• 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

Daniel Levy - Chairman

SpurMeUp said:
1. It’s a good setup to have lower wages for numerous reasons: easier to shift players, no biz should have such higher ratios of wages to turnover, it provides more capital for transfers.

2. Where is the cash going to come from? We’re already the 4th highest spenders (in part as we keep wages a little lower). Ndombele showed what can happen. Him and LeCelco probably cost 20mish a year? And set us back years. What are you proposing?
Click to expand...
Our relatively lower wages has never helped us shift players at all. If anything we've struggled to move them on partly because although we pay significantly less than our peers we over pay for relatively poorer players leaving us in a position where we don't pay enough to attract the very best but also too much to move the failed ones on easily.

2. Not harking on to a failed transfer and hiding for ever more. They didn't work out, ok. Retool and go again. The failed Ndombele and GLC transfers have no more weight or relevancy that the successful incomings of Son or Berbatov.
 
Grays_1890 said:
ON pure money is what matters though right? The % of turnover skewed because we earn more than most, doesn't mean we should be aiming to still spend the same % against it as a club that turns over less, I find that view odd from some TBH.

The aim of earning more is spending more which we do, the clamour for that to be a reflection of a larger % against turnover just seems irresponsible to a level
Click to expand...
Sorry why is it irresponsible for us to do it but entirely doable for the 19 other PL clubs? again we've been conditioned to be accountants for ENIC with this mentality driven from the top. It's irresponsible to be Aston Villa at 93%. It's not irresponsible to get to 50% and still below your supposed rivals
 
Bishop said:
Our relatively lower wages has never helped us shift players at all. If anything we've struggled to move them on partly because although we pay significantly less than our peers we over pay for relatively poorer players leaving us in a position where we don't pay enough to attract the very best but also too much to move the failed ones on easily.

2. Not harking on to a failed transfer and hiding for ever more. They didn't work out, ok. Retool and go again. The failed Ndombele and GLC transfers have no more weight or relevancy that the successful incomings of Son or Berbatov.
Click to expand...
We are in an awkward place in the European pecking order for shifting players on as you say. Any stars we'll always be able to shift. BUT the players that stepped up to us but couldn't make that step up work have a tiny pool of clubs that don't then look like a downward step from us. And it doesn't take much of a PL wage to price them out of a European move.

What's probably missing at the moment is none of our players look Saudi bound.
But other clubs easy peasy using that channel (of course, there might be hidden reasons why so)
 
Grays_1890 said:
ON pure money is what matters though right? The % of turnover skewed because we earn more than most, doesn't mean we should be aiming to still spend the same % against it as a club that turns over less, I find that view odd from some TBH.

The aim of earning more is spending more which we do, the clamour for that to be a reflection of a larger % against turnover just seems irresponsible to a level
Click to expand...
The reason why gap is mentioned is because the single biggest indicator of attractiveness to a player are the wages they are paid. If our wages to turnover ratio is significantly lower than our peers it follows that we could actually afford to pay a bit more and this possibly attract a higher caliber of player than what we have previously been able to sign.
 
SpurMeUp said:
1. It’s a good setup to have lower wages for numerous reasons: easier to shift players, no biz should have such higher ratios of wages to turnover, it provides more capital for transfers.

2. Where is the cash going to come from? We’re already the 4th highest spenders (in part as we keep wages a little lower). Ndombele showed what can happen. Him and LeCelco probably cost 20mish a year? And set us back years. What are you proposing?
Click to expand...

More capital for transfers? So why are we loaning Paulinha? Why did we loan Werner twice?

Also, easier to shift players? You are aware Bryan Gil is now our second longest serving player right? Who else have we shifted out thanks to these low wages? Our inability to sell Lo Celso for yearsand having him loaned out until last summer? How about Veliz? Now on his third successive loan stint? Again like many you've been conditioned to think it's binary, either we are paupers and it's the right thing or "what do you want Saudi money being spent". No one is saying that. The evidence is clear that we have the capability of increasing wages for better quality players. the want is lacking. not the money.
 
Diamond Lights said:
Sorry why is it irresponsible for us to do it but entirely doable for the 19 other PL clubs? again we've been conditioned to be accountants for ENIC with this mentality driven from the top. It's irresponsible to be Aston Villa at 93%. It's not irresponsible to get to 50% and still below your supposed rivals
Click to expand...

Not being conditioned by anything, the gaps larger because we earn more money therefore the % changes. If everything was equal then that % would matter more. Its the new 0 Net Spend moan that we had on here for donkeys years.........just the post have now moved.
 
Bishop said:
No the gap is larger because we pay a smaller portion of our turnover on wages.

No mental gymnastics necessary.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with mental gymnastics, you can still be spending a large number on wages with that % going down because turnover continues to increase.

Hence why people keep moaning "it doesn't matter what we spend unless its a larger % of turnover"

Its all abit old man shouting at clouds
 
Grays_1890 said:
Not being conditioned by anything, the gaps larger because we earn more money therefore the % changes. If everything was equal then that % would matter more. Its the new 0 Net Spend moan that we had on here for donkeys years.........just the post have now moved.
Click to expand...

In kane, Hugo and son we have shed our three biggest earners. When we replace them our % will go up again.
Three long term players who's salaries grew, as will happen with Romero, maddison and vdv.
Not to mention the window isn't closed yet so it's not a true reflection.
 
glasgowspur said:
In kane, Hugo and son we have shed our three biggest earners. When we replace them our % will go up again.
Three long term players who's salaries grew, as will happen with Romero, maddison and vdv.
Not to mention the window isn't closed yet so it's not a true reflection.
Click to expand...

The thing is, your spend across the board can increase but as your revenue increases the needle not move as much because......

What are we at??? 43% of revenue spent on wages, the mark for what they say is financially savvy for any club is around the 50% mark.

With a club as laden with debt and answerable to banks as much as we are, I think we likely do what we do because of those obligations and forecasts rather than a few fans screaming on the highroad about what they think should be spent.

Ultimately if my wages are 50% of my turnover then I double my turnover, I can increase my wages fairly decently but see that % against turnover reduce, thats why I don't obsess over it
 
Last edited:
Diamond Lights said:
More capital for transfers? So why are we loaning Paulinha? Why did we loan Werner twice?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t we? Lower risk, can give them back, isn’t that obvious?
Diamond Lights said:
Also, easier to shift players? You are aware Bryan Gil is now our second longest serving player right? Who else have we shifted out thanks to these low wages?
Click to expand...
It’s just simple mathematics. If trying to sell a player, if their wages are 30% lower then buying teams who aren’t the elite, can afford them.
Diamond Lights said:
Our inability to sell Lo Celso for yearsand having him loaned out until last summer? How about Veliz? Now on his third successive loan stint? Again like many you've been conditioned to think it's binary, either we are paupers and it's the right thing or "what do you want Saudi money being spent". No one is saying that. The evidence is clear that we have the capability of increasing wages for better quality players. the want is lacking. not the money.
Click to expand...

where is this magic money pot you refer to??? What is it you’re suggesting we do differently? Spend less on transfers and more on wages?
 
Bishop said:
Our relatively lower wages has never helped us shift players at all.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true.

To illustrate your ineffective causation: we spent big on Ndombele. Could we shift him? Not sure your reasoning stacks up!

If anything we've struggled to move them on partly because although we pay significantly less than our peers we over pay for relatively poorer players leaving us in a position where we don't pay enough to attract the very best but also too much to move the failed ones on easily.


Bishop said:
2. Not harking on to a failed transfer and hiding for ever more. They didn't work out, ok. Retool and go again. The failed Ndombele and GLC transfers have no more weight or relevancy that the successful incomings of Son or Berbatov.
Click to expand...

Your logic is fine with an oil well attached to the club and unlimited funds. But that isn’t reality is it? The club have to use resources wisely. You don’t run your household in the way you suggest THFC do.
 
glorygloryeze said:
Why would we be undere pressure form the banks?
Click to expand...
Have read the same rumours somewhere , of course it could all be made up but the conditions of the loans/bonds were that we should maintain financially sound accounts and not take unnecessary risks , which looking at our spending outlay under Levy he is keeping it all pretty tight with a low wage/revenue compared to some other clubs.
 
Diamond Lights said:
More capital for transfers? So why are we loaning Paulinha? Why did we loan Werner twice?
Click to expand...
Each summer, there is a pot of money. We can spend some on agent's fees, some on transfer fees, and some on wages.

We could spend a bit less on transfer fees and give players bigger wages, but we strive to do the opposite; get good deals on transfer fees and don't overpay on wages, keep the basic wage fairly low and then reward good players with better deals and payouts if we achieve results (cup wins, high league positions, qualification for CL etc).

That is a perfectly good and normal way to run the business.

If Spurs was really poorly run we would scrimp on transfer fees and pay lots on wages and the wage to turnover % would increase. That is a bad idea.


Behind all of this, note that our turnover has doubled in recent* years whereas clubs like WHU, AST, NEW have seen a small increase. Thus their wages to turnover ratio has rocketed because wages go up but turnover hasn't. Spurs should be applauded for the increase in revenues, it does not mean we did something wrong.


What you're REALLY arguing about is the number of high earners i.e. those Twitter posts saying that ARS have a bunch of players on high wages, so do LIV, so do all the big clubs, whereas Spurs don't have many on high wages (e.g. over £100kpw) and we should have more.

That happened because we got rid of Kane/Son/Werner et al and recruited lots of kids on lower wages. As they develop and prove themselves, their wages will rise.

Yes, we could sign someone for cheap and give them a really high wage to attract them e.g. El Khannous but then why would we give them a high wage if we don't need to? Or perhaps someone like Osimhen which is probably where you are heading towards, we could get Osimhen for a relatively low fee and pay him a lot. Ditto Alvaro Morata, I think that is probably what you are driving towards??
 
SpurMeUp said:
Not necessarily true.

To illustrate your ineffective causation: we spent big on Ndombele. Could we shift him? Not sure your reasoning stacks up!

If anything we've struggled to move them on partly because although we pay significantly less than our peers we over pay for relatively poorer players leaving us in a position where we don't pay enough to attract the very best but also too much to move the failed ones on easily.
Click to expand...

I think you missed this part

"we over pay for relatively poorer players"

That would account for the inability to move Ndombele on. He was overpaid relative to ability and productivity hence the difficulty in selling him.
SpurMeUp said:
Your logic is fine with an oil well attached to the club and unlimited funds. But that isn’t reality is it? The club have to use resources wisely. You don’t run your household in the way you suggest THFC do.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting you just keep buying but I am suggesting you don't run in fear because you got a specific signing wrong. It happens, no team gets them right all the time. If everyone acted the way you want Spurs they'd never achieve anything. And I actually do run my business in this manner sometimes you have to be bold especially when in the business of trading assets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back