• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Daniel Levy - Chairman

Glenda's Legs said:
Pricing for non-football events is set by the company/promoter hiring the stadium isn’t it?
I’m sure I’ve heard for rugby (and/or maybe NFL) the pricing was quite a bit above what was charged on match days. .
Click to expand...
The stadium for gigs is brilliant
The security staff were so switched on
The bars weren’t too busy
And … and… we got to go through a secret entrance for standing
Block 126
Where the south stand huge bar area is, there is a hidden entrance they only open for events that takes you into the pitch
 
Bishop said:
Tbh I don't even compare us to those sides, I moreso compare us to the likes of Athletico, Dortmund, Monaco, the RB Clubs, Brighton, Porto, Benfica etc. The middle ranking sides who tends to absolutely maximise the resources they have, because they want to win. I don't believe Spurs ever truly do this. Our concern is about the finances first and the people who defend that no matter what frustrate me.
Click to expand...

Good on you - have just read this debate that’s sprung up in the last couple of days and I really agree with you.

What confuses me is the passivity with which people talk about players we can’t attract. The wages we pay are the issue. I’m not sure why it’s just fine with people. Especially if our wages to turnover ratio is so much lower than the clubs we want to compete with.

I will say, if there if some sort of covenant with the banks, that would make sooooo much sense. And clearly nothing much will change.
 
Bishop said:
Tbh I don't even compare us to those sides, I moreso compare us to the likes of Athletico, Dortmund, Monaco, the RB Clubs, Brighton, Porto, Benfica etc. The middle ranking sides who tends to absolutely maximise the resources they have, because they want to win. I don't believe Spurs ever truly do this. Our concern is about the finances first and the people who defend that no matter what frustrate me.
Click to expand...
I think those are good clubs to compare us to. Either clubs who aren't the richest in their leagues or clubs in somewhat smaller leagues looking to compete in Europe.

Levy will always want us to be financially sound, well run and with little to no risk of ending up in financial troubles. Beyond that we seem to spend the money we have to spend?

I think lower wages and more spend on transfer fees allowing us to sign a lot of highly talented young players is a good way to try to maximise our resources.

Us not spending well enough when we have paid up for more expensive players is a different thing. That should imp be a conversation about who was in charge of that.
Bishop said:
In terms of over paying it's hard to say because my conversation is more about wages than transfer fees. If we do speak about Richy was why over priced, Gray seems expensive with price based purely on potential, Tel is high imo but as I say I'm more talking about wages rather than transfer fees.
Click to expand...
So how much would you drop our transfer budget by to increase our wage budget?
 
braineclipse said:
I think those are good clubs to compare us to. Either clubs who aren't the richest in their leagues or clubs in somewhat smaller leagues looking to compete in Europe.

Levy will always want us to be financially sound, well run and with little to no risk of ending up in financial troubles. Beyond that we seem to spend the money we have to spend?

I think lower wages and more spend on transfer fees allowing us to sign a lot of highly talented young players is a good way to try to maximise our resources.

Us not spending well enough when we have paid up for more expensive players is a different thing. That should imp be a conversation about who was in charge of that.

So how much would you drop our transfer budget by to increase our wage budget?
Click to expand...
I don't know the percentage but on average I do think you get more from wages as opposed to transfer fees. A 20% swap either or an exchange that ups our wage ratio to say 50% so we are closer to our rivals.
 
Bishop said:
I don't know the percentage but on average I do think you get more from wages as opposed to transfer fees. A 20% swap either or an exchange that ups our wage ratio to say 50% so we are closer to our rivals.
Click to expand...
I think you get more immediate quality from wages than transfer fees. Transfer fees are more of an investment (the player can develop into a more valuable player) than wages. For maximising resources I think spending more on transfer fees and less on wages makes sense long term. But that has to be balanced up against short term needs of course.


Back of the envelope and quick Google calculation. We had a turnover of 528m, wages to turnover ratio of 42%. Upping that to 50% would cost us around 42m per year. That would be a significant decrease in our spending power every season.

Perhaps this would be the right time to do that? We have a good bunch of talented young players now, we have a good foundation with the current squad imo. Add the "spice", more established quality players along probably with some wage bumps incoming fairly soon for some of those already here.
 
braineclipse said:
I think you get more immediate quality from wages than transfer fees. Transfer fees are more of an investment (the player can develop into a more valuable player) than wages. For maximising resources I think spending more on transfer fees and less on wages makes sense long term. But that has to be balanced up against short term needs of course.


Back of the envelope and quick Google calculation. We had a turnover of 528m, wages to turnover ratio of 42%. Upping that to 50% would cost us around 42m per year. That would be a significant decrease in our spending power every season.

Perhaps this would be the right time to do that? We have a good bunch of talented young players now, we have a good foundation with the current squad imo. Add the "spice", more established quality players along probably with some wage bumps incoming fairly soon for some of those already here.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of it.

The wage/fees pot gets divided up by strategy and where you are along the timeline of that strategy. Then how successful you are with that strategy.
 
braineclipse said:
I think you get more immediate quality from wages than transfer fees. Transfer fees are more of an investment (the player can develop into a more valuable player) than wages. For maximising resources I think spending more on transfer fees and less on wages makes sense long term. But that has to be balanced up against short term needs of course.


Back of the envelope and quick Google calculation. We had a turnover of 528m, wages to turnover ratio of 42%. Upping that to 50% would cost us around 42m per year. That would be a significant decrease in our spending power every season.

Perhaps this would be the right time to do that? We have a good bunch of talented young players now, we have a good foundation with the current squad imo. Add the "spice", more established quality players along probably with some wage bumps incoming fairly soon for some of those already here.
Click to expand...
It’s not actually that, that’s the issue
It’s the legacy transfer debt
We owe a brick load of money that has to be paid every year
 
braineclipse said:
Isn't that just the norm when signing players? Don't other clubs have the same?

We'll still be paying for those signed in recent years and that will always be true.
Click to expand...
We had the 2nd hugest debt which I think is now the 3rd thanks to united
All clubs have it but it has to be paid
It’s exactly why arsenal always end up doing a loan rather than a buy late on in the window (reya, sterling, the Bournemouth keeper) because even they can’t cash flow £200m plus of buys with the debt
United are just kickingg the can down the road
Chelsea have Blue Co taking on more and more loans to feed into the club via lady’s team sales
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Well we didn’t have them
We borrowed them for a short period.
Click to expand...

Technically they are “new signings” but it’s a bit petty to claim them as new as they’ve played for us before. We’ve just made the transfers permanent now. I don’t think we’d be claiming they are new signings had we made 5-6 other signings and sorted every position. At best it would be oh btw we also made x players permanent signings as an add on.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Technically they are “new signings” but it’s a bit petty to claim them as new as they’ve played for us before. We’ve just made the transfers permanent now. I don’t think we’d be claiming they are new signings had we made 5-6 other signings and sorted every position. At best it would be oh btw we also made x players permanent signings as an add on.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that it’s petty saying they aren’t new signings… I mean what are they then if not that?
 
Jurgen the German said:
Technically they are “new signings” but it’s a bit petty to claim them as new as they’ve played for us before. We’ve just made the transfers permanent now. I don’t think we’d be claiming they are new signings had we made 5-6 other signings and sorted every position. At best it would be oh btw we also made x players permanent signings as an add on.
Click to expand...
Why not just stick to the facts?

We've signed Kudus and Takai. We've loaned Palhinha. We've made Danso and Tel permanent signings.

If the signings are juxtaposed with what other clubs have done, us being back in the CL or whatever saying "we've just made one new permanent first team signing" probably makes a more impactful point.

It's technically true, maybe (depends what the plan is with Takai). But it's still ignoring significant business we have done for the sake of making a point.

No matter how one squares it they are signings made by the club, money spent to strengthen the squad. If one wants to make a point about us not spending enough money better to just ignore them for the sake of argument?
 
braineclipse said:
Why not just stick to the facts?

We've signed Kudus and Takai. We've loaned Palhinha. We've made Danso and Tel permanent signings.

If the signings are juxtaposed with what other clubs have done, us being back in the CL or whatever saying "we've just made one new permanent first team signing" probably makes a more impactful point.

It's technically true, maybe (depends what the plan is with Takai). But it's still ignoring significant business we have done for the sake of making a point.

No matter how one squares it they are signings made by the club, money spent to strengthen the squad. If one wants to make a point about us not spending enough money better to just ignore them for the sake of argument?
Click to expand...

See my post above. More than anything it seems like an attempt to make the window look and sound better than it is. Like I said if we had made 5-6 signings, had a really good window and addressed several areas of the team then I don’t think we count them as “new signings”.
 
Jurgen the German said:
See my post above. More than anything it seems like an attempt to make the window look and sound better than it is. Like I said if we had made 5-6 signings, had a really good window and addressed several areas of the team then I don’t think we count them as “new signings”.
Click to expand...
"We've signed Kudus and Takai. We've loaned Palhinha. We've made Danso and Tel permanent signings."

That makes the window look and sound better than it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back