The Transfer Budget
The Transfer Budget
There is a total misunderstanding of how transfer budgets are arrived at. They are not just a lump of surplus cash lying around.
I have explained it before and I'll try again as too many are basing their opinions on incorrect facts.
Firstly player sales are important and maximising the amount we get for each player is VERY important, as that affects our transfer budget for as much as 5 YEARS (the length of a contract another club gives a player they purchase from us).
Transfers are not paid in one lump sum.
They are paid in annual instalments over the life of an initial contract.
When we buy someone, we pay X amount per year, plus Ad-ons as and when they are accrued, although possibly agreed to be paid at the end of that season.
The more Daniel Levy can add into Ad-ons the better, less risk, performance pay and reduces our annual transfer expenditure figure. That only takes into account the agreed fee, less Ad-ons.
The same happens in reverse when we sell a player. Thus we want to sell at a high price with as few Ad-ons as possible to maximise our annual transfer income figure.
Taking one figure from the other gives us an annual transfer surplus or deficit.
The difference between that figure and our annually set transfer budget figure with any extra cash added forms our total transfer budget for that year.
If we sold a player for £30m and the buying club gave the player a 5-year contract, then normally the figure would be £6m-a-year payment. This can change if a shorter term is negotiated or an upfront lump sum is negotiated with the rest over a fixed term.
Each time we sell a player that figure is adjusted, we can add an annual instalment, in the example above that might mean £6m per year.
Thus when it is stated that we have a transfer budget of £150m, that actually means we expect to raise from player sales and thus give us a surplus figure that we can spend on instalment payments over the next 5 years.
That figure obviously changes every year and yes if a club chooses to invest additional capital in transfers it can.
Financial Fair Play means clubs have to be self-sufficient now, they can't live off Sugar Daddies as some anti-Levy fans are still advocating.
Tottenham are merely part way through a process to build the club to be a super force and are following a plan to get us there.
It is rather crass to criticise that when it is working so well.
Do you want one trophy or lots of trophies?
The two are not the same, Wigan, Portsmouth etc have won a trophy shout some fans, yes, but where are they now, what good did it do them, did it lead to more trophies?
No.
Is that what you want for Spurs?
It isn't what I want, it isn't what Daniel Levy wants, it isn't what Mauricio Pochettino wants either.
Every manager in the world would like early signings, but unless you have the wealth to buy without selling first, which we don't for larger transfers despite what some may think, it isn't possible until you sell.
This window nobody is buying, well not until the end of the window anyway.
Aston Villa do not want to release Jack Grealish and insist on £40m (which he isn't worth), Crystal Palace do not want to sell Zaha and slap a £70m price tag on him, again, a figure he isn't worth. We have prices on our players that other clubs think they are not worth.
Everyone does it. A player can only be transferred as and when a club actually release him, he can't be sold without their consent, thus hanging out until the end of a window in the hope of keeping a player is standard practice for smaller clubs.
Understanding the reason behind things means you can understand the window and we haven't even spoken about non-homegrown players and no quad places available.
Post a Comment