• 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

Bishop said:
I think there's a reasonable argument to made that by paying a lower percentage of our revenue on wages than our "rivals" that it shows our relative lack of ambition.
Click to expand...

Depends. We're taking a snapshot of our wage to turnover ratio as it stands currently and comparing to our rivals, currently all of our main competitors are further ahead with their squad development than we are (more or less) so our wage bill is naturally going to reflect that (detailed in an earlier post but essentially we have & are clearing out our older deadwood players while bringing in younger players to develop) as we develop over the coming seasons this should be reflected with the wage bill growing. Arsenal's wage bill dropped down a fair bit for a couple of season recently while they were gutting the pre Edu & Arteta mess iirc

Another point to mention is that our revenue has grown considerably in a short amount of time, so as a ratio the wage bill will lag somewhat behind that and take time to 'catch up'
 
billyiddo said:
Depends. We're taking a snapshot of our wage to turnover ratio as it stands currently and comparing to our rivals, currently all of our main competitors are further ahead with their squad development than we are (more or less) so our wage bill is naturally going to reflect that (detailed in an earlier post but essentially we have & are clearing out our older deadwood players while bringing in younger players to develop) as we develop over the coming seasons this should be reflected with the wage bill growing. Arsenal's wage bill dropped down a fair bit for a couple of season recently while they were gutting the pre Edu & Arteta mess iirc

Another point to mention is that our revenue has grown considerably in a short amount of time, so as a ratio the wage bill will lag somewhat behind that and take time to 'catch up'
Click to expand...
I actually think we have some fans who think we will actually perform better by paying more on wages
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I actually think we have some fans who think we will actually perform better by paying more on wages
Click to expand...

Performance/results do closely follow wage expenditure tbf but it's not as simple as spending more on wages to get results - you need to build a squad with top talent across the board to be successful and that obviously costs money - but you can spend the money badly and not get the results.
 
thfcsteff said:
For me, that summer says everything that was wrong.
Hindsight tells us that this was the time to part ways and find the right next step. Instead, perhaps because he couldn't stand the thought of being unpopular, Levy went out of his way to patch up with Poch, including sanctioning signing those two. Having done that, he then promptly allows himself to be snowed by that charlatan Mourinho and once he knows he has Mourinho in the bag (he would had to have had a written memo at least with him behind Poch's back) promptly sacks Poch knowing that he can unveil Mourinho within 24 hours.

I think it is perfectly fair to not quite trust Daniel in these moments. I still think the way he handled Poch was a total disgrace personally.
Click to expand...

While that is mostly agreeable Steff and i certainly don't need any persuading that the club fudged things up with the whole Poch > Jose > Nuno > Conte merry-go-round, the discussion being had around those quotes was regarding our spending post-stadium :tearsofjoy:
 
billyiddo said:
Performance/results do closely follow wage expenditure tbf but it's not as simple as spending more on wages to get results - you need to build a squad with top talent across the board to be successful and that obviously costs money - but you can spend the money badly and not get the results.
Click to expand...
It follows closer the teams who spend the most on players and wages
It’s objective been knocked back on that metric with United and Chelsea being various whilst city are just adding singular players
 
Last edited:
billyiddo said:
Performance/results do closely follow wage expenditure tbf but it's not as simple as spending more on wages to get results - you need to build a squad with top talent across the board to be successful and that obviously costs money - but you can spend the money badly and not get the results.
Click to expand...

Right. Do we think that perhaps Lo Celso and Ndombele have proven 'scary' to some in that regard? And would there be agreement that if that was the case, it would be a position which lacks context?

I will say that curiously, our biggest ticket signings generally have not worked out (Rebrov, Bobby S, etc)...curious...
 
thfcsteff said:
Right. Do we think that perhaps Lo Celso and Ndombele have proven 'scary' to some in that regard? And would there be agreement that if that was the case, it would be a position which lacks context?

I will say that curiously, our biggest ticket signings generally have not worked out (Rebrov, Bobby S, etc)...curious...
Click to expand...

Not always not worked out because of them though.

Rebrov was an exceptional footballer for example, the reason it didn’t work, was that the only player in the squad anywhere near his level, was our right back.

I think the lesson there is don’t go too good to early, slowly iterate.

The original VDV was a player in the Rebrov envelope, but he came into a team with much more about it, and it worked.
 
thfcsteff said:
Right. Do we think that perhaps Lo Celso and Ndombele have proven 'scary' to some in that regard? And would there be agreement that if that was the case, it would be a position which lacks context?

I will say that curiously, our biggest ticket signings generally have not worked out (Rebrov, Bobby S, etc)...curious...
Click to expand...

I'd hope that there was some kind of internal review regarding what went wrong over this period and I think I remember reading that prior to Paratichis appointment maybe even alongside it, there had been something along those lines regarding a review of how we operate, football wise, which led to the new structure being put in place.
 
thfcsteff said:
Come on mate, that's a cheap shot. I think you know the discussion being had, and it is absolutely nothing like as binary as you've tried to represent it there.
Click to expand...
No
I hear it all the time
We don’t spend enough
We never spend enough
Look at the squad
Blah, blah, blah
You have said many times in the Pod about the painful rebuild and this is it
We pay the players what we need to get them to join the club. It’s a fudge load of money too.
Why would we wanna pay anymore
It’s an odd fixation
And the key collation is big wage players come with big transfer fees. That’s a much more valid discussion.
 
billyiddo said:
I'd hope that there was some kind of internal review regarding what went wrong over this period and I think I remember reading that prior to Paratichis appointment maybe even alongside it, there had been something along those lines regarding a review of how we operate, football wise, which led to the new structure being put in place.
Click to expand...
Paratici did that review I believe
And the club clearly realised that Hitchen wasn’t the answer for where we wanna be
 
Bedfordspurs said:
No
I hear it all the time
We don’t spend enough
We never spend enough
Look at the squad
Blah, blah, blah
You have said many times in the Pod about the painful rebuild and this is it
We pay the players what we need to get them to join the club. It’s a fudge load of money too.
Why would we wanna pay anymore
It’s an odd fixation
And the key collation is big wage players come with big transfer fees. That’s a much more valid discussion.
Click to expand...

Problem is, we've never seen a sustained period of spending until now and that is reflected in the fan sentiment.

If the 2019 spending had been now, we'd have coped much, much better. We only spent that much anyway because of the CL run revenues. It would have been about half that much.

Then you compare the Bale money spend versus the Harry money spend. If you wrap the 2 years before and the 2 years after around the year Bale left you'll see almost zero net spending by the club over 5 years. If you do the same thing with Kane, you'll find £250m (and counting) of net spend regardless of Harry.

Personally, I think the fan narrative of Spurs "not spending enough" will die down when they see the accumulation of multi-year spending in this post stadium era. Spurs spend absolutely loads of money on transfers and salaries.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
No
I hear it all the time
We don’t spend enough
We never spend enough
Look at the squad
Blah, blah, blah
You have said many times in the Pod about the painful rebuild and this is it
We pay the players what we need to get them to join the club. It’s a fudge load of money too.
Why would we wanna pay anymore
It’s an odd fixation
And the key collation is big wage players come with big transfer fees. That’s a much more valid discussion.
Click to expand...
I won't get into your initial comment versus this reply, except to say that I still do not believe anyone on GG thinks that if we pay the players we have more money they will play better. That's frankly silliness.

I will say that on the pod, we want patience applied for Ange. We also want him FULLY backed, whatever that means. We are not
saying he is not being backed.

I personally question whether Wilson Odobert or Timo Werner were his first choices, or whether they represented the best choices for the model we operate. I would take a guess at them being the latter.

Do you have any theory as to why he did not get Connor Gallagher, a player he clearly wanted?
 
Players might not want to come here, irrespective of how much we offer, clubs might not want to sell to us if they perceive us as a rival.

Being fully backed doesn’t mean getting your preferred player in every slot, even Pep never got that.

Managers have to be able to work with alternatives.

Jose and Conte were not extended that defence, Ange shouldn’t be either.
 
Baleforce said:
Players might not want to come here, irrespective of how much we offer, clubs might not want to sell to us if they perceive us as a rival.

Being fully backed doesn’t mean getting your preferred player in every slot, even Pep never got that.

Managers have to be able to work with alternatives.

Jose and Conte were not extended that defence, Ange shouldn’t be either.
Click to expand...

Agreed re: players and choices. Equally it can be that we simply didn't do what was necessary to get them for whatever reason.

Jose and Antonio knew what they were stepping into. I expected both to quit on principle. Instead they took the money.

No excuses being made for Ange whatsoever, unless he gets turfed out too soon because of either a mob-angry fanbase or a trigger-finger chairman; in which case he will deserve to use all these excuses and more, because the remit he has requires time and patience.
 
thfcsteff said:
Right. Do we think that perhaps Lo Celso and Ndombele have proven 'scary' to some in that regard? And would there be agreement that if that was the case, it would be a position which lacks context?

I will say that curiously, our biggest ticket signings generally have not worked out (Rebrov, Bobby S, etc)...curious...
Click to expand...
I think that's because we've tended not to actually spend big money on guaranteed players or those at the very top of their game. Its that prolonged period of previous performance and results that confers that status and what usually justifies the extreme cost. Our bigger signings have rarely been in that mould, I mean, I honestly can't think of any since Klinsmann. So with our bigger spends, there has always been an added element of risk vs the signings some of our rivals tend to make. The ones we buy tend to be the players the bigger clubs have already evaluated and decided against them or are biding their time to see if that player can make the next step at which they will then swoop in, those are the kind of signings we don't get involved in.
 
Muttley said:
Apologies, only just got around to reading all your responses to my earlier posts.

Perhaps the reason I am optimistic about our spending power and our attractiveness to players is that we're following a successful model that has won trophies. It was always the way of Fergie and has been emulated by Pep in the modern era. Your core platform as a club comes when you start investing in younger players and they become the core of your team and squad for 5 years or more. In order to do this, you have to consistently spend and not just when you pocket from a major player sale, or get one-off CL final revenues. It looks like Spurs are now consistently net spending. As someone said above, where we still need to improve is by making even more from sales.

When I study websites like this (https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/tottenham-hotspur/alletransfers/verein/148) I feel that the trend is positive. You see spending year after year. You see an opportunity to get a couple wrong and it doesn't affect the overall direction of travel too much.

I also think Ange's tactics will have a bigger impact on our success that sales or purchases. It definitely has with Pep even though people want to talk about the players. I'm still on the fence whether it will be the same with Ange, but try to stay in his corner.
Click to expand...

Fair enough..time will tell i guess, and i'll happily admit that i need a lot more convincing than others, but proof of pudding will be on the pitch (but then i said that with Jose and Conte lol)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back