Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Unless an oil state takes them over (and the Saudis want United and the Qataris want...Leeds?) we know the bolded isn't happening. Spurs have shown they can develop a team on a modest budget, but that was Poch obviously. He clearly had hit the wall with the current group, but as the old saying goes it's cheaper to replace the coach than it is the entire team. I do think they'll regret this because I don't see their board changing their approach.
At this point the guys who can go on a free have every incentive to leave because despite their poor play, they are still likely to get a nice big signing bonus and that is certainly more appealing to the players. Everyone loves cash up front. So that's Eriksen, Alderweireld, Vertonghen and Rose probably gone for nothing. For Man City that's nothing, but for Spurs to net $0 for those guys is devastating.
Are guys like Kane and Son really interested in Thursdays in Boratland after playing CL football the past few years? Maybe, but we know other clubs will be happy to poach them too. Are Spurs gonna be able to say no to the money they need to rebuild? Guess we will see.
|
Again you show you dont understand their finances or their board
The athletic article even explicitly states
Quote:
Spurs still spend only 38 per cent of their turnover on wages but the club have said they expect that ratio to increase towards 50 per cent. What Levy will not do is turn Spurs into Manchester United, throwing big long-term contracts at senior players just to keep them at the club.
Even on transfers the club has started to spend again after failing to sign anyone through 2018-19, with a £120 million net spend this summer that few would have expected
|
And their finances are right up there now with the rest of the clubs
38% to 50% on wages and that includes a MASSIVE rise in revenue, I've seen it mentioned from the supporters trust it means at a minimum a doubling of the money spent on wages
2017/18 they posted the highest profit after taxes ever for a premier league club. The commercial revenue from 2015 to 2019 grew 72%, the manchester clubs and liverpool were between 34-40%, arsenal at 4%
From another article
Quote:
The matchday income of Tottenham Hotspur Stadium is absolutely massive. Early indications by the club suggest the stadium may be substantially more profitable than anticipated. Previously, Spurs leadership have used the Emirates as a standard for revenue to be expected at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, which generates around £100m per year. But fans’ interest in spending money at stadium at the initial test events have smashed the clubs’ expectations. One rumour suggested that Spurs sold more food and beverages in the first test event with 6,000 fans than they anticipated selling at a regular Premier League match. Therefore, it is not hard to see how with Spurs’ competitive pricing and superior hyper-luxury hospitality offerings compared to the Emirates, that the stadium could exceed annual earnings of £100m ..........
Spurs have basically already paid off around £500m of the stadium, and have consistent revenue streams for the next half-decade to remain in good financial shape.
|
They still havent officially signed a stadium sponsorship, which will be 8 figures per year, last year alone in the champions league they earned 90m
You talk about their finances like alan sugar still owns the club
Its the lazy and woefully uninformed scalding hot take with no truth