Jose Mourinho - SACKED

[Finney Is Back]

fudge .. we are back to Net Spend again .. total bs .. can be completely skewed by one overpriced player sell (Pool selling Coutinho as example)

If you really want to measure spend, the best indicator is wages ...

Except we didn’t sell one overpriced player did we?

 

[Finney Is Back]

It's too easily skewed by one or two sales and/or one or two home grown players coming through as a measurement of quality/expectations of side (i.e. statement about 17th level net spend)

Wages show where you really stand, e.g. Forbes article last year had Pool outspending everyone except United which counters their "net spend" view, hence their results are no surprise (with 2nd highest wages, they came 2nd .. interesting)

Spurs bill sits in the 6th-8th range (not 17th) and if a more fair reflection of the investment, what has happened in the last 3 years is our revenue has increased considerably faster than wages so we sit around 40% of turnover on wages (Pool at 58%, Leicester at 75%, safe is considered under 60%)

The question will be as we get over the stadium investment (and the need to plan for contingencies), and when we get over the income loss of Covid-19, will we lift that number to 45-50%?

That is a good point. So we pay 6th to 8th most in wages and invest 17th most on transfers. We expect to finish where in the league again?

 

[parklane1]

So if we sold our entire first team squad for £500 million but spent £200 million buying 20 new players then that would count as us spending a lot of money and you’d expect us to do better than a team who had spent more than they bought in?

oh and by the way if looking at gross spend only then we’re 8th, not 7th.

Sorry you are right we are 8th, not 7th my mistake. Still a lot higher then what you are saying. Some folks can not look past the nett spend position ( especially when they are having a dig at Levy )AGAIN.

However as i said earlier Stop! Hammer time and you have made your point and i can only say i disagree with the way you look at it.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Sorry you are right we are 8th, not 7th my mistake. Still a lot higher then what you are saying. Some folks can not look past the nett spend position ( especially when they are having a dig at Levy )AGAIN.

However as i said earlier Stop! Hammer time and you have made your point and i can only say i disagree with the way you look at it.

I don’t have an issue with nett spend when it’s measured against player brought and sold under that coach
Or even players given a debut by that coach as he then has introduced them to the team
That would then factor in that mangers role to a point with that player being given a chance
Consider someone like walker for example.., the largest contributor to the net spend credit... he played more games for us pre Poch than with Poch and still won nothing until he left us

 

[parklane1]

I don’t have an issue with nett spend when it’s measured against player bought and sold under that coach
Or even players given a debut by that coach as he then has introduced them to the team
That would then factor in that mangers role to a point with that player being given a chance

I have no problem with it either, what is wrong ( imo) is using that ( and only that) to show what a club has spent. I understand that some fans are unhappy with Levy ( there are always a few) but if someone is using that table to dig Levy out ( and as i say they are a few doing that) then its only fair to show both sides and not the one that suits their agenda/ opinion.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I have no problem with it either, what is wrong ( imo) is using that ( and only that) to show what a club has spent. I understand that some fans are unhappy with Levy ( there are always a few) but if someone is using that table to dig Levy out ( and as i say they are a few doing that) then its only fair to show both sides and not the one that suits their agenda/ opinion.

I’m not unhappy with what Levy has spent. I am unhappy with certain situations (like Grealish) where I think a proper DoF just would’ve got it done at the initial, very reasonable price instead of trying to be too clever, but Levy has used the club profits (and a very large amount of debt) for the long term future of Spurs, building top class infrastructure which is a very good thing.

My only point is that a club that spend the 6th or 7th most on wages and 17th most net on investment in the squad are very, VERY unlikely to improve compared to the competition year on year.

 

[scaramanga]

That is a good point. So we pay 6th to 8th most in wages and invest 17th most on transfers. We expect to finish where in the league again?

Your measures assume (and require) a perfectly efficient market to have relevance. That's clearly not true in football as plenty of West Ham's purchases show.

It also fails to take into account the comparative quality and abilities of various chairmen. Look at how West Ham's dildo brothers spend like there's no tomorrow and still end up with steaming turds all over the pitch.

Levy buys smart and buys at good value. That's why we spend less and still have one of the best teams

 

[Raziel]

That is a good point. So we pay 6th to 8th most in wages and invest 17th most on transfers. We expect to finish where in the league again?

Again mate, net spend is irrelevant, we get Kane for free, United spent what on Lukaku? who got the better deal? (look at Dele, Eriksen, Son, all similar, way better value than cost). So let's stop with the 17th brick ..

Yes, we spend 6th to 8th on wages, Poch himself was clear, the 5 year plan with Levy was not to be in CL the first 3 years (we got there early), the stadium build itself was not budgeted on CL expectation. So your answer is we expected to finish 5th/6th with a goal of finishing in top 4, which to @scaramanga's point is based on us believing we can run the club smarter than most of our competitors.

Here is the truth, Spurs did not have the financial ability to compete with United, Pool, Arsenal, Chelsea and City for a long time, Levy's plan was to make the club close the fiscal gap so we would be able to close the spending gap (exactly what you are complaining about), so we can legitimately compete. We have done that "now", in the last year or two, so you can't take a 5 or 10 year backward look because the income wasn't there to support the spend (without what obviously Levy thought was unnecessary risk).

The measurement of the club is the next 2-5 years, are we willing to raise our wages to 50-55% of turnover, are we willing to spend a little more on acquisition, are we willing to redirect the money raised from "non-football" events to squad quality?

I've said it before, if you fail to grasp that Levy/ENIC are playing the long game here, that they will never take impulsive decisions or risks this year that would be a non risk next year, then you will simply get frustrated. Spurs will grind and earn it's way to the top, however long that takes, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing even if like all of us, I'd love to see us win something now.

 

[parklane1]

I’m not unhappy with what Levy has spent. I am unhappy with certain situations (like Grealish) where I think a proper DoF just would’ve got it done at the initial, very reasonable price instead of trying to be too clever, but Levy has used the club profits (and a very large amount of debt) for the long term future of Spurs, building top class infrastructure which is a very good thing.

My only point is that a club that spend the 6th or 7th most on wages and 17th most net on investment in the squad are very, VERY unlikely to improve compared to the competition year on year.

I know you have mentioned the situation about Grealish before and you seem to know why happened. I also got told probably a different story then you though.

We had agreed a fee which Villa were happy with but before it could be done the new owners who at that time had not completed the takeover said that no players should be sold until the take over was completed. They insisted on that and once the takeover was done they said no player ( especially Grealish) was going to be sold.

Now you may have heard different and trust the source you heard it from, as for me i have faith in who/what i was told so and see no reason to doubt it.

 

[Pirate55]

I know you have mentioned the situation about Grealish before and you seem to know why happened. I also got told probably a different story then you though.

We had agreed a fee which Villa were happy with but before it could be done the new owners who at that time had not completed the takeover said that no players should be sold until the take over was completed. They insisted on that and once the takeover was done they said no player ( especially Grealish) was going to be sold.

Now you may have heard different and trust the source you heard it from, as for me i have faith in who/what i was told so and see no reason to doubt it.

That's largely the story I heard too. Not sure how much blame can realistically be attributed to Levy. Who could have forecast the Villa takeover which came ( as I understand it) pretty much out of the blue.

 

[Pirate55]

Depends how you are using it with regards to whatever point you are making tbf and with regards to my previous post im drawing no conclusions and just disputing Pirates 200m figure, as it seems way off with the available info

@billyiddo Do you prefer the £408 million * we actually spent on players under Poch ?

* figure provided by @Bedfordspurs after a thorough forensic analysis.

 

[Pirate55]

I’m not unhappy with what Levy has spent.

Hurrah! At last you appear to have seen the light!

 

[Finney Is Back]

Hurrah! At last you appear to have seen the light!

Just a shame that you haven't......

 

[Finney Is Back]

Sorry you are right we are 8th, not 7th my mistake. Still a lot higher then what you are saying. Some folks can not look past the nett spend position ( especially when they are having a dig at Levy )AGAIN.

However as i said earlier Stop! Hammer time and you have made your point and i can only say i disagree with the way you look at it.

Eh? It's not any higher than I was saying as I didn't say anything about our wage spend.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Again mate, net spend is irrelevant, we get Kane for free, United spent what on Lukaku? who got the better deal? (look at Dele, Eriksen, Son, all similar, way better value than cost). So let's stop with the 17th brick ..

Yes, we spend 6th to 8th on wages, Poch himself was clear, the 5 year plan with Levy was not to be in CL the first 3 years (we got there early), the stadium build itself was not budgeted on CL expectation. So your answer is we expected to finish 5th/6th with a goal of finishing in top 4, which to @scaramanga's point is based on us believing we can run the club smarter than most of our competitors.

Here is the truth, Spurs did not have the financial ability to compete with United, Pool, Arsenal, Chelsea and City for a long time, Levy's plan was to make the club close the fiscal gap so we would be able to close the spending gap (exactly what you are complaining about), so we can legitimately compete. We have done that "now", in the last year or two, so you can't take a 5 or 10 year backward look because the income wasn't there to support the spend (without what obviously Levy thought was unnecessary risk).

The measurement of the club is the next 2-5 years, are we willing to raise our wages to 50-55% of turnover, are we willing to spend a little more on acquisition, are we willing to redirect the money raised from "non-football" events to squad quality?

I've said it before, if you fail to grasp that Levy/ENIC are playing the long game here, that they will never take impulsive decisions or risks this year that would be a non risk next year, then you will simply get frustrated. Spurs will grind and earn it's way to the top, however long that takes, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing even if like all of us, I'd love to see us win something now.

All teams have players that come through from the youth team and others that are bargains though. Some on here make out we're the only team to have a few bargains in our squad.

It's not '17th brick' it's just a fact. Of teams in the PL in the last 5 years 16 of them have spent more than us net in investing in their squad. Typically to upgrade things you have to spend money.

Also if we had finished 5th/6th as per expectation (still over achieving compared to our spend) then we would now either be close to a billion pound in debt or minus Harry Kane and a few others....

 

[Finney Is Back]

I know you have mentioned the situation about Grealish before and you seem to know why happened. I also got told probably a different story then you though.

We had agreed a fee which Villa were happy with but before it could be done the new owners who at that time had not completed the takeover said that no players should be sold until the take over was completed. They insisted on that and once the takeover was done they said no player ( especially Grealish) was going to be sold.

Now you may have heard different and trust the source you heard it from, as for me i have faith in who/what i was told so and see no reason to doubt it.

Yes I heard different. My 'source' was my Dad. I trust him with most things

 

[Finney Is Back]

Your measures assume (and require) a perfectly efficient market to have relevance. That's clearly not true in football as plenty of West Ham's purchases show.

It also fails to take into account the comparative quality and abilities of various chairmen. Look at how West Ham's dildo brothers spend like there's no tomorrow and still end up with steaming turds all over the pitch.

Levy buys smart and buys at good value. That's why we spend less and still have one of the best teams

That is true. And of course it will have some effect, difficult to quantify though, 10% maybe? We can't think we are lucky enough to solely have the magic formula here though and always will have it.

 

[Pirate55]

All teams have players that come through from the youth team and others that are bargains though. Some on here make out we're the only team to have a few bargains in our squad.

It's not '17th brick' it's just a fact. Of teams in the PL in the last 5 years 16 of them have spent more than us net in investing in their squad. Typically to upgrade things you have to spend money.

Also if we had finished 5th/6th as per expectation (still over achieving compared to our spend) then we would now either be close to a billion pound in debt or minus Harry Kane and a few others....

No no no. We had a good team when Poch arrived. Remind me again where we finished in the PL with DimTim?
We already had Lloris, Walker, Verts, Rose, Dembele, Siggurdson, Eriksen, Kane. Add to that Dele and Dier who were probably recruited without much input from him. I think you would agree that Poch wasn't exactly starting from a low base.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

All teams have players that come through from the youth team and others that are bargains though. Some on here make out we're the only team to have a few bargains in our squad.

It's not '17th brick' it's just a fact. Of teams in the PL in the last 5 years 16 of them have spent more than us net in investing in their squad. Typically to upgrade things you have to spend money.

Also if we had finished 5th/6th as per expectation (still over achieving compared to our spend) then we would now either be close to a billion pound in debt or minus Harry Kane and a few others....

Look at who we sold under Poch and tell me who was a Poch player
The youth we sold he didn’t want
The senior pros he sold were either all here before and he was cleaning house (good things)
Or failed signings made with him in charge where we lost money (bad thing).Maybe we could have spent more if we didn’t lose money on so many signings
But again we did spend money under a Poch and the average cost of the players he brought that we still have and play is £25m ish... that’s investment

 

[Finney Is Back]

No no no. We had a good team when Poch arrived. Remind me again where we finished in the PL with DimTim?
We already had Lloris, Walker, Verts, Rose, Dembele, Siggurdson, Eriksen, Kane. Add to that Dele and Dier who were probably recruited without much input from him. I think you would agree that Poch wasn't exactly starting from a low base.

We finished 6th if I recall correctly. If I think back to them, quite a few of those players weren't exactly revered, I remember Rose in particular being particularly hated on here. I also think Kane at that point hadn't done much more than gob over himself.

Again, you take out the two successful signings from that summer only, if you do that surely have to remove all of them?