There's a story about Seth Johnson going into contract negotiations with Ridsdale and he had some kind of figure in mind that he hoped he could get. Ridsdale's opening offer was something like twice that.
-
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
Doing a "Leeds"
- Thread starter Briddo1882
- Start date
There's a story about Seth Johnson going into contract negotiations with Ridsdale and he had some kind of figure in mind that he hoped he could get. Ridsdale's opening offer was something like twice that.
We've freed up a lot of money by getting rid of Gallas, Bentley, Parker and Hudd. Still expect a couple more to go.
Much, much higher.
There are massive differences between our revenue and that of SCBC and Wet Spam. For starters we have fans, lots of them, and people outside of the UK have heard of Spurs.
DublinSpur
Scott Parker
You also forgot Dempsey. I've seen fees between 5 and 7 million quoted for his transfer. Brings us close to break-even by your reckoning (though I do think you're cheating a little bit by adding the extra TV money in there). Seems to me our net spend so far this window is somewhere between £25m and £30m. Aside from Bale (if he does get sold then it changes everything and I'd expect us to spend quite a bit more this window) we probably only have Assou-Ekotto and Gomes left on the transfer list. But we'll spend at least whatever we get from them on a replacement left-back. Maybe more.
So, assuming we sell them for £7m total and bring in a new left-back for £12m (say). And assuming Archer is ready to be third-place goalkeeper, then we've spent between £30m and £35m. Which - spread out over several years - isn't really that much for a club as big as Spurs. Certainly it's a cost we can carry without it threatening our very existence (like with Leeds). Even if we double that, and bring in Lamela or Willian, it's still not an unreasonable outlay given that extra TV money you mentioned. It does mean we probably can't expect a huge net spend for another couple of years until the bulk of this window has been paid off.
But with a bit of luck, we won't need to spend much after this summer. We'll have carried out a major upgrade and should be in a position to challenge for the top spots.
I thought I was one light in transfers out. I don't see how it's cheating in adding the extra tv money. My reply was in regards to "doing a Leeds" which as far as I see it is spending beyond your means. All I was doing was showing how we weren't spending beyond our means. If you meant in regards to net transfer spend then yes it can't be included.
DublinSpur
Scott Parker
That's all I meant really. It's perfectly reasonable to take it into account when discussing transfer activity - I do myself; but I like to keep it separate from the transfer calculations just for the sake of clarity.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I'm guessing we won't get close to having a problem with that.
A decent article, including a table with some numbers from each club:
The numbers might not be entirely accurate, but they should be in the ballpark at least I'm guessing.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-accounts-profit-debt
Has our wage to turnover ration at 56%, West Ham at 69%. Considering our turnover is about twice theirs and we've cut several high paid players from our wage budget I can't see us running into trouble anytime soon. And we shouldn't, I don't think having wages close to what would give clubs problems with ffp is a healthy sign.
Nigeyman
Chris Armstrong
being a few years ago I wonder if that calculates our income after being in champs league....
either way thank you.... yes I knew we would have more budget than saints & hammers but wasn't sure what our wage limit would be for this year......but then I don't know the ffp parameters that are used to calculate what Tottenham's yearly wage limit should be??????
either way we have shifted some high earners so I am not pooping myself....just curious as to where we stand.............
ok I admit it I just hope we can afford Bale's contract extension.....
NorwegianSpursFan
Neil Ruddock
Didn't quite know where to put this. Can't say I'm to sure about these numbers, but for those who are fearing we're doing a leeds, it might be comforting.
SteveAWOL
Chris Jones
being a few years ago I wonder if that calculates our income after being in champs league....
either way thank you.... yes I knew we would have more budget than saints & hammers but wasn't sure what our wage limit would be for this year......but then I don't know the ffp parameters that are used to calculate what Tottenham's yearly wage limit should be??????
either way we have shifted some high earners so I am not pooping myself....just curious as to where we stand.............
ok I admit it I just hope we can afford Bale's contract extension.....
Here are our financial figures for the end of last season: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
Without the Champions League our turnover decreased by £19m to £144m (compared to £46m for WHU down from £81m the previous season when they were in the Prem) but our wage bill also was reduced by £1m to £90m so our wage-to-turnover ratio is still only at 63% (ManU, Arsenal, Norwich and Swansea were the only other clubs with a lower ratio).
AFAIK all Premier League clubs can increase their wage bill without any penalties up to a cap of £52m which allows promoted clubs like Southampton to improve their squad rapidly. For the rest of us there is no wage cap as such, merely we are not supposed to increase our wage bill by more than £4m per season unless we can pay for it with an increase in commercial revenue. So even if we hadn't offloaded any high earners we would still be allowed to sign another player or increase Bale's wages by £77k a week this season.
When the new stadium is up and running the club' turnover should increase by around £50m per year which will help cover the wages of future signings.
Last edited:
Roland Beurre
Richard Gough
Five, we qualify for CL this year, kick Real Madrid's harris in next year's competition while simultaneously ending Modric's career.
I don't imagine Joe Lewis would be averse to converting his debt to equity if it does all go horribly wrong,
Roland Beurre
Richard Gough
The full story as I heard it (and it may be apocryphal) is that Johnson wanted something like £15k a week, Ridsdale offered £29k. Johnson was too gobsmacked to reply, so Ridsdale panicked and raised it to £34k but said it was his final offer.
A good story. Not sure it is true.
DublinSpur
Scott Parker
It just struck me that with Gallas, Bentley, Huddlestone and Parker off the books - along with possible / likely exits for Bale, Gomes and Adebayor, we'll probably have lower wages this season than last - despite having (in my view) a stronger squad. Sad to see Bale leave of course, but I still feel Levy, Baldini and AVB have done about as well as they could do this transfer window.
milo
Jack L. Jones
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/feb/28/seth-johnson-england
The story of Johnson's contract negotiations with Leeds have passed into legend, a chilling damnation of Ridsdale's spendthrift regime. It goes as follows: Johnson had been earning £5,000 a week at Derby and his agent told him he wouldn't settle for less than £13,000 a week at Leeds. Ridsdale's opening gambit, however, surprised them both. "Right, I'm sorry, I can only offer you £30,000 a week," he said. Around the table jaws dropped in genuine shock. "Oh, all right then," said Ridsdale, filling the silence, "£37,000."
The story is untrue. Ridsdale says it is "a myth", that he had seen Johnson's contract at Derby and his actual offer was "two grand more than what [he was] getting" there. Johnson's agent, Leon Angel, said: "We went into that meeting with a figure in mind for what we wanted. We negotiated and I can tell you we didn't get everything we wanted. In other words, it was a perfectly normal negotiation."
Johnson says he had just signed a new contract with Derby. "So I was on decent money there and, if you go to a team that's top of the league, you're not going to go for less money. But I wasn't going there for the money, that wasn't even an issue for me."
Naughton16
Clive Wilson
:-"
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Is anyone a bit annoyed that we didn't really have a net spend overall?
To be fair I'm not sure who else we could have gone for, and the Willian money was there, but in the summer where Swansea, Southampton and Cardiff have spent up to 30 million, we have pretty much broken even or come out slightly ahead.
To be fair I'm not sure who else we could have gone for, and the Willian money was there, but in the summer where Swansea, Southampton and Cardiff have spent up to 30 million, we have pretty much broken even or come out slightly ahead.
Robbo
Paul Walsh
Well we did break our transfer record...three times. Signed seven (mostly) young, talented internationals. And made a profit.
Theoretically we have now improved our squad massively, while still having money in the bank should we see that we need to buy in January.
Not bothered about this at all, TBH.
Naughton16
Clive Wilson
I don't believe there is any money.
It hasnt been some happy accident that we've seen 2 consecutive seasons of profits from player trading. That isn't likely to change anytime soon with the NDP on the horizon.
It hasnt been some happy accident that we've seen 2 consecutive seasons of profits from player trading. That isn't likely to change anytime soon with the NDP on the horizon.
Nigeyman
Chris Armstrong
me neither....
surely its better to strengthen overall and make a profit rather than strengthen and have to foot the bill.
mind you the issue of whether we have strengthened will be answered over the course of the season.