The Wage Bill

[Disco]

By the way, Baggio, is this why you're not exactly enamoured with us signing the likes of Campbell, Dunne, Riise, etc.?

 

I can see the logic, if that's the case.

 

I just don't see how signing players who are at their peak/on their way down is the way forward, it seems Keegan see's this way as pushing on now but the problem is that all of these players around this age will need to all be replaced again in 3 years or so, the club can't afford to go out and buy the best part of a new team every 3 years, on top of that players of this age will want the bigger wages because as far as they're concerned they've learned what there is and now they're the finished article.

 

I made this post yesterday so I won't bother typing it out again...

 

The difference being Wenger set out a long term view of what he could achieve at Arsenal, Keegan on the other hand would be happy to spend big money on players at their peak because he's only interested in the next 3 years and isn't interested that the squad he'd leave us with would resemble Bolton's 'dads army' a few years back.

 

If you look at man Utd for example, they've spent big money in the past but a large part of their success was because Fergie put together a talented group of youngsters and let them grow as a team together - Giggs, Beckham, Scholes, Butt and the Neville's all came through the youth system to form part of their first team for the best part of a decade, Fergie also spent big money on Roy Keane, Rio Ferdinand and Andy Cole who were all 24 or under when they signed.

 

Time has gone by and most of them have needed replacing, he's set about building another team which is built around Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Anderson, Nani, Evra and Vidic, all players signed when they were 24 or under because he wants them to grow as a team together, not only that but if you've got a quality player like Evra at left back you don't have to worry about spending big money on a left back for the next 8 years unless he goes down hill dramatically, the same way they didn't need to spend big money on a right back for a decade when they had Neville, or on a left wing when they had Giggs, it meant they could spend big on filling the places they needed as there wasn't as many to fill.

 

That seems to be what this club wants to do and the reason they went to the trouble of setting up our scouting network, I don't mean they just want to sign young lads for a few hundred thousand and see how they develop, I'm talking about the likes of Modric who is not only quality now but could of been a part of our first team for the next 10 years, that is the quality (and age) of player the chairman spoke of the other day as what they're looking for, if the club could bring in 4 or 5 players of his age and quality then we could be sorted in those positions for the next 10 years, not only that we would benefit from them growing as a unit together.

 

Comments from Keegan suggests he's got other idea's, the likes of Henry, Cambell, Riise, Bridge and Dunne seem to be the sort of players he's after going from the rumour mill, turning his nose up at possible young South Americans is a stupid thing to do too, I'd take the Modric's, Veloso, Gomis, Nelson, Lennon etc over Keegan's big four rejects anyday.

 

This is what we need to do, we need to build a stable of quality players under the age of 25 that we can build the team around and add to here and there over the next 5-10 years, I'd take Dunne btw because we're crying out for some leadership at the back, I'd also take Deco if we could get him for around the £8 million mark because I think we could get another 3 or 4 years out of him and for me he was excellent in both games against Man Utd, apart from that I think we've got enough experience in and around the squad without going out and buying 5 or 6 more players in their late 20's/early 30's.

 

Great post.

 

Fully agree with you Baggio. This is what Robson appeared to be doing in his latter years with Jenas, Dyer, Bellamy, Woodgate, Bernard, Hughes, O'Brien all being well the right side of 30. It will also make us a quicker, more mobile team which can only be positive as current, Oba aside, we must be one of the slowest teams in the league

[Baggio]

The wage structure is an interesting subject really, when people think of bringing players in they only think of the transfer fee and not the amount the club have to continue forking out for these players every week, you can't keep adding to it every year by £5-10 million.

 

I think the club are right to look to move some of the under achieving high earners on.

[Consortium of one]

American sports teams are catching on to the business model that Baggio is talking about.  In American football, which has a salary cap, a lot of the roster is populated by "value" players.  These "value" players are not as experienced, don't make as much money and, in many cases, will not be quite as good as their more experienced, more expensive counterparts.  However, they have the potential to be as good, if not better, and allow the team to have the flexibility to spend more for other key areas of need.  Now, American football has a salary cap while, say, American baseball does not.  However, in reality everything has a cap, whether plainly stated or administered or not.  Even the New York Yankees, whose payroll nearly doubled the next highest team's payroll cannot maintain that level and remain profitable.  They too are pursuing this model.

 

This model is predicated on scouting and player development.  It is imperative to be able to spot talented youth and train them to maximize their value.  It is also predicated on being able to unearth young talent that is further along the development path and coaching them to a level beyond what had been expected of them by their current clubs.  Someone's else shit player who is never going to develop may be your squad player who will run through a wall for you because you recognized his talent, helped develop it and gave him a shot.  Who knows, maybe some of these players develop into stars or solid starters.  Once the stream of younger, capable, less expensive players gets established, money is available to safely address key areas and, most importantly, retain your own players who develop into stars.

 

To begin, this is not a sexy way to go about business.  For a team that has made it a habit to buy older, experienced players who are paid more and more than likely on the downside, this model can be quite a shock.  While the back room staff is built up, the roster most likely has to be torn down.  Branch Rickey, one of the greatest GMs in baseball had a saying, "Better to get rid of a player a year too early than a year too late." and he is right.  The dead or dying wood has to be trimmed.  It does not have to be a scorched earth policy though, at least in most cases.  However, expectations do have to be lowered.  The temptation for the quick fix has to be overcome and there has to be a level of commitment from everyone in the organization.  Ownership has to ensure that money has to be spent on scouting and development.  Scouts have to work hard to unearth talent.  Coaches and managers have to be consistent in their approach to training from top to bottom.  Patience is a virtue for the club and it's employees and for the supporters.

 

This model is not a guarantee for success.  Your scouting staff may not be up to the task.  The ownership may be unwilling to commit the necessary funds to scouting and development.  The manager may become impatient and feel the need to get results now.  The club may do everything perfectly and the talent just doesn't pan out or there are injuries.  There are no guarantees.  However, I see this model as being the only one that will have a chance in the emerging economy.  The days of being able to throw money around will be going, going gone.  Even if the media pot of gold stays the same or even continues to grow, other revenue streams will be shrinking, including the pockets of the fans.  The smart teams will adapt, the dumb teams will continue to throw money at problems, money they may no longer have available to them.

 

[afar]

Some very interesting thoughts in this thread.

 

I think in a nutshell we'll be successful if we get value for money from the players we have no matter if they are on 1k a week or 100k.

 

Couple of points, this 50% turnover to wage ratio was first branded about around 5 or 6 years ago, back then anything above that level would quite right have had the alarm bells ringing. However turnover since then has shot up, due largely to increased TV revenue, the costs outside of wages have not risen at anywhere near the same rate. Therefore you have to look at a different % and that % changes with each club. For ourselves, taking into account the debt (or lack of it), the other liabilities we have and liklehood of our revenue falling, I would say we could possibly get away with a % of around 70%, we wouldn't be very competetive in the transfer market but at the same time we'll not have the baillifs knocking at the doors either.

If we are at 80%, as the media would have us believe, then we are in serious trouble and we'll have difficulty mainting or PL status next season if Ashley has decided that he'l not be dipping further into his personal fortune. I don't believe for a second we are, I think it's closer to the 70% mark.

 

Spurs are in a great position in that they can generate so much more from the corporates and through the turnstiles, simply because they are in London and have some glamour to them from previous successes. I would imagine we have more than enough exec boxes to go around, I wouldn't be surprised if a few do not have an owner or are being leased at a rock bottom price. While as Spurs have a shortfall where demand outstrips supply. There are just more businesses based in the capital with the money to invest.

 

From the footballer's point of view, if he was solely financially motivated he would be mad to turn us down ahead of Spurs. 99% of the time we'll pay him more and his money will go a lot further up in the north east than in the South East. But unfortunately from our point of view, not every footballer is financially moivated and those who are, are not generally the types you need or want at your club. They are also the older 'past their peaks' type, who know they are nearing the end of their careers and want one last big pay day.

 

Getting rid of those who are not giving value for money seems the common conclusion here. But how are we going to do that. Lets take Duff as an example, non of the top 4 would touch him with a bargepole, at one time Spurs were interested but not anymore surely. I can't see Villa or Man City coming in for him. So that basically leaves him with Portsmouth, Blackburn, West Ham or one of the relgation scrapers. Harry's smart enough to realise Duff's lost it and I can't see Duff himself being to keen a relegation fight. He may be tempted by Blackburn as that was his former team but he would have to take a huge drop to make the move and at this stage of his career I don't believe regular first team football is as important as the money. So the last potential suitor is West Ham, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they could come in for him and they are that stupid to offer a fair wedge and pay him an acceptable salary. If they don't however and we still want rid, we are left with paying up his contract. If he signed a 4 year deal, he's got 2 years left, he'll be on about 60k I reckon, maybe even more, that works out to be around 6.2 mill and then we have to bring in a replacement, which will probably cost a fee and demand wages in around the same region. Say if we bought a replacment for 6mill, over the last 2 years it's basically costing us 18mill to get rid of this one piece of deadwood.

 

We have to either get lucky with a dumb club like West Ham or go out into the transfer market with a different policy. Totally devalue our players. Put it out that we'll accept 500k for Duff or 1 mill for Smith. We'll still take a hit on replacing these players but at least. There are surprisingly still people within football who think some of are deadwood can still do a job in the PL and if they think they are getting a bargain then they may be happy to take on our problems.

[Martin Lol]

Some very interesting thoughts in this thread.

 

I think in a nutshell we'll be successful if we get value for money from the players we have no matter if they are on 1k a week or 100k.

 

Couple of points, this 50% turnover to wage ratio was first branded about around 5 or 6 years ago, back then anything above that level would quite right have had the alarm bells ringing. However turnover since then has shot up, due largely to increased TV revenue, the costs outside of wages have not risen at anywhere near the same rate. Therefore you have to look at a different % and that % changes with each club. For ourselves, taking into account the debt (or lack of it), the other liabilities we have and liklehood of our revenue falling, I would say we could possibly get away with a % of around 70%, we wouldn't be very competetive in the transfer market but at the same time we'll not have the baillifs knocking at the doors either.

If we are at 80%, as the media would have us believe, then we are in serious trouble and we'll have difficulty mainting or PL status next season if Ashley has decided that he'l not be dipping further into his personal fortune. I don't believe for a second we are, I think it's closer to the 70% mark.

 

Spurs are in a great position in that they can generate so much more from the corporates and through the turnstiles, simply because they are in London and have some glamour to them from previous successes. I would imagine we have more than enough exec boxes to go around, I wouldn't be surprised if a few do not have an owner or are being leased at a rock bottom price. While as Spurs have a shortfall where demand outstrips supply. There are just more businesses based in the capital with the money to invest.

 

From the footballer's point of view, if he was solely financially motivated he would be mad to turn us down ahead of Spurs. 99% of the time we'll pay him more and his money will go a lot further up in the north east than in the South East. But unfortunately from our point of view, not every footballer is financially moivated and those who are, are not generally the types you need or want at your club. They are also the older 'past their peaks' type, who know they are nearing the end of their careers and want one last big pay day.

 

Getting rid of those who are not giving value for money seems the common conclusion here. But how are we going to do that. Lets take Duff as an example, non of the top 4 would touch him with a bargepole, at one time Spurs were interested but not anymore surely. I can't see Villa or Man City coming in for him. So that basically leaves him with Portsmouth, Blackburn, West Ham or one of the relgation scrapers. Harry's smart enough to realise Duff's lost it and I can't see Duff himself being to keen a relegation fight. He may be tempted by Blackburn as that was his former team but he would have to take a huge drop to make the move and at this stage of his career I don't believe regular first team football is as important as the money. So the last potential suitor is West Ham, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they could come in for him and they are that stupid to offer a fair wedge and pay him an acceptable salary. If they don't however and we still want rid, we are left with paying up his contract. If he signed a 4 year deal, he's got 2 years left, he'll be on about 60k I reckon, maybe even more, that works out to be around 6.2 mill and then we have to bring in a replacement, which will probably cost a fee and demand wages in around the same region. Say if we bought a replacment for 6mill, over the last 2 years it's basically costing us 18mill to get rid of this one piece of deadwood.

 

We have to either get lucky with a dumb club like West Ham or go out into the transfer market with a different policy. Totally devalue our players. Put it out that we'll accept 500k for Duff or 1 mill for Smith. We'll still take a hit on replacing these players but at least. There are surprisingly still people within football who think some of are deadwood can still do a job in the PL and if they think they are getting a bargain then they may be happy to take on our problems.

 

There's an awful lot of sense there.

 

The transfer fee is only part of the financial burden, the wages are a much bigger drain on resources.  I recall at a Spurs AGM Levy being asked why Chris Perry was sold for only £100k when we should have been able to get £1m for him.  Levy's reply was that we may have lost £900k on the transfer budget but we saved £5m on the wage bill.  Your comments about Duff (Spurs really dodged a bullet there) and Smith fall into the same category.  They may be worth more than £500k and £1m respectively, Newcastle may get a little more than that, but if they aren't doing the job that KK wants them to do, the important thing is to get them off the wage bill if at all possible.

 

Your comments about corporate boxes in London are spot on.  Spurs' proposed new stadium is more to do with getting more corporate boxes than housing more of the traditional fans and the boxes at the Emirates produce more income on a matchday (£1.7m approx) than the rest of the stadium put together (£1.3m approx).  London and Home Counties salaries determine the going rate for admission prices, the 9.4% increase in season ticket prices for next season that Spurs have recently announced shows that they still believe there is more money to be sucked out of Joe Public.  I'm not happy about it but I, along with everyone else, will grudgingly cough up the extra money

[Rich]

After the football you lot have had to watch at White Hart Lane this season I'm not surprised there's been an increase of that nature.

[TRon]

Some great posts in this thread, Baggio, CToon and afar in particular.

 

I don't think Ashley is afraid to splash the cash given the right team in place who will spend it wisely. Modric is a hint of what we are looking at potentially.

 

Spending other people's money is always easier of course, hence the big show pony signings under Shepherd, and Keegan's impatience recently.

 

We have been amongst the biggest spenders on signing fees and wages for the past few seasons. Has this been reflected in results? Have we had value for money? If the answer is no (obviously) then something has to change somewhere, at least short term until we are in a position to punch our weight again.

[Mick]

Some great posts in this thread, Baggio, CToon and afar in particular.

 

I don't think Ashley is afraid to splash the cash given the right team in place who will spend it wisely. Modric is a hint of what we are looking at potentially.

 

Spending other people's money is always easier of course, hence the big show pony signings under Shepherd, and Keegan's impatience recently.

 

We have been amongst the biggest spenders on signing fees and wages for the past few seasons. Has this been reflected in results? Have we had value for money? If the answer is no (obviously) then something has to change somewhere, at least short term until we are in a position to punch our weight again.

 

I agree about the quality of posts.

[Rich]

No love for the fucking topic starter though. Bunch of bastards.

[Mowen]

There's an awful lot of sense there.

 

The transfer fee is only part of the financial burden, the wages are a much bigger drain on resources.  I recall at a Spurs AGM Levy being asked why Chris Perry was sold for only £100k when we should have been able to get £1m for him.  Levy's reply was that we may have lost £900k on the transfer budget but we saved £5m on the wage bill.  Your comments about Duff (Spurs really dodged a bullet there) and Smith fall into the same category.  They may be worth more than £500k and £1m respectively, Newcastle may get a little more than that, but if they aren't doing the job that KK wants them to do, the important thing is to get them off the wage bill if at all possible.

 

Your comments about corporate boxes in London are spot on.  Spurs' proposed new stadium is more to do with getting more corporate boxes than housing more of the traditional fans and the boxes at the Emirates produce more income on a matchday (£1.7m approx) than the rest of the stadium put together (£1.3m approx).  London and Home Counties salaries determine the going rate for admission prices, the 9.4% increase in season ticket prices for next season that Spurs have recently announced shows that they still believe there is more money to be sucked out of Joe Public.  I'm not happy about it but I, along with everyone else, will grudgingly cough up the extra money

 

I can honestly say Spurs' prices are sickening, isn't it £70+ for a ticket in the east stand atm? I know I know someone who paid £65 to see Liverpool last season, I can only assume they've gone up since then. Also, out of interest rather than piss take, did Spurs ever sell out pre Martin Jol? I'm convinced they didn't, which makes new stadium talk seem premature, but I could well be wrong.

 

Also, you're not fucking wrong you dodged a bullet with Duff. Offering £2m more than us for the player is a strange way of doing it though

[Mowen]

No love for the fucking topic starter though. Bunch of bastards.

 

 

[Martin Lol]

There's an awful lot of sense there.

 

The transfer fee is only part of the financial burden, the wages are a much bigger drain on resources.  I recall at a Spurs AGM Levy being asked why Chris Perry was sold for only £100k when we should have been able to get £1m for him.  Levy's reply was that we may have lost £900k on the transfer budget but we saved £5m on the wage bill.  Your comments about Duff (Spurs really dodged a bullet there) and Smith fall into the same category.  They may be worth more than £500k and £1m respectively, Newcastle may get a little more than that, but if they aren't doing the job that KK wants them to do, the important thing is to get them off the wage bill if at all possible.

 

Your comments about corporate boxes in London are spot on.  Spurs' proposed new stadium is more to do with getting more corporate boxes than housing more of the traditional fans and the boxes at the Emirates produce more income on a matchday (£1.7m approx) than the rest of the stadium put together (£1.3m approx).  London and Home Counties salaries determine the going rate for admission prices, the 9.4% increase in season ticket prices for next season that Spurs have recently announced shows that they still believe there is more money to be sucked out of Joe Public.  I'm not happy about it but I, along with everyone else, will grudgingly cough up the extra money

 

I can honestly say Spurs' prices are sickening, isn't it £70+ for a ticket in the east stand atm? I know I know someone who paid £65 to see Liverpool last season, I can only assume they've gone up since then. Also, out of interest rather than piss take, did Spurs ever sell out pre Martin Jol? I'm convinced they didn't, which makes new stadium talk seem premature, but I could well be wrong.

 

Also, you're not f****** wrong you dodged a bullet with Duff. Offering £2m more than us for the player is a strange way of doing it though

 

Yep, it was £71 for a Cat A game in the West Upper last season.  For next season, my ST has got jacked up to £1150.  God knows what they'd charge if we ever got CL competition!

 

Spurs have usually sold out/nearly sold out throughout the Enic  years, including pre Martin Jol.  Spurs, along with a few others, report attendances by people through the turnstile, not tickets sold, so if someone with a ticket doesn't turn up, the attendance goes down.  Other clubs, Arsenal when they were at Highbury was one, report attendances by tickets sold irrespective of whether they supporter actually turns up.

 

I don't know why there should be a difference though.

[Dave]

£1150, fucking hell.

 

No wonder they can stick to this wage structure thing.

[Guest alex]

Well, attendance means the amount of people who attend something, strictly speaking, whereas tickets sales relates to the amount of tickets sold, ok?

[James]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

[Ally]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

[James]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

 

Perhaps they go in the away end then or something.

[Guest alex]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

 

Perhaps they go in the away end then or something.

So these friends of yours apply via the away club to go to watch Spurs? Ok.

[James]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

 

Perhaps they go in the away end then or something.

So these friends of yours apply via the away club to go to watch Spurs? Ok.

 

Well they used to go to Southampton games before the relegation, and now they go to Spurs because Portsmouth is impossible. You have to take into account that the South West corner of the country don't have Premier League football, so those that want to watch games go to London or Birmingham in a neutral capacity, and sometimes make a lot of effort to do so.

[Guest alex]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

 

Perhaps they go in the away end then or something.

So these friends of yours apply via the away club to go to watch Spurs? Ok.

 

Well they used to go to Southampton games before the relegation, and now they go to Spurs because Portsmouth is impossible. You have to take into account that the South West corner of the country don't have Premier League football, so those that want to watch games go to London or Birmingham in a neutral capacity, and sometimes make a lot of effort to do so.

I was suggesting it sounds like an unlikely way to go about it. Sounds like bullshit is what I'm saying. From you that is

[James]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

 

Perhaps they go in the away end then or something.

So these friends of yours apply via the away club to go to watch Spurs? Ok.

 

Well they used to go to Southampton games before the relegation, and now they go to Spurs because Portsmouth is impossible. You have to take into account that the South West corner of the country don't have Premier League football, so those that want to watch games go to London or Birmingham in a neutral capacity, and sometimes make a lot of effort to do so.

I was suggesting it sounds like an unlikely way to go about it. Sounds like bullshit is what I'm saying. From you that is

 

Try living three hours away from the nearest Premier League club before making such assumptions.

[Mowen]

There's an awful lot of sense there.

 

The transfer fee is only part of the financial burden, the wages are a much bigger drain on resources.  I recall at a Spurs AGM Levy being asked why Chris Perry was sold for only £100k when we should have been able to get £1m for him.  Levy's reply was that we may have lost £900k on the transfer budget but we saved £5m on the wage bill.  Your comments about Duff (Spurs really dodged a bullet there) and Smith fall into the same category.  They may be worth more than £500k and £1m respectively, Newcastle may get a little more than that, but if they aren't doing the job that KK wants them to do, the important thing is to get them off the wage bill if at all possible.

 

Your comments about corporate boxes in London are spot on.  Spurs' proposed new stadium is more to do with getting more corporate boxes than housing more of the traditional fans and the boxes at the Emirates produce more income on a matchday (£1.7m approx) than the rest of the stadium put together (£1.3m approx).  London and Home Counties salaries determine the going rate for admission prices, the 9.4% increase in season ticket prices for next season that Spurs have recently announced shows that they still believe there is more money to be sucked out of Joe Public.  I'm not happy about it but I, along with everyone else, will grudgingly cough up the extra money

 

I can honestly say Spurs' prices are sickening, isn't it £70+ for a ticket in the east stand atm? I know I know someone who paid £65 to see Liverpool last season, I can only assume they've gone up since then. Also, out of interest rather than piss take, did Spurs ever sell out pre Martin Jol? I'm convinced they didn't, which makes new stadium talk seem premature, but I could well be wrong.

 

Also, you're not f****** wrong you dodged a bullet with Duff. Offering £2m more than us for the player is a strange way of doing it though

 

Yep, it was £71 for a Cat A game in the West Upper last season.  For next season, my ST has got jacked up to £1150.  God knows what they'd charge if we ever got CL competition!

 

Spurs have usually sold out/nearly sold out throughout the Enic  years, including pre Martin Jol.  Spurs, along with a few others, report attendances by people through the turnstile, not tickets sold, so if someone with a ticket doesn't turn up, the attendance goes down.  Other clubs, Arsenal when they were at Highbury was one, report attendances by tickets sold irrespective of whether they supporter actually turns up.

 

I don't know why there should be a difference though.

 

I bet there aren't many with a £71 ticket that don't turn up though.

[Disco]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

 

Perhaps they go in the away end then or something.

So these friends of yours apply via the away club to go to watch Spurs? Ok.

 

Well they used to go to Southampton games before the relegation, and now they go to Spurs because Portsmouth is impossible. You have to take into account that the South West corner of the country don't have Premier League football, so those that want to watch games go to London or Birmingham in a neutral capacity, and sometimes make a lot of effort to do so.

 

Not impossible at all to get Pompey tickets. Know a few people who have never been ST holders or members who find it very easy to get tickets inc. the Wembley semi final.

[Guest alex]

I know of a few people who aren't Spurs fans and don't even live near London, but go to 3 or 4 Spurs games a season as a neutral because they never have problems getting tickets.

 

A few months back in FourFourTwo, there was a Spurs fan who claimed to speak for others who said that he would only go to Spurs matches if each seat had its own television with Sky+ features that he could use to analyse everything.

 

So while Jol points out that Spurs sell out, it is all a bit of a plastic sell out and at risk of going belly up at any moment.

 

You say that, yet I know a Spurs fan who struggles massively to get tickets even for the shit games.

 

Perhaps they go in the away end then or something.

So these friends of yours apply via the away club to go to watch Spurs? Ok.

 

Well they used to go to Southampton games before the relegation, and now they go to Spurs because Portsmouth is impossible. You have to take into account that the South West corner of the country don't have Premier League football, so those that want to watch games go to London or Birmingham in a neutral capacity, and sometimes make a lot of effort to do so.

I was suggesting it sounds like an unlikely way to go about it. Sounds like bullshit is what I'm saying. From you that is

 

Try living three hours away from the nearest Premier League club before making such assumptions.

Try getting your facts straight before wading in just to try and have a pop at Martin Jol.

[Mowen]

I'd imagine you don't have to be a ST holder to get a ticket when the allocation is larger than your grounds capacity.