• 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

Djed Spence

robp135 said:
The profit is less to do with the fee we paid and more to do with the way football teams structure transfer expenditure in their accounts. For that reason, any player that’s not a guarenteed starting XI player and has been with the club for 3+ seasons the club should be open to selling.
Click to expand...
And when Porro gets injured?
 
NaijaSpurs said:
And when Porro gets injured?
Click to expand...

We are linked with players to replace Spence. Williams & Lewis have been mentioned. Suggestions they would cost about £25M.

We sell Spence for £35M we get approx £30M incoming on this seasons books. The £25M goes down as £5M outgoing. You have £25M free to spend which can if we desire cover £125M worth of new players.

This is how the clubs at the top end of the Premierleague operate. It’s how Spurs appear to be be operating moving forward. Any player that’s not in the 1st XI and been at the club for 3+ years we can make a significant book profit on. Any player that is is part of the 1st XI they will look to tie down to a new contract to spread out the transfer fee.

As I’ve said I’m not fussed either way. But the club has to generate transfer revenue. Vuskovic and potentially Bergvall & Sarr will be huge in terms of sales. But it seems the market for players like Vicario, Romero & Richarlison is weak and we might need to do a loan with an obligation like we did with Dragusin.
 
Last edited:
robp135 said:
We are linked with players to replace Spence. Williams, Lewis. Suggestions they would cost about £25M.

We sell Spence for £35M we get approx £30M incoming on this seasons books. The £25M goes down as £5M outgoing. You have £25M free to spend which can if we desire cover £125M worth of new players.

This is how the clubs at the top end of the Premierleague operate. It’s how Spurs appear to be be operating moving forward. Any player that’s not in the 1st XI and been at the club for 3+ years we can make a significant book profit on. Any player that is is part of the 1st XI they will look to tie down to a new contract to spread out the transfer fee.

As I’ve said I’m not fussed either way. But the club has to generate transfer revenue. Vuskovic and potentially Bergvall & Sarr will be huge in terms of sales. But it seems the market for players like Vicario, Romero & Richarlison is weak and we might need to do a loan with an obligation like we did with Dragusin.
Click to expand...

I do find it interesting how a percentage of fans have become more educated on how football finance works. It would never have even come up in conversation a few years back. I guess on one end of the spectrum we have the fans that just expect their clubs to have that money tree and keep on spending. Then you have the new type of fan that really get these trade offs you have to make based on player valuations, amortised values etc.

The way I think about it now is that we might even be in a position where we cannot have Savinho, Marmoush, El Kroupi etc unless we lose players that we rate and love. Spence is top of that list, and it will need to be RDZ's decision.

It's also interesting that we've been a long time since we've had an academy full-back that would get you wondering in the siutation we find ourselves in. KWP potentially the last and he's 29 now. He could come in and out-perform Trips and Aurier and still end up not even in the squad the following weekend.
 
Muttley said:
I do find it interesting how a percentage of fans have become more educated on how football finance works. It would never have even come up in conversation a few years back. I guess on one end of the spectrum we have the fans that just expect their clubs to have that money tree and keep on spending. Then you have the new type of fan that really get these trade offs you have to make based on player valuations, amortised values etc.

The way I think about it now is that we might even be in a position where we cannot have Savinho, Marmoush, El Kroupi etc unless we lose players that we rate and love. Spence is top of that list, and it will need to be RDZ's decision.

It's also interesting that we've been a long time since we've had an academy full-back that would get you wondering in the siutation we find ourselves in. KWP potentially the last and he's 29 now. He could come in and out-perform Trips and Aurier and still end up not even in the squad the following weekend.
Click to expand...

I work in finance so always found it interesting myself. But the rules are complex and it goes beyond a simple “We sold sold Vuskovic for £50M and got Van Hecke for £50M and now we’re even”.

The club has produced a ton of Premier League level players over the past decade. But aside from Kane none of the have gone on to be sales we regretted making.
 
I’m still on the fence about Spence. He has been at fault defensively when England have played but he’s been a really good player coming off the bench. Overall I’m happy for him, but not delusional.

Perhaps mentally he’s ready to own a first team spot and wants to test himself playing week in week out. I personally think it’s a great situation for England to have him motoring against tired opposition and looking good. It will only elevate his value if he indeed is not in RdZs plans.

I’ll keep an open mind to see how this progresses
 
robp135 said:
I work in finance so always found it interesting myself. But the rules are complex and it goes beyond a simple “We sold sold Vuskovic for £50M and got Van Hecke for £50M and now we’re even”.

The club has produced a ton of Premier League level players over the past decade. But aside from Kane none of the have gone on to be sales we regretted making.
Click to expand...
I had a feeling you might have finance acumen whether running your own or supporting a P&L. Football finance is a mine field with footballers being intangible assets that nobody knows how to value. Then you have the contract length to amortisation relationship. I’ve tried to do understand it. lol, can’t say I ever really will though
 
Muttley said:
I had a feeling you might have finance acumen whether running your own or supporting a P&L. Football finance is a mine field with footballers being intangible assets that nobody knows how to value. Then you have the contract length to amortisation relationship. I’ve tried to do understand it. lol, can’t say I ever really will though
Click to expand...

We sign a new player to a 5 year contract.

Transfer Fee £50M
£10M per year wages
Agent Fees £5M
Signing on Fee £5M
Total cost £110M
£22M per year on the contract for that player goes on the books

If you sell him after 3 seasons for £80M

£66M has been accounted for
£10M x 2 remaining seasons comes off.
Remaining is £24M.
Profit made = £56M

If instead of selling he signs a new contract for 4 seasons the remainder or the transfer fee will get spread across 4 years instead of the remaining 2.
 
robp135 said:
We sign a new player to a 5 year contract.

Transfer Fee £50M
£10M per year wages
Agent Fees £5M
Signing on Fee £5M
Total cost £110M
£22M per year on the contract for that player goes on the books

If you sell him after 3 seasons for £80M

£66M has been accounted for
£10M x 2 remaining seasons comes off.
Remaining is £24M.
Profit made = £56M

If instead of selling he signs a new contract for 4 seasons the remainder or the transfer fee will get spread across 4 years instead of the remaining 2.
Click to expand...

I think you actually explain the black and white piece. The grey area is always these 2 cases

1) A player that comes out of your academy
2) What happens when players sign new contracts

Take Connor Gallagher as an example. His balance sheet valuation at Chelsea was next to nothing. That made him very vulnerable to being sold as he could generate a hefty profit in any financial year he was sold. That was the only way they could realise a profit. It's not as if there was a general accounting practice whereby Chelsea could assign a fair market value and have him on their balance sheet as say £30m. That would release profit on a P&L and allow the player to thrive.

Then you take a player like Harry Kane who was just like Connor except he signed multiple contracts over the life time of his Spurs tenure. He was never assigned a fair market value ever and eventually we released a profit on sale. Then you take Pedro Porro who amortises over contract 1 and then signs contract 2 which increases his market value but not in Spurs accounts.

When you think about it, the football community is full of these different types of players and it's only purchased players on contract 1 that are really valued close to what we could call market value in the scenario you lay out. Therefore you get situations where a club like Spurs might have a squad valued at half a billion but it is only measured at half of that on the actual balance sheet.

As I said above, it's that intangible asset classification that creates all these interesting scenarios. I'm guessing it has to work that way.
 
robp135 said:
We are linked with players to replace Spence. Williams & Lewis have been mentioned. Suggestions they would cost about £25M.

We sell Spence for £35M we get approx £30M incoming on this seasons books. The £25M goes down as £5M outgoing. You have £25M free to spend which can if we desire cover £125M worth of new players.

This is how the clubs at the top end of the Premierleague operate. It’s how Spurs appear to be be operating moving forward. Any player that’s not in the 1st XI and been at the club for 3+ years we can make a significant book profit on. Any player that is is part of the 1st XI they will look to tie down to a new contract to spread out the transfer fee.

As I’ve said I’m not fussed either way. But the club has to generate transfer revenue. Vuskovic and potentially Bergvall & Sarr will be huge in terms of sales. But it seems the market for players like Vicario, Romero & Richarlison is weak and we might need to do a loan with an obligation like we did with Dragusin.
Click to expand...
What I see from the top clubs is continual improvement first and financial trading second. They improve by buying players to replace existing starters with the previous backup being sold.

The idea being if you only sold non-starters then your team isn’t really improving much. It’s what I see Arsenal, Liverpool, Emirates Marketing Project etc do. They continue to buy great players despite already having great players already.

If we were to sell Spence, ideally we shouldn’t buy a Spence replacement, we should go for someone to challenge Porro.

I don’t think we’re quite at that level yet but feel we’re close. Hopefully soon we can adopt a dual policy of improving our staters as well as good financial player trading
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back