Park Life 71 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. I agree. Our target turnover with Euro football would be at today's rates 150m. He needs to spend a little bit more first though. Edited September 23, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. We were - give or take where spurs are now 3 years ago man. In that time TV money has gone up about 30%. Spurs are a medium brand the likes of us and Liverpool are classic brands. Ashley needs to employ someone to really sort the marketing out and also make inroads in Asia (but we have to get into Europa league at least). Edited September 23, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. We were - give or take where spurs are now 5 years ago man. In that time TV money has gone up about 30%. Still not in London though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 These tables show you exactly why you need to breakdown the figures for the 3 major revenue lines. The drop between 09 and 10 for us was driven by the drop in media income which is negotiated collectively and has nothing to do with the club's management. We have performed badly on the other two but our relative performance on those would be more revealing. Its 3 seperate graphs with a line connecting the points. The other line (matchday and commercial) need to be individually trended out for each club to show comparative performance. Next years accounts will show NUFC with the highest ever TV revenue in its history. Stated nakedly like that in the same way the data is presented so far would lead you to the interpretation that the club have performed well financially. It has but its not connected to decisions (actually the decision to carry a wage bill of £48m in the second tier of a national division ensured the upturn we are about to see but that not a performance indicator). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We were - give or take where spurs are now 3 years ago man. In that time TV money has gone up about 30%. For Spurs too. That doesn't give us any more potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 These tables show you exactly why you need to breakdown the figures for the 3 major revenue lines. The drop between 09 and 10 for us was driven by the drop in media income which is negotiated collectively and has nothing to do with the club's management. We have performed badly on the other two but our relative performance on those would be more revealing. Its 3 seperate graphs with a line connecting the points. PP, can you employ a TT intern please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 These tables show you exactly why you need to breakdown the figures for the 3 major revenue lines. The drop between 09 and 10 for us was driven by the drop in media income which is negotiated collectively and has nothing to do with the club's management. We have performed badly on the other two but our relative performance on those would be more revealing. Its 3 seperate graphs with a line connecting the points. PP, can you employ a TT intern please? Am on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31230 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. Extra seats. I also believe we have better corporate facilities. One club city etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. And in the period in question Spurs have turned cumulative profit of £63.1 Million, we haven't made a profit sine 2004 (£4 and a bit million) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31230 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. And in the period in question Spurs have turned cumulative profit of £63.1 Million, we haven't made a profit sine 2004 (£4 and a bit million) Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. And in the period in question Spurs have turned cumulative profit of £63.1 Million, we haven't made a profit sine 2004 (£4 and a bit million) Really? Yep Spurs 2005 £4.9 Mill 2006 £0.6 Mill 2007 £27.7 Mill 2008 £3.0 Mill 2009 £33.4 Mill 2010 - £6.5 Mill (loss) Our cummulative losses in the same period = £98.2 Mill, that's a "swing" or "advantage" of £161.3 Mill Spurs are self sustaining (with plenty of change to spare) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 How's Liverpool added £10m (about 30%) to matchday without an expansion as regular CL qualifiers across that period? That's some price hikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31230 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Spurs 2005 £4.9 Mill 2006 £0.6 Mill 2007 £27.7 Mill 2008 £3.0 Mill 2009 £33.4 Mill 2010 - £6.5 Mill (loss) Our cummulative losses in the same period = £98.2 Mill, that's a "swing" or "advantage" of £161.3 Mill Spurs are self sustaining (with plenty of change to spare) Where are those figures from? http://www.football-finances.org.uk/spurs/profits2.htm shows different figures, not sure how reliable the site is though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Something like this. Just to be a twat, you'd need average ticket prices by year to evaluate properly, or ave attendance anyway. Liverpool get less people in than us, but yet make more money. Also we have (others may as well) outsourced the catering etc, so that revenue will have gone from "matchday" to commercial, assuming your figures are all matchday revenue and not just gate receipts. I think to establish the variables, we need to use something like this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Spurs 2005 £4.9 Mill 2006 £0.6 Mill 2007 £27.7 Mill 2008 £3.0 Mill 2009 £33.4 Mill 2010 - £6.5 Mill (loss) Our cummulative losses in the same period = £98.2 Mill, that's a "swing" or "advantage" of £161.3 Mill Spurs are self sustaining (with plenty of change to spare) Where are those figures from? http://www.football-finances.org.uk/spurs/profits2.htm shows different figures, not sure how reliable the site is though. From the ramble, he also quotes notes from the accounts as back up, he's as reliable as any I'll see if I can find Spurs accounts and validate a couple of years as a sample/health check Edit- Spurs actual accounts back up the ramble: http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/as...nual_report.pdf Edited September 23, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. Again though, you are putting non relevant data into a statistical argument. Its irrelevant for this argument (ie potential turnover) whether we are able to attract the players to get us to that league position. If we performed to the same level and achieved the same league positions as Spurs have then we should have a higher turnover than Spurs would. Those extra seats with the extra merchandising plus the other factors I highlighted earlier, lack of better local competition, location of ground etc etc should see us increase on Spurs turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Not sure why being located on the Scottish border makes us more of a money magnet than being in the capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have much more potential than Spurs tbh. In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. Again though, you are putting non relevant data into a statistical argument. Its irrelevant for this argument (ie potential turnover) whether we are able to attract the players to get us to that league position. If we performed to the same level and achieved the same league positions as Spurs have then we should have a higher turnover than Spurs would. Those extra seats with the extra merchandising plus the other factors I highlighted earlier, lack of better local competition, location of ground etc etc should see us increase on Spurs turnover. That's all well and good Pud but has been said many times, the turnover in isolation is irrelevant, in essence, since 2005, we have spent £160 Million MORE than Spurs just to maintain/achieve our existing/real historical turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We need that casino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We need that casino. We don't really. In the absence of an Arab state or mega-philanthropic owner: We need to stop haemoraging money, consolidate, and start turning our "size" (which is real) into profit. Which is what Ashley has done (arguments about protecting his investment aside) we could NOT go on as we were, and that's not a defence of him, whoever was in charge absolutely would have needed to do it. (Fuck ups costing more money or greater losses not withstanding). Where that profit will go is a whole different discussion. On a level playing field of sustainability, we are by far bigger than most. THAT is to our advantage. Spurs are a decent yardstick, their location and it's price/income benefits is somewhat mitigated by their lack of capacity in comparison to us (and our regional catchment stuff). Liverpool "could" be a good measure if they stay "average", they're still benefitting from the financial bow-wave comming off years and years of real success so that's all scewed as well. If they miss the champions league for a couple of more years, be interesting to see where they sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Commercial - includes sponsorship / branding etc. Our data reflects a £4m recent drop associated with outsourcing catering and the reduced NR money. No data for Stoke or Villa. Edited September 23, 2011 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Commercial - includes sponsorship / branding etc. Our data reflects a £4m recent drop associated with outsourcing catering and the reduced NR money. No data for Stoke or Villa. Howay Chez, make your mind up, £££'s or €€€'s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Edited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10002 Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Edited. Liverpool dropped 09 to 10 £68Mill down to £62Mill despite having the third best shirt sponsorship deal in europe (Barca and Bayern being more, Man U the same) As an aside Bundesliga commercial revenues are HUGE and dwarf the PL, it really is just the TV money that makes the difference. Looking at your graph (and repointing Liverpool) the overall trend/patern is down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now