ENIC...

Metalhead · Sep 3, 2020

daryl hannah said:
We finished above Liverpool for something like 8 seasons in a row. They made a few key acquisitions in the right places and now have two fantastic shiny trophies. We are found wanting having underinvested in the team for a very long time.

I guess that we could have been in a better position if the Bale money had been invested the way that Liverpool invested the Coutinho money. It's not always the amount of money spent but the strategy used in spending it.

Shadydan · Sep 3, 2020

daryl hannah said:
We finished above Liverpool for something like 8 seasons in a row. They made a few key acquisitions in the right places and now have two fantastic shiny trophies. We are found wanting having underinvested in the team for a very long time.

Yeah in which signing Mane wasn't the difference between the two teams so I don't get the reference? Why do you think there was investment in the team (particularly wages) over a prolonged period...?it always comes back to one thing.

AberdeenYid · Sep 3, 2020

daryl hannah said:
We finished above Liverpool for something like 8 seasons in a row. They made a few key acquisitions in the right places and now have two fantastic shiny trophies. We are found wanting having underinvested in the team for a very long time.

And they finished above us for the forty years before that. Not sure your point stands up really.

Nobody really knows why we bought the players we did, went two windows without spending and who was responsible for all that. Personally, I put the blame at the board, the manager and the scouts. I also blame the coaches and players for not kicking on either.

This is a collective effort and the jump from mid table to top four is massive. But pales in comparison to the jump needed to go from top four to champion. No single facet of the club can be blamed for us not making the jump and no single facet of the club can be credited for the strides we’ve made in the last decade.

sausage · Sep 3, 2020

RichieS said:
I might be wrong on this, but I think we've regularly come out near the top in terms of agents fees paid as well.

They're always sky high.

In 19/20 they spent £30.3m vs our £12m (https://www.skysports.com/football/...3m-on-agent-fees-to-lead-premier-league-clubs) apparently
in 18/19 they spent £43.8m vs our £11m (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/apr/04/liverpool-paid-43m-agents-spurs-113m-profit-record). Obviously agent fees aren't just on incomings, as we had none.
in 17/18 they spent £26.8m vs our £7m or so (https://www.joe.co.uk/news/liverpoo...nts-than-any-other-premier-league-club-170879)
in 16/17 I think they spent £13.8 vs our £7.2m according to this https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39526917

Based on those, over £113m in 4 seasons versus our £37m or so.

Their net-spend-per-season is less than ours over the last 5 (https://www.transferleague.co.uk/pr...tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons) but they've somehow found ways to sell lots of random shit players for £20m a pop, which may actually be related to agent fees - who knows?

daryl hannah · Sep 3, 2020

Shadydan said:
Yeah in which signing Mane wasn't the difference between the two teams so I don't get the reference? Why do you think there was investment in the team (particularly wages) over a prolonged period...

I don't get why you think I THINK that Mané was THE difference between the two teams?

Shadydan · Sep 3, 2020

daryl hannah said:
I don't get why you think I THINK that Mané was THE difference between the two teams?

Because the conversation was about Mane's wages and why we didn't take up the option to sign him was it not? Then you mentioned that Liverpool won 2 trophies implying that should have signed Mane for that reason.

If that wasn't your implication when you mentioned Liverpool winning the CL and PL then I'm not sure I understand your point?

daryl hannah · Sep 3, 2020

Shadydan said:
Because the conversation was about Mane's wages and why we didn't take up the option to sign him was it not? Then you mentioned that Liverpool won 2 trophies implying that should have signed Mane for that reason.

If that wasn't your implication when you mentioned Liverpool winning the CL and PL then I'm not sure I understand your point?

Go back and read what I actually wrote (Mané was just an example of where we've got our strategy wrong).

Shadydan · Sep 3, 2020

daryl hannah said:
Go back and read what I actually wrote (Mané was just an example of where we've got our strategy wrong).

How many times do we need to do this same argument in this thread? - Pay a player above what we can afford then the wage bill gets increased and it creates a domino affect and unsettles players - The strategy was maintain the wage to turnover ratio until our turnover improved which it did hence why our players eventually got a spate of new contracts and higher paid contracts when we could guarantee increased revenue.

Also signing Mane and putting him on £140k p/w doesn't guarantee winning anything as if we'd suddenly copy the same fortunes as Liverpool had, it's a pointless comparison.

Trotter · Sep 3, 2020

Premier League have just cancelled contract with China for broadcasting.

Wonder if that will have knock-on effect to our sponsorship with AIA (Chinese, well Hong Kong based) and only focused on Asia-Pacific market, with China being their largest market, as we can no longer deliver what was being paid for ?

sausage · Sep 3, 2020

MK Yid said:
Premier League have just cancelled contract with China for broadcasting.

Wonder if that will have knock-on effect to our sponsorship with AIA (Chinese, well Hong Kong based) and only focused on Asia-Pacific market, with China being their largest market, as we can no longer deliver what was being paid for ?

It's been mentioned in one of the other threads - the assumption being that it won't change much because people will just pirate the broadcasts anyway or something.

Also depends on how much their market is in the existing exposures.

Trotter · Sep 3, 2020

sausage said:
It's been mentioned in one of the other threads - the assumption being that it won't change much because people will just pirate the broadcasts anyway or something.

Also depends on how much their market is in the existing exposures.

Pirate only broadcast in China, yeah that would totally satisfy AIA, even in the unlikelihood the Chinese government allowed that.
If the general consensus of the SC minds is it would have no effect, then I will assume it will, and logically see no way it wouldn't have an effect on our sponsorship deals especially with it being the most populated country in the world, paying the highest TV deal and the base of our major sponsor. They would be looking for a reduction, and possibly even frustration of contract.

sausage · Sep 3, 2020

MK Yid said:
Pirate only broadcast in China, yeah that would satisfy AIA, even in the unlikelihood the Chinese government allowed that.
If the general consensus of the SC minds is it would have no effect, then I will assume it will, and logically see no way it wouldn't have an effect on our sponsorship deals especially with it being the most populated country in the world, paying the highest TV deal and the base of our major sponsor.

I'm not sure Communist China has a good history of preventing (or discouraging) copyright infringement tbh.

Based on what little I know, AIA covers the entire pan-asian realm - including India - so as I say it depends on how much their market share is in the existing exposures (and if they are trying to break into the western markets)

Trotter · Sep 3, 2020

sausage said:
I'm not sure Communist China has a good history of preventing (or discouraging) copyright infringement tbh.

Based on what little I know, AIA covers the entire pan-asian realm - including India - so as I say it depends on how much their market share is in the existing exposures (and if they are trying to break into the western markets)

Totally irrelevant what AIA's market share and prospective markets are, to the contract they have with Tottenham. That is their own business strategy, which this and other marketing they do enhances.

However what is relevant is that contractually they are paying for a service to be delivered into 188 countries reaching 1.03 billion households worldwide (4.37 billion viewers), and Tottenham and the Premier League can no longer deliver that, with their home Chinese market about 10% of the total worldwide viewers.
At the very least they would have strong case in claiming we are no longer able to deliver the service and would want minimum 10% reduction in pricing (equivalent to viewer reductions), could maybe say 30% reduction (Chinese viewers as % of their ASPA market viewers) and worst case (I suppose depending on how they view the benefits they are getting, which as they renewed last year up to 2027 so would be favourable, and how important the Chinese market is to them, would say very important), they could arguably claim the contract has been frustrated by Tottenham. There will be things written into the contract, and that goes for pitch-side sponsorships also. It won't just be Tottenham in this position by the way, but all PL clubs, the fact we are sponsored by a Chinese one makes just makes our position worse.

With respect I do think you are being pretty naive. It is similar to the Sky Sports contract with the Premier League, even though games were delivered finally, there was still a rebate due to them, as the service wasn't delivered as specified in the contract, i.e. amount of games in a timescale (which resulted in lots of people cancelling their Sky Subscriptions), we won't be delivering Premier League Football and the AIA branding to the TV's of the most populated country in the world despite contractually promising to do so.

sausage · Sep 3, 2020

MK Yid said:
Totally irrelevant what AIA's market share and prospective markets are, to the contract they have with Tottenham. That is their own business strategy, which this and other marketing they do enhances.

However what is relevant is that contractually they are paying for a service to be delivered into 188 countries reaching 1.03 billion households worldwide (4.37 billion viewers), and Tottenham and the Premier League can no longer deliver that, with their home Chinese market about 10% of the total worldwide viewers.
At the very least they would have strong case in claiming we are no longer able to deliver the service and would want minimum 10% reduction in pricing (equivalent to viewer reductions), could maybe say 30% reduction (Chinese viewers as % of their ASPA market viewers) and worst case (I suppose depending on how they view the benefits they are getting, which as they renewed last year up to 2027 so would be favourable, and how important the Chinese market is to them, would say very important), they could arguably claim the contract has been frustrated by Tottenham. There will be things written into the contract, and that goes for pitch-side sponsorships also.

With respect I do think you are being pretty naive. It is similar to the Sky Sports contract with the Premier League, even though games were delivered finally, there was still a rebate due to them, as the service wasn't delivered as specified in the contract, i.e. amount of games in a timescale (which resulted in lots of people cancelling their Sky Subscriptions), we won't be delivering Premier League Football and the AIA branding to the TV's of the most populated country in the world despite contractually promising to do so.

How do you know what we have 'contractually promised' or purport to know? I think you're overthinking the entire thing.

I very much doubt the club would have agreed to long term contracts that have exit clauses pertaining to the contracts of other entities. Why would we care about whether China have a TV deal? They're paying us to be a sponsor - the effectiveness is for the sponsor to worry about.

Everlasting Seconds · Sep 4, 2020

I think more than ever before, it's vital for Levy to change his patterns just temporarily this once. In other words, shift players who must be shifted even for a less than ideal price. Mourinho should not be burdened too much more than strictly unavoidable by stupid transfer decisions in the past, and the one-in-one-out policy means that we have to get somebody out now, and because we must get more in. We lost out of CL last season suffering ten and tens of millions in reduced revenue. That is much worse than waisting a bit on money in selling a player for less than he was purchased for.

AberdeenYid · Sep 4, 2020

Everlasting Seconds said:
I think more than ever before, it's vital for Levy to change his patterns just temporarily this once. In other words, shift players who must be shifted even for a less than ideal price. Mourinho should not be burdened too much more than strictly unavoidable by stupid transfer decisions in the past, and the one-in-one-out policy means that we have to get somebody out now, and because we must get more in. We lost out of CL last season suffering ten and tens of millions in reduced revenue. That is much worse than waisting a bit on money in selling a player for less than he was purchased for.

But what if we start accepting lower fees for players, then start paying higher ones for incoming players and still miss out on Champions League? Where’s the money coming from then?

I’m pretty sure that running a massive football club isn’t as easy as we like to make out it is on these forums.

13VanDerBale13 · Sep 4, 2020

Honestly feeling like failure to shift certain players will hold us back again when it comes to filling gaps in the squad, time is running out once again

spursfast · Sep 4, 2020

13VanDerBale13 said:
Honestly feeling like failure to shift certain players will hold us back again when it comes to filling gaps in the squad, time is running out once again

this has been the story time and time again

SirHarryHotspur · Sep 4, 2020

13VanDerBale13 said:
Honestly feeling like failure to shift certain players will hold us back again when it comes to filling gaps in the squad, time is running out once again

Not always easy to shift players, Rose couldn't find an employer.

sausage · Sep 4, 2020

SirHarryHotspur said:
Not always easy to shift players, Rose couldn't find an employer.

Well, more to the point, he's stated a few times that he's going to run his contract down - that implies he has no intention of being sold.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

ENIC...

But that's a debate for another thread.....

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

?

Berry Berry Calm

Well-Known Member

Berry Berry Calm

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

?

Well-Known Member

?

Well-Known Member

?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

?

Similar threads