gdm Posted Tuesday at 11:45 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:45 1 minute ago, The College Dropout said: The losses for those years fall off. But the costs for that spending we carry (amortisation and wages) into this year. Yeah but the point is we started with practically nothing very little income. It takes time to build and everyone can see it’s building with Sela & Adidas. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are waiting on the outcome of the Man City case before announcing training kit, training ground & even stadium sponsorships Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 11:49 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:49 2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: Without the pretty much unprecedented injury crisis we had in the past season we would have easily finished top 6. There's a very good chance we'll finish in the top 6 this season without the demands of European football. Our FMV is not hugely less than the top 6 now, the PL has allowed us to sign deals similar to what they get, it's just obviously taking a lot of time to justify each one so it will be a longer process than we would like. You’ve said ‘obviously’. Where’s the evidence for that ? Genuinely - where have you got that from? to get top 6 consistently we need to be better managed, better luck and better in the transfer market than 3 of the top 6 every year. Much like Villa - we are a couple managerial appointments or bad transfer windows away from big trouble. None of the actual top 6 have that risk. Chelsea are onto year 3 of BS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Tuesday at 11:49 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:49 While greater revenue gives us more scope to flex our muscled in the transfer market, it's not the be all and all of regular top six finishes. We'll need to be smart, but Spurs have shown with patience and the right people in place, it can be done while the commercial revenue gap is closed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 11:52 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:52 4 minutes ago, gdm said: Yeah but the point is we started with practically nothing very little income. It takes time to build and everyone can see it’s building with Sela & Adidas. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are waiting on the outcome of the Man City case before announcing training kit, training ground & even stadium sponsorships I hope so with the second point. Yeh it does take time. In that time we might need to sell most of our top stars. It might be that. That’s fine. I don’t think as a fanbase we’ve accepted that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted Tuesday at 12:05 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:05 1 hour ago, The College Dropout said: I agree with that. The boat I'm talking about is - not being able to generate enough revenue to maintain spending and fighting for top 4 or better year in and year out. We have the same problem with PSR and neither of us has easy levers to exploit. It's the top 6. And the rest. We are still part of the rest with no easy escape route. We can't inflate sponsorships to the point where we are in another stratosphere from Villa revenue-wise. Total revenues (slightly out of date): 72m more than Villa. 194m less than Spurs - the smallest top 6 side. It's the top 6 vs everybody else. That's the boat that matters IMO. Under the current rules - how do we bridge that gap? Using that chart, is a fairer system just to allow every club to match the revenue of the highest team ? If that income is sponsorship or owner investment does it matter ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 12:08 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:08 17 minutes ago, The Prophet said: While greater revenue gives us more scope to flex our muscled in the transfer market, it's not the be all and all of regular top six finishes. We'll need to be smart, but Spurs have shown with patience and the right people in place, it can be done while the commercial revenue gap is closed. Agree. Playing wise - Spurs built it by selling their best players for about a decade and then having an all time great emerge from the academy. In this same thread many have denied the idea that selling Bruno might’ve been a preferred plan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Tuesday at 12:14 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:14 Do we know that they weren't open to selling Bruno ? It's not like we can force other clubs to buy from us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted Tuesday at 12:16 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:16 23 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: You’ve said ‘obviously’. Where’s the evidence for that ? Genuinely - where have you got that from? to get top 6 consistently we need to be better managed, better luck and better in the transfer market than 3 of the top 6 every year. Much like Villa - we are a couple managerial appointments or bad transfer windows away from big trouble. None of the actual top 6 have that risk. Chelsea are onto year 3 of BS. The documentary, which detailed the process of demonstrating FMV for the Sela deal, and the delay in stuff like the training kit sponsorship coming forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted Tuesday at 12:17 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:17 3 minutes ago, madras said: Do we know that they weren't open to selling Bruno ? It's not like we can force other clubs to buy from us. How could we ever know that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted Tuesday at 12:18 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:18 We don’t even have to be a super power club. Just win some bastard thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted Tuesday at 12:19 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:19 9 minutes ago, Ben said: Using that chart, is a fairer system just to allow every club to match the revenue of the highest team ? If that income is sponsorship or owner investment does it matter ? This seems a much better way to do it. Take the average of the top 3 revenues or maybe 80% of that. You can spend up to that, giving those who bring in more income a small advantage, yet everyone else is allowed to compete. I'd also add in provisions about debt and ensuring funds are cleared or covered. Of course this will never happen. Spurs won't want it as other could out spend them, Arsenal owners likewise wouldn't want to be forced to spend more and the lower end of the league owners likewise want keep raking in the cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Tuesday at 12:22 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:22 1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: How could we ever know that? I just assumed as some on here seem to know everything that's going on and what we should do "Shoukd have sold X instead of y" type stuff. It may well be that one of the options would have been to sell Bruno but no suitable was forthcoming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted Tuesday at 12:23 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:23 (edited) 15 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Agree. Playing wise - Spurs built it by selling their best players for about a decade and then having an all time great emerge from the academy. In this same thread many have denied the idea that selling Bruno might’ve been a preferred plan. I think it was probably more a case of being realistic that if a club he wanted to go to had met his release clause we wouldn't have had any other option, rather than it being a preferred plan. Edited Tuesday at 12:24 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Tuesday at 12:43 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:43 I think another way to frame this discussion can anyone name a club in the premier league who attained consistent success (let’s set the bar low and say European qualification for say 5 out of 10 possible years) without having top 6 revenue? The point we are trying to illustrate is that it will be extremely difficult to challenge on a consistent basis and it will be a challenge to bridge the gap financial which would give us the best chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted Tuesday at 12:47 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:47 1 hour ago, Dr Venkman said: All of the major US sports leagues have systems in place to assure parity. I was just making lazy assumptions that Americans being the ultimate capitalists would have no time for the little guy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted Tuesday at 12:48 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:48 I think you’re right that Boehly thinks he can come in and bully his way around. Thats how he’s acted so far, I guess it comes down to how much he’s willing to throw his money away. He has very little to show for it so far, sunk costs for him potentially Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancrate1892 Posted Tuesday at 12:49 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:49 4 hours ago, Fezzle said: Niakhate and Mangala too for about £45m or something. Then theres Everton and Chelsea(stop laughing at the back) that had to as well Mental, God help the clubs coming up, what's the point for them? Masters and his top 6 cunts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted Tuesday at 12:59 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:59 1 hour ago, gdm said: Yeah but the point is we started with practically nothing very little income. It takes time to build and everyone can see it’s building with Sela & Adidas. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are waiting on the outcome of the Man City case before announcing training kit, training ground & even stadium sponsorships That's not a bad shout, actually. If Man City get the associated party transactions rules thrown out then it leaves us a LOT more options for those sponsorships we haven't made use of yet. If Man City lose then we just go ahead and do it the normal way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Tuesday at 13:03 Share Posted Tuesday at 13:03 3 minutes ago, loki679 said: That's not a bad shout, actually. If Man City get the associated party transactions rules thrown out then it leaves us a LOT more options for those sponsorships we haven't made use of yet. If Man City lose then we just go ahead and do it the normal way. Potentially without the worry of Man City as their 115 charges will potentially sink them for a few years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted Tuesday at 13:13 Share Posted Tuesday at 13:13 23 minutes ago, Pancrate1892 said: Mental, God help the clubs coming up, what's the point for them? Masters and his top 6 cunts Is that who is really at fault though? They can't pass rules on their own, can they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groundhog63 Posted Tuesday at 13:23 Share Posted Tuesday at 13:23 The best investment we could make would be dropping some traveller (*) £5k to whack Richard Masters * been watching too much Kin/Love-Hate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted Tuesday at 13:32 Share Posted Tuesday at 13:32 7 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said: The best investment we could make would be dropping some traveller (*) £5k to whack Richard Masters * been watching too much Kin/Love-Hate I'm horrified by that statement. Going to harrow me all day - the thought that for 5k we could have had Ashley done years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Tuesday at 13:32 Share Posted Tuesday at 13:32 32 minutes ago, loki679 said: That's not a bad shout, actually. If Man City get the associated party transactions rules thrown out then it leaves us a LOT more options for those sponsorships we haven't made use of yet. If Man City lose then we just go ahead and do it the normal way. Wasn't it just the changes to the associated parties rules that came in last season, ie the burden of proof of FMV was placed on to the clubs ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted Tuesday at 13:36 Share Posted Tuesday at 13:36 (edited) I actually don't think it's the PL board that are the issue, I get the impression we're quite pally with the hierarchy now but Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs have enough of the others following them to push through changes unilaterally, sometimes against the advice of the board. Edited Tuesday at 13:37 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted Tuesday at 13:38 Share Posted Tuesday at 13:38 2 hours ago, duo said: How have spurs such a bigger income? NFL, Concerts and Go Karting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now