• 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!

Management ENIC

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

ENIC In or ENIC Out

  • Total voters
    209
AberdeenYid said:
We don’t have the lowest wage bill in the league. Far from it. We have the lowest ratio of total football related wages to total turnover.

Take Tanguy as your example. His fee was just under 60m? His salary for the five years was around that too. Equal risk in that case. Son? Around 20m fee. Would now make 50m over 5 years? So a 30m difference. Is that the risk you are talking about? If so, it’s only 30m. You previously said hundreds of millions in fees were irrelevant, but now a paltry 30m over 5 years is a risk?

Again, we aren’t doing things correctly, but it’s not all down to wages to turnover ratios. We never even knew that was a thing until recently. Doubt we ever knew even what our wage bill was until recent years, let alone considered any kind of ratio as a marker of success.

I doubt the great Liverpool teams of the eighties were highest paid, as I doubt the ManU of the nineties were. Players wanted to play for the clubs and their managers. All this started with Chelsea, continued with Man City and has now become the norm. Hasn’t always been the case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But the wages to turnover ratio is the key. That’s the closest metric we have to demonstrate how much a club is prepared to invest in the sporting commodity, being the players.

Transfer fees are a different metric. The fee paid is often very little to do with the actual player, rather the length of contract they have remaining with their current club. You’re going to be paying a lot for anyone with more than two/three years left. Haaland’s transfer fee was 10 million less than Solanke. Hardly a genuine representation of their respective statuses.

It’s the wage that’s key.

The best players who are coveted by the best teams command the highest wages. This is the same in any walk of business. We, without fail, take every opportunity to not pay those wages.

We pay good wages. But we do not pay elite wages.
 
AberdeenYid said:
To be clear for those that can’t read….

I didn’t say Solanke was a statement signing.

I didn’t say he was a replacement for Kane.

I said he was a sign that the owner’s want what’s best for the football club (secondary to what’s best for the investment). If they didn’t care an iota about the club, they’d sign perfectly serviceable players, who’d keep us in the division, for a fraction of the cost of Solanke, Richarlison, TND, etc. But they don’t. They spend money to try to make the football club better.

Not seeing this is disingenuous, agenda driven, or downright stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You might not have said that Solanke was a Kane replacement, but that's exactly what he is in practice. Cheaper and worse. The fact that they've spaffed money on at best OK players really does not help your argument. They spend money (not enough on wages) AND spend it badly. Yay.
 
Cranston said:
But the wages to turnover ratio is the key. That’s the closest metric we have to demonstrate how much a club is prepared to invest in the sporting commodity, being the players.

Transfer fees are a different metric. The fee paid is often very little to do with the actual player, rather the length of contract they have remaining with their current club. You’re going to be paying a lot for anyone with more than two/three years left. Haaland’s transfer fee was 10 million less than Solanke. Hardly a genuine representation of their respective statuses.

It’s the wage that’s key.

The best players who are coveted by the best teams command the highest wages. This is the same in any walk of business. We, without fail, take every opportunity to not pay those wages.

We pay good wages. But we do not pay elite wages.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Utd pay elite wages, as do Chelsea. They’re still struggling relatively. Liverpool have a lower wage to turnover ratio than all the other top clubs, they’re still winning the league.

It’s not that simplistic, pay more wages win more. You need to get the right players and our problem is we’re not very good at doing that. People not acknowledging that and just blindly just wanting us to pay more is a little bit naive.

But I get it wage to turnover is now the buzz phrase. It used to be net spend and eventually it’ll be something else.
 
TonySoprano said:
Utd pay elite wages, as do Chelsea. They’re still struggling relatively. Liverpool have a lower wage to turnover ratio than all the other top clubs, they’re still winning the league.

It’s not that simplistic, pay more wages win more. You need to get the right players and our problem is we’re not very good at doing that. People not acknowledging that and just blindly just wanting us to pay more is a little bit naive.

But I get it wage to turnover is now the buzz phrase. It used to be net spend and eventually it’ll be something else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Chelsea are the most decorated club of the last twenty five years. UTD have recruited poorly.

Paying high wages doesn’t inoculate you against shitty transfers. See Tanguy. But refusing to even entertain the idea narrows your opportunity to compete.
 
Cranston said:
But the wages to turnover ratio is the key. That’s the closest metric we have to demonstrate how much a club is prepared to invest in the sporting commodity, being the players.

Transfer fees are a different metric. The fee paid is often very little to do with the actual player, rather the length of contract they have remaining with their current club. You’re going to be paying a lot for anyone with more than two/three years left. Haaland’s transfer fee was 10 million less than Solanke. Hardly a genuine representation of their respective statuses.

It’s the wage that’s key.

The best players who are coveted by the best teams command the highest wages. This is the same in any walk of business. We, without fail, take every opportunity to not pay those wages.

We pay good wages. But we do not pay elite wages.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We don't even pay good wages for a club our size

250+ Elite
200-250 Good
150-200 Above Avg
100-150 Avg

We have 2 or 3 players in the Above Avg bracket, 5 or 6 in the Avg bracket and everyone else below 100. This, along with the Ange Factor is why we will finish 15th or lower.
 
_mehstg said:
We don't even pay good wages for a club our size

250+ Elite
200-250 Good
150-200 Above Avg
100-150 Avg

We have 2 or 3 players in the Above Avg bracket, 5 or 6 in the Avg bracket and everyone else below 100. This, along with the Ange Factor is why we will finish 15th or lower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which of our players do you think deserve to earn more money? Gray, Spence & Bergvale possibly but in the past the club has given established players a new contract with more money. So if Levy gave those 3 & possibly others higher wages, how will that help improve our results?
Isaac is a top player, no idea on his wages but his transfer fee was similar to Solanke but it is totally unrealistic to expect us to persuade him to come to us until we have won something. Haaland was not a top player when bought, playing in a farmers league. It was better scouting.
 
John Thomas said:
We pay elite wages at boardroom level though:freund:

We're unrivalled in that metric.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
March Madness Win GIF by Sealed With A GIF
 
John Thomas said:
I've never known a supposed Spurs fan belittle his own club and our rich, pre - ENIC history like him

Wasn't this "small club" the first English club to lift a major European trophy. The first English club to win the double in 50 years. The pre ENIC record FA Cup winners. Holds the highest home attendance record.

Yeah. Proper minnows

Also...Notice the term 'they' rather than 'we'

He speaks of us how I would expect a Gooner or Chav to speak of us
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hang on; half the people are banging on here that the Europa League is a 2nd rate cup. But our previous win was a major cup?

And winning the league back before colour TV doesn't make Spurs a big club now.

I don't really refer the club as 'WE' since I am not on the staff and not a player. I am NOT part of the club. I am a supporter - so I reserve 'WE' when talking about the fans.
 
Deuterz said:
Yeah the likes of Solanke are the classic shit the club pulls.

On the surface, ambition. In reality, a relatively low wage player. They’d never spend that fee or more on a player who would also command 150k+ a week.

The Solanke signing btw coming a whole season after we lost the best striker in the world who was on triple the wages.

Johnson, Solanke etc - relative high fees but nice low wage bill and supplement with some children. Call it ambitious squad building and point to transfer fees invested.

ITS A SCAM.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Completely agree. Spurs sign garbage players - so why do the fans demand the coach is fired for not winning the league?

Tell me 1 coach in world football that could genuinely have got consistent results with this squad minus VDV/Romero/Vicario? Yet somehow Ange is being held to that level of scrutiny. Would we demand Pep be fired for trying to play tiki taka with 18 year olds?
 
www.football.london

Tottenham PSR position explained amid £182m announcement and FFP statement

Spurs published their accounts for the 2023/24 financial year last week
www.football.london www.football.london

We already know that all Premier League sides were PSR compliant as the league informed all clubs in early January after requiring them to submit accounts for scrutiny before the end of December last year. The three-year monitoring period for Spurs up to June 30, 2024, had the club reporting £182m in losses.

It was noted in the accounts that “the club continues to comply with and support both UEFA and the Premier League Financial Fair Play criteria.”

Given that the club were some £77million over the £105m allowance that might have seemed curious, but Spurs have a significant amount of allowable deductions, largely due to the depreciation related to the stadium, something that amounts to around £70m per season. Add to that the deductions for youth development, the women’s team and community work and the figure grows further.

Football finance expert Swiss Ramble estimated that Spurs had around £93m per year of allowable deductions when it came to PSR compliance, with that figure made up of depreciation of £70m, £15m on youth development and £3m each on the women’s team and the community.

Using those allowable deductions, Spurs came out as net positive for PSR in 2021/22 at £32m, negative for 2022/23 at £2m given the heavy £95m pre-tax loss, and net positive for 2023/24 at £66m.

That £96m sum, added on top of the £105m that as already allowed, meant that the club had some £201m in PSR headroom before having to be concerned about any kind of Premier League punishment. That was one of the healthiest PSR positions in the Premier League.

Next season’s position will likely see less headroom, but they still won’t be concerned about compliance given the breathing space that they have already created.
 
bus-conductor said:
www.football.london

Tottenham PSR position explained amid £182m announcement and FFP statement

Spurs published their accounts for the 2023/24 financial year last week
www.football.london www.football.london

We already know that all Premier League sides were PSR compliant as the league informed all clubs in early January after requiring them to submit accounts for scrutiny before the end of December last year. The three-year monitoring period for Spurs up to June 30, 2024, had the club reporting £182m in losses.

It was noted in the accounts that “the club continues to comply with and support both UEFA and the Premier League Financial Fair Play criteria.”

Given that the club were some £77million over the £105m allowance that might have seemed curious, but Spurs have a significant amount of allowable deductions, largely due to the depreciation related to the stadium, something that amounts to around £70m per season. Add to that the deductions for youth development, the women’s team and community work and the figure grows further.

Football finance expert Swiss Ramble estimated that Spurs had around £93m per year of allowable deductions when it came to PSR compliance, with that figure made up of depreciation of £70m, £15m on youth development and £3m each on the women’s team and the community.

Using those allowable deductions, Spurs came out as net positive for PSR in 2021/22 at £32m, negative for 2022/23 at £2m given the heavy £95m pre-tax loss, and net positive for 2023/24 at £66m.

That £96m sum, added on top of the £105m that as already allowed, meant that the club had some £201m in PSR headroom before having to be concerned about any kind of Premier League punishment. That was one of the healthiest PSR positions in the Premier League.

Next season’s position will likely see less headroom, but they still won’t be concerned about compliance given the breathing space that they have already created.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It’s been obvious for a little while now that PSR isn’t the issue, it’s Levy’s expectations for cash flow and op income.
 
TonySoprano said:
Utd pay elite wages, as do Chelsea. They’re still struggling relatively. Liverpool have a lower wage to turnover ratio than all the other top clubs, they’re still winning the league.

It’s not that simplistic, pay more wages win more. You need to get the right players and our problem is we’re not very good at doing that. People not acknowledging that and just blindly just wanting us to pay more is a little bit naive.

But I get it wage to turnover is now the buzz phrase. It used to be net spend and eventually it’ll be something else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Some sense. Well played.

Take out Salah VDV and TAA who have been at the club for an age and you see they bring in players on similar wages and for similar fees to us.

Everyone is obsessed with money because they have been convinced by Sky and Talksport it's the most important thing in the world so they can sell loads of ads during transfer silly season.

There are a lot of easy marks who follow football
 
dudu said:
Some sense. Well played.

Take out Salah VDV and TAA who have been at the club for an age and you see they bring in players on similar wages and for similar fees to us.

Everyone is obsessed with money because they have been convinced by Sky and Talksport it's the most important thing in the world so they can sell loads of ads during transfer silly season.

There are a lot of easy marks who follow football
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Disagree , I think the most important thing in football is entertainment & that is shaped by how you are run which does include money , it’s unavoidable.

For fans of a club entertainment is mostly about feeling happy with how things are . I doubt there are many who are happy with the current situation at Spurs . Regarding the transfer shenanigans of rolling sports news , it’s a bit weird to get wound up by the faux drama.
 
Furball man said:
Disagree , I think the most important thing in football is entertainment & that is shaped by how you are run which does include money , it’s unavoidable.

For fans of a club entertainment is mostly about feeling happy with how things are . I doubt there are many who are happy with the current situation at Spurs . Regarding the transfer shenanigans of rolling sports news , it’s a bit weird to get wound up by the faux drama.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There is an incredibly easily measurable correlation between wage spend and success lol, it’s not opinion it’s fact. Of fucking course that doesn’t mean spend big wages for the sake of it or ineptly like Manchester United, nobody is asking for that..

But clubs that constantly stay in their box are never likely to challenge. We have always been more cowardly with spending. We’d never have invested the 100m in Rice for example with a 200k+ a week wage too.

When are we ever in for a top table player like that? Never. So we never make that next step at all. Van Djik and Alisson took Liverpool there - anyone see Levy making signings of that calibre?

There’s no reason we can’t btw. We are a wealthy London club. We can challenge for top tier talent but we settle for Solanke, Johnson and some kids. Well we don’t, but we know the fans who do.. they’re in this thread with us.

Solanke for example - good player tbf. Never a Kane replacement. You replace elite with Solanke, Maddison, Johnson (good mid table talent) .. you’ll finish where you deserve.

Some people are happy with this. Again, we know who they are. They deserve everything they get tbh. Apparently they don’t really care anyway, which is nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top