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 10 year period is actually not relevant for us - half of that is spend based upon our revenues at WHL.
Moving to the new stadium, starting post covid, has increased our revenues a lot and whilst revenues (particularly sponsorships, concerts etc) take a bit of time to build up we are now earning double our WHL revenues which is why we spent circa £150m gross in each of last 2 summer windows. So the last 3 years spend are far more relevant for Spurs.
