commercial flops

JFK in his program notes has said that Newcastle united are small fry when it comes to making money ,spurs commercial turn over £53 mill, Newcastle's less than £14 mill,so spurs are making a kick in the backside off 30 mill more! so is it our marketing dept are underperforming /sh1t, is it because the club don't make money from the club shops as they are part of the sports direct empire and when also when sports direct sell a clubs merchandice he has to give them a percentage when he sells ours he just trousers it? this no way adds up to £30 mill so there are other facters I know ,in fact I don't know, how can spurs make so much more than us ?I know there are statistics, statistics and dam lies I just would like to know

 

Ok, so our shirt deal is approx. half of Spurs. That inexplicable shift from Virgin Money, only Ashlet can explain. We don't receive anything from the SD banners around the roof at SJP, nor the pitch-side advertising. Spurs receive a fair amount here, the difference is millions. Spurs also have complex deals stemming from their board of investors that is rejigged around being things like training ground sponsorship, kit room sponsorship, etc. Think Man City's Etihad millions on a small scale. We don't do that, because we have one owner and he's

That said, Spurs' trading was at a net loss of around £1m this Summer thanks to the sale of Bale. So the gap in commercials isn't entirely relevant. Our operating losses are significantly smaller, but our profits are increasing. In fact, we were the single most profitable club in the Prem at £12.4m. Trouble is, Ashley then took £12m out so we had a profit of £400k (roughly speaking). Technically he's allowed to do this, as the club does owe him the money, but our issue is that we all feel that every other owner wouldn't have been quite so tight. So all in all, it's relative. The club are yet again selecting facts to suit a purpose. By highlighting Spurs commercial income, yet failing to also reveal Spurs' operating costs, salaries, etc., they have still to effectively answer the question as to why more money wasn't invested.

 

We are shocking on the commercial front. You'd think Ashley would nail this area but I wonder if him being a figure of hate in the commercial community works against us. Obviously the amount of bad press we get from the craziness is not an appealing factor for prospective partners either. Then you have our fans, who would protest for there being no protest. Obviously you can't compare with some like Spurs given location but I'd be interested to know how we stack up against the likes Everton, Blunderland etc.

 

there are about 14000 more people every home game in sjp compared to white hart lane all spending money so 14000 x 19 being-266000 = affair bit f,uck knows im just stumped there just sly conniving b astards

 

£266,000 is a "fair bit"? To me and you, maybe. But in football terms??? It wouldn't even buy some magic beans.

 

Who'd pay £266,000 for magic beans when they could get some for a cow?

 

That was before the Premier League was formed, matey. Think you'll find it's gone up a few quid...

 

The price of beef gone up?

 

What relevance does Spurs' spending have on the value of their income compared to our income?
If every month I spent half my wages and saved the other half, while you spent all your wages, your bank wouldn't give you a higher interest rate for spending more, regardless our respective incomes.

Part of it comes down to exposure. Spurs are on TV a lot the world over and they often win.
Whilst we're on TV a fair bit, but usually with the view we'll get beaten - so a company doesn't want their logo associated with a losing team.
Part of it is related to the Sports Direct issue, not only with the stadium signage, but I would hazard a guess that Sports Direct commands a higher cut of Puma shirt sales than it would Nike or Under Amour. Also, is SD a substantial stakeholder in Puma?
Then there's the realisation that, if you plow £20m into spurs, it's likely going to fund a decent player.
Here it might buy one, but it's more likely to get spent on 3 kids, their wages for the next 4 years and some sports direct stickers for the hotdog wrappers.

 

Spurs need higher commercial income because they have considerably higher outgoings. And I think the bank WOULD give me favourable rates, if I was spending my £80m income and you we're keeping your £6m in the bank.

However, there is no real mystery about it all. London is the killer factor. Then there's the vested interest ENIC has in things like Spurs and their own sponsors, Autonomy (pre-HP). Other links between commercial revenues and shareholdings can be found between Spurs, Levy and ENIC, all of it - I'm sure - "legal"...

Point being that 'groups' who have rich people trying to get richer are only interested in Spurs achieving. Not as football fans, like our beloved Ashley, but as fans of money. It's been a resoundingly successful model that has taken Spurs consistently into the top6 and - this year - dangerously close to the CL. Liverpool have a similar model, Arsenal too, with a recent-history built on investors and investor relations. We had one scrap-metal merchant and his mates, then he sold it to a cheap sports shop owner. It's frankly staggering that NUFC find themselves still achieving decent revenues.

 

Didn't our beloved owner have a major investment in Spurs?