Its actually scary to think how much Woodward would have paid for Dele Alli a couple of years back. They should have taken it.
Spurs - punished for not investing whilst at the top?
- Thread starter RyRoc
- Start date
True
Should have spent the money on the squad rather than a new stadium
Keep tossing, tosser.
No, but seriously. Imitation, flattery and all that.
It would have been nice if they could see the future or if it was a good idea to borrow hundreds of millions to spend on consumables that do not even guarantee results instead of infrastructures.
It is actually scary to believe that jose wanted to spend huge on Eric dier, alderwield etc. Imagine spurs bought Bruno and other players with that money and we were stuck with this shit. Just glad he is no longer managing at United. Their football brings back horrible memories.
I think part of their problem was that Pochettino just came to the end of his circle, at that point you either change large parts of your squad or you change coaches. They decided for the latter, which is fair enough, but for whatever reason went with the madness of appointing Mourinho. They don't have a squad to compete with Liverpool or City, but a different coach might have them firmly in the top 6, perhaps challenging for top 4.
The other part is their transfer strategy. They had a lot of players who were quite valuable at various points, but instead of cashing in on that value/hype in a one step backwards, two steps forward kind of way they decided to keep their squad together to reach short term goals, now they are paying the bill for that with an aging squad and players like Eriksen or Rose leaving for a fraction of what they could have fetched earlier and even Alli and Kane losing their a lot of their hype.
To be fair the past couple of years have been quite successful by their standards, a CL final in particular is a really big deal for almost any club, so it's not so clear whether that has been worth it.
The bigger problem perhaps is that most of their signings have gone from (very) cost efficient to inefficient. In 15/16 they spent €70m and brought in Trippier, Alderweireld and Son, compare that to what €150m (or €180m if we factor in Lo Celso's buy option) seem to have done for their squad this summer.
The other part is their transfer strategy. They had a lot of players who were quite valuable at various points, but instead of cashing in on that value/hype in a one step backwards, two steps forward kind of way they decided to keep their squad together to reach short term goals, now they are paying the bill for that with an aging squad and players like Eriksen or Rose leaving for a fraction of what they could have fetched earlier and even Alli and Kane losing their a lot of their hype.
To be fair the past couple of years have been quite successful by their standards, a CL final in particular is a really big deal for almost any club, so it's not so clear whether that has been worth it.
The bigger problem perhaps is that most of their signings have gone from (very) cost efficient to inefficient. In 15/16 they spent €70m and brought in Trippier, Alderweireld and Son, compare that to what €150m (or €180m if we factor in Lo Celso's buy option) seem to have done for their squad this summer.
I still can't believe Mourinho went there - what did he expect to happen?
From what I’ve read about Tottenham’s finances on here, my biggest question is why Mourinho?
Every job he’s had he’s been given substantial funds to build his team, so if you knowingly can’t give him those funds, he would be a terrible appointment. If you’re Levy and you did even a smidgeon of research, you’d see that when things go wrong he will have no qualms attacking the board and players to save his own reputation. He literally just created a problem for himself 1-2 years down the road.
Every job he’s had he’s been given substantial funds to build his team, so if you knowingly can’t give him those funds, he would be a terrible appointment. If you’re Levy and you did even a smidgeon of research, you’d see that when things go wrong he will have no qualms attacking the board and players to save his own reputation. He literally just created a problem for himself 1-2 years down the road.
We've seen with United how quickly a team can go downhill if poor decisions outweigh the good ones. Now we are seeing it at Tottenham, except they don't have the financial power to correct it as quickly as United can.
I’m fairly sure when he was here and we were playing Spurs he said that they had much better players than us and had done better business than us. Despite the fact that on Jose’s watch we spent far more than them in the market including a world record transfer and sanctioned paying Sanchez the highest wages in the league. it’s always poor Jose anyway. That’s the only option unless he’s winning. They still badly need to replace Eriksen for starters. Bruno would have been beyond perfect for them. Their chances recently have been counterattacks and crosses. It’s as Dull as dishwater to watch. Kane must be very disheartened playing for Jose. Mid table mediocrity beckons next season unless they really shake it up in the market but surely they are starting to realise it could harm them even more backing the wrong manager at a transitional time like this.
Yeah I totally agree. They basically haven't changed their team since the 2015-2016 season. They benefitted for a while from having the stability and experience of playing together for so long, but in the end it caught up with them. You have to keep refreshing a team before it runs out of steam.
Two years ago, Spurs would have been seen as a great option for a player to go to. A settled squad, a popular manager, Champions League football and a new stadium on the way, it was an attractive prospect for all but the biggest players. But they decided to try and do it on the cheap and it backfired massively. Now the situation is very different. Club's in a mess, lots of change is obviously going to happen over the next few seasons, the manager is not guaranteed to be there for long and with no CL to play in. Its going to be harder, and more expensive, to attract the same type of players they could have pulled in a couple of years back.
Two years ago, Spurs would have been seen as a great option for a player to go to. A settled squad, a popular manager, Champions League football and a new stadium on the way, it was an attractive prospect for all but the biggest players. But they decided to try and do it on the cheap and it backfired massively. Now the situation is very different. Club's in a mess, lots of change is obviously going to happen over the next few seasons, the manager is not guaranteed to be there for long and with no CL to play in. Its going to be harder, and more expensive, to attract the same type of players they could have pulled in a couple of years back.
When were the plans for the stadium conceptualized? If they were well before the hiring of Pocchetino then I may be wrong. The point still stands though that you need to walk before you run. No point in building a large stadium if the product on the pitch is dire. Football isn't a regular business where all you worry about is shareholder returns. How you engage with the fans and results on the pitch matter a lot and Levy has clearly deprioritized that.
Also, he let's his ego get in the way. He is more worried about being right than doing what is in the best interests of the club.
Hopefully with player like Sanchez.
The plan started in 2007 and finished in 2011 or 2012. And the point about building a better stadium is to create new revenues which help finance the team. The problem with your idea is that since transfers are for a large part not successful it's actually a terrible idea to not develop your infrastructure because you want to gamble on players that will likely never bring back the money that you invested. So if you have to investment to make, your long term infrastructures should almost always be your priority.
Reading this article just makes me think of the saying: 'Lads, it's Tottenham'.
Agreed that long term capital expenditure is important. My point is more around doing it responsibly so that you don't have to penny pinch to spend on your core operations i.e., winning on the pitch. Many clubs have embarked on modernization or new stadium projects and often they haven't realized the ROI as soon as they would have hoped. You should moderate your capital expense and have enough runway to also invest in the team in the short-term and that's where Levy failed miserably. You can't put all your eggs in one basket and hope to ride it out in the top echelons of competitive sport.
E.g., Arsenal who would consistently challenge for the title are now languishing due to consistently not investing in the right players and paying them competitive wages because they had put all their eggs in one basket. Their hope was they will get by and start reinvesting in the squad once the stadium is paid off but the world has passed them by.
I think Mou was kind of desperate. He was expecting Real, Bayern type of call. And the only call came from Levi. So he grabbed this chance (and made another 10-20 million).
That's not how it works for almost all clubs, what you are suggesting applies to the very wealthy clubs but it doesn't apply to clubs like Lyon, Tottenham or even Arsenal. These clubs have to make a choice, they either invest in their infrastructure or they invest in the playing staff, the first one is a temporary allocation of their resources, the second one is a gamble and if it doesn't work their money is lost and they won't have it back to invest in the infrastructures that they still need to improve. Interestingly you don't realize your suggesting is the closest thing to putting all your eggs in one basket, Tottenham invested in real estates, in the creation of new services opportunities and they managed to be competitive. Being good in White Hart Lane would not have financed a new stadium and every underperforming transfers would have been money lost in wages and potentially transfer fee.
From a management standpoint, they did the right thing because it's very easy to lose money on football players, it's a lot more difficult to lose money on a football stadium, particularly when they drastically increased their attendance.
Last edited:
Spurs built their squad in earnest from the Gareth Bale money, while not all of those players remain at Spurs today they were able to build a core with that money. The closest thing they have now is Harry Kane, they could arguably sell him for £100m and use that money to buy 2-3 hidden gems.
All of this is easier said than done and current squad took 2-3 seasons to build up. Moreover, will they have another Kane come through their academy? Probably not.
All of this is easier said than done and current squad took 2-3 seasons to build up. Moreover, will they have another Kane come through their academy? Probably not.
If Levy is not investing due to the lack of funds or whatever, then what the heck is Jose doing there? A guy who relies on spending money to get specific style of players, why would he come there and damage his already worsened reputation?
Or maybe he just wants to stay in London with his family, while getting paid handsomely and will get paid more when sacked.
Or maybe he just wants to stay in London with his family, while getting paid handsomely and will get paid more when sacked.
Completely agree that building a new stadium was the right move for the club
This what a lot of fans don't think of when they think of Spurs, success on pitch and trophies is nowhere near as important as financial stability - the problem with football now is that FFP hasn't really done much to curb the spending of the biggest clubs (I guess we'll see on Monday if City manage to bribe their way out of a CL ban) and so it's still the main teams who win the main trophies. Tip of the hat to Leicester for bucking that trend but it was called a fairy tale season for a reason.
For the clubs who aren't massive institutional names or sugar daddy clubs, the reality is that finishing in the Europa places with the occasional CL finish whilst playing with a squad whose cumulative wage is probably equal to Alexis Sanchez's is a highly lucrative business model. To close the gap to the top places takes millions and it's really not worth the risk if you look at it from a business standpoint. Just look at how Arsenal are run for the blueprint, Spurs are just a modern version of them with added money making bells and whistles like the NFL link. Investing, or rather taking out a huge loan, for the stadium/infrastructure is great for Spurs in 5+ years time (maybe more because of coronavirus) but for the near term they'll be lucky to win anything more than a League cup in my opinion.
Spurs should have appointed a manager who develops youth and who plays the right way to compliment the great players they already had at the club and compliment the great work done by Pochettino.
Appointing Jose made no sense, a total disaster.
They should have appointed Eddie Howe. He might not have won trophies but he would be signing exciting young players at bargain prices like David Brooks, Ben Godfrey, Ryan Fraser, Todd Cantwell, Eberechi Eze, Boubakaray Soumare and developing them into much better players so they compliment what Spurs already have, and continue to try to sneak into the top 4 on a shoestring.
Appointing Jose made no sense, a total disaster.
They should have appointed Eddie Howe. He might not have won trophies but he would be signing exciting young players at bargain prices like David Brooks, Ben Godfrey, Ryan Fraser, Todd Cantwell, Eberechi Eze, Boubakaray Soumare and developing them into much better players so they compliment what Spurs already have, and continue to try to sneak into the top 4 on a shoestring.
Punished? Hahaha
If you want to see what punishment looks like, wait until Jose is done with them.
They'll wish they hired Moyes instead.
If you want to see what punishment looks like, wait until Jose is done with them.
They'll wish they hired Moyes instead.
Get fired, make bank.
Spurs are a nothing club.
They got lucky with the likes of Walker, Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Eriksen, Alli, Son and Kane all pretty much peaking together and being very good players.
Unfortunately Pochettino actually fecked up a decent chance of winning something with a top class first x1. No idea why he’s such a hero on here. Totally overrated.
They were also more bothered about trying to get one over United in the transfer market, than actually being smart. Levy is another complete fraud.
They got lucky with the likes of Walker, Vertonghen, Alderweireld, Eriksen, Alli, Son and Kane all pretty much peaking together and being very good players.
Unfortunately Pochettino actually fecked up a decent chance of winning something with a top class first x1. No idea why he’s such a hero on here. Totally overrated.
They were also more bothered about trying to get one over United in the transfer market, than actually being smart. Levy is another complete fraud.
Last edited:
Agreed, they didn’t have the money. The stadium is their long term route to that money and they’ve been very unlucky with covid in terms of that. Arsenal’s stadium move has led to them falling miles behind, ok other factors too but it’s true those things are expensive.
I’m surprised they didn’t sign a more premier league hardened couple of players in the summer though, anyone could have told you Ndombele and Lo Celso were going to take a long time to adapt. They had some money there and the recruitment has in a sense been too long term. Especially given they now have the ultimate short term manager.
1) When were they ever on top
2)Surely Carragher never said you couldn't improve the first eleven! That's mental!
2)Surely Carragher never said you couldn't improve the first eleven! That's mental!
This idea that Tottenham don’t have any money is a myth. They make good revenue. The problem is that in the last few years, they have mostly spent it on crap.
And it taken us 7 years and counting as we’re still not there yet. Could get messy at Spurs. Especially with that wreaking ball in charge.
Was it though? It’s not a loaded question, I’m genuinely curious. The way I see it, they get most of their money from TV rights, sponsorships etc. What proportion of their revenue does that stadium bring in? Could they have not stayed at WHL for another 15 years? I remember in 2007, only Arsenal had built a state of the art stadium in the premier league and Liverpool were also talking about but all in all I don’t think it was necessarily needed.
And what happens after 15 years? 15 years where you get the matchday revenues of a stadium with 35k supporters instead of the current 56k attendance, they increased their matchday annual revenues by almost 40m. By waiting 15 years, you are potentially forfeiting 600m.
Spurs have spent a huge amount of money recently, only the one season when they spent nothing.
They have spent poorly, they have also created a mentality of underdogs overachieving by paying second rate wages to top players, selling their prize assets time and time again and investing in obvious second rate targets.
A club that was supposedly meant to have the best footballing direction the the league has been found out.
Still, no European football could do them good next season.
They have spent poorly, they have also created a mentality of underdogs overachieving by paying second rate wages to top players, selling their prize assets time and time again and investing in obvious second rate targets.
A club that was supposedly meant to have the best footballing direction the the league has been found out.
Still, no European football could do them good next season.
So that's the debt nearly cleared in 15 years then
,The new stadium also costs an absolute fortune to maintain, hence the furlough scheme wanting to be used.
Swings and roundabouts, Spurs are struggling financially, an extra loan taken out recently during lockdown highlights this.
But you would still spend that money after 15 years for the new stadium with the small difference that you would have spent 15 years in a less lucrative stadium and the club probably would have spent money on renovating White Hart Lane.So that's the debt nearly cleared in 15 years then
The new stadium also costs an absolute fortune to maintain, hence the furlough scheme wanting to be used.
Swings and roundabouts, Spurs are struggling financially, an extra loan taken out recently during lockdown highlights this.
I don't think that's what he said. If i remember correctly, he said that they could not get players that would get in the first 11 without upsetting their "big" players.
That was mostly about Kane, Son, Eriksen who could easily choose to leave rather than competing for a place at Tottenham. In reality players that could replace them just would not come to Spurs anyway so that's a moot point.
When match day revenue is such a small amount of a clubs total revenue, it really wouldnt make a huge difference.
Levy is/was hedging his bets that the new stadium would herald a period of success, it still might, but it's not looking too promising right now.
The simple fact is they have put themselves in a position whereby Champions League is collateral for one of the bank loans they have ( it's in the documents, I have seen them) which isn't going to happen this season, no amount of match day revenue will make up for that loss.
What do you consider to be a small amount? And borrowing money to sign players doesn't guarantee success and there is a fair chance of just losing that money.