• 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

Thomas Frank - Head Coach

billyiddo said:
Now that they can't complain about transfer spend they've moved on to wages as a % of turnover, something that has never once previously been a point of reference in all my years discussing Spurs online.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
As our turnover grows and grows, the %wages figure naturally decreases. As our kids become more established, their wages will grow. As we get into 'bonuses' territory, our wages will grow.
We spend the money on transfers rather than wages, which suits me fine. Wages are sunk cost.
This is all perfect for me. We don't want to waste wages. We pay very good wages, see the ENIC thread.
 
Bullet said:
Agreed.
As our turnover grows and grows, the %wages figure naturally decreases. As our kids become more established, their wages will grow. As we get into 'bonuses' territory, our wages will grow.
We spend the money on transfers rather than wages, which suits me fine. Wages are sunk cost.
This is all perfect for me. We don't want to waste wages. We pay very good wages, see the ENIC thread.
Click to expand...

Transfers/wages both come from the same pot - if we spend more on one the available money for the other reduces (lots of other expendenditure, but more consistent/known?) We've had a lot of player turnover the last few years trying to rebuild, more transfers = higher transfer spend - there could have easily been a decision made to buy young (less in wages) in order to maximise the available transfer spend during this period to turnaround the squad with lots of incoming players. As with anything it'll take a while before we find out whether or not things return to mean - I'd expect our wage bill to rise, but its unlikely to be a steady upward curve as a % due to our revenue jumping up and down as year to year we could be in Europe/CL vs out of Europe which all has an effect on the wage to turnover ratio regardless of whether your total wage spend increases
 
billyiddo said:
Now that they can't complain about transfer spend they've moved on to wages as a % of turnover, something that has never once previously been a point of reference in all my years discussing Spurs online.
Click to expand...
Yeah its ridiculous:
1) we are one of the few clubs not at risk of penalties under PSR (criticising the board for running the club well)
2) the drop in wages as a % of turnover is partly driven by an increase in turnover (which given turnover does not include outgoings includes huge sales such as Kane for over £80m)
3) It's also a natural element of rebuilding by selling older players on high wages and buying younger players on lower wages. Unless you want to give Gray, Bergvall and Tel £300K a week just to look like you're "properly ambitious"....wonder if they'd stop moaning then?
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
3) It's also a natural element of rebuilding by selling older players on high wages and buying younger players on lower wages. Unless you want to give Gray, Bergvall and Tel £300K a week just to look like you're "properly ambitious"....wonder if they'd stop moaning then?
Click to expand...

I can see why some think that we're leaving money on the table when they see the W2T ratio in a table but it doesn't take much thinking to see it's not as black and white. There's some smart people who use it to push an agenda which is quite annoying as they should know better than to just take a solitary point of reference at face value. Your typical Facebook and twitter posters I don't expect any different from tbh
 
Last edited:
billyiddo said:
I can see why some think that we're leaving money in the table when they see the W2T ratio in a table but it doesn't take much thinking to see it's not as black and white. There's some smart people who use it to push an agenda which is quite annoying as they should know better than to just take a solitary point of reference at face value. Your typical Facebook and twitter posters I don't expect any different from tbh
Click to expand...
The question to ask is "is the squad improving". Everything else is basically irrelevant. In fact, being able to move the squad forward without breaking the bank is a sign of competence.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
The question to ask is "is the squad improving". Everything else is basically irrelevant. In fact, being able to move the squad forward without breaking the bank is a sign of competence.
Click to expand...

Definitely.

Just by removing Werner, Reggie and Forster has just removed another £15-20m in salaries. That creates space for further optimisation whether that's new players or new contracts for existing, especially for the younger players.

One thought is that we need to make sure that our best players get the best salaries. Having Werner as the 4th highest paid player could have easily sent the wrong messages to the rest of the players.
 
Muttley said:
Definitely.

Just by removing Werner, Reggie and Forster has just removed another £15-20m in salaries. That creates space for further optimisation whether that's new players or new contracts for existing, especially for the younger players.

One thought is that we need to make sure that our best players get the best salaries. Having Werner as the 4th highest paid player could have easily sent the wrong messages to the rest of the players.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We had a similar issue with N'Dombele and Lo Celso being sat in the reserves getting paid about double what players busting a gut for points in the first XI were getting paid....anyone that has managed people knows what's a huge issue for squad harmony.
 
DeanoAustin said:
Cautiously optimistic.

You can see from the statement why he’s been appointed, he fits what the club want. A manager to develop youth and overachieve with the resources he has. And Frank’s done that albeit at a less pressurised level. So it’s a risk but every appointment is.

Not sure what success for us is though next season. If he gets us top 10, is that seen as significant enough improvement or must he get us in the European places through the league?
Click to expand...

Qualifying for Europe via the league is the target for 1st season I expect then CL every season afterwards with an understanding that some years we'll miss out.
 
His first game for us is the super cup. If he wins that should he be sacked as we’ll be languishing at 18th in the league at the time?

Joking aside I think this is an astute appointment. I don’t pay much attention to the fact he lost 8 of his first 10 at Brentford, Ange reportedly has similar slow starts but look at his first 10 games. I do think he may struggle with the midweek European games schedule, but he has shown he’s adaptable and I believe will learn from this.

After the farce of how long it took to appoint a manager in 2023 I’m glad this has been done quickly. As mentioned above there have been discussions in the background. I don’t normally pay much attention to who we’re linked with after 2023 and there being so many but I’ve been listening to and reading a lot of analysis of Frank and I’m genuinely excited. Here’s hoping he can bring more silverware.

Onwards and upwards
 
DubaiSpur said:
Sure, but with the, what, 7th/8th lowest wage bill and while we're 20th in wages-to-revenue?

I'll correct myself - it's a shoestring by comparison to our rivals. Relative shoestring, if that's any better?
Click to expand...
If I recall the reason we have such a low wage bill right now is that when Ange came in we removed Perisic, Dier, PEH, Kane and a few other high earners from the roster. As a result of the policy, which became to recruit younger players, we have a period now where those players are not costing as much.

Throw forward 3-4 years and there will be a substantial increase in the wage bill as those players mature and cost more to keep.


We're never going to pay £350k a week to a player, its madness when that is the case, but we are far from shoestring.
 
Welcome to Thomas Frank
Please get us to be better than the sum of our parts and to be defensively solid.

I hope he gets properly backed this window, we have some clear holes in the squad that need filling
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Of course it has. The board will have been putting plans in place as soon as it was clear the season was going down the toilet rapidly.....which would have likely been at least mid-season around Christmas and January.
Click to expand...
Of course. Which is reassuring.
And it's great that no ITKs were trumpeting this in those previous weeks and months either.
 
billyiddo said:
Now that they can't complain about transfer spend they've moved on to wages as a % of turnover, something that has never once previously been a point of reference in all my years discussing Spurs online.
Click to expand...
Not true. You've literally replied to my posts about this over the years. You're getting old and forgetting. 🤣🤣🤣

And this is just me, I'm sure others have also said the same over the years. 🤣

Bishop said:
We've never run at the same percentage as others whether that be wages as a percentage of turnover or transfer fees as percentage of turnover. We have always been one of the most stringent clubs when it comes to feeling comfortable to spend.

I don't believe a larger turnover will change Levy's attitude in that respect, none of his behaviour up to this times supports that notion.
Click to expand...

Bishop said:
I'm not advocating for spending like City or Chelsea. I'm fine with spending what we generate, yet even within those confines we set ourselves a lower limit than everyone else. Our wages to turnover ratio is lower than every other clubs that's a decision that was made out of choice. Our choice, so again please let's not plead poverty when we are the ones deciding to our ceiling lower than others.

My issue with Levy though is not the amount spent on transfers or the wage level restrictions. My complaints are of a practical nature, his inability to understand the bigger picture. His inability to prioritise the squads development over feeling like he got one over in a negotiation. The man is the opposite of decisive, one day he might realise prolonging negotiations until the very last day of the transfer window to save a million here or there actually costs us more in the long term. Or selling a player for a fee he deems unacceptable is better than keeping that player for an additional year and paying them more in wages than the difference between the fees he was offered and what he thinks is right.

The man needs to be moved as far away from the football side as possible.
Click to expand...

Bishop said:
100%

The craziest thing is a football club isn't an inherently expensive thing to run and maintain. Sure you have infrastructure costs but once you have a stadium maintenance costs are not especially high, you have few constantly amenities it's mainly an empty space on non match days.

The only real and significant cost are player wages. Some of that is greed on the part of agents and players but I honestly think a lot of it is driven by the clubs. The desire for the next great player means they will pay him more than whatever he's currently earning to entice them to their team. It's a never ending spiral which eventually leads to an ESL where those teams in position just think fudge it if we give ourselves this massive financial rise we can use the massive financial advantage pick and choose from the carcass of the rest of the football world and at the same shield ourselves from the usual risk of not actually performing well.

It's morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...

Bishop said:
And with commensurately much less success. You can speak of hope for the future but those teams have had the success now. Who knows which way the future will go and I don't think any of those teams wage demands are as taxing as you might think in terms of the wages to revenue ratio.
Click to expand...

Bishop said:
It's about taking the educated gambles. That is what Modric, Bale, Son hell even VDV were.

If we only ever played it safe considering we don't pay the biggest transfers or wages we only ever end up with Soldados and Adebayours. That is definitely not the way to succeed.
Click to expand...


And this one was from 2019

16 Oct 2019
Add bookmark
#540
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
£150m is substantial, in any market.
We didnt have a net spend of £71m, so its a redundant point, isnt it? Beside which - Mourinho has worked windows with significantly less spend, and even profit.
Plenty of things in his career support my stance, but you seem to be making up reasons to discount it based on things that arent true or did not happen.

So yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

We did have a net spend of 71m unless I misunderstand what you are saying?

He has worked with windows with less and they have usually been followed by him throwing a strop and getting sacked. [emoji38]

What have I said that isn't true or didn't happen?

He did complain about not being able to spend more at United. He has also always been at clubs that relative to the market at the time had far more spending power than Spurs have today.

We are also massively missing the elephant on the room. Wages.

Again the club's he has been at have been able to significantly outspend us in wages and that is more than most things what attracts the players.

I just can't see Jose being happy with what we can offer.

I'm happy to agree to disagree though, we have taken over this thread [emoji28]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back