But wouldn’t they have known that, so factored it into the prediction?
Unless they were expecting more people to turn up.
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Unless they were expecting more people to turn up.
I think yes and yes to both scenarios. Also, some element of what he says too.
Also in the first half of the season 21/22 there were a fair number of matches where attendances were slightly off full.
If you combine all the factors, it would surprise me if match day revenues for season 22/23 aren't maybe 15% or 20% higher.
But just to put things into perspective the £106m match day revenue was more than double Spurs 2016/17 revenues (last full season in WHL) of £45m. And comfortably higher than Woolwich's £80m , Chelsea's £70m and even Liverpool's £95m and just shy of ManU's £111m.
So the stadium - even just on match day revenues alone - has been a bit of a game changer. Factor in things like the non football events (x £5m each for venue hire plus food and drink sales) which will add maybe £80m plus other stuff and its pretty obvious why the new stadium was needed.
It'll take a few seasons, preferably with CL revenue streams, to fully work through into upgrading the squad but that process is already underway.
He said he’d post more once the details came out . I’ve not had time to look at Swiss Rambles view on it , I’m a bit “financed “ out when it comes to ENIC at the moment & hearing quotes from Levy’s tv thing , I’m fed up of hearing about excuses & property.
The Swiss Ramble newsletter is a dense, but good read. The revenue news is good, the club has resources. The problem we've had is more that we've missed on a few key transfers, and had shit luck in a couple of moments where either the team choked in key games, or we've had ridiculous injuries (like this year). The biggest negative that I could see was the very large transfer debt. We have bought a lot of players on payment plans, and will be paying for them for several years, even though many of them have simply not panned out for the club.
Not sure the board have the wherewithall to actually solve that issue. It's partly luck, partly a lack of joined up thinking, and I don't know how you get them to recognize the latter.
Not sure the board have the wherewithall to actually solve that issue. It's partly luck, partly a lack of joined up thinking, and I don't know how you get them to recognize the latter.
TBF, he was good enough selling polyester suits that he was able to throw in on buying a premier league football club to be chairman of.I am an investment banker who is now a plumber
Daniel Levy is a polyester suit salesman who is now a football club chairman.
Your investment banking career seems to have, quite literally, gone down the drain.
The thing with the transfers is not a big an issue as most of our rivals though and that's down to the wages we pay. All of our rivals (as all Clubs do now) spread the cost of their players over the length of the contract. If a player doesn't work out (it happens) then the wages which we have them on shouldn't be cost-prohibitive for other clubs to take them on. But for sure this problem has occurred at the acutest on our most expensive player/highest wage earner too (Ndombele exhibit a). He's on £200k pw and only gets a few mins at the end of each game for Napoli, no one will match his wages so it's likely he stays unless we pay him off.
But our competitor's average wages are around £200k across their squads.
It's still a problem and dose still affect and we simply have to improve at disposing of these players.
I think part of the problem is Levy and many fans both have this daft mentality that Spurs shouldn't be a selling club. EVERY club is a selling club. It's just a matter of the price being right. We need to have a much more planned approach to player exits, with a lot of thought built into the contracts to help with that. We already apparently are very good at doing contracts with a lot of incentive payments, which preserves the outlay while rewarding players when they do perform, but we need to also do the same with player sales. We need to have the mentality that we will at some point sell every single player at the club, and the only matter is when. The idea of retaining guys needs to be seen as something we only do if the player is committed to the club and worth keeping, rather than holding onto players just because we want to send a message.
80M for events?! We don’t get 5M plus beverage. Think it’s bervage only and
He’s a one dimensional snake who can only sell players in certain scenarios - 1) Low value young player moved on for 3-10M or 2) he holds all the cards in a negotiation
It's definitely when he prefers to sell, which is part of the problem. Not going to call him a snake, since I'm not a fan of good/evil narratives around the club, but it is a weakness that needs to be addressed.
I think part of the problem is Levy, the board, and too many of the fans, are not very sophisticated football thinkers, and have too much of a Talksport/Red Top understanding of the game. The best thing about Paratici is that he doesn't speak enough English to pay attention to it.
rental for stadium 3m+ food and beverages and sundries 2m = 5m
All averages. Apparently NFL events tend to be much longer so higher earnings for food and beverages. We also get cuts on other stuff too, eg we sell quite a lot of merchandising in shop so get a cut on that etc.
So event organisers get 100% tickets, but we do well out of everything else.
I was joking fella.TBF, he was good enough selling polyester suits that he was able to throw in on buying a premier league football club to be chairman of.
Your investment banking career seems to have, quite literally, gone down the drain.
Agree in part.
The thing is we were heavily criticised for being a selling club. Honestly drives me around the bend. No Club in the big 6 was criticised as heavily for it in the media, then fans pilled in slating the club (not really understanding that Man U for instance had routinely lost all of its star players to Real Madrid.
Maybe now the criticism is right that we didn't sell Dele, Dier, Kane, at their peak but seriously take yourself back to that period and actually imagine us doing that, there would have been a fucking riot on the streets of N17.
As I see it every Club buys and sells, those that have been praised to the hilt for a short period of time, e.g. Liverpool, are now in the mud for their transfer activity.
The biggest difference is some Clubs have been able to absorb all their failures namely Utd and Chelsea. They have struggled to sell their high-earner failures but were able to loan them out to little to no fuss (other than the noise that surrounded Pogba) whilst still spending big on new signings. Other Clubs can't do this, us included.
We were very good at selling star players and reinvesting the proceeds at one time - selling Carrick (I think £16m) allowed us to buy Berbatov (for £11m I think) who in turn was sold on for £30m.
We also sold Modric (£30m I think, big at the time) and Bale for big money after buying them cheaply - Bale ended up costing us about £8m (as we bought back his 'extras') and we received close to £100m. Only issue is we didn't spend the Bale money that well with Eriksen and Lamela the only long term successes.
All that changed with Poch who apparently didn't want to sell Eriksen even after Eriksen said he wanted out - at that time we might have got £80m, whereas when sold we got was it £19m ? And 20/20 hindsight says we should have sold Dele at his peak for £100m+ ! The only big money raised was to sell academy players (Townsend, Mason, Bentaleb, Pritchard, Veljkovic et al) for circa £100m to buy the likes of Sissoko
And its not selling to raise funds which meant that towards the end of Poch reign we'd had windows from 2016 - 19 where we spent relatively big eg Sanchez for £43m who has not lived up to expectation, or on what seemed very decent punts such as Janssen, who Poch didn't play much ....... before throwing our CL winnings into the disastrous buying of Ndombele and Lo Celso in 2019 ...... but we never raised any money from selling good players during his reign.
I don't like Chelsea, but they have rinsed a lot of money by selling players. Even more so by allowing Lampard to bring through their academy players and then selling them (Abraham, Tomoli etc). Most other big clubs do it - so why not us ?
Had we sold the likes of Eriksen at their peak (say 2018) and reinvested in a couple of players who could develop into stars (as we have now with Sarr) we would not have ended up at end of Poch's reign with an aging squad and few youngsters. Paratici had a huge job to do, and he's done well to get us a better squad (but a couple more windows required) but its due to STOPPiNG selling some stars to re-invest that we had a big problem.
Thanks and I'm sort of in agreement.
However one question I have is this: who was going to pay £80m or £100m for Dele or Eriksen? If it was a domestic rival would you still advocate selling? And what to do if the player doesn't want to leave or go to the clubs bidding?
Yes I'm not disputing any of this.
But there would have been fucking riots had we actually sold Eriksen, Dele, and Kane etc.....
And we WERE absolutely slated for selling Modric, for selling Bale, for selling Berba.
Whilst Chavs have made some great sales by offloading mainly over-the-hill players to Woolwich (Luiz, Willian (although he looks great at Fulham), Cech, Hazard to RM. And they got great money for Tomori, Abraham, Hudson-Odi, and Ake.
Then there is this lot that never gets mentioned:-
Cuadrado, Drinkwater, Berkley, Batshuayi, Bakayko, Reme, Kenedy, Falcao, Torres, Schurrle, Fillippe Luis, Lukaku, Eto (biggest wages in the world), Ba, Emerson, Zappacosta, van Ginkel, Morata, Kepa (getting better but yet to repay the World record fee), Higuain, Pulisic, Werner, Ziyech, Havertz, Galagher bought him back now will almost sell again).
And then those that were great or v good but they sold Salah, DeBryn, Ake, Christiansen, Lampetey, Guehi.
A lot is about narratives around certain Clubs, this gets attached and repeated and reinforced. But those that get credited for being great in the transfer market like chavs it rarely goes hand in hand in looking at those they are stuck with, can't sell or have lost hundreds of millions over, no other Club has written off a debt of £1.5b of failed trading.
Edwards at Liverpool was praised to high heavens, what is to be made of LFC's business now? (I know he's left but it his role is to ensure there is a healthy conveyer belt of players coming through the academy and there's a pipeline of transfer targets profiled for every position. Southampton was supposed to be a model all clubs should aim at. Like Spurs Everton and I think Leicester also went after "star" DoF and technical directors widely praised for the roles at their clubs only to fail.
It's really difficult to isolate a period of time without framing the context to those years that preceded or followed.
With us, however, there is no denying that we have incrementally improved our squad year on year for nearly the past 20yrs. I still feel the loss of behind-the-scenes talent at Tottenham came around the time we lost Mcdermott, just look at how many of his old coaches/staff are now at Fulham (that Parker took with him). I can't say we've improved on that, mainly because I lost visibility to what we are doing here (I had a small opportunity to know what we did back then as I knew a couple of people now no longer at the club).
But there's nothing definitive - for any one position or player that we could have sold there is an equally powerful argument for keeping them. There is also the argument that Wenger put forward years ago that the purchase and sale of a player's valuations is a red herring and irrelevant. I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with him, especially as he suffered terribly trying to shift cloggers in his "English Core" that were all on massive salaries just sitting out their time in u21's.
Finally, I think the whole of the PL is going to get fucked, we are already, in the transfer markets as the clubs from leagues outside the PL know there are loads of bargains to be had if a PL club is willing to terminate a contract or buy a player from their academy only to flip them in a year or 2 back to the PL for +£60m or have a player they can sell to PL for at least x5 they will get of a club in another league. PL clubs are getting fleeced. This only makes player trading harder for PL clubs.
Last edited:
Thanks, I suspect our views are pretty much aligned.
Agreed we are always going to get disappointed/unhappy fans when we sell players, and have done in the past. I was very sorry to see Michael Carrick leave after just one season, but was happy 12 months later having seen Dimitar Berbatov become a very classy centre forward for us.
And whilst not every purchase after a popular star has left, as you say we improved our squad hugely over the time until we were able to hand to Poch for his first match a squad containing Llloris, Vorm, Walker, Rose, Vertonghen, Dier Eriksen, Dembele, (Mason and Bentaleb- first choice CM's in Poch's first season), Kane and Lamela - the core of Poch's team for a few years.
Our problems came when we stopped the policy of selling to buy again - popular at the time but its really only in last 2 seasons we've seen the results.
So I think we need to, be open to, very selectively, sell a top player if we think we can get a very high price which allows us to get in a couple of potential stars.
But that shouldn't be our sole means of funding new stars - so with revenues increasing significantly that should afford us to buy us 2 or 3 £50m type players every season for a few years plus we should be bringing through players from our academy plus buying a good prospect or two who requires development.
By tacking the market in a number of ways we should be able to continue to improve our squad. But we need to try all those routes and its dangerous to avoid any of those individual routes as it means you exclude yourself from a acquiring a particular pool of players.
Certainly in summer 2018 (I think) Eriksen was turned down for a move. I'd hate to sell domestically and hope that we could repeat the Modric transfer (who was being pursued by Chelsea) but we allowed Madrid to take him.
Its always up to buying club to persuade player to leave Spurs, usually for higher wages or more sun in Spain !
Never easy and never going to be popular but results of NOT agreeing Eriksen's sale in 2018 was a lack of funds to buy his successor which is coming home to roost now. Its a classic case of a small amount of jam today for a couple of seasons if you keep an older player or (hopefully) lots of jam tomorrow or actually maybe 10 seasons if you sell and buy right.