TartarugaJones Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) I wonder why it's seemingly ok for Spurs to purchase named experienced players and when anyone mentions us doing the same he is pillared from pillow to post? Are they though? They've only bought Soldado so far who is a big name, and Coentrao if that somehow happens. The rest have been promising young players from abroad, but they also have somewhere in the region of £100m of income on the horizon, so can afford to spend bigger on the more promising players. Paulinho, a Brazilian international who starred in their recent confederation cup win isn't established? He's only 25 though. I don't think anyone would object to buying a 25 year old. It's Soldado who's the big money purchase considering he'll have much lower sell-on value at 31 when we'll potentially be looking to move him on. Edited August 21, 2013 by TartarugaJones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted August 21, 2013 Moderator Share Posted August 21, 2013 I wonder why it's seemingly ok for Spurs to purchase named experienced players and when anyone mentions us doing the same he is pillared from pillow to post? Are they though? They've only bought Soldado so far who is a big name, and Coentrao if that somehow happens. The rest have been promising young players from abroad, but they also have somewhere in the region of £100m of income on the horizon, so can afford to spend bigger on the more promising players. Paulinho, a Brazilian international who starred in their recent confederation cup win isn't established? He's only 25 though. Spot the other 25 year old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I wonder why it's seemingly ok for Spurs to purchase named experienced players and when anyone mentions us doing the same he is pillared from pillow to post? Are they though? They've only bought Soldado so far who is a big name, and Coentrao if that somehow happens. The rest have been promising young players from abroad, but they also have somewhere in the region of £100m of income on the horizon, so can afford to spend bigger on the more promising players. Paulinho, a Brazilian international who starred in their recent confederation cup win isn't established? He's only 25 though. I don't think anyone would object to buying a 25 year old. It's Soldado who's the big money purchase considering he'll have much lower sell-on value at 31 when we'll potentially be looking to move him on. Your best signing is one of the cheaper signings, Capoue is a class player and how Wenger thinks he wouldn't have improved his midfield I will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) I wonder why it's seemingly ok for Spurs to purchase named experienced players and when anyone mentions us doing the same he is pillared from pillow to post? Are they though? They've only bought Soldado so far who is a big name, and Coentrao if that somehow happens. The rest have been promising young players from abroad, but they also have somewhere in the region of £100m of income on the horizon, so can afford to spend bigger on the more promising players. Paulinho, a Brazilian international who starred in their recent confederation cup win isn't established? He said nothing about "established", he said "experienced" and Paulinho is not that experienced, especially in England. Yes he's played for Brazil, but international football is completely different from the Premier League, especially in physicality. I'm not saying he's a bad player, I have nothing to judge that on, but he is not an experienced player. And also he's not that established IMO either, I'd never heard of him before the Confederation's Cup, I'd hardly heard about him when Tottenham bid for him. (I realise I put big name in my original reply, but that was the easiest way to phrase tested in a top quality and semi-competitive league. Also I thought every one of there signings was at least 2 years younger as well, i didn't realise they were all 24-25 ) Edited August 21, 2013 by MessiWillSignForVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I wonder why it's seemingly ok for Spurs to purchase named experienced players and when anyone mentions us doing the same he is pillared from pillow to post? Are they though? They've only bought Soldado so far who is a big name, and Coentrao if that somehow happens. The rest have been promising young players from abroad, but they also have somewhere in the region of £100m of income on the horizon, so can afford to spend bigger on the more promising players. Paulinho, a Brazilian international who starred in their recent confederation cup win isn't established? He's only 25 though. I don't think anyone would object to buying a 25 year old. It's Soldado who's the big money purchase considering he'll have much lower sell-on value at 31 when we'll potentially be looking to move him on. I think he was a really smart buy, and will be a really good player for you guys for quite a few years. I was just disagreeing with the poster that said soldado was the only established player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Where did Spurs find all this money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardCanning Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Where did Spurs find all this money? I think it's the proceeds from Bentley who they having spent £17m transfer fee on left the club this summer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartarugaJones Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Where did Spurs find all this money? In the last five windows (including this one), we've spent £9m in total, over the same period you've spent £14m! Our turnover is around £185m, your's is around £115m. According to the last published accounts (2012) our wage-bill was £90m, about 55% of turnover at that time, your's was £80m, 87.5%. So we have a higher income, but have spent considerably less on transfers. We do spend more on wages but our income to wage ratio is pretty healthy. We're not finding money, we're just bringing our spending in line with Aston Villa's over the last couple of seasons, Edited August 21, 2013 by TartarugaJones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) And you're about to receive £70m Edited August 21, 2013 by LondonLax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardCanning Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Where did Spurs find all this money? In the last five windows (including this one), we've spent £9m in total, over the same period you've spent £14m! Our turnover is around £185m, your's is around £115m. According to the last published accounts (2012) our wage-bill was £90m, about 55% of turnover at that time, your's was £80m, 87.5%. So we have a higher income, but have spent considerably less on transfers. We do spend more on wages but our income to wage ratio is pretty healthy. We're not finding money, we're just bringing our spending in line with Aston Villa's over the last couple of seasons, This is some truly brilliant accounting or some The Sun reporting Spurs have spent well over £9m in total. I presume this refers to net spend. Turnover can easily be enhanced to whatever you like (ask Peterboro who got their holding company to sponsor the ground to make the top figure on the accounts look a lot higher. Randy Lerner could do the same if he so wished) Spurs wage bill is higher than villa's, see my previous comment RE the fact that the turnover ratio is irrelevant How about you talk bottom line and net profit/losses then you will be comparing apples with apples. I have no idea what profit/losses either club are making but from a business perspective surely it's the only real fair comparative as it encompasses all of the facts above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 In the last five windows (including this one), we've spent £9m in total, The accounts for the period including the current window haven't been published yet so you've made this figure up. Net spends don't include signing on fees, image rights, loyalty bonuses, agent fees and paying up a percentage of the player's contract & bonuses upon selling them. You may as well have chosen a number between 0 and 100 and it would be just an accurate barometer of the net spend during the period you have mentioned. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Neil Ashton reporting that Willian is going to be unveiled before Saturday and Franco Balidini has flown to Madrid to finalize the Bale transfer, while Lamela still interests them and now they assumedly have the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Where did Spurs find all this money? They are going to sell Gareth Bale to Real Madrid for a world record fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 In the last five windows (including this one), we've spent £9m in total, The accounts for the period including the current window haven't been published yet so you've made this figure up. Net spends don't include signing on fees, image rights, loyalty bonuses, agent fees and paying up a percentage of the player's contract & bonuses upon selling them. You may as well have chosen a number between 0 and 100 and it would be just an accurate barometer of the net spend during the period you have mentioned. Great post, this should be posted to all Spurs fans who talk shit about their accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartarugaJones Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) In the last five windows (including this one), we've spent £9m in total, The accounts for the period including the current window haven't been published yet so you've made this figure up. Net spends don't include signing on fees, image rights, loyalty bonuses, agent fees and paying up a percentage of the player's contract & bonuses upon selling them. You may as well have chosen a number between 0 and 100 and it would be just an accurate barometer of the net spend during the period you have mentioned. I didn't include agents fees for either club, but seeing as they're a fraction of the total transfer fee they're not a massive add-on, and we can be fairly safe in assuming they'll be roughly equivalent. The fees are calculated from: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/tottenham-hotspur-transfers.html The Turnover is a calculation based on last published accounts: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club and I then added the new TV money to that. The wages are taken from the same Guardian source, our wages have almost certainly decreased since then considering the number of high earners who've departed: King, Modric, Bentley, VdV etc (and soon to be Bale), but I haven't tried a back of the envelope calc for Villa, hence it was safer to use the ratio from the last accounts, the ratio for both clubs will almost certainly be better for both clubs. They are certainly estimates, but the assumptions are pretty sound and while the truth maybe slightly different it won't be a million miles away. I haven't also included the £40m we spent on our training facility which was paid for via a loan, but which may explain the low net spend on transfers in previous windows. Nor the fact that we need to raise money for the new stadium. The over all point is that we're not spending outrageous amounts even compared to a rival like yourselves who undoubtedly have a lower income but in the last five windows have spent at a similar level. Edited August 21, 2013 by TartarugaJones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartarugaJones Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Where did Spurs find all this money? In the last five windows (including this one), we've spent £9m in total, over the same period you've spent £14m! Our turnover is around £185m, your's is around £115m. According to the last published accounts (2012) our wage-bill was £90m, about 55% of turnover at that time, your's was £80m, 87.5%. So we have a higher income, but have spent considerably less on transfers. We do spend more on wages but our income to wage ratio is pretty healthy. We're not finding money, we're just bringing our spending in line with Aston Villa's over the last couple of seasons, This is some truly brilliant accounting or some The Sun reporting Spurs have spent well over £9m in total. I presume this refers to net spend. Turnover can easily be enhanced to whatever you like (ask Peterboro who got their holding company to sponsor the ground to make the top figure on the accounts look a lot higher. Randy Lerner could do the same if he so wished) Spurs wage bill is higher than villa's, see my previous comment RE the fact that the turnover ratio is irrelevant How about you talk bottom line and net profit/losses then you will be comparing apples with apples. I have no idea what profit/losses either club are making but from a business perspective surely it's the only real fair comparative as it encompasses all of the facts above. We made a small profit over the four seasons prior to and including the last published accounts of about £20m. Villa made a loss of £156m over the same period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TartarugaJones Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Unlucky tonight guys!! Should have been a Pen, and Weisman's shot would have been a goal if it had been a foot either direction! Must be feeling pretty optimistic though? I hadn't realised what a murderously tough start you had to the season; two away games again Arsenal and Chelsea, but three points, if we get such a return against those two I'll be happy! Also, how lucky is that for Chelsea to get two home games to begin the season with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I didn't include agents fees for either club, but seeing as they're a fraction of the total transfer fee they're not a massive add-on, and we can be fairly safe in assuming they'll be roughly equivalent. Agent's fees are paid to agents not clubs so wouldn't balance out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted August 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 21, 2013 Also, how lucky is that for Chelsea to get two home games to begin the season with!Not so much luck... their second fixture was to be the trip to Old Trafford, but the European Super Cup moved our game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Also, how lucky is that for Chelsea to get two home games to begin the season with! Not so much luck... their second fixture was to be the trip to Old Trafford, but the European Super Cup moved our game. That's only partially correct, they pushed for the game to be moved up to this date so they could get the two home game start, even though Villa didn't want to play the fixture between the first two matches. It was loved up cause they wanted it moved up and the FA listens to big clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts