Because women's and youth expenditures are also exempt, no it isn't.
Per the Deloitte figures, our wages declined by ~32M last year, and selling the likes of Royal, Lo Celso and Hojbjerg and bringing in teenagers will have seen that figure decline even further this season as European football reenters the picture.
Whatever the baseline number, a 60M decline is not a reasonable assumption. The gross revenues only went down by 17M.
But we're missing the forest for the trees here.
EVERY OTHER TEAM ON PLANET EARTH IS SPENDING A HIGHER SHARE OF THEIR REVENUE ON PLAYER WAGES THAN SPURS.
You're wrong about how close Spurs are flying to the sun, but it doesn't matter, because cold hard facts are right in our face showing that every peer club is flying closer, mostly a lot closer.
And yeah, the implications of that are that a lot of very paper-rich clubs are pretty skint PSR-wise. Even with the most headroom, our headroom isn't limitless. You can't do a Man City anymore.
But you're jerking yourself off on the notion that Mr. Savvy Internet Man has read the fine print and knows that Daddy Levy is actually forbidden from spending the money that the gammon troglodytes demand.
I regret to inform you that you are instead the middle crying guy in the midwit meme.