Welcome Ange: To Dare is to Didgeridoo

[Lilbaz]

Yep
But it’s capital
You can’t change your method
So the method that you have at the point of acquiring the capital can’t change
That’s the rules under IFRS16 - I appreciate football is odd. But for accounting the rule is fixed at the start and not variable
There may be some quirk but I doubt it because you would have an asset nor on the balance sheet for a few years then on it but you already own him
It’s very specific but for sure, you can’t change it under normal account practise and international standards
I’m not a finance guy but I did work with the government commercial finance team for 3 years on capital projects and acquisitions so was well read is IFRS16 at the time

Nobodys changing it.
Amortisation for u21 players doesn't count towards psr. For over 21s it does count.

It's just unclear if you have bought a player that is say 20. For the first year his amortisation won't count towards psr but once he is 21 does it? It should. He's not u21 anymore. His wages should count aswell.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Nobodys changing it.
Amortisation for u21 players doesn't count towards psr. For over 21s it does count.

It's just unclear if you have bought a player that is say 20. For the first year his amortisation won't count towards psr but once he is 21 does it? It should. He's not u21 anymore. His wages should count aswell.

Wages I agree
That’s revenue
Purchase I don’t
That’s capital

 

[Gazza]

Because you've always got someone suggesting it's Levy pulling the trigger too quick, and nothing to do with the fans.

That is tosh, people like Levy don’t get where they are listening to outside noises, otherwise he would have sacked himself a long time ago. Right out with it who is Daniel Levy on this board …

 

[Gazza]

Is it even debatable that Ange is doing a brick job ? Why is this even disputed? Injuries? Perhaps that’s on him playing players in the red zone? Why are they always in the red zone? Perhaps pushing them too hard in matches trying to sprint back in a kamikaze style of defending which doesn’t work. I’d rather the defence wouldn’t even bother at least we would not have so many injuries.

 

[Raziel]

Is it even debatable that Ange is doing a brick job ? Why is this even disputed? Injuries? Perhaps that’s on him playing players in the red zone? Why are they always in the red zone? Perhaps pushing them too hard in matches trying to sprint back in a kamikaze style of defending which doesn’t work. I’d rather the defence wouldn’t even bother at least we would not have so many injuries.

Well that's the question, data says otherwise but summary of answers is

- It's the injuries
- The squad was brick anyway and we didn't spend money
- Nobody wants to manage Spurs and we could never get a better manager
- Nothing to do with manager, all on the ownership

I've tried to explain my perspective, which is these are always risk decisions, what is the risk of keeping vs. risk of change not working out, vs. potential to actually improve

Below is a grab from reddit

 

[Benny_Lad]

Well that's the question, data says otherwise but summary of answers is

- It's the injuries
- The squad was brick anyway and we didn't spend money
- Nobody wants to manage Spurs and we could never get a better manager
- Nothing to do with manager, all on the ownership

I've tried to explain my perspective, which is these are always risk decisions, what is the risk of keeping vs. risk of change not working out, vs. potential to actually improve

Below is a grab from reddit

Can I ask what the logic is in comparing Ange against managers with near unlimited transfer spends/wages?

 

[Lilbaz]

Can I ask what the logic is in comparing Ange against managers with near unlimited transfer spends/wages?

Conte and mourinho had unlimited resources at spurs?

 

[Benny_Lad]

Conte and mourinho had unlimited resources at spurs?

You think I’m referring to those 2? Sorry if it wasn’t plainly obvious to you I was referring to Pep, Klopp and Arteta.

I don’t get the point of the chart.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Well that's the question, data says otherwise but summary of answers is

- It's the injuries
- The squad was brick anyway and we didn't spend money
- Nobody wants to manage Spurs and we could never get a better manager
- Nothing to do with manager, all on the ownership

I've tried to explain my perspective, which is these are always risk decisions, what is the risk of keeping vs. risk of change not working out, vs. potential to actually improve

Below is a grab from reddit

The squad isn’t brick
There just isn’t enough players for playing the volume of games and staying fit

 

[Mikey10]

The squad isn’t brick
There just isn’t enough players for playing the volume of games and staying fit

Which, if true, there never will be with these owners, therefore we’re back where we always end up; manager is a mismatch for the club.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Which, if true, there never will be with these owners, therefore we’re back where we always end up; manager is a mismatch for the club.

Disagree.
We literally sold and let got for free a huge number of players this summer
Players this board made decisions on, I assume with agreement of all parties
I posted it the other day. Unless you assume they let them all go to save wages

 

[Mikey10]

Disagree.
We literally sold and let got for free a huge number of players this summer
Players this board made decisions on, I assume with agreement of all parties
I posted it the other day. Unless you assume they let them all go to save wages

Yes - and they didn’t replace some of them, just like they muddled through for a year without replacing our star striker.

My point is that they will never spend the money necessary to have a minimum of 2 x quality players for every, position a la City. Without that this system won’t work, in my opinion (and I have my doubts that it will work in the PL even if they did).

I doubt we’ll agree though.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Yes - and they didn’t replace some of them, just like they muddled through for a year without replacing our star striker.

My point is that they will never spend the money necessary to have a minimum of 2 x quality players for every, position a la City. Without that this system won’t work, in my opinion (and I have my doubts that it will work in the PL even if they did).

I doubt we’ll agree though.

City haven’t had that in a long time
It’s why they brought a. Centre back and play him left back
Most clubs don’t
As I said I’ll wait and see the next few windows

 

[Gazza]

City haven’t had that in a long time
It’s why they brought a. Centre back and play him left back
Most clubs don’t
As I said I’ll wait and see the next few windows

So essentially our system will only work if we can push our players to the brink and then cover them with like for like quality with players of quality … not going to happen under any manager at spurs

 

[Kompakted]

1. A lot of PSR room that we are not using, hence us being the least ambitious team in the league.
2. I'm by no means an an expert on this, I think it is @Lilbaz who is (though I could be wrong). However, as (I think it was) Libaz pointed out to me, transfer fees spent on youth players are not factored in for PSR. Neither are wages paid to youth players. PSR doesn't govern the overall amount of financial loss over a three year period. It instead governs the allowed loss over a 3 year period only for specific things only (you have to keep first team wages and player transfer fees and agents fees (amortised over length of contract) to a certain percentage of turnover.
3. I again go back to the fact that we have been poorly run over a number of years, the buck has to stop at the head honcho for this. Also we actually CAN register more players. We could register another 3 players over the age of 21 in our PL squad and that is even if we continue registering Regulion and all 4 keepers (quite a few clubs register only 3 keepers). We have gone into the season with a squad that is too small and too young for the expected workload. We're now reaping what we sowed.

1) We didnt have that headroom a couple of years ago. And the rules are actually changing for both UEFA competitions and PL where the main factor will be "squad cost" as a percentage of revenue. This will be the cost of transfer fees, agent fees and wages as a % of club revenue and for UEFA competitions the figure is going to be 70% and for the PL it is going to be 85%. Swiss Ramble have calculated that Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd out of the PL "big six" would all be in breach of UEFA rules and Chelsea and Man Utd will also be in breach of the new PL rules when they come into force. So rather than having to tighten our belts and sell players we have the flexibility to operate in the market without doing stuff we don't want to do to comply with competition rules. Because that's what headroom.gives you: flexibility. When we were close to the edge on PSR we were operating a "sell one before we can buy one" policy.
2) So costs incurred in running the academy do not count towards the current "loss" calculation but our purchase of Archie Gray for example absolutely will count.
3) Agree we've been poorly run. The whole 4 registered keepers thing is a case in point, without Austin and Whiteman being registered we'd actually struggle to meet UEFA squad quotas.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Disagree.
We literally sold and let got for free a huge number of players this summer
Players this board made decisions on, I assume with agreement of all parties
I posted it the other day. Unless you assume they let them all go to save wages

Quite possibly…. We’ve gone into the PL season we players under the squad limit. Either we’re brave, mad or trying to cut costs?

 

[Finney Is Back]

1) We didnt have that headroom a couple of years ago. And the rules are actually changing for both UEFA competitions and PL where the main factor will be "squad cost" as a percentage of revenue. This will be the cost of transfer fees, agent fees and wages as a % of club revenue and for UEFA competitions the figure is going to be 70% and for the PL it is going to be 85%. Swiss Ramble have calculated that Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd out of the PL "big six" would all be in breach of UEFA rules and Chelsea and Man Utd will also be in breach of the new PL rules when they come into force. So rather than having to tighten our belts and sell players we have the flexibility to operate in the market without doing stuff we don't want to do to comply with competition rules. Because that's what headroom.gives you: flexibility. When we were close to the edge on PSR we were operating a "sell one before we can buy one" policy.
2) So costs incurred in running the academy do not count towards the current "loss" calculation but our purchase of Archie Gray for example absolutely will count.
3) Agree we've been poorly run. The whole 4 registered keepers thing is a case in point, without Austin and Whiteman being registered we'd actually struggle to meet UEFA squad quotas.

1. Not true. We did.
2. No it won’t
3. Great. Do you also wish we had a better CEO running things?

 

[Kompakted]

Quite possibly…. We’ve gone into the PL season we players under the squad limit. Either we’re brave, mad or trying to cut costs?

If you intend to give playing time to the likes of Gray, Bergvall, Moore and Lankshear that's why you don't go and buy another 3 over 21 players who will expect to play minutes. We are also on the edge of squad rules for UEFA competitions so any over 21 additions would have to be trained in England.

 

[Kompakted]

1. Not true. We did.
2. No it won’t
3. Great. Do you also wish we had a better CEO running things?

1) it is true.
2) yes, it will.
3) I'm willing to give Munn the benefit of the doubt, he's only been here about a year.

 

[Baleforce]

So essentially our system will only work if we can push our players to the brink and then cover them with like for like quality with players of quality … not going to happen under any manager at spurs

not until we can register 55 players at least