Daniel Levy - Chairman

[Bishop]

That's a mentality that Pool never had. They had big gaps at one point in this journey but still only focused on quality. Eventually they didn't have gaps.

One massive reason for that is that they got the right manager in and he stayed for the long haul. Our squad overhauls have come with a revolving door of managers with different philosophies. I would say that there has not been many Bergwijns either. At least with him, one manager wanted him and when another didn't we shifted him and got decent money. That is so rare at Spurs. More likely, our surplus players end up out on loan and we wait for the end of their contracts and get paltry amounts for them.

Mourhinho didn't even want Bergwijn, he wanted a striker. Bergwijn joined that window when we had Kane and Son both injured for an extended period. Not getting a striker meant that Son got rushed back a bit quick and had to play with the cast.

 

[Grays_1890]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1954872635176759361

We need more in this window but officially if people like it or not, we haven't only signed 2 players, those loans to signings made come out of this summer balance.

The Profit before glory rubbish just needs to be dropped, the clubs in debt up to its eyeballs and still continues to leverage the stadiums profits to add towards signings, so its such an inaccuracy again.

Just say "we demand more" and leave the rubbish out, you would get much more respect IMO

 

[Glenda's Legs]

So that's the "big announcement"?

 

[Muttley]

Mourhinho didn't even want Bergwijn, he wanted a striker. Bergwijn joined that window when we had Kane and Son both injured for an extended period. Not getting a striker meant that Son got rushed back a bit quick and had to play with the cast.

I quite liked Bergwijn actually. Thought he was a valuable squad player that wasn't treated very well by our club.

For his own benefit, I was happy he left. He took control and made it clear he wanted out. That cost him pitch time in my opinion, to the benefit of Moura. Fair play. I see he's done it again by leaving Ajax and earning the big bucks in Saudi.

 

[SpurMeUp]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1954872635176759361

We need more in this window but officially if people like it or not, we haven't only signed 2 players, those loans to signings made come out of this summer balance.

The Profit before glory rubbish just needs to be dropped, the clubs in debt up to its eyeballs and still continues to leverage the stadiums profits to add towards signings, so its such an inaccuracy again.

Just say "we demand more" and leave the rubbish out, you would get much more respect IMO

What promises?

How immature are these people? Like kids who wants to moan at their parents because they didn't get their pair of trainers. If spending is paramount to you, simple, go support City. Whinge-fest.

 

[NickTB]

What promises?

How immature are these people? Like kids who wants to moan at their parents because they didn't get their pair of trainers. If spending is paramount to you, simple, go support City. Whinge-fest.

 

[SirPercyHotspur]

Johnny up the road (The Woolwich) has had lots of new toys this summer , I've only had two or three , if I don't get more I'm going to sulk.

 

[Bishop]

I quite liked Bergwijn actually. Thought he was a valuable squad player that wasn't treated very well by our club.

For his own benefit, I was happy he left. He took control and made it clear he wanted out. That cost him pitch time in my opinion, to the benefit of Moura. Fair play. I see he's done it again by leaving Ajax and earning the big bucks in Saudi.

I liked him too but he was a bit of an odd signing as we desperately needed a striker and if anything that player needed to be versatile enough to play off the right as well once Son returned, a position we were desperately lacking in quality at the time, not the left where we still had Son.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Johnny up the road (The Woolwich) has had lots of new toys this summer , I've only had two or three , if I don't get more I'm going to sulk.

And even the Gooners are moaning.

I think it's now the default position for many, sadly

 

[Diamond Lights]

quite surprised with a lot of the negativity this is getting. I mean, whether we like it or not, we are one of the big 6 right? we are in the CL too.

I think signing some players and getting them into the team isn't some pipe dream. in fact i think countless seasons of this has led to this kind of reaction. It's become normalised.

I hark back to the wages to revenue point. We have the ability to increase our wages to at least sign some players able to compete at the highest level. Why is it crazy to ask for that, to bring us to a similar level of the so called big 6?

Edit: I dont think anyone is saying buy 10 players on £200K a week either.

 

[Yiddo]

I hate these clams that make it sound like we don’t spend money, they may aswell hold up a banner saying “we want a sugar daddy like Chelsea and City” rather than all the brick they spout. We all know its a Saudi they want to take over.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

quite surprised with a lot of the negativity this is getting. I mean, whether we like it or not, we are one of the big 6 right? we are in the CL too.

I think signing some players and getting them into the team isn't some pipe dream. in fact i think countless seasons of this has led to this kind of reaction. It's become normalised.

I hark back to the wages to revenue point. We have the ability to increase our wages to at least sign some players able to compete at the highest level. Why is it crazy to ask for that, to bring us to a similar level of the so called big 6?

Edit: I dont think anyone is saying buy 10 players on £200K a week either.

I thought we had the 6th highest wage bill in the PL? Guess it might have dropped a bit post Kane and others leaving, but I think we are usually in that ballpark.

 

[Diamond Lights]

I thought we had the 6th highest wage bill in the PL? Guess it might have dropped a bit post Kane and others leaving, but I think we are usually in that ballpark.

on pure wages yes, but we also earn a large amount of money compared to others in the league. so according to Deloitte who review the entire finances for their annual PL report, we had the joint lowest wages to revenue ratio at 43%, at the time joint with Luton Town during their PL stint.

Annual Review of Football Finance: Premier League Clubs

In the 2023/24 season, Premier League clubs generated £6.3 billion in revenue, a 4% increase on the previous season.

www.deloitte.com

To compare our 43% to our big 6:

Emirates Marketing Project: 57%
Man U: 55%
Liverpool: 63%
Arsenal: 53%
Chelsea: 72%

As you can see from the Link, after Luton the next lowest to us was Sheff Utd on 47%. So, the outcome is we can talk about transfers and fees but we also pay incredibly low wages compared to what we earn, and literally comparable to teams who currently in the Championship.

No doubt people will cry about "we need to be sustainable" as if they themselves are the CFO of ENIC, but the reality is, it's a choice. I certainly do not want to be Villa at 93% and failing PSR.

But we can easily, in terms of revenue, increase our wage bill and quality of our squad with investment and still be below peer clubs if we choose to.

If we are charging the 1st/2nd highest prices in the league, i think it's fair we expect some of that investment to go into improving the football team. Especially when that team finished 17th last season and has serious injuries to two of its star players in integral positions.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

We need more in this window but officially if people like it or not, we haven't only signed 2 players, those loans to signings made come out of this summer balance.

But they're not shiny and new!

I only count shiny and new ffs!

 

[SpurMeUp]

quite surprised with a lot of the negativity this is getting. I mean, whether we like it or not, we are one of the big 6 right? we are in the CL too.

I think signing some players and getting them into the team isn't some pipe dream. in fact i think countless seasons of this has led to this kind of reaction. It's become normalised.

I hark back to the wages to revenue point. We have the ability to increase our wages to at least sign some players able to compete at the highest level. Why is it crazy to ask for that, to bring us to a similar level of the so called big 6?

Edit: I dont think anyone is saying buy 10 players on £200K a week either.

1. It’s a good setup to have lower wages for numerous reasons: easier to shift players, no biz should have such higher ratios of wages to turnover, it provides more capital for transfers.

2. Where is the cash going to come from? We’re already the 4th highest spenders (in part as we keep wages a little lower). Ndombele showed what can happen. Him and LeCelco probably cost 20mish a year? And set us back years. What are you proposing?

 

[DeanoAustin]

I thought we had the 6th highest wage bill in the PL? Guess it might have dropped a bit post Kane and others leaving, but I think we are usually in that ballpark.

Think Villa are ahead of us. Maybe Saudi Sportswashing Machine too. Either way, we spend the lowest percentage of our revenue on player wages in the league and pretty much have forever under ENIC. That’s true even allowing for stadium debt/repayments. I’ve always argued Levy should be more adventurous in this area.

That said, Simon Jordan has been saying recently that he believes we are under pressure from the banks and likely have agreements with them that our wage spend cannot exceed a certain % of revenue.

 

[braineclipse]

That's a mentality that Pool never had. They had big gaps at one point in this journey but still only focused on quality. Eventually they didn't have gaps.

One massive reason for that is that they got the right manager in and he stayed for the long haul. Our squad overhauls have come with a revolving door of managers with different philosophies. I would say that there has not been many Bergwijns either. At least with him, one manager wanted him and when another didn't we shifted him and got decent money. That is so rare at Spurs. More likely, our surplus players end up out on loan and we wait for the end of their contracts and get paltry amounts for them.

Think we see it differently.

First couple of seasons under Klopp they signed quite a few players. Misses and hits. The big difference the hits being big and very few misses being expensive.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Think Villa are ahead of us. Maybe Saudi Sportswashing Machine too. Either way, we spend the lowest percentage of our revenue on player wages in the league and pretty much have forever under ENIC. That’s true even allowing for stadium debt/repayments. I’ve always argued Levy should be more adventurous in this area.

That said, Simon Jordan has been saying recently that he believes we are under pressure from the banks and likely have agreements with them that our wage spend cannot exceed a certain % of revenue.

We're not 'under pressure' , he probably alluding (more likely speculating) that there's a covenant on the loan/bond issue.

It wouldn't surprise me if the % allowed is reasonable though. Eg 60% .

It's a finite pie in our case whichever way you look at it. Wages - Transfer fees

 

[Grays_1890]

on pure wages yes, but we also earn a large amount of money compared to others in the league. so according to Deloitte who review the entire finances for their annual PL report, we had the joint lowest wages to revenue ratio at 43%, at the time joint with Luton Town during their PL stint.

Annual Review of Football Finance: Premier League Clubs

In the 2023/24 season, Premier League clubs generated £6.3 billion in revenue, a 4% increase on the previous season.

www.deloitte.com

To compare our 43% to our big 6:

Emirates Marketing Project: 57%
Man U: 55%
Liverpool: 63%
Arsenal: 53%
Chelsea: 72%

As you can see from the Link, after Luton the next lowest to us was Sheff Utd on 47%. So, the outcome is we can talk about transfers and fees but we also pay incredibly low wages compared to what we earn, and literally comparable to teams who currently in the Championship.

No doubt people will cry about "we need to be sustainable" as if they themselves are the CFO of ENIC, but the reality is, it's a choice. I certainly do not want to be Villa at 93% and failing PSR.

But we can easily, in terms of revenue, increase our wage bill and quality of our squad with investment and still be below peer clubs if we choose to.

If we are charging the 1st/2nd highest prices in the league, i think it's fair we expect some of that investment to go into improving the football team. Especially when that team finished 17th last season and has serious injuries to two of its star players in integral positions.

ON pure money is what matters though right? The % of turnover skewed because we earn more than most, doesn't mean we should be aiming to still spend the same % against it as a club that turns over less, I find that view odd from some TBH.

The aim of earning more is spending more which we do, the clamour for that to be a reflection of a larger % against turnover just seems irresponsible to a level

 

[glorygloryeze]

Think Villa are ahead of us. Maybe Saudi Sportswashing Machine too. Either way, we spend the lowest percentage of our revenue on player wages in the league and pretty much have forever under ENIC. That’s true even allowing for stadium debt/repayments. I’ve always argued Levy should be more adventurous in this area.

That said, Simon Jordan has been saying recently that he believes we are under pressure from the banks and likely have agreements with them that our wage spend cannot exceed a certain % of revenue.

Why would we be undere pressure form the banks?
We have been told how smart we were that we took loans when things were much more favourable than how things are now...