• 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

Money - Do we have it?

I think our lack of spending in the last 4 transfer windows proves we haven't got that much money. Levy assured as that the new stadium wouldn't have any effect on our transfer policy, but it clearly has and you can't blame Levy for saying it.
 
Last year Arry made it clear Levy had told him there was no money, he'd have to shift a few before he could bring in anyone. So there's your answer.

Another clue is Arry's noises about probably having to let Modrich go this Summer. Giving him a nice tidy ?ú40m to spend. No need to replace Modders, we already have another superb playmaker in Huddlestone (Arry's a great fan of his, remember), plus the burgeoning Sandro whose form yesterday suggested he's capable of taking up some of the slack, plus Parker and Livermore. Yes Modrich will be missed, but that midfield line-up is still pretty decent wouldn't you say?

So add that to the ?ú20m Levy will raise for shifting the dead wood without impacting the squad too negatively and Arry has a nice tidy kitty of ?ú60m.

No ?
 
Spur of the moment said:
Last year Arry made it clear Levy had told him there was no money, he'd have to shift a few before he could bring in anyone. So there's your answer.
Click to expand...

I thought it was clear at the time it was about shifting wastes of space and reducing the wage bill. We were carrying a lot of timber. Not sure its indicative of a lack of money
 
Spur of the moment said:
Last year Arry made it clear Levy had told him there was no money, he'd have to shift a few before he could bring in anyone. So there's your answer.
?
Click to expand...

And i think the week after he said that Levy has told him that the money is there to spend big if the player came long. Just more saying one thing and then the opposite which Redknapp seems to do a lot.
 
Saying you want to sell first is about ensuring you don't have a huge squad and wage bill. You can't assume you'll sell players and sign others assuming it'll work out!
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I thought it was clear at the time it was about shifting wastes of space and reducing the wage bill. We were carrying a lot of timber. Not sure its indicative of a lack of money
Click to expand...

Maybe but he still ended up not spending big. And we still have too much dead wood - Gomes, Bentley, Jenas, Kranjcar, Gio and, if we're gonna splash serious money out on a new striker, Saha or even Defoe.
 
Jurgen the German said:
I think our lack of spending in the last 4 transfer windows proves we haven't got that much money. Levy assured as that the new stadium wouldn't have any effect on our transfer policy, but it clearly has and you can't blame Levy for saying it.
Click to expand...


I've always been of the impression our lack of activity in the transfer market these past few windows has been down to our over sized squad and the impending 25 man squad rule - not wanting to leave ourselves with x amount of players here which would not qualify for the squad and we would effectively be paying to do sod all, combined possibly with Levy's reluctance to fully back Harry in his transfer targets

this summer we should be in a position to bring players in to the squad without having to worry too much about making room for them and possibly having a new manager which Levy will have more confidence of being here long term and therefore more willing to back them in the market

i guess if we have another frugal window then that would indicate my theory is wrong :)
 
parklane1 said:
There is money available for transfers and when we get our new manager it will be spent.
Click to expand...

This. Redknap has never been a long term manager, so Levy's never given him long term funds like he did with the DoFs.

I think we've stockpiled quite a lot over the past 3 years (the ?ú40m CL revenue, lots of sales etc).

If we get a new manager or DoF with a transfer strategy, I think Levy's ?ú15m banknotes will reappear.
 
These discussions are funny - wanna know why?

Because some of you are actually stating the reasons that I am using for excuses for Harry and that precisely is that. We couldnt spend last summer to shift the timber now we have shifted timber we can and should go out and spend on quality. We have two months to do it in rather than last summers fiasco of last day drama.
 
Gutter Boy said:
This. Redknap has never been a long term manager, so Levy's never given him long term funds like he did with the DoFs.

I think we've stockpiled quite a lot over the past 3 years (the ?ú40m CL revenue, lots of sales etc).

If we get a new manager or DoF with a transfer strategy, I think Levy's ?ú15m banknotes will reappear.
Click to expand...

I think the Champions League money has gone on wages.

You have to accept that there is a chance that Harry is the medium to long term manager and now that the England job and court case are out of the way, Levy may well back Harry every bit as much as he would any other manager of DoF.
 
Some of you lot don't know what you want.

You want bricky non-value-add squad players moved on, yet cry like bitches when Corluka and Pienaar bugger off and do okay elsewhere 'waaah, waaah, why did we let um go...waaah, waaah....Harry you mug! waaaaaaaaaaah'.

The note to the accounts was to the effect that carrying a squad with such a high average wage for those who are non-first team players is unsustainable and would need to be addressed as a priority. That's just simple business sense. It's about taking judgement calls: is it worth keeping Player X - who's on ?ú30k/week yet is two years off form - or is it better value to move him on?

There's a difference here too: why the fudge would you wanna go and blow ?ú40, 50, 60m? What's the point of spending it, just because you can? Would one of you geniuses kindly tell me where the brains or strategy is behind doing that? Nah, I'd rather we didn't tinkle our money up any ol' wall; better, wait for a genuinely good deal.

By the way, we're in 4th position. Liverpool burned ?ú100m last summer, and where the fudge are they?
 
Gutter Boy said:
This. Redknap has never been a long term manager, so Levy's never given him long term funds like he did with the DoFs.

I think we've stockpiled quite a lot over the past 3 years (the ?ú40m CL revenue, lots of sales etc).

If we get a new manager or DoF with a transfer strategy, I think Levy's ?ú15m banknotes will reappear.
Click to expand...

Stockpiled my arse. Look at the accounts instead of just guessing. There is no extra money piling up. The club is 50m plus in debt.
In the 4 season's under Redknapp we have paid an extra 100m on wages.
We used to have money to spend on transfers fees because we kept our wages low. Now our wages are double what they were when Harry took over. We don't have that 30m we used to spend every season anymore.
Another point is that we used to buy players with sell on value. Now we buy experienced players on high wages. We can't rid of players because of the wages they are on. Look at Bentley, he wouldn't still be at the club if he wasn't on 60k a week.
 
Modric THFC said:
Stockpiled my arse. Look at the accounts instead of just guessing. There is no extra money piling up. The club is 50m plus in debt.
In the 4 season's under Redknapp we have paid an extra 100m on wages.
We used to have money to spend on transfers fees because we kept our wages low. Now our wages are double what they were when Harry took over. We don't have that 30m we used to spend every season anymore.
Another point is that we used to buy players with sell on value. Now we buy experienced players on high wages. We can't rid of players because of the wages they are on. Look at Bentley, he wouldn't still be at the club if he wasn't on 60k a week.
Click to expand...

Our wages are higher for a number of reasons. Firstly im sure players get incremental pay rises when they are successful i.e. CL. Secondly because our players are much better than they were two/three years ago to stave off interest you MUST give players a pay rise. Thirdly Levy is the man who negotiates contracts and not Harry.

In regards to players we have brought. How many players has Harry spent money on that we would not be able to sell? one maybe two i.e. Friedel and Parker. Not bad for a wheeler Dealer.

You mentioned Bentley - Harry didnt buy him. Infact Harry is trying to get rid of the players that wee brought by Managers before he was even in post.
 
Last edited:
None of us know really do we? Were guessing. Just as Arsenal fans used to debate whether Wenger was being stingy, or if he was doing his utmost to not spend despite wanting to.
 
We have money but we also have less appeal overseas than our competitors. Our stadium is not big enough to house all our support and that alone is costing us some dosh over a string of seasons (38,000 paid for season ticket holders on the waiting list I believe from reading the last financial report).

Spurs is a business club. We are floated and that relies on keeping the stakeholders happy by showing balanced books. We have a lot of expense in the future and the properties alone to expand the stadium in its currently location must be costly by buying them from current owners demanding x3 their value for them to move on.

These are some of the reasons why I believe Levy wants to keep a tight upper range on our wage output and reasons why we will never see mutiple expensive player buys at our club for the near future, especially with some of the wages being demanded at present.

I think the view Levy is taking is realistic view for our position. A few good years after the new stadium we can probably review it again.

I personally believe he should have gone out and spent when we achieved CL football as I believe a couple of high calibre players could have helped us both in the competition and the PL and we could have hopefully subsidised the cost from the money recieved from gaining CL football again. Personally I would have put the stadium progression on hold while we had one of the strongest teams in years but hey that's in the past now.

I would definetly get rid of some of our weekly expense though. As much as I love king, players like him need to be able to play week in week out.
 
Last edited:
Modric THFC said:
Stockpiled my arse. Look at the accounts instead of just guessing. There is no extra money piling up. The club is 50m plus in debt.
In the 4 season's under Redknapp we have paid an extra 100m on wages.
We used to have money to spend on transfers fees because we kept our wages low. Now our wages are double what they were when Harry took over. We don't have that 30m we used to spend every season anymore.
Another point is that we used to buy players with sell on value. Now we buy experienced players on high wages. We can't rid of players because of the wages they are on. Look at Bentley, he wouldn't still be at the club if he wasn't on 60k a week.
Click to expand...

Revenue increased in-line with expenditure; assets increased in-line with net debt.
 
The thing that Arsenal did was get the Emirates money upfront, in a perfect world we will do the same with what Levy called gift in kind.... possibly 250m for naming rights upfront.. The rest would be paid via the extra revenue from the finished stadiuim.

Meaning as Levy said the new stadium will hopefully not affect the current transfer policy, although there would be a clear crossover should the kit deals get mixed up within the naming rights.

The initial gift in kind has also been talked about as people/supporters and more likely financial institutions buying bonds.

Basically instead of getting the 250m upfront via a gift in kind, Tottenham would issue bonds against the naming rights, therefore geting the 250m upfront as what Arsenal did in there brick deal from Emirates.

Those buying the bonds would receive X amount every year until the bond was bought back. I'd imagine depending on the length of wait in buying the bond back reflects somewhat on what sort of interest they get. In other words the longer the bonds the better interest rate. Shorter the bond life the worse interest. I'm not sure about how this works, but there must be some sort of structure where these bonds were bought back.

So over a 10 year period, the interest and the bonds would be paid off.

Ideally in a perfect world it would be nice if Joe Lewis was to buy all the bonds at 1%, instead of institutes getting 5%

Joe Lewis is ultimatley a money trader, I believe thats how he made his money.

Above is my take on the costs of and how it will be paid for.

Any current debt the club has or if the club wished to add a 50m slush fund for transfer emergencies whilst the stadium project took place could be added to the total costs quite easily.

When Utd sold Bonds to get out of there repayment to banks recently institutions were falling over backwards trying to get them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back