absolute. To be fair you have been spending more recently but beforehand it has always been we are investing in the stadium so we can't spend. I'm talking circa 2017-2019
Over a period of a decade, the club used funds generated by the football team to buy land, some for the stadium build, some not. It then funded the initial construction works for the stadium, as well as the training ground and club offices, out of income (and a loan from Joe Lewis' Tavistock Group). Once the old stadium was closed, the significant loans were taken out, but the club had already spent £400m+. The club doesn't have significant levels of cash in the bank and hasn't paid a dividend in over a decade, so the £400m FFP compliant figure reflects how much money the football club has recently generated, that has been spent on non-football projects. I've no problem with that figure being £200m spent on non-football projects, so long as the rest isn't. There hasn't been a proper balance of interests and it needs to be addressed and re-set for the future. This is meant to be a football club.
16/17 we spent reasonably, but badly, making decent money from sales. 17/18 we spent quite a lot, but made a lot back, shifting Wimmer and Bentaleb for good fees. The big one is 18/19 where we spent nothing and made nothing. It's cost us quite badly. Pochettino supposedly didn't want any of the players that he was offered. He also failed to utilise youth players sensibly, most notably Walker-Peters. Last season we spent quite a lot on players and they haven't really worked out. Lo Celso, Ndombele, Sessegnon and Bergwijn were the main ones and none have cemented a place. Our squad balance is the main issue though, in my opinion. Wonky as ****.
at it's simplest the PL sustainability rules (ffp under another name) state you can only post a certain amount of losses over any 3 year period and Everton managers , even with some dodgy sponsorship deals from Big Al , have been spunking the owners money all over the wall for years and their wriggle room has run out hence Rafas limited transfer dealing this year .
We spent over £100m in the 2017-18 season on Sanchez, Aurier, Lucas, Foyth and Llorente, which always gets overlooked by people sticking to the "tightfisted Levy" Narrative, albeit offset by the £50m we got when Walker was tapped-up The 2018-19 season is where things were iffy, but that iffyness was caused by a myriad of problems that led to an example of disaster dominoes i.) Poch wanted Ndombele, but as Lyon made his loan from Amiens permanent late in the previous season they weren't willing to sell unless it was an eye-watering offer ia.) Poch was offered Tielemans by either Levy or Hitchen (delete as you see fit) but flat refused to entertain the idea, because he wanted Ndombele and only Ndombele ii.) Dembele was set to move to China in the summer, but due to picking up a knock at the World Cup he missed the Chinese window and stayed until January and as a result we were above our Non HG quota, which is why Janssen wasn't listed in the squad until Dembele left iii.) We were expecting a bid for Toby, and so was he judging by his stalling over a new contract for the previous season knowing he had a release clause coming up, yet nobody bid iv.) We couldn't even offload the obvious players to sell, as Janssen needed foot surgery so nobody was going to be interested until January at the earliest, and we'd have probably had to pay somebody to take Nkoudou away due to his complete lack of regular football ever since we signed him meant he likely wasn't even on anyone's radar by that point Ultimately the summer of 2018 is something which happens a lot when playing Football Manager, where you know you need to clear the decks to make a few sweeping changes to the squad yet that is exactly what didn't happen due to a combination of a lack of interest in various players we were expecting offers for (and the same happened with Eriksen a year later) coupled with Poch's stubbornness rejecting players he was offered even though the ones he wanted weren't available and he knew they weren't
you spent 20m net after consistent champions league finishes a new tv record deal. I think there were around 12 premier league clubs that spent more than you in the 17/18 season that you "spent" big bucks edit: even then this was 25m extra because you picked up moura in the january transfer window. You actually had a negative net spend in the summer
So since it's only an estimate does that mean you could possibly spend £500m without breaking FFP? Nobody is saying you have £400m sat in the bank unspent (which is at least two of the posts you have quoted mention finding the money from somewhere). Everyone knows what is meant in the article, over a 3year period the cash you have spent on playing staff could have been increased by (an estimated) £400m if the cash was there but it's probably been spent on other projects so is not sat in the bank.
That's simply not true, though That season's big spenders roughly fall into three categories Pisstakers (The Sheikh Mansour Team's £250m+ spree, Chelsea's £185m+ spree, Man Utd's £130m spree) Offset (Spurs' £100m+ spree offset by Walker and Wimmer, Saltypool's £150m spree offset by Coutinho, Arsenal's £100m+ spree offset by Oxlade Chamberlain, Walcott and Giroud, Everton's £175m spree offset by Lukaku and Barkley) Fools with their money (Stoke, Swansea, West Ham etc) At most there were six clubs who spent more than us that season, and at least two of those clubs (namely Arsenal and Everton) clearly spent badly even though their spending was offset by receiving large transfer windfalls, while further down the food chain clubs with TV windfalls not only spent less than Spurs but were also grossly incompetent with how their spent that money, not that the clubs who took them to the cleaners minded too much
No, because the estimate says we have £400m wiggle room, and £500m is obviously above that figure Yes, people are making out we have £400m unspent, and are trying to blame the stadium for it being unspent as I have quoted Everybody knows what the article meant, which is why it has been blatantly misquoted as "We have £400m!" and not "If we had £400m we could spend it!", which are two drastically different statements
Whether people spent more (recouped more in sales) or spent badly (fools with money), it still doesn't deny the fact that for a club in the CL and relatively low wages, you guys are being outspent by clubs with less money. I can only conclude its because the club is conscious that they need the money for the stadium. Regardless if this is true or not, the initial statement of fact is tottenham were not spending much money net on transfers during that period. Here is the net spend of the clubs for the entire 17/18 season. 1.City 260m 2.Man U 140m 3.Chelsea 70m 4.Everton 70m 5.Brighton 60m 6.Watford 47m 7.Huddersfield 45m 8.WBA 43m 9.Palace 41m 10.Bournemouth 30m 11.Leicester 30m 12.Tottenham 20m 13.Newcastle 17m 14.Stoke 12m 15.Liverpool -1m 16.Arsenal -6.5m 17.West Ham -14m 18.Burnley -13m 19.Swansea -15m 20.Southampton -33m Your "HUGE" spending put you only 4m net spend over the most tight of chairmen in the world (Mike Ashley) see source https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/pre...saison_id=2017&s_w=&leihe=0&intern=0&intern=1
Not one person has "made out" that you have £400m to spend Most people understand the basics of FFP and what the article is saying, that being the fact that the money you spent on playing staff in regard to your income left you with a potential to spend a further £400m over the FFP period if you had the money to spend.
The other day a friend and I were mulling over a radically new idea whereby points gained are adjusted for money spent. E.g. if City beat someone like Burnley they'd only receive 3 points if they won by 6 goals. Winning by a single goal would only generate 0.5 points etc. It would a nightmare of a system to implement and oversee but would certainly make things interesting and would also stop teams parking the bus every game as if for example Burnley beat City, they'd get 7 points instead of getting 1 for drawing. Giant killings would be properly rewarded while teams spending GDPs to improve a squad would see little benefit. We'd had a few drinks but it seemed an interesting idea at the time
In words of one syllable... The men who own the club have spent all of the cash on a new ground to play games, a new ground to train the squad and to buy land to build homes, shops and stuff. This means that the men who own the club, Joe and Dan, need to find more cash to put in to the club, to buy part of a new team for our new coach or we will get more **** than we are right now. THE CASH THE CLUB HAD IN THE LAST THREE YEARS HAS ALL BEEN SPENT. THEY NEED TO PUT IN NEW CASH FROM THE HUGE WEALTH JOE HAS. The rules mean that they can do this but they have not, as they want to build more stuff and have now bought a golf course. Rich men like Joe and Dan, like to make more cash. While they do this, each new chump of a coach will fail and we will have to pay them a lot of dosh to **** off. A lot of the fans are now cross and want Dan and Joe to spend their cash on the team. Right now! The old team is...well, not too good, so Kane wants to leave' Our great new coach will leave too, if they do not put in the cash the team needs... Get it?
I know some will find an entire post using only one syllable words impressive but the only thing that'll impress me is if you can convey this message through interpretative dance ... I await your video good sir
Things that will happen. 1. Kane will not be sold unless Conte says so. 2. Serious money will be spent on players Conte wants. If those things do not happen, Conte will walk. And the fan protests will be extreme. Levy, Enic and the board **** themselves after the United match. They do not want that to happen again.
Spending money hasn’t even been much of an issue for the club over the last few years, it’s just who we’ve spent it on that has. Sanchez, Aurier, Lucas, Ndombele, Lo Celso, Bergwijn, Sessegnon… that’s about £220m+ right there. Then you’ve got what I’d class as “filler” signings like Foyth, Doherty, Clarke and Rodon who’ve barely played and whilst none have been the most expensive, they all add up (Rodon should definitely play more though). In the last 4-5 years we’ve probably wasted around close to £300m on players that have done pretty much nothing for the club, Lucas maybe earned his price tag from the semi final performance but all in all he really hasn’t been a hugely successful signing, the rest have been flops, including two of our biggest ever in Ndombele and Lo Celso. I think it was PowerSpurs that once said along the lines of needing to have a 50% success rate with transfers to do well and I’d agree, for Spurs in the last few years though we’ve had about a 10-15% rate, I’m excluding the signings from this summer as it’s too early to judge albeit this bunch may actually be the first batch of good signings but I don’t wanna jinx it. So when you factor in just around 10-15% of good signings with a squad that’s declined massively and a lot dross have outstayed its welcome, it sort of shows why we’ve been a bit of a mess for a few seasons now. We’ve also spent a lot of money sacking managers; Poch, Jose and Nuno plus their staff probably set us back about £35m+ and we’ve just hired Conte on a huge deal now too albeit initially on an 18 month contract (which again, like this summer’s signings, may actually be the right appointment but I don’t wanna jinx that either). So again, it’s not the money that’s the issue I’d say, it’s just what we’ve been doing with it that is.
