• 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!

Player Morgan Gibbs-White

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ionman34 said:
Ok, I'm game. How is the maths wrong? If 91% of your revenue is used on wages, and your wage bill is £64M, what is this "whole bunch" that I'm doing wrong?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well for starters reliable public wage figures don't exist, it's all pretty hazy estimates and for a multi-club model like Forest will be very complicated. Garbage in, garbage out.

Also the wages to turnover figure includes coaches and staff so that's going to screw with your denominator.

The fact that this calculation left you with an estimate of club turnover that was less than half of the known, published prize money from the league (which includes none of the matchday or sponsorship revenue the club gets) just is an obvious error message. You're not even in the ballpark.

www.bbc.com

Premier League news: How much did clubs earn in prize money?

Premier League news: How much did clubs earn in prize money?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

And then there's the fact that the squad cost limitation you mentioned both isn't in force and also measures the numerator differently.

And then the OTHER big problem I haven't mentioned is that Forest are in Europe now, so their revenue for the coming season will project to be considerably higher than last season.

And then the last sort of level-setting rule of thumb problem, your claims suggest that a club that has wages to turnover in excess of 70% is in a situation where they must have an immediate emergency fire sale to get below that level before the season starts. Yet by all publicly available figures a good half of the league is over that figure every year. So obviously something is faulty in that assumption.
 
FightingIllini said:
Well for starters reliable public wage figures don't exist, it's all pretty hazy estimates and for a multi-club model like Forest will be very complicated. Garbage in, garbage out.

Also the wages to turnover figure includes coaches and staff so that's going to screw with your denominator.

The fact that this calculation left you with an estimate of club turnover that was less than half of the known, published prize money from the league (which includes none of the matchday or sponsorship revenue the club gets) just is an obvious error message. You're not even in the ballpark.

www.bbc.com

Premier League news: How much did clubs earn in prize money?

Premier League news: How much did clubs earn in prize money?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

And then there's the fact that the squad cost limitation you mentioned both isn't in force and also measures the numerator differently.

And then the OTHER big problem I haven't mentioned is that Forest are in Europe now, so their revenue for the coming season will project to be considerably higher than last season.

And then the last sort of level-setting rule of thumb problem, your claims suggest that a club that has wages to turnover in excess of 70% is in a situation where they must have an immediate emergency fire sale to get below that level before the season starts. Yet by all publicly available figures a good half of the league is over that figure every year. So obviously something is faulty in that assumption.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

All sounds fair enough but Forest bought 20+ players in one season and have been in trouble with FFP before.

They went up so fast from the championship, it would make sense that things need to come down a bit.

I think everything points to Forest trying to sell MGW for as much as they can
 
Richard Arlison said:
All sounds fair enough but Forest bought 20+ players in one season and have been in trouble with FFP before.

They went up so fast from the championship, it would make sense that things need to come down a bit.

I think everything points to Forest trying to sell MGW for as much as they can
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They've brought in quite a bit of money from player sales already, and again, rule of thumb assumptions, if a big fee for MGW were essential to their plans, why have they launched a psychotic nuclear tirade to AVOID collecting a club-record fee for MGW?
 
FightingIllini said:
Well for starters reliable public wage figures don't exist, it's all pretty hazy estimates and for a multi-club model like Forest will be very complicated. Garbage in, garbage out.

Also the wages to turnover figure includes coaches and staff so that's going to screw with your denominator.

The fact that this calculation left you with an estimate of club turnover that was less than half of the known, published prize money from the league (which includes none of the matchday or sponsorship revenue the club gets) just is an obvious error message. You're not even in the ballpark.

www.bbc.com

Premier League news: How much did clubs earn in prize money?

Premier League news: How much did clubs earn in prize money?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

And then there's the fact that the squad cost limitation you mentioned both isn't in force and also measures the numerator differently.

And then the OTHER big problem I haven't mentioned is that Forest are in Europe now, so their revenue for the coming season will project to be considerably higher than last season.

And then the last sort of level-setting rule of thumb problem, your claims suggest that a club that has wages to turnover in excess of 70% is in a situation where they must have an immediate emergency fire sale to get below that level before the season starts. Yet by all publicly available figures a good half of the league is over that figure every year. So obviously something is faulty in that assumption.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So nothing wrong with the maths, just that the information available wasn't accurate no?

Like I said, the TV money wasn't factored in so yes, that changes the picture.

FYI, overhead costs for staff, for the majority of businesses, are generally around the 3-5% mark, if they're being run properly. So the additional 3% the NYT were reporting would likely account for that.

In all honesty, I've probably jumped the gun by stating they're hip deep in trouble. However, we'll have to wait and see what their income is over the next season to see how that affects their wage/revenue figures.
 
FightingIllini said:
They've brought in quite a bit of money from player sales already, and again, rule of thumb assumptions, if a big fee for MGW were essential to their plans, why have they launched a psychotic nuclear tirade to AVOID collecting a club-record fee for MGW?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

2 reasons:

1. They wanted more
2. It looks like they tried to Keep him for the fans

Also, we don’t really know outside rumors what they have and haven’t done. We haven’t seen confirmation of any legal challenges and we know they haven’t even filed a complaint to the PL.

So far the reality is just hot air
 
Deuterz said:
We had MGW higher up because he's attainable, lol. No other club wants him, Forest are practically begging another team to be interested.

Simons is wanted by a handful of European clubs ... we aren't after him because we can't get him, or at least won't do what it takes to get him which would be blow other team out of the water in terms of wage package and other promises. To come to Spurs a player like Simons would want a lot, otherwise why would he choose us over currently better teams?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Simons is at Leipzig after failing to impress at bigger clubs.

MGW has grown massively at Forrest and was pretty much their best player, can also play as an 8 or a 10 and has proven he's a very good player in this league.

Simons looks good in a league Jadon Sancho looked like an absolute world beater in (also Marmoush who's really fucking good tbf)
 
Gatsby said:
Oh mate, don’t. I’m meant to be moving next Friday. My buyers solicitors are as useful as a condom in a convent.

Ignores all emails from any party, afraid on answering his phone and lies about sending documents. Proper wanker.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Couple of years ago now, but pulled out on one because they owner had fucked about during lockdown modifying the house.

Survey had photos and one showed an RSJ poking through the wall into the understairs, completely uncovered. TA6 had the bit where they were to detail the engineering report, planning permission, building regs etc for any modifications and they'd just put "DIY". Solicitor was baffled when I said we'd have to pull out because it was clearly an unsafe bodged (they'd take out one of the main walls of the house, adjacent to where someone in the past had also taken out one of the supporting walls, so two big rsj's not build to regs at 90degrees to each other).

Some of them are just checkout operators who made it into an office. sister in law works for one of the big london chains as like a contractor and can bill £10k easily for just doing searches and paperwork. Properly mental how much you can earn being totally useless. The Ndombele job of the plebs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top