A massive percentage of that spend was in two transfer windows - Damien Comolli wasting vast sums of money in the summer of 2008, and trying to repair some of the damage the following January. Also, some of those fees need an asterisk - the fees for Defoe, Kaboul and Crouch involved monies Pompey had yet to pay us for Defoe, Kaboul, Pedro Mendes and Noe Pamarot. In the case of Defoe, the actual money we paid for him was around £7-8m, with the rest deducted from what they owed, whilst the £12m fee quotes is wholly inaccurate - he was signed for around £8-9m, with add-ons. And, naturally, you have ignored the column that shows Spurs have made a profit on transfers - whilst West Ham have not.
Our owners have been with us since 2001...prior to this we lost loads on transfers....we bought players for biggish money and let them go on free transfers....or made losses....Ferdinand Perry Dean Richards anderton rebrov all left for sod all but cost us a total of over 30 million. Since 2004 we have been run very differently.
The difference in net spends, even if you choose to take the inaccurate transfermarket figures, can be easily put down to the revenue of the clubs based purely on success on the field. There's been virtually no investment from our board and owner on players, though there's been plenty on infrastructure. A few years in the 2nd tier for West Ham and a fair number in the top half of the Premier League for Spurs would account for the difference on prize money alone. When you factor in broadcasting payments, then we should easily have spent a much bigger amount. Last season saw the club bring in £57.4m for those, whereas West Ham only received £15.5m. Add in cup runs and European football, which West Ham have only played 6 games worth in the Premier League era, and it's easy to see how this has been done without the need for outside money.
To be fair there were a couple of share issues they made to themselves which raised around £20mill for the club that you could count as investments but that was some while ago, maybe even pre Arnesen.
One other thing to note would be that West Ham have produced a number of very good prospects that they've then sold on, while Spurs simply haven't. Our youth system's been appalling for years, but that seems to have been addressed recently and it appears to be bearing fruit. West Ham's, on the other hand, looks to have gone backwards. Where are today's Lampards, Ferdinands, Carricks and Defoes?
They all left because you were relegated. Again."Prospects" is the right word. Prospects that had to leave because you couldn't guarantee them Premiership football and nothing has really changed has it? Our youth system is working very well thank you and producing first team players who, in the case of Walker and Caulker at full international level and Tom Carroll at U21 amongst others are being picked for their country too. Have you produced any "prospects" who aren't a couple of years off retirement?
At the last measurable time (2011 accounts) : 1. Spurs revenues = 2 x WHU 2. Spurs wage bill = 56% of revenue, WHU = 68% 3. Spurs debt = 15m more than WHU 4. Spurs nett transfer spend over past 5 yrs = 7m less than WHU http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...l-health-of-the-Premier-League-laid-bare.html The above data shows that at a very fundamental level, WHU are far from competitive with Spurs. When you factor in on-pitch performance (PL/UEFA campaigns etc) , the situation is even worse.
Something else to consider is the roof being extended - solely because there are several examples, notably Old Trafford and the San Siro, where extending the roof too far has the side effect of the pitch being turned into a peat bog for half the season.
The problem with these figures is that I doubt ManC and Chelski's figures add up in any normal sense of accounting. ManC have a smaller debt than they should because of ludicrous "sponsorship" deals etc, Chelski have a smaller debt than they should because a lot of it has been turned into "equity". Another good trick - I asked my bank if I could turn my mortgage into equity but apparently it's not possible for me. I hope Financial Fair Play encompasses all these practices!
Having watched some athletics and in fact the opening and part of the closing ceremony at the Olympics last summer in the OS (perks of volunteering!) I can freely say that it is a wonderful modern stadium with fantastic access and facilities that perfectly suited the occasion of the Olympics with the sellout crowds and great atmosphere. Particularly at the ceremonies. I'm not so sure how it would work as a football stadium however. Obviously a lot of work has to be done to it. I'm never certain how the atmosphere at stadiums also used for athletics is going to be affected. It's a real shame to me that such a wonderful stadium which holds such memories for so many people, including myself, has potential to be such a white elephant, so I guess I'm glad that at least it's going to be used regularly by a football club. Of course whether WHU will fill it to capacity (those large stadiums can feel rather empty...) and the negative effects it could have on the likes of Orient remain to be seen. Purely in terms of maximising the use of the stadium's size maybe WHU aren't the ideal solution, especially if they get relegated, but who else is there? I certainly never have wanted to see us take tenancy, and I'm struggling to think of another London club who might want the move who could actually fill a stadium of that size regularly. Maybe Chelsea? But that would be far too big a geographical move for them surely. I think WHU are really the only option in order to prevent a major embarrassment for Coe et al. At least we have a solution, look at the Bird's Nest Stadium from Beijing now, I don't think it's being used for anything significant. Not sure about the amount of money we (the UK taxpayer) are subsidising WHU for this but that's the least of the country's problems at the minute anyway. For the record at the time I only thought we were half serious about our offer for the stadium, even if ours was probably the best one tabled, and now I reckon it was almost definitely a (admittedly slightly cynical) shot across the bows of Haringey Council, a threat of sorts. And it's worked I guess. So to sum up, I'm happy it's being used as a sporting venue, dubious about WHU being the main use and the amount of gvt. money they're getting, but overjoyed we're not moving there, even if it is a lovely stadium.
Man City were given the stadium they've got, nobody thinks too much about that now, quite honestly...I don't care.
When all those scare stories about Spurs demolishing the stadium were doing the rounds and undermining our bid, where was the reporting of the fact that a lot of it was going to be demolished and altered anyway? I really think a lot of people who were against the Spurs bid really thought the stadium was going to remain intact if anyone else got it. Of course those that made the decision knew the truth, which makes their decision even more bizarre.
West Ham get the Ford Edsel Stadium - Athletics remains there Spurs get the Ford Edsel Stadium - Athletics told to do one The decision makes perfect sense, from the standpoint of Coent and UK Athletics getting their hands on a stadium they will never fill without having to pay for it.
As long as we're getting upset with WetSpam getting this amazing deal (which we have every right to), the blame and argument is not being directed toward those who I think have greater responsibility, namely the Legacy Committee (you know, the committee with so many directors that the one who was "associated" with WHU was apparently nothing to do with who wins the bid!) The Legacy Committee clearly should have (1) ensured the stadium was properly designed for future use aside from athletics and/or (2) run the bidding process *before* the Olympics so that the future was clear. Perhaps they were afraid if the process was undertaken before that people would realise their cockup in not actually having a proper and realistic legacy! Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of athletics (apart from the fact they still need to properly sort out drug taking but that's another story), I just think they could have ensured a legacy for athletics without committing to the Olympic stadium - they could have gone for a redevelopment of Crystal Palace or purpose built a new stadium somewhere else. It's not like there is *real* commitment to athletics by the government or legacy committee is there? Sure there is funding for elite athletes but there is very little for the grass roots as exemplified by the closure of Sheffield's Don Valley - a disgrace given they spout nothing but "legacy" when it comes to preserving the athletics component of the Olympic Stadium! The point is that it just shows the fantasy nature of the bid that they guaranteed an athletics stadium after the Olympics out of all proportion to the actual demand, and have done nothing about generating demand by investing in local athletics clubs. Surely legacy is about increasing the pool of potential athletes and not having a gigantic white elephant stadium! So now we are faced with the fiasco of additional government funding going to a commercial enterprise (at the expense of another more local enterprise) IMHO just to save face.
vimhawk : Spurs were invited to tender to make the original OS tender legally valid. As a "stalking horse" . Once it became clear that the Spurs bid would save the taxpayer 100s of millions, THEN the panic over the stadium demolition started. And THEN the politniks tried to literally move the goal posts to claim that the stadium remaining intact was part of the deal. I am surprised that Levy has not tried to reclaim EVERY penny the club wasted on the initial bid because of this.
