• 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

ENIC

Gazza said:
Why do we have a zero spend budget is the question? Don't say stadium as levy said that would not affect any transfer budget and anything made from the stadium would go directly into the team ... so where is the money gone? Genuine ask
Click to expand...
What money?
The money then went into the stadium
Poch didn’t want the players we couldn’t get so we spent the money on the ground
Now it goes players
It’s why we have spent so much more since then
I mean the facts are we have brought a shed load pf players … we have £200m worth on loan for example
 
Lilbaz said:
Sell to buy was when we had a zero transfer budget. Yes we can move earlier in the window. We had a whole world cup to sort out deals before the window even opened.
Click to expand...
Feels like we are in a sell to buy situation again . 22/23 transfers add up to about the same amount as the cash injection.

We also have a few key players planned payments looming in the next transfer window, so let's hope we shift the rest the deadwood then.


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
metalgear said:
Feels like we are in a sell to buy situation again . 22/23 transfers add up to about the same amount as the cash injection.

We also have a few key players planned payments looming in the next transfer window, so let's hope we shift the rest the deadwood then.


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

The new financials will be out soon we'll have a clearer idea then.
 
metalgear said:
Feels like we are in a sell to buy situation again . 22/23 transfers add up to about the same amount as the cash injection.

We also have a few key players planned payments looming in the next transfer window, so let's hope we shift the rest the deadwood then.


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...
I would say it's the opposite, we have spent money without recouping in the last 3/4 windows despite having a huge number of deadwood on the books or on loan??





Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
 
Grays_1890 said:
I would say it's the opposite, we have spent money without recouping in the last 3/4 windows despite having a huge number of deadwood on the books or on loan??





Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
Click to expand...
Yeah depends on which years you look.

I mean the team still ages even though we don't recruit and will be reflected in the books as the player depreciation.

we have to make up for it somehow...and yeah we did with Ndombele, lo celso....but they are more like write offs right from the start.

Might be worth looking at our net spend just before and those years where there were no transfers, to present day to get a better idea.



Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
Gazza said:
Why do we have a zero spend budget is the question? Don't say stadium as levy said that would not affect any transfer budget and anything made from the stadium would go directly into the team ... so where is the money gone? Genuine ask
Click to expand...

We don't have that zero spend budget anymore.

That seemed to change after the stadium was completed and our revenue increased significantly and instead of having to spend money to build the stadium the new stadium earns us money.

Not difficult to connect the dots I think.

Of course the stadium build cost us for a while. Levy said that a long time ago, but circumstances change when building a massive and costly stadium.
 
metalgear said:
Yeah depends on which years you look.

I mean the team still ages even though we don't recruit and will be reflected in the books as the player depreciation.

we have to make up for it somehow...and yeah we did with Ndombele, lo celso....but they are more like write offs right from the start.

Might be worth looking at our net spend just before and those years where there were no transfers, to present day to get a better idea.



Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...
Well the last 3/4 windows like I said because i assume when someone says "we are still" sell to buy I assume you mean the present.

At present we are not a sell to buy club based on the last couple of windows

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk
 
Here you go


Tranfrnrkt data

22/23 139.15 net does not include agreed commitments such as Kulu and Porro
21/22 61.28 net (does allow for lamelas fee either)
20/21 97.2 net
19/20 84 net
18/19 0
17/18 19.7 net
16/17 31.2 net

Total 432.53 euros
Average 61.8 euros

Take out the previous what’s before the ground
It’s 381M over 4 season, including COVID
That’s 95M a season net in euros

add in the loss of lamela which I’d say is what… 20m and the agreed commitments for Porro and Kulu that’s an another 80m so you can add 100m to the numbers and bump that average up to 120m euros net since the ground was built

Does that help anyone? yes it’s in Euros…
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Here you go


Tranfrnrkt data

22/23 139.15 net does not include agreed commitments such as Kulu and Porro
21/22 61.28 net (does allow for lamelas fee either)
20/21 97.2 net
19/20 84 net
18/19 0
17/18 19.7 net
16/17 31.2 net

Total 432.53 euros
Average 61.8 euros

Take out the previous what’s before the ground
It’s 381M over 4 season, including COVID
That’s 95M a season net in euros

add in the loss of lamela which I’d say is what… 20m and the agreed commitments for Porro and Kulu that’s an another 80m so you can add 100m to the numbers and bump that average up to 120m euros net since the ground was built

Does that help anyone? yes it’s in Euros…
Click to expand...
We shouldn't add in anything for Porro or Kulu (other than their loan fees) until we actually make the signings. You can't pull the agreed fees for future signings in to the current window and choose to add it to our average spend when we haven't spent the money yet (after all you don't know what will happen in the summer - perhaps we'll sign nobody else and sell Harry Kane for £100m and have a surplus in that window for example (I don't think we will just saying that we could).

Surely also we would've had a surplus in 18/19 due to buying nobody and selling Dembele?
20m for Lamela is also a stretch and if we did value him that high then our purchase of Gill really was for a ridiculous fee!
 
Finney Is Back said:
We shouldn't add in anything for Porro or Kulu (other than their loan fees) until we actually make the signings. You can't pull the agreed fees for future signings in to the current window and choose to add it to our average spend when we haven't spent the money yet (after all you don't know what will happen in the summer - perhaps we'll sign nobody else and sell Harry Kane for £100m and have a surplus in that window for example (I don't think we will just saying that we could).

Surely also we would've had a surplus in 18/19 due to buying nobody and selling Dembele?
20m for Lamela is also a stretch and if we did value him that high then our purchase of Gill really was for a ridiculous fee!
Click to expand...
I took it off transfer market earlier
I can have a look later
We could value lamela at £100m for the books couldnt we
 
SpurMeUp said:
Haha so you’d have paid in full for Danjuna, not giving us the option to try before we buy? Potentially paying more for him to get him in early. Okay.

You’d have also blown our free cash upfront on Porro tying our hands on future transfers? For example, not being able to sign Danjuma as well and cover the loan fees, and stopping us from being able to line up a CB before/early in summer. Reducing our ability to be agile and what we are able to spend in the summer, when most transfers take place. Smart.

Quick questions, you don’t have local ties to Spurs. How did you choose Spurs as your team? If you were to choose a team today and didn’t have any history with Spurs, who would you choose?
Click to expand...

Danjuma - sure. Can't imagine the...hang on, the 2.5m loan fee was so crippling that we had to have absolutely zero net spend this window to be able to afford it, after all - and if it was indeed the case, we are in far deeper financial trouble than the mastermind Levy lets on.

Signing Porro early meaning we couldn't line up a CB before early summer - mate, we never get any business done outside the window, *ever*. At least, not since Modric was announced before the summer window opened in 2008. We seem to utterly forget that you can work on transfers outside the window, and seem to have forgotten again in Jan, since we had a month and a half with no club football in advance of that and *still* got nothing done until Day 31.

We don't act like that, free money or no. We dawdle, we haggle, we scrimp and shave pennies off the fee. So no, I doubt it would have made any difference

How I chose Spurs - think I mentioned before, but my Dad was posted to London pretty regularly. Met my mum on one of his postings, actually. So, in the late 90s, on one of his trips out, I asked my dad to get me an England shirt. He knew nothing about football and brought back a Spurs kit instead.

Grew from there, really. :p
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I took it off transfer market earlier
I can have a look later
We could value lamela at £100m for the books couldn't we
Click to expand...
Paratici might!... but we don't want any Juventus style problems do we! ;)
In theory we could value Lamela at whatever we wanted in the sale. However in the books he would be valued at his initial transfer fee minus his depreciation spread over his contract. I suspect he would actually have been valued on the books at zero at the point he was sold. Now just suppose we had valued him at £100m in a sale (thus valuing Gill at £120m) then we would've reported a huge transfer profit that season, impacting our overall profit/loss. However that would then store up a potential problem with Gill where the player would be valued on the books at £120m reducing by £24m per season (as he signed an initial 5 year contract) which wouldn't be a great idea in terms of the new FFP regulations. Seeing as we had no FFP issues at the point of Gill's purchase then it would've made no sense to do anything other than value Lamela as low as possible in the transfer.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Paratici might!... but we don't want any Juventus style problems do we! ;)
In theory we could value Lamela at whatever we wanted in the sale. However in the books he would be valued at his initial transfer fee minus his depreciation spread over his contract. I suspect he would actually have been valued on the books at zero at the point he was sold. Now just suppose we had valued him at £100m in a sale (thus valuing Gill at £120m) then we would've reported a huge transfer profit that season, impacting our overall profit/loss. However that would then store up a potential problem with Gill where the player would be valued on the books at £120m reducing by £24m per season (as he signed an initial 5 year contract) which wouldn't be a great idea in terms of the new FFP regulations.
Click to expand...

Also a big chunk of tax to pay.
 
braineclipse said:
Yeah. I count Porro as a signing until proven wrong. I don't care much about when that money is paid. Some reports that Sporting wanted it that way. He's our player of we want him, if we could afford to sign him outright this window we can still afford that and Kulusevski come the summer...

I get that getting players in early is useful. I prioritise getting the right player in way higher.

Danjuma was opportunistic. I have no issues with opportunistic signings as long as we do our site diligence. Porro was/will be one of the most expensive wing backs around. It was a difficult deal to do. Nothing opportunistic about it.
Click to expand...

Porro could have been ours on Jan 1st if we had an actual net spend, mate. It was a 'difficult deal to do' because it involved spending money up front, and we tried everything humanly possible to avoid that, allowing Sporting to have their way.

Spend 40m on Jan 1st, he's here, maybe we get a few points out of Villa, City and Arsenal instead of zero.

We finished with a net spend of 5m - you can count Porro as a signing early if you wish, but it isn't a fact, more an opinion. Fact is he's on loan until the summer, and the loan fee was roughly the same we paid for Danjuma, 2.5m. For a grand total of 5m.

Not significant in the least, is my core point.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Danjuma - sure. Can't imagine the...hang on, the 2.5m loan fee was so crippling that we had to have absolutely zero net spend this window to be able to afford it, after all - and if it was indeed the case, we are in far deeper financial trouble than the mastermind Levy lets on.

Signing Porro early meaning we couldn't line up a CB before early summer - mate, we never get any business done outside the window, *ever*. At least, not since Modric was announced before the summer window opened in 2008. We seem to utterly forget that you can work on transfers outside the window, and seem to have forgotten again in Jan, since we had a month and a half with no club football in advance of that and *still* got nothing done until Day 31.

We don't act like that, free money or no. We dawdle, we haggle, we scrimp and shave pennies off the fee. So no, I doubt it would have made any difference

How I chose Spurs - think I mentioned before, but my Dad was posted to London pretty regularly. Met my mum on one of his postings, actually. So, in the late 90s, on one of his trips out, I asked my dad to get me an England shirt. He knew nothing about football and brought back a Spurs kit instead.

Grew from there, really. :p
Click to expand...

I'm glad your Dad did bring back that kit!

If you spend 45m in cash on jan 1st it isn't too hard to see how it becomes difficult to afford other signings. Ontop of the 45m you probably have 5m of fees etc as there could be with Danjuma too. Always better to stay liquid and agile, and pay later. The idea that you'd spend all the money upfront on Danjuma over having an option doesn't make sense does it? Far better to be able to send him back. Injury, attitude, ability, home sickness etc etc etc you never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back