Spurs - punished for not investing whilst at the top?

Bilbo

TeaBaggins
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
14,208
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.
Yes it was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm always an advocate for long term thinking
 

TrustInOle

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,464
Location
Manchester
To put it simply..... Lads, it's Spurs! They were always gonna crumble, sacking Poch and hiring Mourinho was just the cherry on top.
 

Trophy Room

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
3,874
Location
Manchester
For me it's all about the manager. Spurs aren't as bad as they seem right now. It's Mourinho. If they appoint well in the summer (not sure if they can afford to sack Mourinho) then they'll challenge for Top 4 next season. When the football is shit, every negative at a football club gets blown out of proportion.
 

Norris Cole

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
218
I don't see Spurs as a threat at all now.
It is hard to know if they are truly f**ked, or is this just the Mourinho effect - making good players look bad.

Time will tell, but I think any hopes of a title challenge with this squad (Kane, Alli et al) that were building under Pochettino are well and truly gone.
 

TrustInJanuzaj

'Liverpool are a proper club'
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
10,665
Absolutely, I remember saying to my Spurs pals a few years ago now that we would win a title before Spurs because they just didn't have the funds to push the squad to the final stage. Now clearly we have not won a title yet but that bet looks safer and safer as I seriously can't see Spurs getting back to that level anytime soon.
 

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
5,931
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.
Old Trafford seats around 75k and the match day revenue is around 100m a year. That's a lot of money. Granted the Spurs stadium does not seat as much it's still going to be a significant boost in revenue.

For me Spurs failure is the inability to know when to sell. They could have gotten close to 200m for Alderweireld, Erikson, Rose and Dier. Their contemporaries in Spain (Atletico) and Germany (dortmund) were smart, they sold and reinvested. Even Chelsea use a model of selling before buying. Instead of selling and investing they were out here haggling for Grealish when he was cheap.
 

AR87

Full Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
3,217
Location
believer that Sancho will turn it around
For me Spurs failure is the inability to know when to sell. They could have gotten close to 200m for Alderweireld, Erikson, Rose and Dier. Their contemporaries in Spain (Atletico) and Germany (dortmund) were smart, they sold and reinvested. Even Chelsea use a model of selling before buying. Instead of selling and investing they were out here haggling for Grealish when he was cheap.
This is the reality of the situation. The new stadium made it even more imperative that Levy not dither in the market with unrealistic valuations in both buying and selling. Also understanding when to sell players at their peak value, something he also completely failed at. As a result they are now paying the price for it.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
Old Trafford seats around 75k and the match day revenue is around 100m a year. That's a lot of money. Granted the Spurs stadium does not seat as much it's still going to be a significant boost in revenue.

For me Spurs failure is the inability to know when to sell. They could have gotten close to 200m for Alderweireld, Erikson, Rose and Dier. Their contemporaries in Spain (Atletico) and Germany (dortmund) were smart, they sold and reinvested. Even Chelsea use a model of selling before buying. Instead of selling and investing they were out here haggling for Grealish when he was cheap.
I agree with your second paragraph. @Cassidy made a similar point but with Kane as an example, while it would have been risky, it was most likely the correct move to capitalize on some of these players. But you need to be good at purchasing players which hasn't been the case for Tottenham.
 

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
5,931
I agree with your second paragraph. @Cassidy made a similar point but with Kane as an example, while it would have been risky, it was most likely the correct move to capitalize on some of these players. But you need to be good at purchasing players which hasn't been the case for Tottenham.
True, in hindsight its easy for us to say most of this but as you mentioned recruitment is hard. Holding on to what you have is easier than selling and gambling on new recruits.
 

Fully Fledged

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
16,147
Location
Midlands UK
They kept the same players for too long, they should have done what liverpool did and sell a few of their best players to reinvest in the team. Players like Dier, Rose and Toby could have gone for good money at one point. But they tried to be too smart about things.
No one was willing to pay the Daniel Levy levy on those players that's the problem. he asked too much for the players he was willing to sell.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
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.
Leicester have provided the case study on how lower teams can move up a tier if they are able to punch above their weight in one season. They did what you prescribed after winning the league and have transformed how they perceive themselves and are perceived by others.
 

Ooh2B

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
374
Supports
Arsenal
Arsenal finished 4th in a two horse race in 2011.
Bit of revisionism going on there...

2011 final standings...

1. Man City
2. Manchester Utd.
3. Arsenal.
4. Spuds
 

Offside

Euro 2016 sweepstake winner
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
26,629
Location
London
Bit of revisionism going on there...

2011 final standings...

1. Man City
2. Manchester Utd.
3. Arsenal.
4. Spuds
Nope. You’ve got 2012.

1. Man Utd
2. Chelsea
3. Man City
4. Arsenal
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
19,776
No one was willing to pay the Daniel Levy levy on those players that's the problem. he asked too much for the players he was willing to sell.
Levy definitely got greedy - previously Spurs always used to sell their best players I.e Carrick, Berbatov etc. This time they decided against it.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
19,776
Old Trafford seats around 75k and the match day revenue is around 100m a year. That's a lot of money. Granted the Spurs stadium does not seat as much it's still going to be a significant boost in revenue.

For me Spurs failure is the inability to know when to sell. They could have gotten close to 200m for Alderweireld, Erikson, Rose and Dier. Their contemporaries in Spain (Atletico) and Germany (dortmund) were smart, they sold and reinvested. Even Chelsea use a model of selling before buying. Instead of selling and investing they were out here haggling for Grealish when he was cheap.
Exactly - they should have sold Eriksen 2 years ago they would have got good money for him. Grealish would have been the perfect replacement and could of been theirs for around £35mill, but Levy decided to take liberties and only offer £25mill.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
13,871
Location
Sunny Manc
This is simply the natural end to the typical Spurs cycle. They had their moments under Harry as well to a lesser extent, before it all came crashing down once again. They always come out of it having won **** all though :)
 

Mindhunter

Full Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
3,629
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.
You are making it sound as if it is mutually exclusive. It isn't. As a club, you need to allocate a budget to maintain the quality of your squad across seasons and Spurs have failed to do that because they tied their fortune to their glorious stadium. What's the use having the best stadium in the country when your performances on the pitch are dire?

Also, I have never said that they shouldn't be investing in the future. Don't know how you got that impression. Not investing in the squad is the very definition of putting all their eggs in the same basket (read stadium).
 

Mindhunter

Full Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
3,629
Exactly - they should have sold Eriksen 2 years ago they would have got good money for him. Grealish would have been the perfect replacement and could of been theirs for around £35mill, but Levy decided to take liberties and only offer £25mill.
This. I don't understand why it is difficult for people to understand this. What we are seeing from Spurs is bad management. This isn't a case of a poor club living beyond their means and then getting back to their original level. Spurs had every opportunity to sell players who wanted out and refresh the squad with upcoming and hungry players but Levy bought into his own hype of being a "big club" that doesn't sell to premiership rivals etc.

This is biting them on the backside now. This is gross mismanagement.
 

Scroto Baggins

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
2,340
Supports
Newcastle Jets
Levy definitely got greedy - previously Spurs always used to sell their best players I.e Carrick, Berbatov etc. This time they decided against it.
Still are a selling club, just have to pay a little over the odds. Modric, Bale both moved to RM. In recent times Eriksen moved on.

I think Kane will leave the sh*tshow that is Mourinho's Spurs sooner rather than later. If Son follows him out the door it is mid table mediocrity for quite some time for Spurs.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
You are making it sound as if it is mutually exclusive. It isn't. As a club, you need to allocate a budget to maintain the quality of your squad across seasons and Spurs have failed to do that because they tied their fortune to their glorious stadium. What's the use having the best stadium in the country when your performances on the pitch are dire?

Also, I have never said that they shouldn't be investing in the future. Don't know how you got that impression. Not investing in the squad is the very definition of putting all their eggs in the same basket (read stadium).
It is often mutually exclusive when you are not wealthy. To make it simple when you are not particularly wealthy you most likely have to choose between purchasing a house and going to The Maldives, your budget is finite and both of these things have cost that you don't control. Most of us, most companies have to choose, they can't have everything at the same time.

Also Spurs did spend money, they simply didn't spend more than they had on players.
 

Ooh2B

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
374
Supports
Arsenal
Nope. You’ve got 2012.

1. Man Utd
2. Chelsea
3. Man City
4. Arsenal
5. Spurs

Whatever way you try to cut it, (2010-2011/2011-2012) we finished above them, and below some of the richest clubs in the world. But you’re really being disingenuous to this being a spuds thread by drawing more attention to their failings from Gooners.

We’ve been horrendous at times during the Spurs’ golden era, but still managed a few decent cups and an embarrassing 2nd to Leicester while they still finished 3rd.

As for the result tomorrow, if they do beat us, it’ll be a small salve during the Mourinho era. The future is for sure unwritten, but anyone trying to predict a bright one for them would struggle.
 

Mindhunter

Full Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
3,629
It is often mutually exclusive when you are not wealthy. To make it simple when you are not particularly wealthy you most likely have to choose between purchasing a house and going to The Maldives, your budget is finite and both of these things have cost that you don't control. Most of us, most companies have to choose, they can't have everything at the same time.

Also Spurs did spend money, they simply didn't spend more than they had on players.
Let's give it a rest. I don't think we are ever going to agree on this. If I am a football club, investing on players can't be compared to "going to Maldives" but more like "buying bread and butter".

They needed to do it in moderation. Sell some of their player who wanted out, invested in their squad, brought in players who really wanted to play for them. Instead they were feeding their misguided ego of being a big club, investing in large stadiums, holding players hostage to long contracts without giving them competitive pay, refusing to deal with domestic clubs because of "rivalry". It was a total mess.

They had the resources to do both and failed to do that. Hell, they even found 15m to pay the most inept coach in the PL and yet you say that they don't have money to do everything.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
19,776
Still are a selling club, just have to pay a little over the odds. Modric, Bale both moved to RM. In recent times Eriksen moved on.

I think Kane will leave the sh*tshow that is Mourinho's Spurs sooner rather than later. If Son follows him out the door it is mid table mediocrity for quite some time for Spurs.
They‘re not a selling club anymore, selling clubs buy low and sell high. Eriksen was sold for £17mill they bought him for £12mill. Bale was the last big sale and that was 7 years ago.
 

Paxi

Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
27,678
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.
Yes it was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm always an advocate for long term thinking
Cheers fellas.

Fair enough, I was only genuinely enquiring. I guess @JPRouve you’re right, the revenue over the next decade and a half is a sizeable chunk. Its easy to say they’ve should have did this or that after the fact. My main point in me playing devils advocate was that WHL was and would still be a very adequate ground for a club like Spurs. Forgive me if I’m wrong but don’t clubs earn a fair chunk of money from corporate boxes and stuff?
Yes that’s stadium is really nice and is a good investment but is it good for them In short to medium time?
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
8,270
Location
Dublin
I think if they hired Mourinho two years ago it might have worked out better for them. Pochettino really doesn't look the manager to break the kind of duck Spurs have for winning things. His attitude and comments before important matches always looked ropy and defeatist. Give Mourinho the team with dembele, walker and a commited rose and erickson and he would have fluked one trophy or another
That team has been done for a while and every replacement was weaker than what came before. Spending money for the first time in ages on lo celso, ndombele and sessegnon then bringing in Mourinho less than 6 months later to build a team around them is a blatantly terrible plan though.
I'd move Mourinho on. It cant cost more than throwing them 3 players in the bin.
 

Schmeichel's Cartwheel

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
11,420
Location
Manchester
Looking at their 16/17 team they had some of the right pieces, great CB partnership in Jan & Toby, good fullbacks in Walker & Rose. Going forward with Kane & Alli who when on form could be fantastic, and Son & Eriksen were excellent also. But the lack of investment in squad depth & centre midfield is what cost them, and that falls on Levy. I genuinely believe his penny pinching may have cost them a title, because that Chelsea team who won the title that year were catchable in my opinion. Spurs signed no players that season.

You’re not going to win a title with the likes of Winks, Sissoko, Dier & Wanyama in your midfield. Not replacing Dembele when his legs went was a shocker from them.
 

The Mitcher

connoisseur of pot noodles and sandwiches
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
19,309
Location
Manchester
They‘re not a selling club anymore, selling clubs buy low and sell high. Eriksen was sold for £17mill they bought him for £12mill. Bale was the last big sale and that was 7 years ago.
They still bought for cheap and made a 5 mil profit on him. So still a selling club.
 

dalriada

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
594
Location
A Mancunian living in Surrey
Spurs under Levy are always going to struggle to compete with clubs with Middle East money, or oligarch owners, or established commercial operations like United. He is playing a longer game of financial sustainability based on his income from the stadium. Spurs's big spending splurge was based on the money they made selling Bale, which was a record at the time, and it took them a while to see the benefit of that - the consensus was that they brought in too many players all at once. They then reverted to type and spent at a much lower level until 17/18 when they did well to get £47m for Walker. 19/20 has been their biggest net spend for a long while, most of that going on Ndombélé, who's now being thrown under the Mourinho bus.

Their ownership and spending model look more like Newcastle under Ashley, but with Levy being more actively involved and relatively successful in the transfer market - in that respect, he's a better businessman and owner (whatever the view of the players now, Alli and Dier were bargains and have been good value). They would do better if they developed their academy players better instead of just cashing in on players, given that they don't have the resources to compete with the top EPL clubs, and in that respect Pochettino was such a good fit for them.

Pochettino probably squeezed as much as he could out of his squad given his spending constraints. I was surprised that they went backwards to the extent they did in late 2019, and they clearly need an overhaul that probably needs more money than Levy is prepared to spend in the short term. He's gambled very heavily on building revenue from the stadium with an underperforming team.

Levy's blind spot is his managerial appointments - Jol, Ramos, Villas-Boas, Sherwood, etc. I think he's got it badly wrong with Mourinho, who is surely going to throw his toys out of the pram before long when he doesn't get the huge sums he will want. I can't think of a more unnatural mismatch than Levy and Jose.
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
13,549
Location
Melbourne
Spurs tried to follow the Arse model, problem is that whole model is predicated on getting CL money while paying back stadium debt, which is infinitely harder with another sugar daddy team in the mix (now two), a resurgent Liverpool and some of the Europa league teams having better resources due to increasing TV money.

They had their moment in the sun when the traditional top dogs were either inconsistent year-by-year (Chelsea, Liverpool) or just downright crap (us, Le Arse), but that doesn’t last forever and instead of building a competitive team to entrench themselves as a top 4 team, which would lead to better sponsorship deals in addition to the CL money, they’ve chosen to bank their future on an expensive stadium which can only be paid off by having that sort of luck for 10+ years.
 

RedRob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
900
Location
"I believe. I believe there will be more. T
This video worries me, pertaining to how much some fans want Pochettino to take over here. I hadn't realised how bad things were at the end of his tenure at Spurs. With the reliance upon ageing players, falling out with various members of the squad, moody and selfish behaviour, and an inability to recapture the glory days of a few seasons prior, he doesn't sound entirely unlike their current manager.
 

TheLord

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2018
Messages
1,690
While we want clubs to invest heavily in fresh or established talent every year, this is not always possible, especially for upper mid-table clubs like Tottenham that is reeling under the huge stadium debt.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
9,888
Old Trafford seats around 75k and the match day revenue is around 100m a year. That's a lot of money. Granted the Spurs stadium does not seat as much it's still going to be a significant boost in revenue.

For me Spurs failure is the inability to know when to sell. They could have gotten close to 200m for Alderweireld, Erikson, Rose and Dier. Their contemporaries in Spain (Atletico) and Germany (dortmund) were smart, they sold and reinvested. Even Chelsea use a model of selling before buying. Instead of selling and investing they were out here haggling for Grealish when he was cheap.
That revenue isn't all profit, policing, stewards, staff etc etc all need to be paid. The bigger the stadium the higher the cost.
The biggest boost for them was the fact the new stadium is multi use, NFL, gigs etc. They can't do that at the moment and probably for the foreseeable due to social distancing and the premiership season being at different times next season.
But yeah you're dead right about holding onto players, it's almost as if they were trying to deny they are still a selling club!
 

Thiagoal

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
2,565
They’ve spent a lot of money on players that just don’t suit premiership football (Lo Celso, Lamela, Sanchez) and their extremely strong core has either totally lost form (Toby, Kane, Ali) or been sold. It will take a lot of money to rectify the situation which they don’t appear to have! Add to that a negative manager and it equals a total mess!
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,486
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
I don’t get the logic in sacking Pochettino when you need a rebuild and appointing a man who’s going to want to do a rebuild with big money?

Either way Spurs look at it, they are a couple of years off competing again, possibly 5 years with Mourinho at the helm, and he won’t get that long.
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
14,139
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
I would go for Hassenhuttl and task him with building a youthful pressing team. I think his work speaks for itself and with a decent budget he could probably get spurs back challenging in the top 6. They have a core of good experienced players and usually have a few interesting youngsters coming through. It might not even be a huge and expensive job under the right manager if he put his faith in the younger players and finds a few bargains for his system. It just seems like under Jose it’s going to blow up any day now whatever he tries.