Transfer Rumours To sack or not to sack?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should we sack Ange now?

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
Dier Hard said:
Of course, albeit to be as bad as Werner you have to go some.

Barring a minor miracle this season, we're not going to have European football revenue next year along with the TV money that comes with as such and I'm not sure if this is true so someone can correct me if need be but apparently each position in the Prem is worth around £3m, if that is indeed true and we don't sort our form out, we're currently on course to lose out on around £30m in Prem prize money when you consider we'd expect to be around 5th/ 6th and are currently 15th with little sign of improving.
Click to expand...
I think that's right which is another hit on our EBITD limit and will limit our expenditure. We've had three big home games in the League cup though which probably recovers £10m or so of revenue. Signing a £50m player this window adds about £10m to costs. That may be more than we can afford without risking having to sell someone in June.
 
Essentially, we (9th) are still lagging behind Arsenal (7th) and Liverpool (8th) in matchday revenue and broadcasting income. The former is a bit of a concern given our stadium capacity and price of tickets. The latter is understandable as we aren't in the CL and are rarely a 'feature' game on a normal week.

We are ahead of Arsenal in commercial revenue by quite a distance.

However the income gap on those two teams is circa £100m per year. Chelsea (10th) are only £55m per year behind us.
 
Citizen Kane. said:
Essentially, we (9th) are still lagging behind Arsenal (7th) and Liverpool (8th) in matchday revenue and broadcasting income. The former is a bit of a concern given our stadium capacity and price of tickets. The latter is understandable as we aren't in the CL and are rarely a 'feature' game on a normal week.

We are ahead of Arsenal in commercial revenue by quite a distance.

However the income gap on those two teams is circa £100m per year. Chelsea (10th) are only £55m per year behind us.
Click to expand...

No European football and exiting both cups before they got going was significantly damaging to our match day income.

ENIC/Levy are obsessed with book balancing, whilst others are prepared to pump prime their search for sporting success. Villa (and more specifically their owners) have been prepared to invest on the pitch, whilst understanding that some degree of player trading may be required down the line, to balance the books. Done well, with a top notch DoF, it's working really well for them, Newcastle and Brighton, too.

We're stuck in a knackered Austin Allegro watching souped up Cortinas and Lotus's cruise past us in third gear. They're not doing that because of bad luck. It was predictable. I started predicting it 5 years ago. I'm not ****ing clairvoyant. It was becoming blindingly obvious that the club had lost focus and direction during the stadium build...and there's very little sign that situation is being rectified.

Whilst Levy remains at the head of this stinking fish, it won't be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Left on the Shelf and KingHotspur
Citizen Kane. said:
Essentially, we (9th) are still lagging behind Arsenal (7th) and Liverpool (8th) in matchday revenue and broadcasting income. The former is a bit of a concern given our stadium capacity and price of tickets. The latter is understandable as we aren't in the CL and are rarely a 'feature' game on a normal week.

We are ahead of Arsenal in commercial revenue by quite a distance.

However the income gap on those two teams is circa £100m per year. Chelsea (10th) are only £55m per year behind us.
Click to expand...
If none of Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and us were in the CL then I think we would have the highest revenue of those four. But CL makes a big difference which is why Arsenal and Liverpool are ahead of us.

Our revenue is estimated as down £15m cf the previous season so our wages and player amortisation also have to be down to keep within the covenant limit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon
Dier Hard said:
Villa playing a very dangerous game. Leicester’s were crazy a year or so ago, was at about 115% iirc.

I’d say an optimal level would be around 55-65%.

I think ours ties into what gets said in that we don’t have enough star quality players.
Click to expand...

Just shows how well Liverpool are run. They’re the example for Spurs to follow for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BinghamSpur and The Changing Man
Dier Hard said:
Villa playing a very dangerous game. Leicester’s were crazy a year or so ago, was at about 115% iirc.

I’d say an optimal level would be around 55-65%.

I think ours ties into what gets said in that we don’t have enough star quality players.
Click to expand...
Also the fact we've offloaded at least three players on six-figure salaries in the last eighteen months
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dier Hard and KingHotspur
Citizen Kane. said:
Essentially, we (9th) are still lagging behind Arsenal (7th) and Liverpool (8th) in matchday revenue and broadcasting income. The former is a bit of a concern given our stadium capacity and price of tickets. The latter is understandable as we aren't in the CL and are rarely a 'feature' game on a normal week.

We are ahead of Arsenal in commercial revenue by quite a distance.

However the income gap on those two teams is circa £100m per year. Chelsea (10th) are only £55m per year behind us.
Click to expand...

Bettering Kings Rd FC now is a big achievement,
considering their 20 odd years financial doping in the Chelsky era.
 
Dier Hard said:
Villa playing a very dangerous game. Leicester’s were crazy a year or so ago, was at about 115% iirc.

I’d say an optimal level would be around 55-65%.

I think ours ties into what gets said in that we don’t have enough star quality players.
Click to expand...

Iirc Villa basically bet the house on finishing 4th last season, and it paid off. No CL income would have ruined them on PSR.

Although tbh 'ruined' is a relative term as the penalty for a standard breach of rules seems to be a paltry fine and circa 4-8 points deducted.

Maybe it's worth the risk?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, KingHotspur, "Thanks for that Brian" and 1 other person
PowerSpurs said:
If none of Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and us were in the CL then I think we would have the highest revenue of those four. But CL makes a big difference which is why Arsenal and Liverpool are ahead of us.

Our revenue is estimated as down £15m cf the previous season so our wages and player amortisation also have to be down to keep within the covenant limit.
Click to expand...
we weren't in CL last season so that doesn't wash
 
KingHotspur said:
You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
That's partly because the other clubs' commercial revenue is mostly comprised of sponsorship which goes straight to the bottom line so can be spent entirely on football. Quite a lot of ours comes from hiring out the stadium and from related sales of food and drink which means substantial amounts of costs have to be netted off before leaving a surplus for football.
 
Citizen Kane. said:
Iirc Villa basically bet the house on finishing 4th last season, and it paid off. No CL income would have ruined them on PSR.

Although tbh 'ruined' is a relative term as the penalty for a standard breach of rules seems to be a paltry fine and circa 4-8 points deducted.

Maybe it's worth the risk?
Click to expand...
It might well be but having the stadium loans withdrawn is a different matter entirely.
 
PowerSpurs said:
It might well be but having the stadium loans withdrawn is a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...

That will only happen on the transfer fees side of things.

Wage bill is a different matter entirely. I'll elaborate:

Capology currently has us as 8th highest in the PL, £104m per year.

Two years ago, prior to multiple high earners leaving, we were 6th in the PL, £117m per year.

Villa and Newcastle have now overtaken us.

If we increased our wage ceiling by just £24m per year, we'd be level with Liverpool in 5th spot and probably able to attract a higher quality of player.

The fact that we're 4th or 5th on revenue but 8th on wages should be seen as a massive problem, imo.

We could do this comfortably without breaching PSR or loan covenants. It would require us to spend £24m less on transfer fees per year, which I think we can manage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingHotspur
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back