I was waiting for Santiago to be linked to Spurs again
View: https://x.com/Bergvallisking/status/1883254265441050768
He does seem to score goals wherever he plays but I read he doesn't want to play for us, he wants AC Milan.
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...
I was waiting for Santiago to be linked to Spurs again
View: https://x.com/Bergvallisking/status/1883254265441050768
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.
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?
We need someone to analyse our accounts in more detail vs peers to understand the cost base. People are obsessing about wage ratio but we have spent a lot on fees and that is obv paid out of the remaining %. Is it also less than peers? Probably - but other clubs have owner investment to help and obv Levy and Lewis choose not toExactly! 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.
That money needs to come from somewhere though. They really need to either bring in outside investment as capital and spend (selling a small stake), or just fuck off and sell outright for a fair price. They bought the club for £30M. Whether it’s 3, or 4BN (sale), take the money and run you utter weaselsI'm not saying we can immediately sign 5 players on 150k/week, it's just an example that makes the irksome phrase "Tottenham can't sign X because they don't fit within the clubs wage limits" we hear every transfer window bullshit. They're self imposed limits, probably because they're looking to sell and for investment.
We definitely have enough revenue to sign more players though:
"Spurs’ revenue last term was £550m, giving them a PSR budget of £467.5m.
For context, Spurs their expense last season (wages and amortisation) were £282m. This would give them more wriggle room than almost any other club in the new PSR era.
Whether the owners – and perhaps new minority investors – are willing and able to bankroll greater expenditure is a separate issue."
![]()
Daniel Levy and Tottenham have just received £129m PSR setback
The Leicester City PSR ruling will not be welcomed by Tottenham and Daniel Levy, who are staunch advocates of Premier League's spending rules.tbrfootball.com
Why can't it come from the profits from our 5th highest in the league revenue?That money needs to come from somewhere though. They really need to either bring in outside investment as capital and spend (selling a small stake), or just fuck off and sell outright for a fair price. They bought the club for £30M. Whether it’s 3, or 4BN (sale), take the money and run you utter weasels
It could and it should but they would probably argue they arw already paying the money committed on fees over the last five years or so? We’ve spent 460M so that’s probably being spread at about 100M paWhy can't it come from the profits from our 5th highest in the league revenue?
It could and it should but they would probably argue they arw already paying the money committed on fees over the last five years or so? We’ve spent 460M so that’s probably being spread at about 100M pa
I bet he doesn’t cook the Sunday roast at his gaff , it would be burnt to a crispLevy/ENIC trying to sell the club or get investment will be like them trying to sell the naming rights. The valuation will be far too high and nothing will happen for years.
He plays for Juve not NapoliIn a Conte system you don't need to track back from just outside your own penalty area.
I was waiting for Santiago to be linked to Spurs again![]()
View: https://x.com/Bergvallisking/status/1883254265441050768
Leaving it as late as possible so when it collapses we can just say we ran out of time.A late move?
It’s already 3 weeks late and cost us an injury to our 60m striker
We shouldn't be panic buying though. The identification and selection of players should be a year round operation. From the moment the window closed in the summer the winter window should be getting planned. Our injury pile up started in autumn.The only thing worse than doing nothing is panic buying. Which is what we'll probably do and it will be more overpriced average players cluttering up the squad and then you're into sell before we buy.
It really does speak to the inadequecies of the summer windows that every January we're having to cover for things we didnt do over the summer.
MadnessExactly! 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.