• 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

Squad

Muttley said:
It's the right approach, albeit double edged in itself.

Obviously, if the collective don't progress together then the best of the best can run down their contracts and move on in this model. They have runway in their salary to move to a fair few clubs. I have a feeling some new contracts will be handed out earlier than normal in some cases e.g. Gray.
Click to expand...
Early conteact renewals for players like Kane and IIRC Alli was a thing for us under Pochettino and a good thing when working this way. Assume we would do the same.

Absolutely losing our best players is a risk/downside. But unless we can achieve quick and real success that's a risk regardless of approach.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
My issue with any numbers is that if they don’t start form the salaries given in the limited company accounts they are always speculation
Click to expand...

Of course, but is their an argument that player's salaries should be public information? Not for me. THFC is a company and players aren't directors etc.

Where I've always has some discomfort is the intangible asset model. You buy a player and value them on your balance sheets and take the amortisation charge to your P&L. I'm guessing therefore you need to declare the value of every player on your balance sheet and be transparent. However, if you was to value the club and have a Kane worth zero and a Tanguy worth £50m, how can this be right? It's a massive grey area, but part of me wants to take a Mikey Moore in a few years time, revalue him, take those charges and accept the profit in the year you revalue him. Then we never have a Gallagher situation again where a homegrown player needs to leave the club because of accountants.
 
braineclipse said:
Early conteact renewals for players like Kane and IIRC Alli was a thing for us under Pochettino and a good thing when working this way. Assume we would do the same.

Absolutely losing our best players is a risk/downside. But unless we can achieve quick and real success that's a risk regardless of approach.
Click to expand...

I always thought we played the Bale thing well over Utd. It appeared that we did what it took in the T&Cs to land him in the first place, and then gave him a quick new contract soon after he joined. That allowed us to remove the T&C's that we didn't want and compensate him with salary, getting him on a standard THFC player contract.
 
Muttley said:
Of course, but is their an argument that player's salaries should be public information? Not for me. THFC is a company and players aren't directors etc.

Where I've always has some discomfort is the intangible asset model. You buy a player and value them on your balance sheets and take the amortisation charge to your P&L. I'm guessing therefore you need to declare the value of every player on your balance sheet and be transparent. However, if you was to value the club and have a Kane worth zero and a Tanguy worth £50m, how can this be right? It's a massive grey area, but part of me wants to take a Mikey Moore in a few years time, revalue him, take those charges and accept the profit in the year you revalue him. Then we never have a Gallagher situation again where a homegrown player needs to leave the club because of accountants.
Click to expand...
Things should be public that are legally necessary
Salaries aren’t that kind of thing here in the UK imo
So having websites make up salaries is quite dangerous and misleading
The money league stuff too is just wrong
 
Are players valued like that? In the real world assets like properties have their value assessed regularly against the market.
 
Bishop said:
The latest set of Premier League club wages as revealed in each club's audited accounts. Anything other than this chart is just speculation.

View attachment 18430
Click to expand...
And IMO only Swiss ramble and Kieran Maguire are the reputable sources
Now it’s also fair to say those wages include all staff and I think we employ about 1200 people now big a chunk would be indirect
But I do believe the catering staff are employed by levy brothers, the security supplier whose name I forgotten, and many others
 
Bishop said:
The latest set of Premier League club wages as revealed in each club's audited accounts. Anything other than this chart is just speculation.

View attachment 18430
Click to expand...

It's all fairly consistent

- Our spend across multiple categories (total/net/wages) is typically 4th-5th in league
- We have room in our wages/turnover to increase the wage spend (the trend for all clubs is to spend less)

The issue for me is, this is not the narrative around Spurs, apparently we don't spend, we shop in Poundland and everyone else is on a coke spree.

Finney Is Back said:
But West Ham, with the 9th highest wage spend, are closer to us in 6th than we are to 5th placed Liverpool.
Click to expand...

Yep, and West Ham spent more on players than Liverpool, while we have spent >200M more than West Ham

It's about the total picture, where are we competitively across Total spend/net spend & wages, and the answer repeatedly is we are spending better than our current position suggests (if it's enough to compete with top 3 sides is a different conversation with a probably easily predictable answer)
 
Bishop said:
The latest set of Premier League club wages as revealed in each club's audited accounts. Anything other than this chart is just speculation.

View attachment 18430
Click to expand...
I suspect since 2023 that Chelsea and also our wage bill has fallen a fair bit likely the goonsquad too. The number of high salary players removed from the league is considerable.

Spurs have cleared the wages of Dier, Kane, Moura, Hojberg, Ndombele, that's half a million plus per week, so £24m off the bill immediately....
 
We really have a lot of potential in our squad:

Mike Moore 17

Lucas Bergvall 18

Archie Gray 18

Yang Min-hyeok 18

Wilson Odbert 19

Antonin Kinsky 21

Destiny Udogie 22

Pape Matar Sarr 22

Radu Drăgușin 22

Micky van de Ven 23

Brennan Johnson 23

Djed Spence 24

Dejan Kulusevski 24


And that list does not include any of the young players out on loan
 
NaijaSpurs said:
We really have a lot of potential in our squad:

Mike Moore 17

Lucas Bergvall 18

Archie Gray 18

Yang Min-hyeok 18

Wilson Odbert 19

Antonin Kinsky 21

Destiny Udogie 22

Pape Matar Sarr 22

Radu Drăgușin 22

Micky van de Ven 23

Brennan Johnson 23

Djed Spence 24

Dejan Kulusevski 24


And that list does not include any of the young players out on loan
Click to expand...
Great stuff. And of those only Moore, Yang and Odobert who haven't proved themselves to be useful for us at a PL level yet. Yang barely arrived, Odobert and Moore probably would have done more if not for injuries. So in addition to potential also a lot of here and now ability in those young players, great to see.

Then the players out on loan to add to that.
 
Muttley said:
Of course, but is their an argument that player's salaries should be public information? Not for me. THFC is a company and players aren't directors etc.

Where I've always has some discomfort is the intangible asset model. You buy a player and value them on your balance sheets and take the amortisation charge to your P&L. I'm guessing therefore you need to declare the value of every player on your balance sheet and be transparent. However, if you was to value the club and have a Kane worth zero and a Tanguy worth £50m, how can this be right? It's a massive grey area, but part of me wants to take a Mikey Moore in a few years time, revalue him, take those charges and accept the profit in the year you revalue him. Then we never have a Gallagher situation again where a homegrown player needs to leave the club because of accountants.
Click to expand...

Because when you are buying a player. You are swapping cash for an asset. So it isn't a loss. But that asset devalues as their contract runs out.
For a club trained player the cost is the investment in the academy. Any financial value is only realised if you sell the player. Which will be recorded as profit.
 
Lilbaz said:
Because when you are buying a player. You are swapping cash for an asset. So it isn't a loss. But that asset devalues as their contract runs out.
For a club trained player the cost is the investment in the academy. Any financial value is only realised if you sell the player. Which will be recorded as profit.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but do you think clubs should be able to revalue their academy breakthrough on the balance sheet at the time of contract renewal? Take Gallagher as an example. Chelsea turned that into profit by selling him because of the PSR rules. Why couldn't they revalue him at £XXm, take some profit now and amortise that over 5 years as charges to the P&L. Obviously, football would need an independent fair market value assessor to stop clubs like Chelsea just valuing their entire academy at stupid amounts, but I'm sure you get the gist of where I'm going with this.

Use Moore as an example. He's only allowed to sign a 2 year contract at 17 because of stupid FIFA rules. Why couldn't we apply a £20m value when he's 19 and he signs the next 5 year contract? Then we realise some profit in 2027 and pay amortisation charges of £4m a year for the next 5 years. Doesn't that make more sense than getting £50m profit for him in 2029?

It was just a thought. Not a mature one obviously.
 
NaijaSpurs said:
We really have a lot of potential in our squad:

Mike Moore 17

Lucas Bergvall 18

Archie Gray 18

Yang Min-hyeok 18

Wilson Odbert 19

Antonin Kinsky 21

Destiny Udogie 22

Pape Matar Sarr 22

Radu Drăgușin 22

Micky van de Ven 23

Brennan Johnson 23

Djed Spence 24

Dejan Kulusevski 24


And that list does not include any of the young players out on loan
Click to expand...

Vuskovic is the big one from those on loan, guy looks like a complete baller

I think Dragusin, Spence, Johnson, Udogie, all look solid
VDV, Gray, Bergvall, Sarr all look like there may be a stupid high ceiling for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back