I'm not sure how you can claim that they do a lot of research when they're entirely missed out fairly major transfers, but I agree that it's a pointless argument.
The source is terrible. The transfer values are wildly inaccurate and they entirely miss out transfers altogether. Sorry, but even transferleague is more accurate and that's pretty crap. Spurs never did spend a lot on transfers anyway and the wage bill has consistently been around half of the club's revenue. I'd expect both to stay roughly as they are, leading to an effective drop in real terms, if the stadium plans are pursued. We seem to have progressed on the youth front though, which may lead to some departing players being replaced from within, so that would lead to a drop in transfer expenditure.
Most sources don't say that we're the 3rd highest spenders. Most have us behind Chelsea, Man City and Liverpool, at least. Our revenue for the last set of figures was £119m. That was the season before last, so it wouldn't include Champions League money. If your figure of £70m was correct, then it would still probably be in line with roughly half of revenue.
£67m is 56% of £119m. Roughly half. Why would our wage bill have gone up so dramatically? As you've already pointed out, we've sold a number of high earners, including Keane, Crouch, Hutton, Woodgate and Palacios. Modric hasn't been given a wage increase and our revenue has steadily risen over recent years, though I'd expect it to drop a little this season.
I think a big test of wages for Spurs will come if they want to sign Adebayor. How much is he on at City? - £120k ? Obviously he'd have to take a cut at Spurs, but by how much? I think Spurs' top earners are only on around £65k -£70k
It actually equates to less than Adebayor's wages at City. So not even one top player, then. It would've been less embarrassing if you'd have just admitted that you were wrong, frankly. Modric and Bale haven't had wage increases and we've offloaded several high earners. You've already been told this, so why are you repeating the same drivel?
You're being ridiculous and you know it. I'm not even going to justify it with an answer. It's not £150k pw. I've never denied that Spurs spend more on wages than other clubs. Overall spending is far, far less though, which you can't admit.
I think your completely ignoring the fact that Spurs got rid of several high earners (Keane, Hutton, Crouch, Palacios, Bentley, Jenas). I would say those players were on roughly on 50k a week, maybe more for Keane and Crouch. You keep bringing up Modric received a pay rise which he has not yet and you have no evidence it will be 100k. This summer you've removed Fabregas and Nasri from your wages but you brought in more players who will probably earn more in total considering your wage structure. Another key point is that wages for players are longer term commitments than transfer fees. You cant stop buying players but you will still have to pay for wages. Say if you do not make Champions League next season (which is a possibility) your revenues will drop, will your wages still be a lower percentage of turnover? We've always had non CL revenues so I think our income and expenditure values are more stable.
please log in to view this image Jayram, you're destroying peoples enjoyment of this fred with your pedantic arguments please log in to view this image
Ridiculous claim, especially when we're talking about a division in which some teams are spending over 100% of their revenue on wages. No, it isn't. I think that you'll find that it's actually you that's having difficulty reading and you've struggled to keep up, too. The discussion was about the overall amounts spent during that time and your faulty conclusions about Tottenham spending £300m more on transfers over a decade and Arsenal spending £400m more on wages, leaving the balance at about £100m. You were clearly wrong about both, in case you've forgotten.
Just repeating the same thing that I've said to you, virtually word for word, is quite a playground tactic. Please try to respond with some maturity. Are you just going to rephrase your debunked arguments? Your source has already been proven inaccurate, as have your figures. The answer to my question above is clearly yes, isn't it? If you want another, equally inaccurate source, then feel free to use transferleague. I didn't respond because it was irrelevant. My point was that the difference in wages over the past 3 seasons accounts for the difference in transfer spending over the last decade, so that everything before that was additional spending by Arsenal. How many times are you going post that inaccurate figure? It's clearly wrong, no matter how many times you do it. £144.2k =/= £144k or £150k. You claim that rough figures shouldn't be used in one breath and then use them yourself in the next. Which is it? And there it is again. And it's still wrong.
It's quite simple really, especially for an galactic intellect like yours You are a boring, pedantic & sanctimonious old **** Please feel free to Google the big words please log in to view this image
No, you didn't post a source for data. You posted an inaccurate source for data, which we've both agreed is inaccurate and then you've based your conclusions on it. That's quite clearly ridiculous to anyone with even an ounce of sense. Transferleague's figures different to those of transfermarkt by over £100m. Apparently that's similar, according to you. I haven't disproved your £35m a season difference average because I've never disputed it. I haven't disputed that we spend more than half of our revenue on wages, either. I've repeatedly shown that the figures that you've used to come to your £100m difference are inaccurate. I've clearly shown that the 3 years of difference in wages is roughly equal to the difference in transfer spending for a decade. The difference in wages comes to £135m (£44, £43m and £48m). The difference in transfer spending comes to around £140m.
Answer mine. You're claiming these figures despite not even being able to claim that your source is accurate, as it stands. Why should anyone take your conclusions seriously?
