Yet I'd argue a new football ground or rebuild is the most likely thing to send a club under, purely because of the costs involved. My teams rebuild nearly sent us under, it was only the moving around of the pot under different arms, that removed the threat, but technically speaking with no ground you have no football club. Look at Birmingham with the problems over past asbestos, look at Coventry, didn't they have a falling out with someone so they had to leave the Rioch initially. I'm sure even clubs like Charlton had similar problems...and the story goes on...even Spurs were lucky that the restraints of covid were lifted when they were, how much longer before it put Spurs in financial trouble. Anyway as I now understand it the rules changed, but my point remains, that a football ground can be the making or fall of a football club and not to include it within the rules is ridiculous, you either allow the owners to spend their wealth how they want, or you don't.
Don't they? ... I wonder why? ... considering every cost has to be met from the same pot of money ... we went into administration over infrastructure costs ... not overspending on players ... and we are often cited (certainly on here) as an example of why FFP is needed... And therein lies my point - FFP and Financial Sustainability measures, as they stand, give a distinct advantage to the already Big clubs and are the biggest inhibitor to any other club breaking into that group that has existed in the entire history of the game - coincidence? ... I think not.
Don't cry Ponks ... I'm merely playing with you (and a few others) as per ... which direction are you swimming in today? ... makes no difference in that barrel, you know?
Wasn’t joking, ideal for getting to Wembley on train, prices were good and drink prices were spot on for down south
No doubt it can, ****ing dangerous in someways when you look at it but equally for a Prem club that’s “smart with money” which we essentially are with Levy, who for all his faults in footballing matters is pretty much a genius in business matters, the debt we’ve occurred for the stadium is “easily” manageable. Easily is probably the wrong word but when you consider that high end Prem clubs generate **** tons of money every year and our repayments for the stadium are about £25m a year, that £25m for a Prem a club is more or less chump change (especially now post-covid where the stadium is being used full function, not just with Spurs but other events, we’re generating tons of money now). The only time it’ll ever likely become worryingly bad for Spurs is if we suffered relegation.
No your breaches for FFP came because you overspent on player expenditure. I don’t blame you for trying to take the gamble as it showed footballing ambition but it was a risk that didn’t pay off, you essentially started spending like a “big club” on transfers and especially wages and needed that spending to bring you CL revenue to cover it all, you missed out twice, then got relegated and that ****ed you for FFP. Your wages to turnover for 22/23 ended up being considerably over 110%… ours in comparison was less than 50% - the lowest in the Prem.
Recently yes ... but is there any danger to our financial stability or sustainability? ... absolutely not ... and that was supposedly the reason for FFP etc... So round we go - rules aimed at stopping us and others becoming too competitive- nowt to do with our financial health ... which is just fine ... The rules, if they are to stay, need a complete overhaul and all costs including those on infrastructure need to be factored into spending equations - it would still favour the biggest clubs - so additional safeguards could be included to even that out even more - parental guarantees and exit charges... If you can't see how the existing rules help to keep the status quo and limit the growth of clubs outside the Big 6 then you are not as bright as I thought you were ...
You could just Google them ... The Sky 4 are United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea ... The other 2 Citeh and Spurs... Also defined as 'those that have spent the most on transfers and wages over the last quarter of a century' or, less charitably, "... self centred ****s who wanted to break away and join a Super League and have the most to lose from other clubs becoming competitive..." I'll have to start charging you from now on btw - I'm not ****ing Alexa ... although I might have whilst at Uni, come to think of it ...
So there you go… your first post was basically bollocks as you’re aware you broke FFP and it had nothing to do with your infrastructure. It only limits a club’s spending because most clubs want to be a big six club overnight or they want instant success/ progression for their relative situation. For all the **** Spurs and Levy get for lack of success, we’ve grown organically over 15-20 years. For years we were bantered by rival fans for being frugal and tight but now that we’ve put ourselves in a position of strong financial power we’re seemingly seen as some power hungry elite stopping other clubs from trying to break into this monopoly - and let’s just say we are such a club, we still earned the right to be in the position we’re in through years and years of building whilst taking many hits along the way, you tried taking a shortcut and it bit you on the arse. Right now Brighton are probably the main club moving in a similar fashion to how we did all those years back. They’ve been buying low, selling high and finding good managers/ players to aid a steady progression without putting their club in danger.
Which of these clubs had the sixth highest wage bill last season in the Premier league. Southampton Leeds Everton Or relegated former League Champions Leicester. FFP is a bitch.
So already gained 2 ,plus you ignored Everton who were one of the group who led to the formation of PL , and surely now a big 7 with Newcastle . Keep it up and at this rate we will have a big 13
