Is Harry a good manager?

BazSpur wrote:I can't see the point of telling us you have 24 British players in your RESERVES, so what?

The point ends up getting lost, but it's in response to the steady drip feed of 'home grown' players that we can introduce into the squad as per the new rules in the coming years.

Have you been on the Wacky Baccy Mark?

VisionarySound wrote:Is that beeping noise I can hear the sound of Mark2Spark going into reverse ???? You asked if 'arry was a good manager then went off on a rambling dirge about finances and backed it up with cotton-wool guesses about the figures involved. Even parts of Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas aren't as disjointed as your 1st post Mark. People answered your questions about both 'arry & finances . You then meander onto youth football and again post statements that are slightly off-key. You then back track and say 'yeah Spurs cash flow aint so sad', then you ask us to answer the incoherent points you've made. We have ! I ask you to answer your original point mate. Is 'arry a good manager ? I say YES . . . . .

I'm just replying to points as they are made.
It's called a thread for that reason
Spurs cash flow is ok for what you have now. It isn't enough for mega signings with mega wages to match, neither is it enough to fund a new stadium.
Therefore you have peaked. This is as good as it gets for spurs fc. Enjoy and don't overstretch is the observation, the point.

[quote="Mark2spark"]In another thread, this was said:

VisionarySound wrote:At the present Spurs have no recognised right back yet still we manage to beat 2 of the teams above us in the league. Good management there me thinks.

I'll certainly have to agree that the coaching during those matches was on the money, but.... funny mentioning money?

A player on £50,000 a week, on a 5 year deal, is a £12,500,000 commitment by a club over the 5 year period. Needless to say that a team full of players on similar contracts, with reserves and squad players warming the bench, brings about a committment of approaching £200 million over a 5 year period.
£100,000 a week players like Crouch & Defoe rockets this figure even higher.
Now, what is THFC's expected revenue stream over that same 5 year period.
Is it £400 million?

Well you tell us mark, i hope you have researched all these figures you are quoting, and that the figures do hold some reality in your post because if not then as i said initially ! there isnt any point in responding to your thread.


I ask, because if it is not, then you will not be able to play Champions League football (assuming you qualify to) come season commencing 2012, according to the new Uefa financial rules.
Needless to say that Chelsea would also be struggling with this. Liverpool too.
Quite how £350 million + would also magically appear to build a new stadium with is also one for you to enrol the assistance of Paul Daniels on.
Well obviously you should become book keeper to joe louis and daniel levy as you seem to know more about their financial running of tottenham hotspur than they do.
FFs mark, why put in plans for a new stadium if the funds arent there in the first place ? these are billionaire owners mark, they havent got where they are by supposing they have enough money to do this and that etc etc.



Arsenal, of course, having patiently met the needs of financial constraint whilst still challenging for the top honours year in year out, would of course have no problems with Uefas new rules, nor would there be any issue meeting the 'home grown' player rules.
With TWENTY SEVEN of our current 35 man reserve squad being English (not British) there does not appear to be a future problem either. With the release of the land earmarked for social housing having now gone through, a further approx £35 million will be available for Arsenal transfer kitty during the next 2 - 3 years. and that amount doesnt even buy you ronaldo,s left leg in this day and age so ! assuming you are still in the running for the cl during the next 2 - 3 years i would say that you wont last long with that kind of money to spend.

Now, what was we saying about a good manager?........................we were saying that harry has taken us further forward than any other manager in recent years, we are now virtually on a par with yourselves, and if wenger had any sense he would have warned his bosses that some money had to be saved for players to maintain your success rate before you built the emi-rats............as it is , your new stadium has cost you 5 years of underachievement, and virtually all your best players have been sold on to finance it........i dont think we will have that same trouble....................now what were we saying about a good manager ?

Baring the fangs now eh Mark?

Doesn't take long before the true nature comes through hey?

Spurs are only just now showing their potential. A team of very young, very talented individuals who are moulding into a team that will only get betteer with time.

Peaked? We're only just starting the climb.

Our revenue stream has consistently grown larger over the years in the Prem. It has seen us steadily move up the rankings of the Worlds richest clubs. Despite your protests to the contrary, we have no debt, our stock is high and our assets are enormous, both on the field and off.

You seem to believe that Danny has fattened the club up for a quick sell, but Danny is a businessman. He's invested extensively in this club and isn't likely to see unless he can get the maximum reward back.

Like the rest of us, he knows that this is a team that is only growing into the team it will become. This team will get better and, with some astute buys, will become a force.

It will be interesting just how busy Wenger is in the Summer market. If we've 'peaked' he'll carry on regardless.
But he's already dipping hey Mark?

So, a quality team that will only get better, on long contracts too, a strong financial position and a bigger stadium on the way with increased revenue from all quarters, greater exposure increasing the market audience ......................................

All this comes on top of the fact that the club as a whole has successfully increased its value whilst never having been present in the CL.

The club has also invested heavily in its future on the pitch. Many of those future players are out learning their trade in the lower divisions. We continually bring in quality youth and, with any that don't make the grade, we sell on at a profit.

Not much different from yourselves actually.

In summary, we expect to be in debt (what club isn't?) but expect to be able to manage it whilst we grow further. Of course regular CL will aid hugely in managing it that much faster, but the plans were in place prior to us reaching CL so they will have budgeted accordingly. A management team as canny as the Enic one would do nothing less.

We have grown as a club without the need for massive personal layout from the owner, our growth will continue.

Spurs finances

Premier
League Tottenham Hotspurby Patrick Bateman (U13792824) 18 April 2010


Lots of rival fans go on
about the state of our finance, our spending, etc. So here are some
facts you can point them at when they make these ignorant claims:

Summary:
--------
In
terms of wage bill, we come out at around 60m-70m/year.
Average
spend is around 10m per year.
Our revenues are the fifth highest in
the league (120m)

So whereas our net spend is 70-80m on average,
this does not even match Liverpool's wage bill before ANY spending.
Forget about Arsenal, Man U or Chelsea.

We also have no net debt
to service.

Another thing to bear in mind. When you buy a player
for say 10-15m and he turns out to be bad, you can normally sell on and
recoup some of that cash. If in the meantime, he's earning 5-6m a year,
that's cash out the door that simply won't happen at Spurs. A lot of
ours earn 1-3m per year.

Wage bills 07-08
----------
Chelsea
£172m
Man United £121 m
Arsenal £101m
Liverpool £90m
Newcastle
£74m
Premier League average £59m

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...


Man
City are now in the 125m bracket, whereas we are still in the 60-70m
bracket.

Net spending
------------
Then look at net spend
from 92-2010. Our net spend is 11m per year.

This doesn't include
the 8m we have paid for Sandro nor the 30m of players that I believe
Arry will offload, so that average spend will drop for us.

That
is less than Chelsea, Man C, Liverpool.

transferleague.co.uk/



Revenues
--------
www.sportspromedia.com/notes...


Spurs:
€132.7 million.
Chelsea €242.3 million
Arsenal €263 million

(note
that Arsenal's match day takings are 117m Euros - impressive and
highlights the need for a new stadium - would generate us an extra 20m
per year + naming rights)

We can expect higher revenues if we are
in Europa or CL and put a decent run in. Even so, without that we
generate £120m/year, which is WELL within our means!
comment on this article | alert a
moderator | send to a friend

Latest comments



Read members' comments or add your own

comment by
SelwynSpur
(U11786987)

posted 2 Weeks AgoNicely put!
add comment
|
complain
about this comment

comment by
Patrick
Bateman (U13792824)

posted 2 Weeks AgoSelwyn,
thanks. Just borrowing one of your posts to dispute the Arry destroys
clubs argument also. Now I can bookmark this post and send idiots here
to have a read!



-----------------
Regarding Harry
Redknapp:

WEST HAM:
- He made a net profit from transfers of
£14.71m.
- He left the club in 2001.
- Since then, the club has
had five managers, spent more than they have sold (including a net
spending of £25m over the 2006/7 season) and the club have been sold
twice.
- Their debts are largely the result of mismanagement by their
Icelandic owners (who took over in 2006), compensation from the Tevez
affair, and their shirt sponsor going bust:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/03/west-ham-financial-crisis-37m-loss

SOUTHAMPTON:
-
The club's building of a new stadium, well before Redknapp arrived,
left them with a £27.5m debt.
- He was at the club for 13 months
-
I believe he made only one paid-transfer in his time at the club,
signing Nigel Quashie for £2.1m. Other deals were either loans (Henri
Camara; Calum Davenport) or free signings of player short-term contracts
(Jamie Redknapp; Olivier Bernard). At the same time, he sold James
Beattie for £6m.

BOURNEMOUTH:
- Financial problems stem from
crowd violence that a) landed them with a whopping-great fine and b)
meant they were banned from playing home games on Bank Holidays, which
are a major source of income.


Other managers who have also
arrived at 2+ clubs that later entered major financial difficulties /
administration?

1) Tony Pulis (Bournemouth, Gillingham,
Portsmouth)
2) Glenn Roeder (West Ham, Gillingham, Watford, Norwich)
3)
Gordon Strachan (Coventry City, Southampton)
4) Iain Dowie (Crystal
Palace, Charlton Athletic)
5) Peter Taylor (Leicester, Gillingham,
Crystal Palace)
6) Terry Venables (Spurs, Crystal Palace)
7) Alan
Pardew (West Ham, Charlton Athletic)
Alan Curbishley (Charlton
Athetic, West Ham)
9) Dave Bassett (Watford, Crystal Palace,
Leicester, Southampton)
add comment
|
complain
about this comment

comment by
U14237738

posted 2 Weeks AgoThere's a
Times chart on the 2008/9 wages. Villa's wages have surged to 70m, ours
increased to around 60m. City's will be astronomical next season.

In
our most recent financial interim report (up to December 2009), our
wages increased slightly since we added more players in the summer but
total operations expenses actually decreased.
add comment
|
complain
about this comment

comment by
SelwynSpur
(U11786987)

posted 2 Weeks AgoNo problem! Enjoy!
add comment
|
complain
about this comment

comment by
divin
dissin darren - Harry for PM (U10966690)

posted 2 Weeks AgoHow much
do we make on the DVDs?
add comment
|
complain
about this comment

comment by
SelwynSpur
(U11786987)

posted 2 Weeks AgoDDD:
I think the DVDs are
normally about £9.99. DVDs are pretty cheap to produce, so we can
expect a large profit from them. No idea how many we sell.

The
Robin van Persie action figure is £12.00, but might be a bit costlier to
manufacture. The other downside is that it's only available for half
the season...

http://onlinestore.arsenal.com/invt/a3122&bklist=
add comment
|
complain
about this comment

comment by
joe
strummer (U5878517)

posted 2 Weeks AgoThe
original article is correct, but one thing is that we class our players
as intangible assets, which totals about £250m on our balance sheet.

This
is not bad, but it does mean we don't have a credit rating. We're not
deemed a risk like West Ham etc are though.
add comment
|
complain
about this comment

comment by
Hooplar (U9740424)

posted 2 Weeks Ago"we class our players as
intangible assets"

Is that because our wingers are simply
untouchable?

Thanks Vis

Baz you won, too easy

Baz you won, too easy

Mawaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Thing is Mark its like opinion polls, you can make anything you like out of facts and figures. You can make it look good or you can make it look bad. Do whatever you have to do mate. At the end of the day we are still here in 4th place.

Well done on top 4 Baz.

I only started this thread cos it deserved it's own thread, and not take over the thread where I lifted the snippet from Viz from.

There's bones to pick from any report I suppose, plenty of ammo in the interim report, but I think ion's post probably deserves to let the thread rest from here.

My source of info for anyone interested:
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/03/are-tottenhams-results-too-good-to-be.html

Yes, you (I mean people in general) can 'make' anything if you are minded to twist things, but either spurs have a serviceable debt at a fixed rate until 2024 or they don't.
Which one is it?

Either they declared an operating loss in the December 09 interim report or they didn't.

Same question?

But I doubt that any club is minded to particularly tell the truth if it looks a bit like causing a problem. Bit like AW declaring for a few years that transfer funds are available if required.