Toonpack 9126 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m. Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years? Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money. They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart) http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time. Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary. IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end). Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends. usual rubbish. You tell me any "big" club that sells their best players and pockets the cash without backing their manager. All of them do it man!, They really do, their "profits on player trading" tell you all you need to know, and they only back their managers to the point they can afford. If they don't need to sell to generate cash they won't, but the minute they do, they'll pull the trigger. It's not always necesarily their "best" players but they always get good wedge for some of their better one's every so often. Man U - Ronaldo Arsenal - Henry, Viera, Fabregas, Nasri etc Scouse - Alonso, Torres Spurs - Carrick, Berbatov why are you not answering the question in its entirety ? Oh sorry, you patently don't understand what "pocketting the cash" means, therefore a response would have been usueless. Ashley has NOT pocketted any cash, the previous regime however........................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9126 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) All of them do it man!, They really do, their "profits on player trading" tell you all you need to know, and they only back their managers to the point they can afford. If they don't need to sell to generate cash they won't, but the minute they do, they'll pull the trigger. It's not always necesarily their "best" players but they always get good wedge for some of their better one's every so often. Man U - Ronaldo Arsenal - Henry, Viera, Fabregas, Nasri etc Scouse - Alonso, Torres Spurs - Carrick, Berbatov A lot of Wenger's early success was built on the money they got for Petit and Overmars. It's interresting that LM derides the "live within your means" view but I thought that's what we did pretty much until about 2003. It was only when Shepherd started spending through credit that I think it got dodgy. Agreed. We actually made a profit in 2002 I think it was, off the top of my head. Edited January 12, 2012 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Anyone trying to position LM as someone saying no successful club ever sells a good player is avoiding his point. It's clear that this is what he's talking about.... "Pocketing" the cash doesn't mean it being spent in the Casino, it means not going back onto the field. The fact arsenal and Portsmouth "pocket" more means it's not as cut and dry as all that of course....on either side of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4713 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 who did blackburn sell to make all that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) who did blackburn sell to make all that? Bellamy £6m Bentley £15m Santa Cruz £18m Phil Jones £17m And another £10m in smaller deals. Their profit has come from spending nowt comparatively, as opposed to selling particularly well. Edited January 12, 2012 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9126 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Anyone trying to position LM as someone saying no successful club ever sells a good player is avoiding his point. It's clear that this is what he's talking about.... "Pocketing" the cash doesn't mean it being spent in the Casino, it means not going back onto the field. The fact arsenal and Portsmouth "pocket" more means it's not as cut and dry as all that of course....on either side of the argument. That table is meaningless, the spend reflects the wealth of the clubs "within their means" , for the big boys, those with more cash spend more. Leazes has no comprehension what pocket ting means, your attemp to defend him is misplaced he's said on many occasions the money's going into Ashley's back pocket, it simply is not. If someone higher up the pecking order comes in your player will leave. End of. Modric is currently the exception, but he still hasn't signed his new pacification bumper contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4676 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Given he cost £3.5m and is paid within the current wage structure you can maintain where we are currently at / progress within those contraints without selling the likes of Tiote. I'd suggest the owner's reaction to bids for him is another litmus test as to where he actually wants to take us. But he has already said the club needs to be self financing so I guess you could argue that one Tiote sold for £20 million gets you another Santon, Cabaye, and still have 10 mill change. and it is far more likely to get you a Perch, Obertan, Lovenkrands, Best, Simpson or Routledge. In the real world. Who can't even be sold on because no fucker wants them. Last 12 months. Ben Arfa Cabaye Marveaux Santon Ba Obertan Albeid Not bad purchases really. Only poor one for me is Obertan who may or may not come good one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TicTacWoe 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Yes but to be fair to Leazes he is (sort of) saying that the money taken in for those players should be completely reinvested in new signings. Is that so outrageous? (in reply to toonpack not CT) Edited January 12, 2012 by TicTacWoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 All of them do it man!, They really do, their "profits on player trading" tell you all you need to know, and they only back their managers to the point they can afford. If they don't need to sell to generate cash they won't, but the minute they do, they'll pull the trigger. It's not always necesarily their "best" players but they always get good wedge for some of their better one's every so often. Man U - Ronaldo Arsenal - Henry, Viera, Fabregas, Nasri etc Scouse - Alonso, Torres Spurs - Carrick, Berbatov A lot of Wenger's early success was built on the money they got for Petit and Overmars. It's interresting that LM derides the "live within your means" view but I thought that's what we did pretty much until about 2003. It was only when Shepherd started spending through credit that I think it got dodgy. sorry, but Shepherd never owned the club. Looking further, can none of these self appointed footballing accountants explain how exactly a club that has the 14th biggest turnover in football still needs to sell its best players to be "self sufficient". HF has, as usual, expanded my point correctly and explained it in easier and statistical terms for the more simple minded. Basically speaking, this continued defence of Mike Ashley pocketing the cash and cherry picking of the ownership of the previous regime, is nothing more than a refusal to admit that someone indeed, despite what they claimed years ago, has came along and actually "done worse than the hopeless Fred". Surely a man of Mike Ashleys calibre could take a club with the 14th biggest turnover and increase that while at the same time decrease expenditure, rather than the hopeless Fred ? Backing your managers as well as doing that ie showing ambition and the desire to be successful on the pitch albeit accepting that not every managerial appointment is a roaring success, would more or less guarantee the justification of the claims made by the title of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes but to be fair to Leazes he is (sort of) saying that the money taken in for those players should be completely reinvested in new signings. Is that so outrageous? (in reply to toonpack not CT) for a club with the 14th biggest turnover in football, it ought to be the absolute minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Anyone trying to position LM as someone saying no successful club ever sells a good player is avoiding his point. It's clear that this is what he's talking about.... "Pocketing" the cash doesn't mean it being spent in the Casino, it means not going back onto the field. The fact arsenal and Portsmouth "pocket" more means it's not as cut and dry as all that of course....on either side of the argument. That table is meaningless, the spend reflects the wealth of the clubs "within their means" , for the big boys, those with more cash spend more. Leazes has no comprehension what pocket ting means, your attemp to defend him is misplaced he's said on many occasions the money's going into Ashley's back pocket, it simply is not. If someone higher up the pecking order comes in your player will leave. End of. Modric is currently the exception, but he still hasn't signed his new pacification bumper contract. and you don't pocket the cash......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Its irrelevant really what happens to the money if the player coming in to replace the outgoing player is better. However, for those who obsess over these things, the question 'where has the money gone?' can be very simply answered, as i have time and again on here: into the black hole that was our debt mountain. The reality is a lot more complicated as a business with no credit and cash flow issues creating short-term credit needs due to the size of its operational costs, needs capital all over the place. It bolis down to this - we made a profit in January 2010 of £30m, we made losses of > £30m for the previous 2 seasons. If we had been breaking even every season for the past 10 years, then we should expect to see all of this money, as we were making losses, we need to pay for these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4676 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes but to be fair to Leazes he is (sort of) saying that the money taken in for those players should be completely reinvested in new signings. Is that so outrageous? (in reply to toonpack not CT) If you owned the club and could improve the team (as we have done) and instead use that extra money to help balance the books, then you probably would. Not what fans want to do, but...... We also seem to be actively in the market now with that same money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9126 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes but to be fair to Leazes he is (sort of) saying that the money taken in for those players should be completely reinvested in new signings. Is that so outrageous? (in reply to toonpack not CT) If the cash is a surplus, it should go onto the field, if it's not it can't. That's how they all work, the playing staff and associated costs aren't a separate item from eveything else and as such cannot be looked at in isolation ( and isn't in any of the major clubs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4676 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes but to be fair to Leazes he is (sort of) saying that the money taken in for those players should be completely reinvested in new signings. Is that so outrageous? (in reply to toonpack not CT) for a club with the 14th biggest turnover in football, it ought to be the absolute minimum. You do realise turnover doesn't equal profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 As much as it hurts people to do so you've got to give the club credit in that they've turned around a loss making club into one that is aim to be self sufficient while at the same time making improvements to the squad that have us sat in a great position that we deserve. The next step is to push on, that's easier said than done with the clubs ahead of us but they need to continue their good work and get the club profitable again, with those profits being used to buy better players to try and close the gap even more. You just have to hope they are strict with the financial fair play rules as we are in a solid position financially now to benefit from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Its irrelevant really what happens to the money you're completely wrong, if the name of the game is building a good football team and improving what you already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4676 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Its irrelevant really what happens to the money you're completely wrong, if the name of the game is building a good football team and improving what you already have. No good having a good football team if you can't afford the strips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes but to be fair to Leazes he is (sort of) saying that the money taken in for those players should be completely reinvested in new signings. Is that so outrageous? (in reply to toonpack not CT) for a club with the 14th biggest turnover in football, it ought to be the absolute minimum. You do realise turnover doesn't equal profit? please explain how your man has been unable to reduce costs while retaining the 14th biggest turnover in football ? Is this difficult ? This is all he had to do, surely for a man of his calibre, it ought to have been quite easy ? Then tell us how this 14th biggest turnover in football was achieved in the first place, or was it done by selling your best players, not backing your manager, pocketing the cash, and I blinked and missed it all ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes but to be fair to Leazes he is (sort of) saying that the money taken in for those players should be completely reinvested in new signings. Is that so outrageous? (in reply to toonpack not CT) If the cash is a surplus, it should go onto the field, if it's not it can't. That's how they all work, the playing staff and associated costs aren't a separate item from eveything else and as such cannot be looked at in isolation ( and isn't in any of the major clubs) so how much higher do you have to go than 14th biggest turnover in football to avoid having to sell your best players and pocket the cash ? Take your time. Mike Ashley has, he's had 4 years to change this abysmal performance by the old regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TicTacWoe 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Its irrelevant really what happens to the money if the player coming in to replace the outgoing player is better. However, for those who obsess over these things, the question 'where has the money gone?' can be very simply answered, as i have time and again on here: into the black hole that was our debt mountain. The reality is a lot more complicated as a business with no credit and cash flow issues creating short-term credit needs due to the size of its operational costs, needs capital all over the place. It bolis down to this - we made a profit in January 2010 of £30m, we made losses of > £30m for the previous 2 seasons. If we had been breaking even every season for the past 10 years, then we should expect to see all of this money, as we were making losses, we need to pay for these. I agree, but it's very difficult to consistantly sell high and buy low with good results. Arsenal have managed to do it incredibly well over the years but I don't know of any other club in England that has pulled that off over a considerable length of time. Anyway, I really think the important thing is to enjoy what is happening while it lasts. There'll be plenty of twists and turns this season but I really believe that we will finish 7th. There's a decent chance that this will mean Europe and this should be seen as good progress considering where we have been in recent years (under both Ashley and the latter days of Shepherd). Edited January 12, 2012 by TicTacWoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Unfortunately, I don't think anybody can call anything progress until I see the club striving to keep its best players and back its manager instead of selling them and pocketing the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4676 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Putting Carrol to one side though have we really sold high bought low? Can't remember all the figured but... Santon for Enrique. About the same Cabaye was more than Nolan Obertan / Ben Arfa more than Barton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Anyone trying to position LM as someone saying no successful club ever sells a good player is avoiding his point. It's clear that this is what he's talking about.... "Pocketing" the cash doesn't mean it being spent in the Casino, it means not going back onto the field. The fact arsenal and Portsmouth "pocket" more means it's not as cut and dry as all that of course....on either side of the argument. That table is meaningless, the spend reflects the wealth of the clubs "within their means" , for the big boys, those with more cash spend more. Leazes has no comprehension what pocket ting means, your attemp to defend him is misplaced he's said on many occasions the money's going into Ashley's back pocket, it simply is not. If someone higher up the pecking order comes in your player will leave. End of. Modric is currently the exception, but he still hasn't signed his new pacification bumper contract. It's all realtive, so wealth doesn't come into it. 15 out of 20 clubs spend more on signing players than they earn from selling them. That's how a club improves, buying "better" players. By not doing so we're in the minority. This goes for clubs across the wealth range, however the shortfall is made up, whether it comes from owners, TV money or other commercial avenues. Arsenal fans don't like their club doing it any more than Leazes likes it from his club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoCo85 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Unfortunately, I don't think anybody can call anything progress until I see the club striving to keep its best players and back its manager instead of selling them and pocketing the cash. You actually depress the hell outta me! 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