Postecoglou & Lange (& Paratici) Watch

One of my brothers pointed me towards this...

Descriptions of Nuno on The Guardian Football Weekly podcast -

Devoid of energy
Damp
Cold
Sad
Man who's gonna tell you your car has died
Melancholy
Covered in moss
Ancient medieval warrior resurrected out of his tomb to talk to people about loneliness and death and cold

Bless him...but the one about your car, is funny.

 

Covered in moss

 

You are on record as saying that ENIC are looking for too high a price. So anyone who buys us must be incompetent.
My logic doesn't need a current PL owner to buy us. It just needs the current PL owners to be a representative sample of possible purchasers.
Anyone prepared to buy us for 1.5b or more is likely to be laundering dodgy money. That might lead to success on the field but would be a real source of misery to me.

 

On the grounds that at least half of the PL clubs' owners couldn't afford to buy THFC, they can't and don't reflect a representative sample of possible purchasers, there are some very unlikely purchasers (given the need to deal with the NFL) and so, any meaningful comparison is down to just a few clubs and the diversity of competency in that group is as considerable as the diversity of the clubs themselves. We're as different to Villa as we are to United. The competency or otherwise of their owners means **** all whem it comes to who might buy us.

ENIC's price is too high FOR THE FOOTBALL CLUB....just as the cost of building the stadium was too high..FOR THE FOOTBALL CLUB.

THFC's future is inextricably tied up with someone obtaining an NFL franchise to make the stadium the permanent home to 2 sports. If that happens, it's probably not overvalued and would be likely to attract what would be considered to be an acceptable buyer - i.e. an American businessman to own both franchises and the stadium.

The NFL aren't going to house a franchise in a stadium owned by someone who they consider to be undesirable or who can't gain entry into the US, like Abramovic...and the element you want to preclude from buying the club tend to buy underperforming clubs and financially troubled clubs, like City, Newcastle and Chelsea.

 

The stadium easily pays for itself on football matches alone and the additional costs for the sliding pitch are easily covered by the additional income from the current slate of additional events. So I can't see any evidence that it was too expensive. We could easily have built something similar to the Emirates on a different site for about half the cost and sold the old site for housing but that would have been a real lack of ambition.
I generally agree with your assessment of likely purchasers but American owners have underperformed ENIC up until now. Liverpool have had a spurt of success but it is too early to see if it is sustainable.

 

The removable pitch, leading to the South Stand's design and the overall finish is not needed for football. The NFL contributed £10m to the build cost but that was way less than the cost of building an NFL stadium. Nobody else in the PL is going to build anything like it in terms of cost and amenity, because the return isn't there domestically. It's a one off and more than a little bit 'out there', without the NFL. Newcastle aren't going to build anything to match it, no matter the wealth of their owner - Chelsea, United, Liverpool are all the same. Building an enormously expensive stadium is such a long term commitment, that sucks out finance in the short term and can only supply a return in a timescale that doesn't interest owners.

That's why the performance of the owners of other football clubs don't mean anything in relation to the future sale of Spurs. It's not a football club anymore. It's a multi-faceted business and will attract someone who can exploit that, rather than a crook, complete chancer, sports-washing state/individual or someone looking for a vanity project. It's too expensive for that with too many elements and some really significant debt, requiring servicing and repayment, which requires significant financial restraint.

 

The stadium immediately increases revenue by about £100m a year and only increases costs by about £25m. It is actually the best way of increasing expenditure on the football team since its construction costs don't count in FFP.
Covid messed that up a bit to be sure.
You are probably right about the prospective owners though I don't think the debt is very constraining. Given the low interest rates we have locked in, I can't see any sane owner replacing that debt with equity.

 

And this is where the likes of myself and Brian can see what ENIC has done here.

Rather than putting in their own money to build the stadium, they have borrowed some of it from the banks and taken a lot of the footballing revenue that the club was earning and put it into the stadium.

Not only have they now got a more saleable asset, they have done it on the back of the clubs revenue rather than investing into the club

 

Except our spending has gone up during this time, not down.
They're not siphoning money out, just putting debt in and servicing it with some of the new revenue.

 

Maybe during this period but from when the work started and the glorious pochettino years, they were certainly taking out to fund some of the construction costs

 

Our spending just went up all the time, as our revenue did.
Arsenal were the same, despite all the excuses they made.

 

no way. I did a chart on your netspend a while back, you may have been spending "more" and wages have increased but you were receiving far more in revenue than the spend




Theres a slight disconnect here in Spend vs revenues going up. Admittedly wages have gone up at the club and maintenance cost. Also you have spent a lot of money in the last 2 years but that was after the horse has bolted.

I dont know where all the expenses have gone but according to a a couple of websites, chelseas base salary is around 160m a year (i imagine spurs are far less than that) so the question is where has all the money gone between 2016 -> 2019 when your revenue has gone sky high but your transfers and wages would no where near keep up to pace with that



Revenue by statista (the previous one i did i looked at statements, cant be bothered to do that again). Transfers based on Transfermarkt

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/tottenham-hotspur/alletransfers/verein/148

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251169/revenue-of-tottenham-hotspur-by-stream/

 

Statista is using €uros, while Transfermarkt is using GBP, which explains some of the disconnect.
You're agreeing with what I said, though. We spent more on the team and our revenue went up.
We also spent more on the stadium and everything surrounding it, too.
Our revenue shot up because of the ground. It's nothing like a money sink.

Chelsea's wages for the last reported season (17/18) were £246m, by the way.
Ours were much, much lower at £148m, despite rising considerably over a few years.
It's one of the major areas we're behind in compared to the other so-called Big Six teams.
39% of our revenue, compared to Leicester and Palace spending 75% and 78%, which is nuts.
Leicester went over 100% during the lockdown season, IIRC.

 

ah you are right, sorry i hadn't looked into the EURs. Cut the revenue by about 1.2.

I agree you spent more on the team. Your revenues increased due to merchandising, your CL runs and the absurd tv deal the PL increased. However, most of it didn't go on new transfers (last 2 years withstanding that isn't on this chart). It was used on the stadium and everything surrounding it.

You may argue this is smart as you are spending investing more to hopefully make more in the future, but that means you are neglecting the team in the short term which is the entire point of the argument. If ENIC wanted to, they could invest into the infrastructure side of things (which doesn't count towards FFP) whilst using the additional revenue spend on the team which they have chosen not to do.

Smart for them, using football income to invest in infrastructure which will increase the value of the club when they sell.

p.s. where are you getting your wage from? Maybe the websites i checked were base wages and i guess doesn't include all the bonuses players get

 

for anyone interested

 

The main spending dip was down to the one season when we didn't buy anybody.
There are various suggestions as to why this was the case.
Our increased spending since suggests it wasn't down to cost cutting for the ground, though.

I agree about neglecting the team and that's why I was happy to see a Director of Football brought in.
Levy was clearly distracted by the stadium build and we allowed the squad to deteriorate.
I've not formed an opinion on Paratici yet, but the role needed to be filled by someone.

The wages come from The Guardian, which gets them from each club's annual reports.
They're from Companies House, so you'd hope that they're somewhat accurate.
Dodgy **** by dubious clubs run by crooks notwithstanding, of course.

 

If you rank our managers by win percentage in all competitions then 7 out of the top 11 have been under ENIC. Nuno will go top if we win on Saturday.

Bill Nicholson is 12th.

 

I think we did have the ability to spend another £200m on transfers and wages over the last five seasons. I'm not sure how much difference it would have made if we had done though.

 

Shows why stats can be misleading.

Bill Nic is by far the best manager that Spurs ever had yet Tim Sherwood had a better win percentage than him.

 

Obviously most of the managers above Bill Nicholson were there for too short a period to make their stats meaningful. But many on here have already decided that Nuno is crap and that is ludicrous on such a small sample of matches. Particularly when the same people think we don't have a squad capable of finishing in the top 6.
I agree about Bill being our best manager but I think even he underperformed in terms both of league wins and leaving a legacy compared to say Bill Shankly.