FFP prevents ENIC buying players & paying wahes
6 min read
I have penned a series of articles recently surrounding this wonderful game and how money dictates success. The fallacy that you build a football team has been exposed, today you buy a football team. Money means buying the talented players with the right mental attitude and paying them top wages.
it's the bracket Tottenham strive to get to and are exploring many income streams to get there. Increasing the clubs income will increase the clubs success,it's as simple as that. There is still the matter of building a team but that has to be done within the financial constraints Financial Fair Play and our own finances place upon us. It is against UEFA rules for an owner to simply fund the purchase of players or subsidise wages any more.
If Tottenham rely on TV and broadcasting revenue we will never catch the top 5 richest clubs in the Premier League, a league with more competition than other clubs have to face in other European domestic leagues. Atletico Madrid are the 15th richest club in Europe, Spurs are 13th, but the Spanish only have 2 clubs richer than themselves to compete against, that's just 4 games a year. Tottenham have 5 so have to better teams with greater resources 10 times.
As a player you might as well go to Madrid, you have a greater chance and if playing to form the club should be in the Champions League every season. Judging a European table solely by money is not an accurate method, the domestic competition has to be taken into account to assess realistic chances of success.
I have discussed our commercial income and how it is essential to our growth, it is however linked to Champions League football. That raises a profile and bring with it not only more money but more commercial opportunity. Leeds United showed over spending to get there is a route to long term disaster so an alternative has to be found. The clubs who get relegated from the Premier League who have over stretched themselves often have ongoing problems and a drop to an even lower league is often on the cards. Football is littered with clubs who have financially gambled and failed. Gambling woith the clubs long term future is not an option.
Commercial income fell by 7% (£3.1 million) from £44.9 million in 2012/13 to £41.8 million in 2013/14, yet merchandising sales rose during that period by 13% to £11 million. The Deloitte Money League shows our commercial income to be one of the lowest of the top 18 clubs.
Paris-Saint Germain’s £274 million is artificially boosted by their €200 million deal with the Qatar Tourist Authority, but Bayern Munich (£244 million) and Real Madrid (£244 million), Manchester United (£189 million), Manchester City (£166 million), Liverpool (£104 million), even Arsenal (£77 million) show how we (£48.1 million) lag behind.
If we can break into the Champions League on a regular basis then we have a name we can exploit, we have European history as the first British club to win a major European trophy. I would expect us then to be able to build a bigger commercial income than Arsenal then, over time and if we are competing on match day revenue as well then we have a real chance of staying among the elite and not make fleeting visits.
Do you build a club for fleeting visits or build a club for long term success, for me it's the latter and if that means heartache while we get there so be it.
Since 2009 Tottenham have the lowest growth in commercial income, both in absolute and percentage terms. As a painful comparative, in the same period Arsenal by comparison have grown by £29 million to £77 million (excluding the new Puma deal which started in July 2014). Manchester City get £148 million, Manchester United £119 million, Chelsea £56 million and Liverpool £44 million. If we were not in the Europa League you can be certain it would be even less, making our position even worse.
That is a long term project, you can't sudden;y catch up overnight. The club have re-grouped and have a strategy for future growth, he needs to see the job through.
Producing our own players is one way we can circumvent the financial constraints. I spoke out when we were going to sell Michael Dawson that the club needed a figure like him as a father figure to the youth coming through. He was not perfect but has Chiriches or Fazio been perfect? Would Dawson have done a better job for the club this season than Kaboul, Chiriches and Fazio? To my mind certainly.
Levy admits in the programme notes we need that youth and experience and we perhaps lost our way there. That comes with trying to buy success without the resources to do it. it's one thing paying a transfer fee when you have the money but if you are not paying the top wages you are not getting the top players. Result, players more interested in their wage packet, the same problem QPR had and haven't recovered from. The stadium is a big step, commercially signing Gareth Bale would pay for itself and make us attractive worldwide.
Not all player we bring through the academy will end up Spurs players, some need to be sold to fund the academy, it should be self funding in the manner Real Madrid run theirs, although not with the additional activities to circumvent the rules that had them investigated. Those that do you would expect have an affinity with the club, like Harry Kane and Ryan Mason.
You would expect their is a pull for them to stay at the club and help it become successful, to be a club icon. at the moment they are treading their own path with nobodies club experience to draw upon. Dawson could easily have been performing that role and playing in the Europa League each week. We now have to build another club player another club leader with a Tottenham identity.
Harry Kane has an important role, as at the moment he is the only candidate. He is the target for everyone coming trough the system, work our socks off and that is what we could achieve.
Things would be so much simpler if we could just fast forward time, but alas we can't, we'll have to be patient a while for success.
it's the bracket Tottenham strive to get to and are exploring many income streams to get there. Increasing the clubs income will increase the clubs success,it's as simple as that. There is still the matter of building a team but that has to be done within the financial constraints Financial Fair Play and our own finances place upon us. It is against UEFA rules for an owner to simply fund the purchase of players or subsidise wages any more.
If Tottenham rely on TV and broadcasting revenue we will never catch the top 5 richest clubs in the Premier League, a league with more competition than other clubs have to face in other European domestic leagues. Atletico Madrid are the 15th richest club in Europe, Spurs are 13th, but the Spanish only have 2 clubs richer than themselves to compete against, that's just 4 games a year. Tottenham have 5 so have to better teams with greater resources 10 times.
As a player you might as well go to Madrid, you have a greater chance and if playing to form the club should be in the Champions League every season. Judging a European table solely by money is not an accurate method, the domestic competition has to be taken into account to assess realistic chances of success.
I have discussed our commercial income and how it is essential to our growth, it is however linked to Champions League football. That raises a profile and bring with it not only more money but more commercial opportunity. Leeds United showed over spending to get there is a route to long term disaster so an alternative has to be found. The clubs who get relegated from the Premier League who have over stretched themselves often have ongoing problems and a drop to an even lower league is often on the cards. Football is littered with clubs who have financially gambled and failed. Gambling woith the clubs long term future is not an option.
Commercial income fell by 7% (£3.1 million) from £44.9 million in 2012/13 to £41.8 million in 2013/14, yet merchandising sales rose during that period by 13% to £11 million. The Deloitte Money League shows our commercial income to be one of the lowest of the top 18 clubs.
Paris-Saint Germain’s £274 million is artificially boosted by their €200 million deal with the Qatar Tourist Authority, but Bayern Munich (£244 million) and Real Madrid (£244 million), Manchester United (£189 million), Manchester City (£166 million), Liverpool (£104 million), even Arsenal (£77 million) show how we (£48.1 million) lag behind.
If we can break into the Champions League on a regular basis then we have a name we can exploit, we have European history as the first British club to win a major European trophy. I would expect us then to be able to build a bigger commercial income than Arsenal then, over time and if we are competing on match day revenue as well then we have a real chance of staying among the elite and not make fleeting visits.
Do you build a club for fleeting visits or build a club for long term success, for me it's the latter and if that means heartache while we get there so be it.
Since 2009 Tottenham have the lowest growth in commercial income, both in absolute and percentage terms. As a painful comparative, in the same period Arsenal by comparison have grown by £29 million to £77 million (excluding the new Puma deal which started in July 2014). Manchester City get £148 million, Manchester United £119 million, Chelsea £56 million and Liverpool £44 million. If we were not in the Europa League you can be certain it would be even less, making our position even worse.
Our five-year shirt sponsorship deal with AIA is worth around £16 million a season. Manchester United have a £47 million deal with Chevrolet and Arsenal get £30 million through their Emirates deal. Chelsea have signed a £38-40 million agreement with Yokohama Rubber. once again the money goes to money, it goes to the teams with European exposure in the Premier competition.
Under Armour are our kit supplier with whom we have a five-year deal worth a reported £10 million a year. Manchester United have the “largest kit manufacture sponsorship deal in sport” with Adidas, a mammoth £75 million a year from next season. Arsenal’s Puma deal is worth £30 million a year.
Daniel Levy won't pay the wages, won't spend to buy. If you actually sit back and look into the facts of the footballing world today and appreciate what we are actually playing against, then ypou can understand the disappointments we face. Yes we are all disappointed, of cpourse we are, hae their been mistakes made, yes of course there are, but you listen to anyone within the game and you consistently hear that Daniel Levy is totally committed to making Spurs a successful club.
Producing our own players is one way we can circumvent the financial constraints. I spoke out when we were going to sell Michael Dawson that the club needed a figure like him as a father figure to the youth coming through. He was not perfect but has Chiriches or Fazio been perfect? Would Dawson have done a better job for the club this season than Kaboul, Chiriches and Fazio? To my mind certainly.
Levy admits in the programme notes we need that youth and experience and we perhaps lost our way there. That comes with trying to buy success without the resources to do it. it's one thing paying a transfer fee when you have the money but if you are not paying the top wages you are not getting the top players. Result, players more interested in their wage packet, the same problem QPR had and haven't recovered from. The stadium is a big step, commercially signing Gareth Bale would pay for itself and make us attractive worldwide.
Not all player we bring through the academy will end up Spurs players, some need to be sold to fund the academy, it should be self funding in the manner Real Madrid run theirs, although not with the additional activities to circumvent the rules that had them investigated. Those that do you would expect have an affinity with the club, like Harry Kane and Ryan Mason.
You would expect their is a pull for them to stay at the club and help it become successful, to be a club icon. at the moment they are treading their own path with nobodies club experience to draw upon. Dawson could easily have been performing that role and playing in the Europa League each week. We now have to build another club player another club leader with a Tottenham identity.
Harry Kane has an important role, as at the moment he is the only candidate. He is the target for everyone coming trough the system, work our socks off and that is what we could achieve.
Things would be so much simpler if we could just fast forward time, but alas we can't, we'll have to be patient a while for success.
Post a Comment