Spurs are lowest net spenders in the EPL

[fridgemagnet]

Edit to add: Put west ham united payday loans into google i think you'll get the link from there, my phone's buggering about.

 

[Norse]

...

Nevertheless, short-term profitability is not the goal - it's just a desirable by-product of increasing the asset-value of the club for eventual sale - after we have a new stadium and, ideally, after the revenues from that have made us habituées of the Champions League.

Why are you assuming the club will be sold by Lewis and Levy? Forget the huge yacht. A football club is the ultimate status symbol, and if it is well run (ie neither a burden nor a hassle), and you support the club as well...

 

[Norse]

By that argument though if your team has a massive turnover of players every transfer window you'll do better.

Yes and no. If value = quality, you could view net spend as a measue of how much you add to the squad, and gross spend as to how much quality the squad has. In that way, Spurs may not have added, but have still kept it's position as one of the best teams.

 

[spurious1]

Equally we have the sixth biggest wage bill, so in a way finishing above sixth is technically overachieving. But yes, ultimately the league position is bought.

Actually I feel that way too, it's a bit like golf with a par. And perhaps the league should be that way too: you start with a bonus or a penalty depending on how much you spend, would make it much more interesting if Chelsea and ManC started at -10 and Hull at +5.

OT: is that Flat Eric in you avi? Had no idea anyone knew that outside of France

 

[spurious1]

An Auction for each round of matches sounds good. They could show it on BBC every week after Bargain Hunt and we could have a different auctioneer each week

Much better than actually having to watch Burnley etc and less time consuming.....

Agreed, it's efficiency and progress! Streamlining the competition.

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes and no. If value = quality, you could view net spend as a measue of how much you add to the squad, and gross spend as to how much quality the squad has. In that way, Spurs may not have added, but have still kept it's position as one of the best teams.

Basically the clubs that have spent more money on players have also spent the most money on having the best coaches, facilities etc... There is no mystery or secret formulae. If you pay for the best the results will follow. anyond not up to scratch you replace.

 

[vigospur]

Basically the clubs that have spent more money on players have also spent the most money on having the best coaches, facilities etc... There is no mystery or secret formulae. If you pay for the best the results will follow. anyond not up to scratch you replace.

Except what did West Ham get for £95 million.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

What part were you disagreeing with @davidmatzdorf ?

I think that most owners would go for the latter, unless they are a fan of the club. Levy is a Spurs fan but that doesn't mean jack to the other half of our ownership, so unfortunately it will always be business over pleasure.

Joe Lewis is also a lifetime Spurs fan. As well as being a ruthless businessman . Much like Levy in both respects.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Why are you assuming the club will be sold by Lewis and Levy? Forget the huge yacht. A football club is the ultimate status symbol, and if it is well run (ie neither a burden nor a hassle), and you support the club as well...

Well, I already said so, really: eventually, ENIC's business model presupposes that they will sell a business after they have added enough value to it. I suppose that sentiment might trump their capitalist reflexes in this case. But somehow I doubt it.

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

OT: is that Flat Eric in you avi? Had no idea anyone knew that outside of France

Are you kidding? That was massive here in the 90's.
Mainly because of the Levi advert then the Mr Oizzo (sp) song with Flat Eric came along.

 

[Buggsy61]

The transfer fees paid go into the balance sheet., not the P & L so its irrelevant to the 'bottom line' and 'breaking even'

Not strictly true. Although the cash goes on the balance sheet the players are also recorded on the balance sheet as an asset which is amortised/depreciated over the length of their contract. Therefore any profit/loss on disposal on the book value of the amortised asset (player) is recorded in the P & L. For example we buy a player for £30m on a 3 year deal and sell him after 1 year for £40m.
His amortisation/year is £30m/3 = £10m
His amortized value after 1 year is therefore £30m - £10m = £20m
Profit recorded in the P & L is £20m (£40m - £20m)
Therefore the more you sell a player for and the longer into his contract you sell him (where his book value will have decreased) the more profit you record on him. Goes someway to explaining Levy's brinkmanship!.

 

[Spursidol]

Not strictly true. Although the cash goes on the balance sheet the players are also recorded on the balance sheet as an asset which is amortised/depreciated over the length of their contract. Therefore any profit/loss on disposal on the book value of the amortised asset (player) is recorded in the P & L. For example we buy a player for £30m on a 3 year deal and sell him after 1 year for £40m.
His amortisation/year is £30m/3 = £10m
His amortized value after 1 year is therefore £30m - £10m = £20m
Profit recorded in the P & L is £20m (£40m - £20m)
Therefore the more you sell a player for and the longer into his contract you sell him (where his book value will have decreased) the more profit you record on him. Goes someway to explaining Levy's brinkmanship!.

All true - the poster I was responding too was effectively saying that both sales proceeds of players and the cost of players were in the P & L, so my answer was deliberately simplistic as many will find your post above too complicated or too time consuming to understand (no offence to those posters).

 

[SFCS]

I don't really buy this whole "5th is overachieving" because of our wages spend, or our revenue or whatever. Well I did buy into it but I just don't think it's right anymore. Yes we should finish 6th on paper but everytime we have finished above that it's been because one or more of those bigger spenders has had an abysmal season in terms of league points. Other than the 13/14 season Liverpool have underachieved badly based on financial clout and then we've had Chelsea, United and a still emerging City also have a really poor league campaign to help boost us up.

Our position also depends on those beneath us that ocassionally surface to push us. Everton succeded in 2013-14 and Soton and Newcastle gave us a good run for our money too in recent seasons.

With all this going on around us we've remained quite consistent in terms of points totals. 62-72 points is our range of the last 5 seasons and whilst 10 points might seem a lot Liverpool's range is 52-84, City's 71-89, Chelsea's 71-87, United's 64-89 and Arsenal's is 68-79(the only team to have the same kind of consistency as us). The only time we've finished above those sides is when they've dipped down into our range, or in Liverpool's case, well below. That's why it's disappointing that we didn't give United a run for their money after they finished 70 points. It's not out of our grasp to get that kind of total in a good season.

Yes our points total can be affected by the overall quality of the league but you'd expect that to fluctuate a lot less than the extremes in points totals of those clubs I've listed above. If they all have a good season hitting a points total towards the top end of their range we simply don't have a chance barring a miracle on our own part.

Clubs that spend less are expected to overachieve by comparison to those with more financial clout so us "overachieving" is no different to Soton and Swansea getting within 10 points of us. Money buys you the ability to make more mistakes so that's what those at the top do. Costa might seem a good deal at £30mill but in reality it's cost Chelsea over £100mill to get it right in signing a striker. Same with City, they spent a lot on strikers to get to Aguero and have spent a lot since trying to replicate that success. Even for us, we've spent £30mill+ to get our striker, Kane, even though he was free. Swansea and Southampton couldn't afford to make the mistakes we've made and that's why we're consistently above them.

What we've overachieved at in recent seasons is remaining more consistent than nearly everyone above and around us and that doesn't change whether Liverpool win against Stoke on the last day or not. Those with more money will always waste more money, we've just got to make sure we're on hand to take advantage when they get it badly wrong. Those with less money will always have to spend it more wisely than us, we've just got to make sure we get enough right to stay obove them.

Edit: Congratulations for getting to the end of my long ramblings, hopefully it wasn't a total waste of time

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I don't really buy this whole "5th is overachieving" because of our wages spend, or our revenue or whatever. Well I did buy into it but I just don't think it's right anymore. Yes we should finish 6th on paper but everytime we have finished above that it's been because one or more of those bigger spenders has had an abysmal season in terms of league points...

That's really a circular argument, but one that is being hidden by preconceptions about one's expectations of the richer clubs.

The main reason why Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United had seasons that were judged to be "abysmal" when we finished ahead of them was that we were better than they were!

I see a lot of posts that dismiss our finest seasons on the basis that other clubs "underachieved". Of course they did, but it was because we overachieved.

We won more matches than they did. Because of our pre-existing status, that was deemed to be an overachievement. The only reason why (for instance) Chelsea finishing 6th was deemed to be "abysmal" was becauise of their pre-existing status. You are confusing fact with sentiment and actuality with reputation.

 

[Spursidol]

I don't really buy this whole "5th is overachieving" because of our wages spend, or our revenue or whatever. Well I did buy into it but I just don't think it's right anymore. Yes we should finish 6th on paper but everytime we have finished above that it's been because one or more of those bigger spenders has had an abysmal season in terms of league points. Other than the 13/14 season Liverpool have underachieved badly based on financial clout and then we've had Chelsea, United and a still emerging City also have a really poor league campaign to help boost us up.

Our position also depends on those beneath us that ocassionally surface to push us. Everton succeded in 2013-14 and Soton and Newcastle gave us a good run for our money too in recent seasons.

With all this going on around us we've remained quite consistent in terms of points totals. 62-72 points is our range of the last 5 seasons and whilst 10 points might seem a lot Liverpool's range is 52-84, City's 71-89, Chelsea's 71-87, United's 64-89 and Arsenal's is 68-79(the only team to have the same kind of consistency as us). The only time we've finished above those sides is when they've dipped down into our range, or in Liverpool's case, well below. That's why it's disappointing that we didn't give United a run for their money after they finished 70 points. It's not out of our grasp to get that kind of total in a good season.

Yes our points total can be affected by the overall quality of the league but you'd expect that to fluctuate a lot less than the extremes in points totals of those clubs I've listed above. If they all have a good season hitting a points total towards the top end of their range we simply don't have a chance barring a miracle on our own part.

Clubs that spend less are expected to overachieve by comparison to those with more financial clout so us "overachieving" is no different to Soton and Swansea getting within 10 points of us. Money buys you the ability to make more mistakes so that's what those at the top do. Costa might seem a good deal at £30mill but in reality it's cost Chelsea over £100mill to get it right in signing a striker. Same with City, they spent a lot on strikers to get to Aguero and have spent a lot since trying to replicate that success. Even for us, we've spent £30mill+ to get our striker, Kane, even though he was free. Swansea and Southampton couldn't afford to make the mistakes we've made and that's why we're consistently above them.

What we've overachieved at in recent seasons is remaining more consistent than nearly everyone above and around us and that doesn't change whether Liverpool win against Stoke on the last day or not. Those with more money will always waste more money, we've just got to make sure we're on hand to take advantage when they get it badly wrong. Those with less money will always have to spend it more wisely than us, we've just got to make sure we get enough right to stay obove them.

Edit: Congratulations for getting to the end of my long ramblings, hopefully it wasn't a total waste of time

Think I can answer some of your points by saying that over the course of 38 games in PL the objective for all teams is to gain as many points as possible.

In some years gaining 70 points gets a 4th place, other years 78 points is necessary. So our achievement at the end of the season is relative to all the other teams in the league - its not an absolute number of points which count.

If Swansea, Southampton, Stoke, Everton et al all perform well then Spurs and even the top 4 teams will drop some points to them and all teams will end up with lower points than in the average year - but it takes a major happening to change a team from say 6th to 2nd. Suarez being in top form for Liverpool for one season gave them that impact.

Since Jol first got us to 5th a decade ago (the first time we had got to that kid of level in about 20 years), we've broadly been at that kind of level (4th to 6th) other than as a result of Ramos appointment, and much of that can be explained by us continually improving our squad, but at the same time so have all other teams - especially the top 4 teams.

One of the strategies Levy is hoping pay off is the talent coming through the academy - will we get enough both squad players but also genuine stars through to allow us to take advantage of top 4 teams slips and move up a notch or two.

Equally will the new stadium give us enough revenues to better compete with the wages being paid by the top 4 - or at least move us further ahead of the likes of Everton so that players who might go there come to us instead.

Both strategies will take years to prove themselves - but as you have pointed out in your post, even throwing big money at players probably means making mistakes along the way before you get the 'uber' players you want.

So, watch this space to see whether Spurs gradually overtake some of the current top 4 - we've achieved that by performing better than Liverpool for 5 of the last 6 seasons but truth is that its still 'neck and neck', but the next target will be to gradually outperform one or more of the other top 4. But that will not be tomorrow !

 

[Lilbaz]

Except what did West Ham get for £95 million.

Promoted and established in the premier league. They started from a lower base rate as they were almost bankrupt and their team was shit.

 

[Mattspur]

Actually I feel that way too, it's a bit like golf with a par. And perhaps the league should be that way too: you start with a bonus or a penalty depending on how much you spend, would make it much more interesting if Chelsea and ManC started at -10 and Hull at +5.

I found this idea interesting. So for a bit of fun...

If you created a Par situation, as each place over 10th in the net spend table got a minus points start point (from -1 for Palace up to -10 for City) and each team over 10th got a plus points start point (from +1 for Southampton to +10 for Spurs), the PL would look like this:

1 Chelsea 78
2 Spurs 74
3 City 69
4 Arsenal 69
5 Utd 62
6 Swansea 62
7 Southampton 61
8 Liverpool 55
9 Everton 54
10 Stoke 51
11 WBA 46
12 Palace 47
13 Newscatle 47
14 Leicester 45
15 West Ham 42
16 Burnley 42
17 Sunderland 41
18 Villa 40
19 Hull 33
20 QPR 26

 

[SFCS]

1) That's really a circular argument, but one that is being hidden by preconceptions about one's expectations of the richer clubs.

2) The main reason why Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United had seasons that were judged to be "abysmal" when we finished ahead of them was that we were better than they were!

3) I see a lot of posts that dismiss our finest seasons on the basis that other clubs "underachieved". Of course they did, but it was because we overachieved.

We won more matches than they did. Because of our pre-existing status, that was deemed to be an overachievement. The only reason why (for instance) Chelsea finishing 6th was deemed to be "abysmal" was becauise of their pre-existing status. 4) You are confusing fact with sentiment and actuality with reputation.

1) Well that's what I was addressing in the first line. The idea that we're overachieving when we finish 5th because we spend less than 5 other teams.

As I went on to explain, I do think we're overachieving(read: doing well) but for different reasons and ones that aren't based on how well or how badly those around us are doing.

2) It's not the main reason though, is it? We're not the the fixed point which other clubs base their success around. United went from 1st with 89 points to 7th with 64 points. Whether we're one of the 6 teams finishing above United or whether we finish bottom we're not the factor that makes that season good or bad for United.

You can debate whether I should have used such a strong word as abysmal if you want, in truth I had the most extreme cases like the United one in mind, but the point is that when we have finished above a team that spend considerably more than us it's always when they've had a poor season by their standards.

3) In what way was it "because we overachieved"? They played 38 games, 36 had nothing to do with us leaving our impact on their performance as roughly 5% of their league season. To use United as an example again, we took the same amount of points off them when they won the league as when they finished 7th, below us. It wasn't because we overachieved, we actually finished 6th which many consider par for us.

4) I don't think that last line reads right but that might be me reading it wrong.This is just my opinion and the only fact it's based on is that these clubs spend the most and have done for several seasons. My conclusion from that fact is that they are therefore best equipped to finish with more points*. From there my point is that from season to season at least 1 of those 5 tends to do poorly and we are then, as the next richest side, best placed to take advantage(ie finish above them).


*I know that's not the only factor that matters but I'm just tackling some of the stuff that has come up in this thread and several times in the past. Am I simplifying? Of course, there are tonnes of variables in truth.

 

[SFCS]

Think I can answer some of your points by saying that over the course of 38 games in PL the objective for all teams is to gain as many points as possible.

In some years gaining 70 points gets a 4th place, other years 78 points is necessary. So our achievement at the end of the season is relative to all the other teams in the league - its not an absolute number of points which count.

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying too. All we can do each year is try to gain as many points as possible, that's partly why I'm talking about points as the most reliable measure of our own performance. How others judge us is up to them, I personally don't judge us on points or position alone, although I do accept that when it comes to the jump from 5th to 4th it carries significantly more benefits than say 6th to 5th.

 

[TottenhamMattSpur]

Not strictly true. Although the cash goes on the balance sheet the players are also recorded on the balance sheet as an asset which is amortised/depreciated over the length of their contract. Therefore any profit/loss on disposal on the book value of the amortised asset (player) is recorded in the P & L. For example we buy a player for £30m on a 3 year deal and sell him after 1 year for £40m.
His amortisation/year is £30m/3 = £10m
His amortized value after 1 year is therefore £30m - £10m = £20m
Profit recorded in the P & L is £20m (£40m - £20m)
Therefore the more you sell a player for and the longer into his contract you sell him (where his book value will have decreased) the more profit you record on him. Goes someway to explaining Levy's brinkmanship!.

That's all very true.
For official accounts being submitted to companies house every year.
But the figures wer'e getting are straight up in and out figures.