Daniel Levy - Chairman

[Bishop]

Nothing to do with mental gymnastics, you can still be spending a large number on wages with that % going down because turnover continues to increase.

Hence why people keep moaning "it doesn't matter what we spend unless its a larger % of turnover"

Its all abit old man shouting at clouds

So what is the point in earning extra revenue if it's not to reinvest it into the playing side? Is it just to have a healthy balance sheet? Is that the actual point now, to have the lowest ratio just for the sake of it?

 

[Grays_1890]

So what is the point in earning extra revenue if it's not to reinvest it into the playing side? Is it just to have a healthy balance sheet? Is that the actual point now, to have the lowest ratio just for the sake of it?

Well we spend alot more money than we once did, so thats the reason and its to do it in a sustainable fashion and always has been. Considering the discussion about the scale of how big the clubs debt burden is on the last account release I am not sure how people can now be so contrary about it TBH

 

[Bishop]

Well we spend alot more money than we once did, so thats the reason and its to do it in a sustainable fashion and always has been. Considering the discussion about the scale of how big the clubs debt burden is on the last account release I am not sure how people can now be so contrary about it TBH

So you would be fine if the ratio decreased further to say 25% considering the debt burden of course?

If not then you have to accept that there is a level at which you think the ratio would be too low. That's is no different to the conversation that is happening here.

 

[Grays_1890]

So you would be fine if the ratio decreased further to say 25% considering the debt burden of course?

If not then you have to accept that there is a level at which you think the ratio would be too low. That's is no different to the conversation that is happening here.

If the figure for wages increases based on the fact we make more money, like when we spend more on fees for the same reason, then I couldn't give a gnats chuff on the %

 

[Bishop]

If the figure for wages increases based on the fact we make more money, like when we spend more on fees for the same reason, then I couldn't give a gnats chuff on the %

So you'd happily double our revenue and spend not a single penny more on improving the quality of the squad? That's a rather weird viewpoint to have imo.

 

[Grays_1890]

So you'd happily double our revenue and spend not a single penny more on improving the quality of the squad? That's a rather weird viewpoint to have imo.

Nope, you can double the turnover and spend more on wages and it not reflect in the % like people would want.

If I spend 50% of 100m on wages then double my turnover to 200m, I can increase the wages substantially and it not be 50% of the revenue still, thats my point.

Its not a weird viewpoint, its realising you can increase wages whilst it not being a fascination on the % of turnover

As I said earlier its the new "we are at zero net spend" shouting at clouds

Facts are also likely obligations to be met with the clubs debt burden where turnover and wages will play a huge part in financing.

We can of course look at clubs and success and finances but I don't agree with the way other clubs spend, their wages and I don't sit at home with this desire for us to be run like others.

Wages are ridiculous is the British game and I think they are a black hole for the game.

 

[Bishop]

Nope, you can double the turnover and spend more on wages and it not reflect in the % like people would want.

If I spend 50% of 100m on wages then double my turnover to 200m, I can increase the wages substantially and it not be 50% of the revenue still, thats my point.

Its not a weird viewpoint, its realising you can increase wages whilst it not being a fascination on the % of turnover

As I said earlier its the new "we are at zero net spend" shouting at clouds

Facts are also likely obligations to be met with the clubs debt burden where turnover and wages will play a huge part in financing.

But our wage bill decreased by 11% whilst revenue went down by 4%. So whilst your example would work it's not what happens in real life at Spurs as our percentage has actually been decreasing slightly in recent years, so relatively speaking we are spending less of our revenue on improving the squad wages year on year in fact we have been reducing. It all ties into the same idea of being part of the reason we aren't able to attract the higher caliber of player who tends to get paid more.

 

[DeanoAustin]

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...

Sorry, it's sloppy phrasing from me. As @ricky2tricky4city says, the theory is that we will have a covenant with the banks for the stadium loans that we can spend x amount of our revenue on wages. If it was up to ~60% as @ricky2tricky4city suggests then you would have to say that Levy is being very cautious. Jordan was insinuating that he believed that if the covenant exists, it could be lower and he is friendly with Levy.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Sorry, it's sloppy phrasing from me. As @ricky2tricky4city says, the theory is that we will have a covenant with the banks for the stadium loans that we can spend x amount of our revenue on wages. If it was up to ~60% as @ricky2tricky4city suggests then you would have to say that Levy is being very cautious. Jordan was insinuating that he believed that if the covenant exists, it could be lower and he is friendly with Levy.

Obviously bankers might or might not know the landscape but it would be misguided for them to restrict us too much as being competitive and successful probably enhances the probability of the financial arrangement passing with zero issues.

 

[Grays_1890]

But our wage bill decreased by 11% whilst revenue went down by 4%. So whilst your example would work it's not what happens in real life at Spurs as our percentage has actually been decreasing slightly in recent years, so relatively speaking we are spending less of our revenue on improving the squad wages year on year in fact we have been reducing. It all ties into the same idea of being part of the reason we aren't able to attract the higher caliber of player who tends to get paid more.

But I also expect that to change in this and the winter window.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think you missed this part

"we over pay for relatively poorer players"

That would account for the inability to move Ndombele on. He was overpaid relative to ability and productivity hence the difficulty in selling him.


I'm not suggesting you just keep buying but I am suggesting you don't run in fear because you got a specific signing wrong. It happens, no team gets them right all the time. If everyone acted the way you want Spurs they'd never achieve anything. And I actually do run my business in this manner sometimes you have to be bold especially when in the business of trading assets.

What does that actually mean? Lets consider it with a bit more care rather than the 'give me more presents for xmas' diatribe.

If a manager wants the player, we will go and get them if attainable. If we can't get them we'll move to the next target. Which is more or less how every club will work. So are you suggesting we don't do this, that we go above the managers head and don't sign players that they have agreed? Sometimes paying a little bit more if needed? What is your better approach like?

Moreover, at the time, I don't recall you or m/any others saying we'd overpaid for Ndombele...did you? It is easy to say we overpaid in hindsight. And whether we go above what the manager wants and have someone like Paratici in place to deliver players as he sees fit and have final say, is another question. Is this how you'd operate the club?

 

[Diamond Lights]

But our wage bill decreased by 11% whilst revenue went down by 4%. So whilst your example would work it's not what happens in real life at Spurs as our percentage has actually been decreasing slightly in recent years, so relatively speaking we are spending less of our revenue on improving the squad wages year on year in fact we have been reducing. It all ties into the same idea of being part of the reason we aren't able to attract the higher caliber of player who tends to get paid more.

Glad someone gets it, nail on head.

We're on a football forum and i'm genuinely seeing posts stating the importance of running a business and completely oblivious that there is a football team behind this and we're on a football forum. everyone has started to become ENIC's Financial Team to look and support why we cannot spend more money on the team and defend what is quite literally, indefensible.

I have pointed out, not based on opinion, but on pure fact, we spend far less on wages than other teams and certainly the teams we are meant to be competing with. and people defend that position because it's "how to run a company". As i keep saying, you can increase wages by 10% and still be behind literally ALL of the big 6.

Fanbase has been gaslit into believing "this is the way" when in reality, it's really norm. We are way outside the PL "Norm" of spends on wages, and despite being able to spend more, we put than money into hotels, F1, NFL etc and not into the football team. The evidence is there. Quite why folks feel the need to avoid the literal evidence in front of their eyes to defend the ownership is insane.

 

[Bishop]

What does that actually mean? Lets consider it with a bit more care than the moany approach of give me more presents for xmas.

If a manager wants the player, we will go and get them if attainable. If we can't get them we'll move to the next target. Which is more or less how every club will work. So are you suggesting we don't do this, that we go above the manager head and don't sign players that have agreed? Sometimes paying a little bit more?

Moreover, at the time, I don't recall you or m/any others saying we'd overpaid for Ndombele, did you? So overcourse it is easy to say we overpaid in hindsight. And whether we go above what the manager wants and say have Paratici in place to deliver and have final say, is another question.

I'm not suggesting we go over the manager's head to sign anyone, no where did I say that. First things first the players are able to sign are limited by the appeal of the club and large part of that is by the wages we are prepared to offer. So Frank might want a Rodrygo, but we would never pay the wages that might entice him to join just as a silly example. In that instance Frank would then need to look at an alternative, an alternative who might not have the same qualities as the first choice.

In your second point, yup I never complained about signing Ndombele and I never will. He was exactly the time of signing we SHOULD be making. That it didn't work is not something I would criticism the club, Levy, a scouts etc for. brick happens.

However if we were truly paying him 200k a week than that quite a ridiculous wage given his prior standing in the game. He's a relatively poorer player compared to other players earning 200k pw. It would be the reason why we couldn't move him on despite his massive potential, but really I'm talking more about players like Richy. Someone we knew was substandard before we bought him so no hindsight involved. He's paid for too much money for him to move in to the level club he actually belongs at ie. Sunderland, Everton or Fulham. If you even compare GLC and Ndombele because they were talented players and still rated we struggled to sell but we were able to get them loans. We can't even get Richy out in loan because he's relatively overpaid for his substandard ability.

 

[Diamond Lights]

Each summer, there is a pot of money. We can spend some on agent's fees, some on transfer fees, and some on wages.

We could spend a bit less on transfer fees and give players bigger wages, but we strive to do the opposite; get good deals on transfer fees and don't overpay on wages, keep the basic wage fairly low and then reward good players with better deals and payouts if we achieve results (cup wins, high league positions, qualification for CL etc).

That is a perfectly good and normal way to run the business.

If Spurs was really poorly run we would scrimp on transfer fees and pay lots on wages and the wage to turnover % would increase. That is a bad idea.


Behind all of this, note that our turnover has doubled in recent* years whereas clubs like WHU, AST, NEW have seen a small increase. Thus their wages to turnover ratio has rocketed because wages go up but turnover hasn't. Spurs should be applauded for the increase in revenues, it does not mean we did something wrong.


What you're REALLY arguing about is the number of high earners i.e. those Twitter posts saying that ARS have a bunch of players on high wages, so do LIV, so do all the big clubs, whereas Spurs don't have many on high wages (e.g. over £100kpw) and we should have more.

That happened because we got rid of Kane/Son/Werner et al and recruited lots of kids on lower wages. As they develop and prove themselves, their wages will rise.

Yes, we could sign someone for cheap and give them a really high wage to attract them e.g. El Khannous but then why would we give them a high wage if we don't need to? Or perhaps someone like Osimhen which is probably where you are heading towards, we could get Osimhen for a relatively low fee and pay him a lot. Ditto Alvaro Morata, I think that is probably what you are driving towards??

I take a lot of issue with multiple points on your post, moreso that despite me providing evidence based on a reputable source, your response is entirely conjecture. But this line is the bit that means the most to me. Maybe you are actually Daniel Levy on a keyboard I do not know, but there used to be a football team over there...

I am writing about trying to build a successful (and sustainable) football team with a perspective of winning trophies. you are looking at how to run a business. therein lies the problem.

 

[Bishop]

Glad someone gets it, nail on head.

We're on a football forum and i'm genuinely seeing posts stating the importance of running a business and completely oblivious that there is a football team behind this and we're on a football forum. everyone has started to become ENIC's Financial Team to look and support why we cannot spend more money on the team and defend what is quite literally, indefensible.

I have pointed out, not based on opinion, but on pure fact, we spend far less on wages than other teams and certainly the teams we are meant to be competing with. and people defend that position because it's "how to run a company". As i keep saying, you can increase wages by 10% and still be behind literally ALL of the big 6.

Fanbase has been gaslit into believing "this is the way" when in reality, it's really norm. We are way outside the PL "Norm" of spends on wages, and despite being able to spend more, we put than money into hotels, F1, NFL etc and not into the football team. The evidence is there. Quite why folks feel the need to avoid the literal evidence in front of their eyes to defend the ownership is insane.

I've said said it before but I do truly see it as a bit cult like. You see it now with Trump. It doesn't matter what he says or does his supporters will back it no matter what.

 

[Bishop]

Each summer, there is a pot of money. We can spend some on agent's fees, some on transfer fees, and some on wages.

We could spend a bit less on transfer fees and give players bigger wages, but we strive to do the opposite; get good deals on transfer fees and don't overpay on wages, keep the basic wage fairly low and then reward good players with better deals and payouts if we achieve results (cup wins, high league positions, qualification for CL etc).

That is a perfectly good and normal way to run the business.

If Spurs was really poorly run we would scrimp on transfer fees and pay lots on wages and the wage to turnover % would increase. That is a bad idea.


Behind all of this, note that our turnover has doubled in recent* years whereas clubs like WHU, AST, NEW have seen a small increase. Thus their wages to turnover ratio has rocketed because wages go up but turnover hasn't. Spurs should be applauded for the increase in revenues, it does not mean we did something wrong.


What you're REALLY arguing about is the number of high earners i.e. those Twitter posts saying that ARS have a bunch of players on high wages, so do LIV, so do all the big clubs, whereas Spurs don't have many on high wages (e.g. over £100kpw) and we should have more.

That happened because we got rid of Kane/Son/Werner et al and recruited lots of kids on lower wages. As they develop and prove themselves, their wages will rise.

Yes, we could sign someone for cheap and give them a really high wage to attract them e.g. El Khannous but then why would we give them a high wage if we don't need to? Or perhaps someone like Osimhen which is probably where you are heading towards, we could get Osimhen for a relatively low fee and pay him a lot. Ditto Alvaro Morata, I think that is probably what you are driving towards??

You'll get better players paying more in terms of wages than you will paying bigger transfer fees.

 

[Grays_1890]

I've said said it before but I do truly see it as a bit cult like. You see it now with Trump. It doesn't matter what he says or does his supporters will back it no matter what.

Hahaha I wondered how long it would take for the mud slinging of the "cult" to come out....

 

[Bishop]

Hahaha I wondered how long it would take for the mud slinging of the "cult" to come out....

If people act cult like. I'm going to comment on it.

 

[Grays_1890]

If people act cult like. I'm going to comment on it.

So seeing and discussing the nuances in the game which come around with as much financial mismanagement in the sport as there is success is suddenly cultish.

I suppose its a cheap way for people to try and shut down conversations...........

 

[Bishop]

So seeing and discussing the nuances in the game which come around with as much financial mismanagement in the sport as there is success is suddenly cultish.

I suppose its a cheap way for people to try and shut down conversations...........

Not trying to shut it down. I debated with you back and forth and never called you a cult member. I was responding to Diamond lights when I said that, it's a general observation.

The cultish aspect is no matter what the actions of ENIC are always excused, there's always a valid reason. Never any criticism, it's just not a genuine conversations at times.

I for example do not rate Levy as a chairman or ENIC as owners. Yes despite that you will never see me criticise the signings of Ndombele or GLC, or even Johnson (who I do not rate) because purpose is not to be opposite of whatever ENIC do. I have my views and how we should operate and when we operate in the way that matches I'm as positive and when they do the opposite in negative.

The opposite is not true of those I see as cult like. It doesn't matter what ENIC do, it's always a positive and always justified.