"PSG will never be Real Madrid", Jason Cundy. Rare insight there.
-
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...
Transfer Other Team Transfers
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
"PSG will never be Real Madrid", Jason Cundy. Rare insight there.
The biggest difference though isn't the ability to bring these players in, it's to be able to do it without the need to ship players out first!!! They have almost 60, that's SIXTY!!!! players out on loan!!! And so many of them are on massive wages, the likes of Loftus-Check on almost £100k pw (9yrs after making his debut he's averaged just 6 PL appearances a year for them 54 apps in 9yrs!!).
It's absurd.
Only Real Madrid, who claimed a few months ago that "they would be ruined if they don't play in ESL" could bid 160m on a player with a year left on his contract!
If Chelsea replace Zouma with Kounde then I just can't see beyond them for the title, and probably Europe too. They're going to have players like Werner, Pulisic, Kovacic, Chilwell and Thiago Silva on the bench. Man City really need to pull a rabbit out of the hat before the window shuts. As good as they are you can't go through an entire season with Jesus and Torres, who's a wide player, and Sterling as your forward options.
You say massive wages but what is their overall wage bill relative to everone else and turnover? Can't be too out of line as they've not been hit with FFP sanctions. And I know FFP is weak/shit/etc so that's not important. The thing I'm pointing out is that they've not breached it, UEFA or the PL, I don't believe.
So if I'm on the right path in the first paragraph then the question is why does any of this matter now?
They have the 4th highest wage bill in the World, however, their wages to turnover is 53%, that's not bad for La Liga (one of the lower teams) and is on par within the range of Utd, PSG, Bayern. However, it's also the same as Inter Milan and here lies some of their problems similar to Inter but not as bad. It's their short term debts that are due and they are also loading a lot of long term debt onto their stadium redevelopment (which I think is supposed to be €800m???).
Always, if you generate the $$$ and boy they do that in spades then teams will be OK. They can attract further borrowing and restructure debt.
But the reason why I posted the wages post was to highlight that if these players are transfer listed no one else can afford to pay those wages. Barca are out of the game in that dept. which leaves PSG who will be maxed out and City are too (reports that they had to sell before they bought Kane). Basically, they are completely stuck with those players until the contract ends.
Last edited:
But that's the same thing with ALL the "terminal clubs", City, ManU, RM, Barca, Bayern, PSG. It's factored into their decision making on players and in buying the finished product...or at least close to it. They also don't expect to actually be selling players until they are already used up. It's part of the 'plan' though things don't always go to plan.
On the flipside we are always stuck with players...but players that nobody wants. I'd rather have Chelsea's problem of 60 players of quality going out on loan and paying for themselves than our situation where we couldn't loan half our starters.
On the other flipside (how many sides to this coin?) there was Wenger who went full socialist and paid everyone into the team 60K/wk when that was real money.
TL;DR I though you were saying something else so NVM. My bad.
But that's not the case with Chelsea as they pay the players wages of almost all their 60'ish loaned players (or still a large % of them). Only a tiny fraction they achieve loan fee's for. So they are footing the bill here, no other Club dose this, and certainly no club buys in players whilst doing this. Everyone's focus is on Tammy Abraham or Gilmore but the likes of Drinkwater, Loftus-Cheek, Bakayako, Emerson, Batshuayi, Kenedy etc are only on their books because they are absolutely unsellable due to being shit and on massive wages.
EVERY club, especially PL Clubs are stuck with players they can't sell and this summer if they are shifting them they are still meeting the player's wages of a large % of them. This isn't a Tottenham specific thing. In fact, since Paratici's arrival, we've managed to shift Lamela, Alderwierld, Foyth, Rose and Gazzaniga, Hart and Whiteman, with a number slated to go soon (will not know until the window shuts for some confirmation). Yes, even our wages are high when compared with Ligue 1 in France for instance which impacts what we do.
The is hardly any liquidity in the market.
Yes I agree with the biggest of clubs having factored into the plans little to no sell-on fee, here though I think Chelsea do well, selling some utter dross to Woolwich and Barca recently and getting so lucky with Hazard they sold for £140m for a player who had turned into a Ben & Jerry's carton overnight. But there is still an element of them feeling the impact of this with the likes of Bale who they've been actively selling (or at least one half of the management/chairmanship has wanted this) for 3 seasons now.
OK but are Chels losing money? Or are they doing fine? Most of those 60 are academy kids on peanuts. It may be a lot for kids but it's peanuts in the greater picture. They loaned Abraham out many a time and now they've got 35-40M for him. Good business...would cover all the kids salaries for a few years. Nothing to see here.
I know so why you making a big deal about Chelsea? They are doing it and winning.
Never said it was. Just the difference in qualitative aspects of the respective problems.
You say that but I posted a graph showing all the money that has changed hands this summer. Sure, some may be installments, some loans-->buy, or whatever but business is being done...AND WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN INJECTION OF LIQUIDITY BUT WE LET OUR MONEY GET EMOTIONAL.
Yeah he did! Great deal for them and right time (actually late) to sell him. We will rue this day.
Yes. I wrote a post some time back about how they could mitigate this by having tiered, so to speak, contracts set by the league with each team having some latitude for incentive pay.
Chavs are £1.7b in debt to Abrahamovic mate, without that they can't do what they do (buy scores and scores of kids, put them on wages higher than some of our first team players, never play them and loan them out). How they operated is unique, no Club in world football dose this because no Club has ever had this level of investment in the history of the game. If this model meant it was a repeatable model it would have been copied by now. This model loses them money it's not sustainable without Abramovic.
The deals done this summer and this is a guesstimate represent about 85% of the entire value from about 7/8 Clubs (Man U, City, Chavs, Spurs, Woolwich, PSG), the clubs they have bought from might have done some small bits as a result. It's one of the least active markets on record in terms of volume and physical cash exchanging hands.
If they arnt earning revenue from him why extend his contract?
You're sharper than that Guids. He will get that back in any sale. I don't know the terms but that debt is different to day to day operating debt. The cash injection was needed to build them up to where they are...and it was over some year. It's time for use to drop this nonsense. They are great, the leading club of the PL over the last 2 decades, so we just need to accept it. We had our chance to dominate them but our lot didn't spend...and they're chasing their tales again this window with no fucking plan.
And therefore worthless. I could just as easily say those clubs represent 10% of the money spent. Beyond that, remember AV spent all the Grealish money before selling him. Trickle down economics Guids. If it's good enough for Reagan it's good enough for me.
Got any data to support this or is this just another throwaway line you hoping I let go unchallenged?
So they retain value in his contract (poss resale). There will be examples where some individual players will actually earn money, they supposedly got a £4.5m loan fee for him. But his wages are just shy of £100k per week, so the loan fee doesn't even cover his wages. But as a collective across 60 players they are at a net loss, Drinkwater, Loftus-Cheek cost them almost £15m a year to keep on their books in wages alone!!! SIXTY players, most without loan fees and wages all paid by Chavs.
He's not selling mate.
It's a loan that carries zero interest, no other owner on the planet (unless another gangster using money that's not his ie that stolen) is going to buy them, their assets do not cover the debt and with revenues of £460m the numbers simply will never attract a "normal" buyer.
With the greatest respect mate I am bored of this conversation, I'm repeating exactly what I typed with someone else on here last week, nothing to do with you personally but literally typing the same. It's also has nothing to do with what the point was first being discussed, so feel it's deviated away and I haven't got the energy to repeat.
I said I guessed the numbers mate, that means I DO NOT HAVE THE DATA.
Then what are we talking about?
So the club is under no pressure then with any debt to service? How's that going for us?
Their assets don't need to cover the debt. It's a brand...that he has brought international acclaim.
What's a normal buyer? And who's the last one that purchased a PL team? Are ENIC normal buyers?
Oops, jsut saw this. Will let it drop.
His book value would have gone by now and if they were going to get cash for him surely it would have happened by now.
I imagine loan fee plus most wages covered otherwise it makes little sense. Dodgy site but it says they cover wages Reports: Chelsea, Beşiktaş agree Michy Batshuayi loan
Fulham are paying less than half of Loftus-Cheek's Chelsea wages
Fulham are paying less than half of Ruben Loftus-Cheek's wages while he spends the season on loan at Craven Cottage.
www.standard.co.uk
Says they normally demand a fee and wages paid for loan players but changed it in this instance 2.6m was the cost for Chelsea.
Drinkwater is 5.2m a year (100k) and Burnley reportedly paid half with his loan there, where's the 15m?
Everything I've seen for the senior players wages are normally covered and they get a loan fee. There won't get that for drinkwater this year but that's not the norm.
Thats not including the fees they get when it goes right
2017 Chelsea's farm system has seen the club rake in a £108m profit
Chelsea Set To Make £9 Million Profit On Player Who Has Never Started
He's been contracted to the club for six years.