• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Transfers January Transfer Thread 24/25

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Furball man said:
Then change your wage structure you cows cunt

It won’t bankrupt us
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Exactly! Far from bankrupting us, we could spend another 39m a year more on wages, which would give us a wage to revenue ratio of 50%. That would be enough for 3x 250k/week players or 5x 150k/week players and we'd STILL have the lowest ratio of any of our rivals.

"Going in order of the revenues with which Deloitte ranked the nine British clubs in the world’s top 20, Manchester City spent 57 per cent of their £706.8m turnover on wages (£403.4m), and they might be seen as our standard bearer, pending the outcome of deeper enquiries.

Next up is Manchester United, who operated at 56 per cent (£364m on wages), pursued by Woolwich at 53 per cent (£320m) and Liverpool at 63 per cent (£380m). Then it was Spurs, followed by Chelsea (72 per cent, £331.7m), Newcastle (68 per cent, £213m), West Ham (58 per cent, £157m), and Aston Villa (96 per cent, £251m")."

Management - Levy / ENIC from a daily mail article.

We're at 42%. We could still comfortably be the most profitable team in the league and have a chance of competing. Wtf is stopping them? I seriously do not understand it. Surely it just makes sound business sense to spend just a little more, still spend FAR less than any rival and potentially earn loads more from CL and trophy winnings. I don't understand it. The only explanation is they're fine with staying in the PL and earning money from hosting rolling stones gigs and etc.
 
paddyspurs said:
Exactly! Far from bankrupting us, we could spend another 39m a year more on wages, which would give us a wage to revenue ratio of 50%. That would be enough for 3x 250k/week players or 5x 150k/week players and we'd STILL have the lowest ratio of any of our rivals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I responded to you saying this earlier in the ENIC thread - where does the £300m - £400m we’d need to buy these new high salary players come from?
 
CerealMaterial said:
Not in a single player in that starting 11 he posted is untouchable, all of them are upgradeable.

Not saying all of them need to be upgrade, but I dont know how anyone looks at that side and sees prime galacticos
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sure, but it does create a problem. If we sign a top CB this January, where does that leave us when Romero / Van are back from injury? We've already seen Dragusin and his agent throw a hissy fit.

If Romero / Ven / Porro / Udogie get a sniff that they are not 'first pick' they will hand in a transfer request.

For top players, spurs are a stepping stone club, and if your not playing, your career goes down the toilet.

And not to mention, who do you drop from the squad to accommodate the new signings?
 
harry7 said:
The squad is full. To bring in a senior player, we need to drop someone.

Sure. Timo, regullon could go, but who else would potentially wish to be sold this window? Regullon provides needed cover at full back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doesn’t seem right that our squad is full, when we can hardly field a full team at this point. Between that issue, and seeing other clubs sign player after player, it sure seems like players are fine with the competition.

I look at Chelsea and they continually sign players, while we hear all the time that no one would play here because they might not get enough playing time. Evidently, as long as they get paid, it seems like players are willing to compete for playing time and be a member of a larger team.
 
Calgary Spur said:
Doesn’t seem right that our squad is full, when we can hardly field a full team at this point. Between that issue, and seeing other clubs sign player after player, it sure seems like players are fine with the competition.

I look at Chelsea and they continually sign players, while we hear all the time that no one would play here because they might not get enough playing time. Evidently, as long as they get paid, it seems like players are willing to compete for playing time and be a member of a larger team.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I’m not sure what you’re saying here? Are you saying it would make sense to pay players when there is a hotel and residential towers to be built?!? Absolutely outrageous! Disgraceful!

You sir - just don’t “get it”!
 
TottsAmazeballs said:
OMG, It’s got some legs! NYC red bulls want him. Please, please, please make this happen in time to replace him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Please, please, please! As a New York City and Tottenham supporter.

Just to clear things up-- the "New York" Red Bulls actually play in New Jersey. New York City FC (NYCFC) plays in... New York City. Our new stadium is under construction next to Citi Field in Queens, where the New York Mets play, and the US Tennis Center (site of the US Open)
 
AberdeenYid said:
I responded to you saying this earlier in the ENIC thread - where does the £300m - £400m we’d need to buy these new high salary players come from?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Most transfers are paid in instalments so you aren’t going to slap down 400M upfront. Although I suspect the way and length we try and stage fees makes it harder for us to close deals (as other clubs are willing to pay more upfront and obv Levy stretches it over ten years conditional on unrealistic performance milestones).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top