looking for some healthy paybumps in the foreseable future. If you dont pay, other clubs will, simple as that.

Don't even try to convince yourself that Kane's head won't get turned if Woodie is whispering "300k\week" in his ear in two years time, while Spurs are offering 100k\week.

Even WH and Leicester has to cross the 100k\week limit for some of their players.

The wage bill will likely have to increase, yes. I agree. But isn't that part of the point of the investment in the new stadium project? To get to the point where we can afford to widen the parameters of the wage structure?

 

[jungledrums]

You desperately look for contradictions where none exist. @Dec9003

My saying that United will eventually being in trouble if they keep on spending a lot more on players than they make from selling them, takes into account all of your income streams, not just that from players sales.

To be fair, United's commercial revenue is exponentially increasing.
Looking at current figures, United is on an upward trajectory. United has become a global brand, and will only grow. I suppose you are technically right, if we spend 600 million next season, it's unsustainable, but the fact remains: we NEVER need to turn over a profit in terms of transfers out (when compared with transfers in).

And please, would you stop banging on about net spend? No big club considers 'net spend'. The cost of a player is of course considered, but not as net spend. That's just an armchair critic's buzzword.

 

[SwansonsTache]

Honestly don't know why anybody is acting like Woodward doesn't understand how to manage the finances of Manchester United.

United's net spend over the last 3 years is around €370m or £320m according to transfermarkt. That's obviously not the greatest thing ever for business, but realistically speaking an average of approximately £110m per year over a 3-year period doesn't mean a whole lot to the financial stability of Manchester United. If you continued that every year for the next 10 years I can see how that'd become an issue, but really think the amount of discussion regarding how much this matters to the long-term financial viability of United is a useless discussion.

None of that is even accounting for how much added revenue the club has seen over that time from commercial and busniness partnerships or the increased amount of money simply from the new PL TV contract.

How dare you. Financial poultry farmer @GlastonSpur clearly knows more about Utd finances than Woodie, our world class accountants, business planners and proven business men like the Glazers does.

I have found @GlastonSpur place of employment:

http://chickenfinancial.com/

 

[Dec9003]

Honestly don't know why anybody is acting like Woodward doesn't understand how to manage the finances of Manchester United.

United's net spend over the last 3 years is around €370m or £320m according to transfermarkt. That's obviously not the greatest thing ever for business, but realistically speaking an average of approximately £110m per year over a 3-year period doesn't mean a whole lot to the financial stability of Manchester United. If you continued that every year for the next 10 years I can see how that'd become an issue, but really think the amount of discussion regarding how much this matters to the long-term financial viability of United is a useless discussion.

None of that is even accounting for how much added revenue the club has seen over that time from commercial and busniness partnerships or the increased amount of money simply from the new PL TV contract.

Spot on, we're expected to earn between 500 and 600 million in 2016 alone. I don't think spending big on players is going to put too big a dint in our finances.

 

[Dec9003]

The wage bill will likely have to increase, yes. I agree. But isn't that part of the point of the investment in the new stadium project? To get to the point where we can afford to widen the parameters of the wage structure?

When you're in your new stadium and if you fill it every week you'll make a lot more money, but how long will that take? Footballers careers are short and I doubt many would settle for less than they deserve for promises or more cash in years time.

 

[GlastonSpur]

It doesn't Glaston, you can't say something and then claim it mean't something totally different because you said something different weeks ago to someone who isn't even me. That's not how conversations with people work.
You also said to me you didn't say United should be worried about money coming in, but according to you, you said to someone else we should because of our income streams?

I'm done with this tedious nit-picking. I said several posts ago, before you even embarked on this bizarre forensic process, that I explained it all in a post several weeks ago. And that post included specific reference to all income streams. Look it up if you don't believe me and if you're that desperate.

As for the rest, what I've said is that you don't now have to worried about money coming in, but you will eventually have to worry IF United continue for much longer with vast annual net spends on transfers. And in case you're wondering, yes, this takes into account all income streams.

 

[AR87]

It's not even that simple. Borrowing costs now are very cheap - cheaper than in the 90s. And in the 90s we wouldn't have been able to negotiate an NFL tie-up, whereas now there is the eventual and very real prospect of an NFL franchise being permanently based at our new stadium, which will be hugely lucrative if it materialises.

The chances of an NFL franchise being permanently based in London isn't even something to consider at this point.

The NFL just signed a new television contract that started in 2013/14 and runs through 2021/22. Good luck trying to get the 32 billionaires to agree to add a new team to the league and willingly reduce their share of the pie for the next 9 years. The absolute earliest London would get a football team is in 2022/23 and very few NFL teams operate in a stadium they don't own longer than necessary. You can bet if the league wants to add a team in London they will be very aggressive about getting a stadium built for it and for that stadium to be publicly subsidized in some way as virtually every single stadium in the NFL is.

 

[BigDub]

When you're in your new stadium and if you fill it every week you'll make a lot more money, but how long will that take? Footballers careers are short and I doubt many would settle for less than they deserve for promises or more cash in years time.

You're speaking as if all of these Spurs players are having huge wage offers thrown at them from other clubs in the here and now. Nobody is making these types of offers right now. Will that happen at some point in the future? It's certainly possible...they're good players. But maybe it's best to save that line of discussion until the time comes. Eriksen, who prompted this whole topic in the first place, already essentially came out and said the reports of his "demands" aren't true.

I'm not naive enough to think that players aren't tempted by the prospect of making more money outside of their current club, but that's not what's happening at the moment. Spurs are making their players increased contract offers that the players are subsequently signing. The window is almost over and, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a single concrete offer for Kane, Alli, Eriksen or anyone else. Personal terms, transfer fee, or otherwise.

 

[Dec9003]

I'm done with this tedious nit-picking. I said several posts ago, before you even embarked on this bizarre forensic process, that I explained it all in a post several weeks ago. And that post included specific reference to all income streams. Look it up if you don't believe me and if you're that desperate.

As for the rest, what I've said is that you don't now have to worried about money coming in, but you will eventually have to worry IF United continue for much longer with vast annual net spends on transfers. And in case you're wondering, yes, this takes into account all income streams.

There's no forensic process whatsoever mate, you just say things and then say they mean something entirely different when you get called up on it. You shouldn't expect people to go trudging through the forums to make what you post make sense.
If every player we buy from now costs us 80 odd million we will be in big trouble, but I have a funny feeling that might not happen.
Plus you say if we continue to spend more than we're making, yet so far in 2016 we'll expected to make (courtesy of an article I found on the BBC) about 500 million. In this time we've spent (so far, but big signings are unlikely) between 120-150 depending on which paper you believe. Now of course that doesn't take into account wage differences, but I'm sure in 2016 we'll have made money regarding net spend.

 

[Dec9003]

You're speaking as if all of these Spurs players are having huge wage offers thrown at them from other clubs in the here and now. Nobody is making these types of offers right now. Will that happen at some point in the future? It's certainly possible...they're good players. But maybe it's best to save that line of discussion until the time comes. Eriksen, who prompted this whole topic in the first place, already essentially came out and said the reports of his "demands" aren't true.

I'm not naive enough to think that players aren't tempted by the prospect of making more money outside of their current club, but that's not what's happening at the moment. Spurs are making their players increased contract offers that the players are subsequently signing. the window is almost over and, tommy knowledge, there hasn't been a single concrete offer for Kane, Alli, Eriksen or anyone else. Personal terms or transfer fee included.

I see where you're coming from, there won't be many bids for Spurs' players at the moment anyway because Kane and Alli aren't worth the god knows how much they'd cost, and Eriksen for some reason goes under the radar a bit (not sure how highly rated he is amongst your lot but I don't see many fans of other clubs rating him, or even mentioning him) But let's say Spurs do really well this year and Kane is incredible, Someone might come knocking and eventually get him. Then when you take into account that you're club is paying loads for a stadium it might be tough to replace him. That said I think your club is still right to build the new ground, you'll be miles better off in the long run.

 

[GlastonSpur]

...
And please, would you stop banging on about net spend? No big club considers 'net spend'. The cost of a player is of course considered, but not as net spend. That's just an armchair critic's buzzword.

We've gone through this before. Just because there isn't an "annual net spend" item in the annual accounts doesn't mean the monies concerned have disappeared. It just means the monies are accounted for in other ways, spread over the lifetimes of player contracts. And by the way, that applied to all clubs, not just "big clubs".

So of course clubs consider net spend, because it affects their finances down the line. Otherwise why not go ahead and spend £1 billion net on transfers next summer?

 

[Vicar of Dibbly]

To be fair, United's commercial revenue is exponentially increasing.
Looking at current figures, United is on an upward trajectory. United has become a global brand, and will only grow. I suppose you are technically right, if we spend 600 million next season, it's unsustainable, but the fact remains: we NEVER need to turn over a profit in terms of transfers out (when compared with transfers in).

And please, would you stop banging on about net spend? No big club considers 'net spend'. The cost of a player is of course considered, but not as net spend. That's just an armchair critic's buzzword.

To be fair, United's commercial revenue is exponentially increasing.
Looking at current figures, United is on an upward trajectory. United has become a global brand, and will only grow. I suppose you are technically right, if we spend 600 million next season, it's unsustainable, but the fact remains: we NEVER need to turn over a profit in terms of transfers out (when compared with transfers in).

And please, would you stop banging on about net spend? No big club considers 'net spend'. The cost of a player is of course considered, but not as net spend. That's just an armchair critic's buzzword.

Levy says "Hi"

 

[GlastonSpur]

The chances of an NFL franchise being permanently based in London isn't even something to consider at this point.

The NFL just signed a new television contract that started in 2013/14 and runs through 2021/22. Good luck trying to get the 32 billionaires to agree to add a new team to the league and willingly reduce their share of the pie for the next 9 years. The absolute earliest London would get a football team is in 2022/23 and very few NFL teams operate in a stadium they don't own longer than necessary. You can bet if the league wants to add a team in London they will be very aggressive about getting a stadium built for it and for that stadium to be publicly subsidized in some way as virtually every single stadium in the NFL is.

Well, when Boris Johnson was Mayor of London (which he was until recently) he was asked nearly a year ago: "When are we going to have an NFL franchise in London?" He replied: "we are working hard on deal - high hopes for Tottenham in the next few years...watch this space".

You have your views, fair enough, but you might wonder why Levy has added very significantly to the stadium costs in order to accommodate NFL football if he thought that it was only ever going to be for just for 2 games per year. The NFL have been very heavily involved in the stadium design process right from the start and continuing now.

 

[africanspur]

not so sure about that 89 mil was it for Pogba? I know you payed 30 odd for your keeper and that Lamela, you payed at least 12 for Eriksen so thats already 72 on three players, I think someone is telling porkies.

Our starting line up against Everton was:

12
4.5
11.5
Approx 12
1
4
11
25
11
5
0

Total of 97 million. So not quite less than Pogba. But not a huge amount more.

Nobody is saying that we're paupers. But (and this ties in with the ridiculous point that we are a poorly run club), we are a club that is closer in terms of turnover to WBA than we are to Liverpool (the nearest club above us).

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

Despite this, we have been competing near the top end of the table for a while now and have gotten our finances in order after the horrors of mismanagement of the early 90s especially.

We keep our wage to turnover ratio very respectable and manageable too.

 

[Dec9003]

Well, when Boris Johnson was Mayor of London (which he was until recently) he was asked nearly a year ago: "When are we going to have an NFL franchise in London?" He replied: "we are working hard on deal - high hopes for Tottenham in the next few years...watch this space".

You have your views, fair enough, but you might wonder why Levy has added very significantly to the stadium costs in order to accommodate NFL football if he thought that it was only ever going to be for just for 2 games per year. The NFL have been very heavily involved in the stadium design process right from the start and continuing now.

Is NFL American football? How would that work is there a big market for it from people from London or something? I imagine for English people who do like it it would be better for them than watching the Super Bowl at super ridiculous hours.

 

[Dec9003]

Our starting line up against Everton was:

12
4.5
11.5
Approx 12
1
4
11
25
11
5
0

Total of 97 million. So not quite less than Pogba. But not a huge amount more.

Nobody is saying that we're paupers. But (and this ties in with the ridiculous point that we are a poorly run club), we are a club that is closer in terms of turnover to WBA than we are to Liverpool (the nearest club above us).

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

Despite this, we have been competing near the top end of the table for a while now and have gotten our finances in order after the horrors of mismanagement of the early 90s especially.

We keep our wage to turnover ratio very respectable and manageable too.

Yeah I pretty much agree with all that, except you've not been competing at the very top until last year (top 3) and I still think it will be more of a statement to stay there over the new few years when hopefully we kick on with Mourinho and when most likely City and Chelsea kick on. If you can keep one of them three consistently out the top 3 them fair fecks to you but you'll struggle to do that and spend on a new stadium.

 

[africanspur]

Why should he be happy with anything below £150k/week? Sooner or later the wage circus that we see in football and the PL will surely hit Tottenham as well?

I don't think the players playing for you are some sort of loyalists that will happily abide by £75k/week while even players at Leicester and West Ham are scooping up 100k/week paychecks.

Still, you have to admit that the Spurs wagebill likely will take a big hit in the coming years considering the monster wage influx in the PL? I reckon Delle Ali, Kane, Dembele, Alderweireld and Lloris will be looking for some healthy paybumps in the foreseable future. If you dont pay, other clubs will, simple as that.

Don't even try to convince yourself that Kane's head won't get turned if Woodie is whispering "300k\week" in his ear in two years time, while Spurs are offering 100k\week.

Even WH and Leicester has to cross the 100k\week limit for some of their players.

Because he isn't worth 150k/ week, regardless of what the crazies at other clubs are paying.

No they're actually not loyalists at all. We're actually in a good situation wages wise tbh.

Being in the PL, we already pay more than similarly sized clubs or even some bigger clubs in equivalent leagues across Europe. Clubs who are lower than us in the table are not going to be able to poach our players, regardless of whether they pay >100k/ week or not. I think we can probably rest east about West Ham turning Lloris' head or Kane putting in a transfer request to go to Everton.

As for if/when Man Utd or a similar sized club come in for players like Kane, his wages will make little practical difference. A) Levy has shown a clear preference for not selling to other PL teams and more importantly b) you've shown exactly why its an exercise in futility to attempt to compete with the likes of Madrid and Man Utd when it comes to wages. We will never ever win. Offering Berbatov 150k/week is not going to stop him from having his head turned for playing for a bigger club, under Ferguson, with more chance of trophies, for more money per week. Offering Modric or Bale 150k/week is not going to stop their heads being turned by Madrid when they come in and inevitably, amongst other things, offer more money.

So why bankrupt ourselves trying to compete financially with clubs who can pick off our players anyway? Why bankrupt ourselves raising wages when West Ham/ Leicester/ Seville (despite all of their recent success) cannot pick off our players?

Our top players currently earn about 80k/ week. Rest assured, we won't be doubling that for Eriksen.

 

[africanspur]

Yeah I pretty much agree with all that, except you've not been competing at the very top until last year (top 3) and I still think it will be more of a statement to stay there over the new few years when hopefully we kick on with Mourinho and when most likely City and Chelsea kick on. If you can keep one of them three consistently out the top 3 them fair fecks to you but you'll struggle to do that and spend on a new stadium.

Sorry, by top end of the table, I just mean within the European spaces. Top 6. We've finished top 6 pretty much every season in the past 6 seasons and top 4 3 times in that period. People seem to think we should be up there all the time and that its a failed season/ we've bottled it if we don't finish top 4. I don't see why that should be the case when there's such a disparity between the incomes of the clubs.

I really don't think we'll be finishing top 4 on a very regular basis over the next few seasons with the stadium etc especially but fair play to Poch and Levy if we do. Like I said, I don't think that will happen though.

 

[Dec9003]

Sorry, by top end of the table, I just mean within the European spaces. Top 6. We've finished top 6 pretty much every season in the past 6 seasons and top 4 3 times in that period. People seem to think we should be up there all the time and that its a failed season/ we've bottled it if we don't finish top 4. I don't see why that should be the case when there's such a disparity between the incomes of the clubs.

I really don't think we'll be finishing top 4 on a very regular basis over the next few seasons with the stadium etc especially but fair play to Poch and Levy if we do. Like I said, I don't think that will happen though.

Yeah fair enough, although given the squad you have now you should really be challenging for fourth at least for a while, lets presume city, Chelsea and United all do brilliantly with their new managers and are outright battling for the top 3 spots everytime. That only leaves you lot, Arsenal who just refuse to spend and get rid of Wenger, but even if they do there's no guarantee. Liverpool who really given the size of the club should be up there but they never seem to be. And now they've got big money maybe Everton? It wouldn't be totally unrealistic to expect to be in the top 4 every time