If we play till January with Dawson chadli and paulinho I'm starting xi chances are we'll be 6/7/8th come January and no one will be interested in joining
-
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
How much will we spend this summer?
- Thread starter milo
- Start date
If we play till January with Dawson chadli and paulinho I'm starting xi chances are we'll be 6/7/8th come January and no one will be interested in joining
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Out
Defoe £6m (from end of Feb)
Livermore £8m
Siggy £9m
Falque £4m
Total £27m
In
Davies £9m
Vorm £5m
Dier £4m
Yedlin £2.5
Total £20.5m
So currently £6.5m in the black
Defoe £6m (from end of Feb)
Livermore £8m
Siggy £9m
Falque £4m
Total £27m
In
Davies £9m
Vorm £5m
Dier £4m
Yedlin £2.5
Total £20.5m
So currently £6.5m in the black
But the more expensive positions left to fill - decent CM who can pass, LWF and a CB
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I think we'll wait till Jan for the LWF and go for Rodriguez (maybe cashing in on Townsend to pay for it - Rodriguez will be underpriced because of his short contract, so a Townsend fee might cover him).
I guess we're at the point with CB and CM where we need to do direct like-for-like upgrades, rather than just selling off fringe players. So maybe shifting Dawson and Kaboul to pay for MM, and losing one or both of Dembele and Paulinho to pay for MS. In fact those 4 out and 2 in would probably keep us in the black (and leave us nicely balanced).
Yiddo
Cecil Poynton
Doesn't work like that though does it?
Maybe on Football Manager. In real life ? Not so much.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Because the transfer fee payments are spread over 4 annual instalments you mean, and contain conditional clauses?
I appreciate that, but it's as good a gauge as you get.
Once again, we don't need to sell any players to pay for the proposed purchases.
Any players sold will only be so because Mopo doesn't want them and / or because there simply isn't the room for them in the 25 man squad.
spurs' magna carter
Ronnie Rosenthal
£15m+ :lol:
Joking a side, good luck to those trying to answer this question, we have to be without doubt the most unpredictable club in the market.
When was the last time we had a net spend, 2009? 2010?
Joking a side, good luck to those trying to answer this question, we have to be without doubt the most unpredictable club in the market.
When was the last time we had a net spend, 2009? 2010?
Vorm was only £3.5m.
And, not that it matters, but Davies and Siggy reportedly both cost £10m.
The only money we get in one (relatively) lump payment are season ticket sales and end of season price money. The regular pot is paid out in several installments over the course of the season. Nobody has suddenly got £60 million sitting in their bank accounts.
The way deals are structured means the amortization in the accounts isn't too far off reality. And then there's additional payments to agents, sign-on fees and all kinds of stuff. Simply looking at one window and the expected total cost of a deal makes no sense, you have to take a long term view. We could spend considerably in one window (within FFP), with the blessing of our bank, then very little for the next 4 years as we pay it back, or we can spread it out.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Summer 2007 - the year we signed Bent, Kaboul and Bale.
Redknapp spent heavily in January 2009, but that was just the Berbatov and Keane money.
I read the other day that we are the lowest spending EPL club over the last 5 years.
New TV deal is a game changer.
In 2010, our wage bill leapt by some 50% and, in line with revenues, has remained at the same level since. We needed to keep net transfer spend in check in order to accommodate the higher wages. But the new PL broadcast deal has changed that. Our wage bill remains roughly the same but our guaranteed income is some £40m per annum greater. I am quite certain that we would have had a significant net spend last summer had we not had to sell Gareth Bale.
It's possible that we might not have a net spend this summer either. But only because we have to comply with the (still relatively new) 25 man squad regulations and already have too big a squad. Even so, if we were to sign the players we are clearly after - Musacchio and Schneiderlin - for a combined £40m (for the sake of argument), then it's still possible that we will have a net spend. Even more so if we also sign a left wing forward.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Did he not cost effectively nothing and that's why Utrecht are a bit miffed?
As I understand it, the Davies and Siggy deals cancelled each other out in terms of value and the Vorm deal added a further £3.5m to Spurs' outlay.
I don't know the precise substance of Utrecht's complaint but my guess is that they think that some of Vorm's cost, above and beyond £3.5m, has been hidden in the supposed price for Davies.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I hadn't seen that 3.5mil figure before. I was under the impression that Utrecht were getting 30% of nothing but that figure sounds more plausible.
Edit: Just swiped this from the BBC
Every other report I've read suggests that the fee was £3.5m.
It may be that Swansea are trying to claim to Utrecht that Spurs paid £13.5m for Davies (rather than £10m) but the net effect for Spurs will be the same.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Is that not issue? Utrecht want 30% of the 3.5mil and Swansea are saying it's a free transfer.
As I said, I don't know what the substance of Utrecht's complaint is.
All I know is that every other report has suggested that Spurs' total outlay in return for Davies and Vorm was Siggy plus £3.5m. How Swansea have broken that down is a matter for them and Utrecht but it doesn't affect our net spend in this transfer window.