How a £60m transfer fee affects the club
That's a brilliantly condescending opening remark isn't it, I love it.
I get abuse of course, which is merely those people telling me I'm right in their own inimitable way, otherwise they wouldn't need to!
I have spent a few days explaining the difference between successful people and unsuccessful people, between employers and employees, between road sweepers and council leaders, between ENIC, Daniel Levy, THFC and the anti-agenda-driven fan, between Alasdair Gold and the Tottenham board, between THST and Spurs.
Today I'll continue to explain the difference in a different format.
In simple terms, so they can understand it, I'll explain why the fans' approach doesn't work.
Tottenham generates approximately £450m.
Fans complain Spurs Vill not pay whatever any club asks for, but no club does this, not even Manchester City who refused to pay what we asked for Harry Kane.
You can't have it both ways guys, what's fit for the goose is fit for the gander.
Let's take Evan Ndicka as an example.
He is demanding a £50m package to sign a 5-year deal.
That would be the cost of him spread over 5 years, so £10m per year.
£200,000 per week is £10.4m per year.
You're still with me so far, good, I know maths isn't your strong suit.
Now imagine he cost £60m.
Spread that over 5 years and that's £12.5m per year.
Add the two per year figures together, £10m and £12.5m and one purchase costs the club £22.5m per year.
That means that on Spurs current income they can afford 20 of those deals.
£22.5m X 20 = £450m.
However, it also means we can't pay other players, the academy players, loaned-out players partial wages, the club staff, the medical team, the head coach and his staff, the travel to games, paying for the stadium, paying for the training facilities, policing around the ground, security staff, Spurs shop staff, nothing, absolutely nothing.
Your only option there is everything on credit, well the stadium, the building infrastructure is on credit.
It's on the lowest rates of credit because we made profits to prove to lenders that we were a good lending risk.
But, if we buy or have 20 players on those terms, we can't afford the interest payments.
Answer, we can't have 20 players on those terms and can't have players on even worse terms.
Not until we increase our income that is.
Do you start to see how important generating income is, how important building the business is, how important money is?
And that means that Daniel Levy is the right man, that the fan is the wrong man.
Manchester City didn't achieve success and then get rich, they got rich through illegal sponsorship schemes with friends, but argured that the information that proves that, was not obtained in the correct manner (City refused to cooperate into an investigation into them) and was thus inadmissible and they won that case to circumvent Financial fair Play.
Chelsea didn't win trophies and then get rich, you have to get the club rich first, then buy the winning football team.
Loans from owners HAVE to be paid back so that's no good in the long run, which leaves sponsorship deals and commercial deals as your main income source.
Of course, for Spurs we have built a stadium to be an income stream and maximizing that income is important.
Spurs are not like Bayern Munich or PSG or until recently Juventus, they are not in a one-team league, there are still 3/4 clubs richer than Spurs, thus more attractive and able to afford more than us.
We'll end your education there for today.
COYS
Your further reading pleasure:
Post a Comment