Hey, if that's what Levy's doing, then I understand it. Paying off most of the stadium debt before it's even built makes sense.At the end of all this when the new stadium arrives without a crippling debt because Levy has managed the funds properly and the manager of the day is not hamstrung when it comes to buying players, many of us will refer to this period of low spending and be grateful for it.
I for one would have been delighted if we had signed Berahino.
I would also be far more comfortable right now if we had any of Defoe, Soldado or Torres in the squad.
"At the end of all this when the new stadium arrives without a crippling debt because Levy has managed the funds properly
and the manager of the day is not hamstrung when it comes to buying players,
many of us will refer to this period of low spending and be grateful for it."
Nothing to do with new WHL.
Levy has been managing the player transfer/wage bills with a fist of steel based on
what the INCOME of the club is, since the jump in wages after we got the CL slot in 2010.
That will continue independently of the scheming ENIC have done to pay for the cost
of building new WHL.
"Why do you think that is nothing to do with the new stadium?"
Because the ramp in wages that happened after 2010 would have been
unsustainable based on the clubs' annual incomes if allowed to continue,
whether there was a new WHL planned or not.
I dont have a copy of recent accounts as Spurs in their wisdom decided to stop sending copies to minor shareholders (1 share) in order to save money on stamps and envelopes. I signed up for an email version but have yet to receive anything. However, I doubt if the wage bill is far above £50M, which tv and premier league money should near enough cover."Why do you think that is nothing to do with the new stadium?"
Because the ramp in wages that happened after 2010 would have been
unsustainable based on the clubs' annual incomes if allowed to continue,
whether there was a new WHL planned or not.
The wage bill's probably about double that. The Guardian are normally decent at this sort of thing:I dont have a copy of recent accounts as Spurs in their wisdom decided to stop sending copies to minor shareholders (1 share) in order to save money on stamps and envelopes. I signed up for an email version but have yet to receive anything. However, I doubt if the wage bill is far above £50M, which tv and premier league money should near enough cover.
Clearly we have made a major investment in the training ground and all the legal battles and planning cant have come cheap so a lot of money is likely to have gone there. Nevertheless, this type of expenditure is clearly linked to the new stadium if not directly paying for it. I know that there are various companies set up for specific tasks but overall the money has to come from a single pot.
That guardian report includes all staff not just the players. So it includes directors salaries down to the groundstaff. I bet a far chunck goes to the non playing staff.The wage bill's probably about double that. The Guardian are normally decent at this sort of thing:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/29/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
Last released figures, which would be for the 2012/13 season, I think: £100m.
They've probably dropped a little since then, if anything. Not much either way, I'd have thought.
Substantially lower than most of the teams around us in the last few seasons, but a fair bit higher than some other clubs.
Everton's is considerably lower, but the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, City and Utd are roughly double.

"Your argument would suggest that Spurs were/are struggling to meet their wage bill
and without little spending on transfers would be in deficit. I don't see evidence for that."
No, the comment tells you that if the wage ramp was allowed to continue at the slope
from 2010 to 2011, it would not have been sustainable.
Levy must also have realised that, because since that initial ramp, he has made the
wage bill effectively "plateau" from then to now.![]()
"Which has little to do with my original point about transfer spending."
Everything to do with the point, because exactly the same process applies.
High(ish) net spends stopped after 2010-11, and while the gross spends have been
high enough to get the players deemed necessary, the net spends per season have
effectively been zero.