Date: 4th January 2018 at 11:37am
Written by:

Money for Nothing.

Todays headlines are all to do with Money; according to the Daily Mail Harry is about to get a bumper pay-rise.


According to my source, there has been no discussion about an imminent new deal. Funnily enough, I know who I believe.

But the assumption could be sound, Poch has just said that the only way we sell Harry is if he asks for it, he said this to The Evening Standard

Harringay Council have got brave and signed a deal with mammoth property developer Lendlease to regenerate the area around the site of Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium in north London; I say brave, as their councillors are being picked off by Labours momentum group for not being left-wing enough and not being ‘sound’ Corbynista’s and it’s fair to say that the extreme left pressure group are said to have targeted a complete local party takeover, which if it happens, would most likely have scuppered the deal and may well complicate it in the future> a declaration that Harringay renames itself the Communist Republic of Tottenham and Soviet States would likely put off all investors – but such is Corbyn’s destructive vision for Britain.

The Council and Lendlease are looking to regenerate the depressed under-invested area with the promise of a huge investment in 2,500 homes and 3,000 new jobs over the course of the project which will begin later this year. Of course, as in any regeneration project on planet Earth, let alone one of this size, it has attracted lots of criticism from local businesses and locals who live there and those simply jumping on another anti-capitalism bandwagon, but there are others who recognise that the area has been poorly run and an effective night-time no-go zone in some parts for decades.

The one big problem with the new stadium was no new tube station and as most of Tottenham’s fans aren’t drawn from the area anymore so transport links have been a red-hot issue for years. This deal will make all this happen, supposedly.

And to continue the Money theme The Soccerex Football Finance 100 which ranks the world’s top teams based on both their playing and fixed assets, money in the bank, owner potential investment and debt, was published on Wednesday.

We’re 5th in that global league., so according to some we’ve now got loads of money and can do whatever we like – the wrinkle in this assessment is that it takes into account your playing assets which skews our weighted ranking and means that we haven’t suddenly found a gold mine under the old White Hart lane – it’s above ground and running around at Wembley and unless we cash it in, it’s means nothing.

But let’s not kill a good story, money for nothing it is then. Levy must be brimming with pride this morning, either that or he had just found a way to prise a billion or so from down the back of Uncle Joes handmade Argentinian settees?

For those of you who like me, live, eat and die finance and analysis you can bore your elf to sleep and take pride in Daniel’s stewardship by downloading the report here: http://mysoccerex.com/Soccerex_Football_Finance_100_2018.pdf

Now if only we had a bit of silver to top this silly report off with?

 

75 Replies to “Spurs Find Vast Fortune.”

  • Corbyn? Who did he play for again? I’ve heard he was a wiz on the left-wing and on his day would’ve given Bale a run for his money…

  • Corbyn is an old never before tested crap manager who expects to be able to run amok with his spend spend spend and spend again approach and will bankrupt UK FC, destroy the economy of UK FC and then hand the running of the place over to handlers and mentors, the Russians. Personally, I wish we’d sell him to Euroland AFC, he’d soon turn them from a fraud ridden monster into an even bigger waste of money.

  • As for the article. Tottenham is in great need of regeneration, better rail links, a general infrastructural makeover and a new lick or two of paint. Who knows if it’ll be in the hands of the right people responsible for it or if it will be a roaring success? … It’s impossible to please everyone in this circumstances but change is constant and inevitable. For good and bad.

  • Spursex – didn’t we just cash in on part of the gold mine by selling Walker for 45 million? Aren’t there permanent rumblings about the potential of cashing in further (ie you implying an imminent Rose sale as recently as yesterday)? I’m all for dismissing skewed ways of counting money, but when there is a track record of selling top talent in recent years, why wouldn’t we count that as a source of income? Isn’t our academy so often lauded by several posters on here as a source of income at the very least? It’s certainly not going to do anything to quash the idea that the club has riches at its disposal that are not being reivested in the squad.

  • This being said, if Levy was actually serious in wanting to reward Harry Kane in a way he deserves/he has earned, thereby solidifying his commitment to Spurs, I would be at the front of the line to praise him. I will believe it when I see it. But it would be a hugely welcome/positive development. That artificial, self-imposed wage cap has been holding us back for years.

  • BelgianSpur – The problem with your logic is that if you sell a player you generally need to replace him and I don’t know how you would replace Harry Kane. Its like people boasting about the value of their house, fine but if you sell it you need somewhere else to live.

  • BelgianSpur, we have NEVER had a ‘wage-cap’ as such, what we have always done is take a ‘you get what you earn approach’ to contracts, i.e. a base payment plus lots of performance and loyalty bonus’s. There is an overall wage ceiling/target which is exactly in line with Premier league recommendations and guidelines, and their enforced capping of wage growth year on year.

    I think what you are getting confused with is our seeming inability to accrue huge losses over the years in the pursuit of success, which would of course have to be funded by shareholders – prior to being taken private again and delisted I would attend every single AGM and the support for our financial policies by Shareholders (other than the main one – ENIC) would be overwhelming.

    Is that what you are referring to?

  • The report is dodgy in another way in that it apparently factors in the wealth of the owners. The problem with this is that FFP is supposed to prevent rich owners subsidising clubs. City and PSG seem to be finding ways around it for the moment but it is biting to some extent. I don’t know where this talk of a new tube station has come from. As far as I can see there is no such plan in place, a pity as a tube close to the ground would transform things.

  • Fixed assets are different to variable assets and players are variable, trading profits have traditionally helped underpin both player acquisitions and the profitability of the club, although most fans still don’t understand that apart from bonus’s to directors all our profits have been ploughed back into club operations, in recent years that has helped fund the new training facilities/academy and of course the early costs of the new stadium project – until the project finance was put in place.

  • Lendlease have signed a development deal with Haringey Council to regenerate the area around the site of Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium in north London. The company were named as preferred bidders back in the summer and the agreement has now been formally signed off with the promise of 2,500 homes and 3,000 new jobs over the course of the project which will begin later this year.Plans and images describe public spaces with shops and restaurants, a community park, library, community centre and a new Tube station that will help with getting fans to and from the new stadium once it has been opened.

    http://www.football.london/tottenham-hotspur-fc/news/spurs-new-stadium-boosted-1bn-14110783

  • Jod, sorry the tube part is still being discussed by TFL and is still in it’s infancy, but lendlease are pushing heavily for it – I didn’t make that clear.

  • jod – I’m very happy to consider your logic, but tell me, when we sold Modric, which player did we sign to replace his production? Or Gareth Bale? There’s a big difference between what one should theoretically do, and what the club has historically done. We have sold mansions and bought sheds to replace them.

  • The way I can’t help but look at it when looking at Spurs’ players wages. And, no matter what anyone thinks of Lewis/Levy/ENIC. When the players join and when they sign their contracts and then renew them (which most have done several times, these past few seasons), then they know full well what they will be getting and if they don’t like it, they are the ones making the ultimate decision on whether to stay or to go.

    Just 3 seasons ago, Harry was on less than 30 grand a week. Now, said to be a 120 grand. That is a huge raise whichever way we chose to look at it. It will increase more and within sensible THFC limits. We will not be paying him or anyone Messi and Ronaldo type money! Not yet anyhow. Not for a long while.

  • Eriksen, Son, Lamela and Dele are sheds? Who are the sheds exactly? 🙂 Did we finish 3rd and then 2nd with Bale and Modric in the team?

  • Spursex – you may well be in agreement with how the club is run, but you should be aware that many other Spurs fans would be more than happy to hold shares of the club, and even pour personal money into the club if that’s what it takes, if it in turn allowed the club more power in the transfer market. We can bang on about FFP all we want, but as jod readily admitted, clubs like City and PSG don’t seem to give a ****. You seem to praise our incentive-laden contracts, and I see them as a liability. We have often given out contracts with bonus clauses which depend on team performance. Back when we had a liabilty at GK like Gomes, who probably cost us in the vicinity of 10 points every season, how did that stop our top performers from wanting to seek greener pastures? I’d like to see our top performers getting paid for their contribution to the team, regardless of where the team finishes. If Kane scores 30 goals and we still finish 14th, that doesn’t take anything away from his individual performance. The fact that the bonus payments are linked to objectives out of the players’ individual control is just another reason for them to look for clubs that will reward them for performing, no matter what. You also touch upon the compensation of our directors. How does the club justify Daniel Levy being the highest paid chairman in the PL? Does he have the track record of success to back it up? All interesting points for me.

  • Bonus and incentivised payments are paid to players at all clubs. It follows that the better a club does the more money is earn’t and subsequently players are indeed rewarded. If we had finished near the relegation zone these past 2 seasons and no matter how many goals Harry had scored, of course it would be different.

  • HT – we finished in the top 4 twice and went to the CL quarters with Bale and Modric. While the current team has matched the domestic achievements, their performance in Europe has yet to be matched. As far as what we consider to be a shed, Erik Lamela has had 2 seasons with less than 10 appearances in the last 4 years. I rate his ability as much as anyone, but if he’s never on the pitch, it’s still a poor investment. Son took more than 1é months to start producing consistently. When we sold Bale, he was a dead certainty for 20+ league goals per season. Not exactly a n immediate, like for like replacement. You have to factor the timing of the deals, not what the players eventually become. Did we immediately replace the production of the players we sold, without missing a beat? I don’t think anyone can claim that.

Comments are closed.