• 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

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.

Fans should contact ENIC and say “ due to my wage structure I’ll be giving you £500 for a season ticket “

😉
 
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?

I'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."

 
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.
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 to
 
I'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."

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
 
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
Why 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

Don’t forget that we are also receiving payments from clubs for players we’ve sold

Truth is it’s a self imposed wage structure that is well within our finances & we have lots of leg room in ffp . It’s a decision made by the board & even while we are looking over our shoulders because of our league position , they don’t seem to fussed
 
It’s simple. Some of us are old enough to remember Ted DiBiase in the WWF.
He was the “Million Dollar Man” who’s catchphrase was…..”everyone’s got a price!!!”

Same applies in football. You want any player if you pay the club and players enough they will sign. No guarantee that they will be any good by just paying over the odds. Look at united.
But it’s definitely a case for spurs that “to do is too dear.”
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
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.

I don't mind opportunism but it can't be the only tactic. But it seems that's just how we roll.
 
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.
Madness
 
Back
Top