Basically underperformed for yearsWhy do three years? That can fluctuate.
Here's the last 10:
- Less than Newcastle, who make 1/2 our revenue and spent most of this period circling the drain.
- £400m less than Woolwich, who spent most of the last decade (1) below us in the league and (2) outside of the CL. Now in just two years since we beat them to 4th spot under Conte we've not looked further behind them since the early 00s. Shows the difference between having an owner who understands the concept of investing in your squad versus one focused on investing in infrastructure and milking his cash cow.
- Roughly equivalent net spend to West Ham, who've spent much of this period circling the relegation zone, and Villa, who spent half of it in the Championship.
- Worth noting Spurs' net spend has increased in the last couple of years, but we're still paying the price for the years of underinvestment under Poch. It's not the sort of ambition that justifies charging the highest ticket prices in world football, particularly when we have a massive FFP leeway that would enable us to invest significantly if we wanted. People used to mock Kroenke, he'd absolutely kill it with this club. Take him a million times over Levy.
- Side note, Liverpool show that it's not all about net spend so long as you have incredible data and recruitment set up and one of the world's best managers. We'll see how long they can maintain their overperformance without Klopp. Should also be noted their wage bill dwarfs ours and this is the closest predictor of league finish.
-
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
We’re third behind Chelsea and Man Utd for net spend over the past FIVE years.Why do three years? That can fluctuate.
Here's the last 10:
- Less than Newcastle, who make 1/2 our revenue and spent most of this period circling the drain.
- £400m less than Woolwich, who spent most of the last decade (1) below us in the league and (2) outside of the CL. Now in just two years since we beat them to 4th spot under Conte we've not looked further behind them since the early 00s. Shows the difference between having an owner who understands the concept of investing in your squad versus one focused on investing in infrastructure and milking his cash cow.
- Roughly equivalent net spend to West Ham, who've spent much of this period circling the relegation zone, and Villa, who spent half of it in the Championship.
- Worth noting Spurs' net spend has increased in the last couple of years, but we're still paying the price for the years of underinvestment under Poch. It's not the sort of ambition that justifies charging the highest ticket prices in world football, particularly when we have a massive FFP leeway that would enable us to invest significantly if we wanted. People used to mock Kroenke, he'd absolutely kill it with this club. Take him a million times over Levy.
- Side note, Liverpool show that it's not all about net spend so long as you have incredible data and recruitment set up and one of the world's best managers. We'll see how long they can maintain their overperformance without Klopp. Should also be noted their wage bill dwarfs ours and this is the closest predictor of league finish.
The original claim is that our ethos is being cheap. Can a coin whose net spend has been third highest over the past five years really have an ethos of being cheap?
Do you see how the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion?
Of course ten years suits you because you can I corporate a period where our revenues were much lower AND where our spending was reduced as we were building an expensive stadium. The net spend since then has been EXCELLENT.
Im any case our spending in that time was not bad. We had the 6th highest revenues and had the 7th highest spending. Newcastle are the clear anomaly but that is clearly not a good thing. They spent a lot more and got much worse results! Same for West Ham. If anything it shows that while under the constraints of building a new stadium, we in fact spent what we did very wisely and still managed to grow substantially as a club in that time.
And of course 3 years suits you because it removes all those years when we spent nothing. Funny how that works?
Liverpool were very lucky in that Barca paid 140m for Coutinho who was probably barely worth 50m They were able to buy world class kpr and centre back. Never looked back.Why do three years? That can fluctuate.
Here's the last 10:
- Less than Newcastle, who make 1/2 our revenue and spent most of this period circling the drain.
- £400m less than Woolwich, who spent most of the last decade (1) below us in the league and (2) outside of the CL. Now in just two years since we beat them to 4th spot under Conte we've not looked further behind them since the early 00s. Shows the difference between having an owner who understands the concept of investing in your squad versus one focused on investing in infrastructure and milking his cash cow.
- Roughly equivalent net spend to West Ham, who've spent much of this period circling the relegation zone, and Villa, who spent half of it in the Championship.
- Worth noting Spurs' net spend has increased in the last couple of years, but we're still paying the price for the years of underinvestment under Poch. It's not the sort of ambition that justifies charging the highest ticket prices in world football, particularly when we have a massive FFP leeway that would enable us to invest significantly if we wanted. People used to mock Kroenke, he'd absolutely kill it with this club. Take him a million times over Levy.
- Side note, Liverpool show that it's not all about net spend so long as you have incredible data and recruitment set up and one of the world's best managers. We'll see how long they can maintain their overperformance without Klopp. Should also be noted their wage bill dwarfs ours and this is the closest predictor of league finish.
They might be lucky again if the Saudis come for Salah with a bucket of money.
The summer of 2019 just killed us. Over 100m and virtually nothing in return.
Five years works for me too. We’re third behind two joke clubs. Notice how you’re avoiding the central claim.
Can a club that has spent as much as us over five years be said to have an ethos of being cheap?
Totally agree. If two of lo Celso, Sessegnon and Ndombele had worked then we’d have had a massively different experience.
Luck plays a role at the highest level.
Is it any more lucky than the £86m we made from Bale?
Difference is they invested it sensibly in Van Dijk and Allison while we spaffed ours up the wall.
You keep repeating this claim, it's actually 4th over the last 5 years:
Which again, is fine, but we're still barely making up for the years of underinvestment that came before it.
We have the capacity to be at least matching Woolwich in the transfer market and more importantly, wage bill. Why aren't we? Answer: ownership with a lack of ambition and which is more than satisfied with 4th-6th place finishes.
Is it any more lucky than the £86m we made from Bale?
Difference is they invested it sensibly in Van Dijk and Allison while we blew ours up the wall.
It's lucky in the sense that Coutinho was a fraud. Bale was actually worth the money paid.
Coutinho was excellent before he went to Barca, Klopp was desperate to keep him. Sometimes players just fall off suddenly. Happened with Bale too, only about 4 years later.
We literally started to spend money after the stadium was complete, ergo we had more money to spend because of the extra revenue so of course the last 5 years are prominent lol
Then why are we not matching it with increased wages?
You aren’t very focused. I’ll ask a final time before I disengage.You keep repeating this claim, it's actually 4th over the last 5 years:
Which again, is fine, but we're still barely making up for the years of underinvestment that came before it.
We have the capacity to be at least matching Woolwich in the transfer market and more importantly, wage bill. Why aren't we? Answer: ownership with a lack of ambition and which is more than satisfied with 4th-6th place finishes.
Is having the fourth highest net spend over the past five years consistent with having an ethos of being cheap?
Yes, when you combine it with the fact that we have (1) the lowest wage bill to revenue ratio in the league, (2) the largest FFP overhang in the league that would enable us to invest 600m in the squad if we wanted, & (3) the prior five years of net spend were effectively zero and our 10 year net spend puts us on a par with the likes of West Ham and Villa.
Ironic coming from you. Care to answer any of the above points on wage bill, or prior underinvestment in the squad, or FFP leeway? Didn't think so.
Yes the club is FINALLY investing in players. I'm not denying net spend has risen in recent years. My problem is (1) the fact that it's just at the amount that will keep us where we are, roughly 5th-7th in the league, (2) it's not in the more important area like wages, which is what really attracts the top talent, and (3) it's far less than what the club is capable of, given our balance sheet, future revenue projections and FFP overhang.
We should be using this admittedly fantastic financial position to do what Woolwich are doing and pushing on for trophies, instead we're fannying around acting like Brighton in the market content with Europa league finishes.
Last edited:
We've gone from £90m p/a to £111m p/a per year in salary payments since 2018 averaging £50k /w week per player to £70k p/w
What was eriksen’s true worth to us? 50/60M?
He alone was worth the bale money. Absolute magician for 11M
Yeah the rest was squandered but eriksen was a golden steal
Ooh wow roughly in line with inflation, I'm gonna need a lie down.
I'd have gone for Wharton too.
But it could be Palace offered him an almost guaranteed starting position which Spurs couldn't, and that was the difference to him going to Palace (allowing him to win the lucky draw of an England call up) versus coming to Spurs he'd have got playing time but not as many starts as he'd have wanted given competition from Bentancur, Sarr, Bissouma, Skipp and Maddison (plus potentially Lo Celso and Hojbjerg) ,