I see no reason why he should adjust the targets higher. We have still not caught up on the finances with the 5 richer clubs so have no right to think we should routinely out-perform them. Also targets are little use without a plan to deliver them. The plan should not have changed.
Arsenal are owned by Stan Kroenke. He's on record as saying that winning isn't his primary objective for that franchise. His sports teams in the US are happy to count their income without troubling themselves with winning. He's in it for the long term and the money. ENIC's end game is, as yet, uncertain. ENIC are an investment company and many years ago, their stated long term aim was to sell at a profit. That aim may have changed or evolved or it may not, but Joe Lewis isn't going to live forever and the likelihood is that Spurs ownership will evolve in the decade ahead. Levy has admitted that ENIC were made a number of offers (takeovers and partnerships) when they went to the US to borrow the money for the stadium. Joe Lewis has long wanted to buy into the NFL and the new stadium is part of that plan. How that all goes in the next 10 years is uncertain but I don't see any benefit to ENIC in chucking money around like confetti or short terming their investment and taking out vast sums of money to the detriment of the club's growth in the next decade. They'll want to be competing with Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and trying to catch up with United and Citeh whilst looking for a way of becoming a major sporting group with an NFL franchise in London. That's a major move and why Levy wants MP to work with a DoF, so that the growth of the business can be given his time. This has always been a long term investment and it remains just that. We're just entering a different phase. Unlike Liverpool, Arsenal, United, etc. we've not been taken over by an American and added to their stable of sports clubs. We're doing it the other way round. It's different but it should see us in the same place in a decade. Patience is a virtue.
I'm positive everytime the team plays...I'm positive about the potential of our manager and the potential of this squad...however I'm just pointing out that Levy needs to invest in the team...actually put some money in and trust that the team will reap dividends and he will get his investment back. He doesn't seem to have the balls to do that or Uncle tight fisted bastard Joe the Billionaire is using us as his well thought out cash cow but the footballing man and woman in us all can see that we just need that push. So if Joe is not willing to do that whilst sat on billions...I can't see it ever happening under his stewardship. I also understand the philosophy of making money to spend it. Which brings me to my point that let's see what we generate through the new stadium etc. If things still don't change and Levy is still trying to flog crap players for twice their worth yet wanting other clubs talents for pennies or we cannot spend...then it's time for that chat about ENIC.
I tell you why....because we have hit a bit of a goldmine with the glut of talent we found at our club at the same time...they are not getting younger...no doubt getting hungrier and Poch isn't being backed in the transfer market as things stand...at a time when he needs it. We might lose the backbone of our team bit by bit...that's quite unnerving for me. However...like I keeping saying...let's see what Levy does with the stadium finances...here's hoping we haven't lost a key player by then.
Can you imagine hearing that from your owner? Is it worse that he's saying that winning's not really important or that he called them a franchise? At least it's accurate, I guess.
He never called them a franchise directly but he owns 6 sports teams in the US, so he's not exactly a one club man. He did say...“If you want to win championships then you would never get involved." ...and the teams that he's involved with in the US consistently aren't winners. It'll be interesting to see the investment he puts in if Arsenal aren't regularly back in the CL.
The Library customers are cash cows who renew their STs without fail. Kroenke has years ahead where they can fail to be in the CL without too much damage to the bottom line. Just getting the likes of Ozil off the wage bill will probably suffice.
I'd think that this is spot on. Having chucked money at Ozil, Aubameyang and M'Khitaryan, failure to get CL is likely to result in attempts to reduce the wage bill, not increase it.
I think this is illogical. The only way we can have crap players is because we signed them in the first place. If you have a record of buying crap players why would your investors want to give you more money to invest in players. As you say we have a good record of signing players and we have some that have under-performed a bit, but we need to have the same valuation process for those as all the others. I don't see any evidence that we are poor at moving players on.
The Glazers seem to be happy for Mourinho to spend (waste) money like it's going out of fashion. They must still be making a healthy return on their investment despite this - and despite Utd not winning many trophies and no longer being on top of the pile. There is so much money in football. You don't need to be a winner. It probably helps not to be too ambitious. Settle for a tidy return rather than go crazy in pursuit of bigger gains. Spurs are clearly happy to work within a set financial framework which gives the owners a nice return. The new stadium was necessary because old WHL was so unsuitable. But I doubt it shows any shift in their intentions. It's different with City and Chelsea. The clubs are play things for mega-rich owners who have no worries about making a return. They would plough even more money into these clubs without any hope of a return if FFP hadn't intervened to stop them. FFP needs to be constantly revamped to clamp down on all the loopholes they find to keep throwing money at it.
I agree with the rest of your post but this is wide of the mark. The new stadium gets us an extra 26,000 capacity with all that entails. It gets us more corporate customers. However, it also gives us a true multi-use stadium with the capability of being a permanent home to an NFL franchise, as well as a venue for E-Sports, boxing, rugby, concerts, etc. That radically changes what WHL was and what Tottenham can become. That is truly unique and will generate a change from a club that has funds to compete for a place in the CL once in a while, along with Everton and the like, into a team that has the ability to do that, year in and year out. It will give us a place in any future European Super League and the ability to compete to become the biggest draw in London. It's a big change from what we would become with a 36,000 seat stadium. It won't give us United money but the change is huge, nonetheless. Chelsea weren't intending to build a new 60,000 stadium, at a cost of £1 billion, on a whim. It's future-proofing competitiveness, making sure you stay 'in the game'. For all of the money club's riches, those with less money can also be competitive; more so if FFP becomes a real factor in future. Chelsea no longer spend like they did and continue to succeed, just as Liverpool reached the CL final. If Spurs join that level permanently, it's a huge leap forwards.
I agree with all this. A multi-purpose, new, modern stadium is essential. Without it and stuck in an old, small capacity ground could only send the club backwards in the long term. I just remain to be convinced that it will result in a different approach by your owners to how the club spends its money. I can't see Spurs breaking the wage structure, paying the elevated transfer fees other clubs pay for players etc. I think it will just make the current structure more viable and enable the status quo of keeping your top players to continue. It will take you away from clubs like Everton in the financial stakes, but it won't put you on a par with the richest clubs either.
This idea that Spurs have some weird wage structure and transfer policy, unknown to other clubs, amuses me. We spend between 50-60% of our income on wages. When the income goes up, so do the wages. The spare money's gone into building the stadium for over a decade. We set a maximum wage - say, Kane at £200k plus bonuses. Everyone else gets less according to varying factors. If United did this, Pogba wouldn't want what Sanchez is getting and be itching to move on. It's going to be interesting to see if FFP 2.0 has the effect that is intended. It would severely restrict transfer spending and player stacking. That's a game changer without needing to spend ridiculously on transfer fees. Something weird happened this summer. Rich clubs didn't spend enormous amounts on single players. Could it be that the possibility of a maximum net spend of 100m Euros means that we're entering a new dawn? If it does, it won't be to the benefit of clubs with endless means. Our ability to pay good wages and increasing transfer fees will make us more competitive than we are now.
Does anyone know if the increased revenue from non-footballing events such as boxing, NFL and concerts is included as club revenue in the FFP2 regulations? I would guess no. I would also guess that it could be used to pay down the borrowings on the stadium legitimately but money used for transfers/salaries would have to come from footballing revenue. If my guesses are wrong, then the future is very bright indeed.
The stadium is a club asset. Revenues incoming from that asset goes onto the balance sheet. What the club spends that money on is no concern of the FFP stuff.
Excellent, then when we will have a distinct advantage, many will say unfair advantage if FFP2 is administered properly.
Money used to pay for the build of a stadium has always been outside the reach of FFP. So, sale of the housing or hotel or Sainsbury supermarket can be applied to that purpose. If Spurs keep and run/lease the hotel to a management company, should the club be allowed to use those monies for footballing expenditure? I don't know the answer but the club will have investigated this stuff. Allowing the use of non-football income from a stadium, that all clubs have to have, seems pretty closely alligned to the sport. Bigger and better stadiums should attract more income and benefit supporters and the game as a whole. Allowing clubs to massively diversify into property development or other money making schemes just muddies the waters. Sure, sell your stadium site to developers to build another but beyond that, one can see the sense in drawing a line - money should emanate from being a football club.
