-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
ENIC
- Thread starter mattls
- Start date
Finney Is Back
Colin Calderwood
He can…. But he won’t (partly because nobody would pay him anywhere near what he pays himself at Spurs)
I believe that does include all staff yes. I have seen some numbers elsewhere (sorry I can't remember where) that include the mens squad and coaching staff only.
Glenda's Legs
Cecil Poynton
Well he could. But ENIC (not just Levy) clearly have parameters and a strategy as to how the business should operate. So why would they hire a CEO who does not adhere to that strategy? I guess there might be some leeway to do things a bit differently but I don’t believe a new CEO or Chairman would change the operating model that significantly whilst working for ENIC.
glorygloryeze
Steffen Freund
Yeah, and it mostly seems footballing success is an after-thought, a by-the-by, or even a bonus if you will
glorygloryeze
Steffen Freund
From Jonathan Wilson in the Guardian today:
“But even if players are added – and given Spurs’ wages-to-turnover ratio is a Premier League low 47%, there must be plenty of PSR wriggle room – it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that they should have been signed in the summer. Whatever the shortcomings of Postecoglou – at least some of which can be explained by the way the relentlessness of the Premier League addles minds as form goes awry – the ongoing pattern is the result of a club trying to do things on the cheap. It feels absurd now that they were one of the six English clubs involved in the Super League project: they currently lie 15th, undone by a chronic failure of ambition.”
www.theguardian.com
Ouch!
“But even if players are added – and given Spurs’ wages-to-turnover ratio is a Premier League low 47%, there must be plenty of PSR wriggle room – it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that they should have been signed in the summer. Whatever the shortcomings of Postecoglou – at least some of which can be explained by the way the relentlessness of the Premier League addles minds as form goes awry – the ongoing pattern is the result of a club trying to do things on the cheap. It feels absurd now that they were one of the six English clubs involved in the Super League project: they currently lie 15th, undone by a chronic failure of ambition.”
A chronic lack of ambition has laid waste to Tottenham | Jonathan Wilson
Ange Postecoglou has serious shortcomings as Spurs manager. But he has hardly been helped by a team trying to do things on the cheap
Ouch!
For the wages my understanding is that we pay some of the best bonuses in the league which are obviously variable. I assume the figures being quoted are for fixed salaries - we could easily spend another 30-50% paying out bonuses depending on performance which won't be taken into account. Yes same for other clubs but they might only pay 5-10%.
Muttley
Jose Dominguez
Let me do a simple calculation, without looking at facts
If our turnover was half a billion pounds then our wages are £210m (=42%)
If our turnover was £70m less than £500m (=430m) because that is excluding the fee to service the stadium debt then our ration is 49%.
When we sign something like 12 new player contracts in the next 18 months, I reckon that 49% will turn into something like 60%.
All guesswork.
Bullet
Chris Jones
The stadium debt interest isn't £70m and why / where / how do you get 12 new player contracts?Let me do a simple calculation, without looking at facts
If our turnover was half a billion pounds then our wages are £210m (=42%)
If our turnover was £70m less than £500m (=430m) because that is excluding the fee to service the stadium debt then our ration is 49%.
When we sign something like 12 new player contracts in the next 18 months, I reckon that 49% will turn into something like 60%.
All guesswork.
Muttley
Jose Dominguez
Yeah, pretty sure we carry a £70m charge per year. I thought it was lower but was corrected by others before.
As for the 12 new contracts, that's a combo of new signings, academy promotions and protecting our best assets with newer contracts with more favourable terms, and salary is always the sweetener. It's not so far fetched when you think about it, but can easily raise that wage bill.
I'm not worried about salaries. We've gone for younger players and ripped a load out. It will organically grow again.
SpiderSpurs
Nico Claesen
Bedfordspurs
Terry Naylor
The charge is the write off for tax purposes as part of the capital depreciation I believe (sure someone will correct me)
The interest was about £26m IIRC
But that’s just interest
Bedfordspurs
Terry Naylor
No the figure quoted as a percentage is what we actually paid out in out accounts
And we employ more staff than most clubs because of the infrastructure
What we don’t know is what any specific person gets paid exec per directors who salaries are published
Bedfordspurs
Terry Naylor
Yep
But that’s table is disingenuous because it doesn’t also include the actual spend
Milan turnover is over £100m less than ours is their salaries are lower even though the ratio is higher
What's funny here is the lack of fudging thought
- So Spurs has the lowest wage/turnover %
- Clearly implying that is the single reason for lack of success, if Spurs was on the other end of chart, it would be with all the successful teams? right?
Yet we are literally 2 spots from Real Madrid? In fact if you look at the top 6 "cheapest" teams in that list, the non spenders, the idiots who could just increase their turnover, it's Madrid, Arsenal, Bayern that make up 3 of the 6.
"Best" teams according to this logic are Marseille, Villa, PSG, Juve, Chelsea, Saudi Sportswashing Machine
Should we spend more? clearly, but I don't think this chart is telling us what people think it is.
DeanoAustin
Les Ferdinand
These are the wages we paid out in a given year - basic + bonuses. We're famed for being the most "pay for performance" club in the league. So some years, if we do well, our wage spend will go up because of bonuses but so too will our revenue so the percentage of revenue paid in wages won't change by much.
There is nuance here and it isn't that straightforward. Real Madrid generate a billion quid in revenue per year.
Obviously, a player will move for an absolute amount of money (i.e. you're getting 200k a week rather than "you're getting x% of our revenue). I'd imagine Real are close to the top of the table when it comes to absolute amounts paid in wages.
We're 7th in the Premier League for wages in absolute terms (i.e. we pay out the 7th highest wages in monetary terms). If that's the case, it's very difficult for us to compete with the top few teams for salaries. So then you have to say that one of two things is going on - either we don't have the money or we don't want to spend it. That's where the ratio becomes important.
The fact that our ratio is consistently the lowest in the league and significantly so this year says that, relative to other teams, we're very cautious about what we spend on wages. Great way to run a business - low wages to turnover ratio, pay for performance - not a great way to run a competitive football club.
ricky2tricky4city
Dimitar Berbatov
There's a player acquisition cake, wages and transfer fees.
But apparently we are 3rd highest in transfer net spend in the last 5 years?
So we are doing the fees but not the wages now? Before we weren't doing the fees or the wages...so a step forward.
Plus currently it's looking like we are at a lower point of a wage cycle given who has left.
Whether we have the money to increase wages or if that has to come from the fee slice who knows.
Finally this might be some kind of PSR tactical play (just throwing that one in there)
I don't disagree, but the chart isn't a good perspective (which was my point), because I'd argue it says the opposite, the most successful teams (including Madrid & City) are closer to us than the "spenders"
This is back to the nuance point
- Is our wages/turnover low? yes
- Do we have room to spend more? maybe, revenue/profit does not automatically equal cash in hand
- Do we underpay our existing squad? not sure, most of our squad is now <22 and by nature on lower wages, we do have some of the senior players on >150k/week
Ok, so what are we arguing?
- That we need to offer better wages to attract top level players to improve the squad?
Don't disagree, but
- We have done that, we paid Ndombele 200K/wk four years ago
- How far does that take us, i.e. how many players per season does that really apply to, and how many of those players really will choose us vs. insert bigger club here if wages are equal?
My point is, spend to me is a bit of a red herring, can/could/should we spend more? yes, absolutely
Is that why we are in the bottom end of the table and can't find a win? no, not fudging related, 1 LB in summer would not have been the difference
Lemonade Money
Dimitar Berbatov
These mugs can't use net spend anymore, so wage/turnover is the new stick.