GWT: Premier League Week of 1/14-1/15
- Thread starter spintheblackcircle
- Start date
- Oct 3, 2013
- 36,887
- 10,628
This was widely reported at the time. Not really sure why LFC would lie about it either. Wouldn't benefit the at all to admit London is a more attractive destination.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,880
- 14,843
It's a lot better than admitting that Arsenal is just a more successful club than Liverpool in recent times.
When Liverpool is good, they are similar to what the St. Louis Cardinals are in baseball. A lot of history that is attractive to many, plenty of money to get moves done, but a desire to spend wisely and not over-spend for the sake of over-spending. Sure, you'll lose some bids because you won't go crazy money like other teams, but the money is there to get just about any deal done, and the destination for players is attractive for most, it's just you're competing with many other attractive destinations, they are just attractive in different ways.
Last edited:
Deficient Mode
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2011
- 60,348
- 2,397
Wikipedia says by region it's Bavaria (39), and North Rhine-Westphalia (25). I admittedly don't know enough about German regions to say if that is a proper division or not.
Those are the populations of the whole region/state. North-Rhine Westphalia includes a more or less continuous expanse of adjoining cities like Köln, Düsseldorf, and Dortmund. Schalke, Leverkusen, Dortmund, and Gladbach all come from this conurbation, as well as a number of still very popular clubs that haven't been as successful recently like Köln and Fortuna Düsseldorf.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
Haha Spurs. They're not the first or second biggest draw in London none the less England.
Sure, they're in London and with their manager they've made big strides, but they're a small to medium club when you compare them to United, Arsenal or Liverpool.
Sure, they're in London and with their manager they've made big strides, but they're a small to medium club when you compare them to United, Arsenal or Liverpool.
How do you know that? No-one really know how clubs might in the future be penalized. That is my point. Early on Platini etc. were talking about no money not earned by the club could be spent on players, salaries and other "operational costs". Sugardaddies could pay for stadiums and other infrastructure, but not bankroll other things. Chelsea seem to live by that now. City and PSG can't sustain their current squads with money they as clubs are currently generating.
If City and PSG are forced to only spend the money they themselves make - they will have less financial muscles than Spurs in a couple of years. But I don't know how it will all in reality play out.
Financial. Usually things then just follow. If you make top 5 money for enough years you will more or less be a top 5 club in terms of competing for league titles and CL titles. ManUtd as shown recently might have an off year or two, but when you got 100m+ pounds every summer to get back on track you will sooner or later. Spurs is obviously different. If Kane gets injured and Alli goes to Spain (which I don't believe for a second will happen for quite a few years at least) it might take 10 years before they are as competitive as they are now with the current revenue streams (which will change regardless of what happens short term on the pitch).
When it comes to reputation as a clubs history from the beginning Spurs will most likely need at least a couple of hundred years to catch up to a club like Liverpool (even if Spurs also have had some success in the past).
You seem to think everyone's set in stone except Spurs.
PSG is gaining a lot of steam in fan stores around the world. Their brand is getting more valuable each year.
hatterson
Registered User
There's a 0% chance Spurs will be a top 5 revenue club in Europe in the next decade. They still have work to do to become a top 5 revenue club in England, nevermind passing some of the other European elite teams.
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
They also have to win something to command the dollars that other clubs can in England alone in revenue. Winning can translate into more fans internationally, which is their main chance for growth.
Liverpool haven't won anything big since '05 and they're still getting ridiculous sponsor deals that Spurs can't even dream of. They're getting those numbers because they actually have spent some money on people who can get those deals done, and because they've got one of the world's largest followings.
Spurs would need a decade or more of top level performance, along with developing more stars, and probably winning something to even start to reap the financial rewards some of the biggest clubs have.
Liverpool haven't won anything big since '05 and they're still getting ridiculous sponsor deals that Spurs can't even dream of. They're getting those numbers because they actually have spent some money on people who can get those deals done, and because they've got one of the world's largest followings.
Spurs would need a decade or more of top level performance, along with developing more stars, and probably winning something to even start to reap the financial rewards some of the biggest clubs have.
Deficient Mode
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2011
- 60,348
- 2,397
I can't see them passing Liverpool anytime soon even if they do pass Juventus. Liverpool's annual revenue last year was like €130M and 50% higher than Spurs. Only if they win multiple titles in that time span. So far they haven't won anything.
No. I don´t.
Not at a single point have I said it has to happen, but I have described in some detail why Spurs most likely will grow faster than most other top 15-20 of the richest clubs. Don´t think that is all that controversial at all.
And I have specifically pointed out that to become top 5. Teams like PSG, Chelsea and City will have to feel some pain from FFP. If not I believe I said top 10 (considering they are 12th now that also doesn´t seem very controversial).
hatterson
Registered User
Using Deloitte's numbers (not perfect, but pretty good all things considered) they're 12th. They're ~23M Euro behind Dortmund for 11th. But there's another gap between Dortmund and Juventus. To get into the top 10 now they'll have to catch up to Juventus which is a 66M Euro gap. That's 25% of Spurs revenue.
That would be a significant increase for them, so while it's not impossible, I certainly wouldn't count it as likely.
I'm also not sure when you think PSG, Chelsea and City will feel some FFP pain. And even if they do, they're so far ahead of Spurs that catching them seems like a pipe dream.
Chelsea is the "poorest" of those 3 teams, pulling in 420 million euro. Spurs pulled in 257.5 million. That's a 162.5M gap, or 63% of Spurs revenue.
That's a significant amount of growth on it's own, nevermind that Chelsea will also be growing.
1. Spurs didn´t play in the CL that season.
2. New stadium will more than double match day revenues.
3. Deal with NFL.
4. New sponsorship agreements. Points 1-3 will certainly help.
Chelsea will grow with the new stadium of course. Spurs won´t catch them as long as Chelsea are allowed to keep 1 billion pounds in "free" debt to Roman - even if Spurs historically have had more fans than Chelsea.
bluesfan94
Registered User
1. There's no guarantee they'll play in the CL next year or the year after, etc.
2. This is conjecture. It actually likely won't more than double match day revenues. Having more seats means that they can sell more tickets, yes, but by increasing supply drastically and demand staying constant or even increasing slightly, ticket prices must logically drop. Yes, there may be more corporate boxes or what have you, but in a market like London, there's no guarantee that those will be filled at a rate that would "more than double" match day revenues. Plus you then have to account for actually paying for the damn stadium. Arsenal certainly had to and it showed in their transfer activity.
3. Fair
4. Everyone can get new sponsorship agreements. That isn't limited to Spurs. And while they can get new sponsorship agreements, they're still the third most popular team in their city and somewhere below 5th or 6th in their country. Globally, they're below that.
Yes, having a new stadium is good for revenue. But Tottenham isn't unique in that regard. Arsenal just did that. Chelsea is about to do that. West Ham just did that. Those are just teams in the same city as Spurs
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
You're wrong in the numbers from the stadium alone.
If having a brand new, monster stadium was going to make a massive difference in finances and revenues, more clubs would be putting spades in the ground and putting them up all over the place. Sure, they'll stand to make some money, and while the financial market makes borrowing at least affordable, the return they would expect to see on a stadium won't really pay off for 10-15 years down the road. The money they'll have spent on building the place alone will make a massive strain on their finances. If they don't fill it out, which is always a possibility as there is rising ticket prices, lowering demand and a greater spread of product and options, they're going to be in the red. heck, HD with greater tv deals means that the EPL might kill the golden goose in England with pricing out their fans. The return on the new stadium should pay for itself if they can attract top level sponsorship and revenue deals, and that is helped by being in London, but there's only so many corporate tickets, sponsor deals and people willing to pony up for the all encompassing packages that make deals lucrative. Once again, making Spurs a desirable ticket over Chelsea, Arsenal or even West Ham (when you factor that they have a new stadium now and can price their tickets less) in London make it a challenging sell.
If they were winning stuff, which they aren't, there's also a greater return on sponsors and options to having them pay for the stands or stadium or whatever. But they don't presently have that.
It's nice to think about, but it's really hard, and probably borderline impossible for a club to rise into a mega club, global level, without the influx of an oligarch, oil or Chinese consortium.
Oh and the laugh about FFP preventing anything. That's a farce.
If having a brand new, monster stadium was going to make a massive difference in finances and revenues, more clubs would be putting spades in the ground and putting them up all over the place. Sure, they'll stand to make some money, and while the financial market makes borrowing at least affordable, the return they would expect to see on a stadium won't really pay off for 10-15 years down the road. The money they'll have spent on building the place alone will make a massive strain on their finances. If they don't fill it out, which is always a possibility as there is rising ticket prices, lowering demand and a greater spread of product and options, they're going to be in the red. heck, HD with greater tv deals means that the EPL might kill the golden goose in England with pricing out their fans. The return on the new stadium should pay for itself if they can attract top level sponsorship and revenue deals, and that is helped by being in London, but there's only so many corporate tickets, sponsor deals and people willing to pony up for the all encompassing packages that make deals lucrative. Once again, making Spurs a desirable ticket over Chelsea, Arsenal or even West Ham (when you factor that they have a new stadium now and can price their tickets less) in London make it a challenging sell.
If they were winning stuff, which they aren't, there's also a greater return on sponsors and options to having them pay for the stands or stadium or whatever. But they don't presently have that.
It's nice to think about, but it's really hard, and probably borderline impossible for a club to rise into a mega club, global level, without the influx of an oligarch, oil or Chinese consortium.
Oh and the laugh about FFP preventing anything. That's a farce.
1. Of course not, but that would be the same for the clubs with "inflated" numbers in 14/15.
2. Biggest issue with WHL is the corporate boxes - or lack of. Spurs historically is one of the better supported clubs in England. Spurs have been running at a profit for many years now. Bale is worth 20% of a new stadium. But yes - there will be some years where they would have to pay down the stadium - no question.
3. OK.
4. Sure, but those deals where not signed when Spurs where fighting for the title, filled Wembley in the CL, finished a new stadium, made a deal with the NFL etc. I agree that others will increase their deals as well, but Spurs will close part of that gap. Signing a deal with Liverpool now is if anything less compelling than earlier - who would say that about Spurs? Signing a deal with Spurs in 2017 is vastly different than 5 years ago. Not so for Liverpool, Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea. Not sure how anyone can disagree that relative to the others Spurs have taken a bigger step in terms of development and that it will influence their finances relative to the other clubs.
Arsenal would never ever have been as successful as they have been if they had stayed at Highbury. People seem to believe Arsenal have always been a far bigger club than Spurs. Not the case. But when Spurs almost went bankrupt Arsenal had Wenger and built a new ground. They went from being the slightly bigger club to being a far far bigger club. Now we might soon remove one of the "far´s" at least.
WH is not comparable. The Olympic Stadium is big, but a tragedy for watching football. Emirates is actually quite average in that regard as well (obviously much better than the Olympic Stadium, but not very well built when it comes to spectator experience).
Chelsea is the small brother that has gotten a lot of attention through money. Do have the benefit of tourist crowds though - in the city centre.
Not sure if the FFP comment is directed towards me - if so please read what I have written.
Spurs have always been better supported than the quality of the team would suggest. Not sure why, but it is a team people have had a somewhat romantic relationship with for many many years. A bit like Newcastle which also always have had very strong support.
Jeffrey
Registered User
Tottenham could be the new chelsea if they invest massively in their squad and get the sponsorship deals they deserves.
Chelsea was nothing like they are now before Abramovich.
Spurs haver everything thing in their favor. Good young, talented squad & manager. New stadium with great capacity. And they are located in London!
Chelsea was nothing like they are now before Abramovich.
Spurs haver everything thing in their favor. Good young, talented squad & manager. New stadium with great capacity. And they are located in London!
Deficient Mode
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2011
- 60,348
- 2,397
When Abramovich came in the gaps in total revenue between the top clubs in England were far smaller. That's why long-term upheaval in the hierarchy of clubs is less likely today.
bluesfan94
Registered User
Maybe will respond to the whole post but it's important to remember that while Bale is 20% of a stadium, you have to replace him. They tried (unsuccessfully) to do this.
Blender
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2009
- 51,399
- 45,290
It's not like they pocketed that money either. The year they sold Bale they spent £100m on new players. They've done this a few times when selling their top young players to big clubs and it's part of the reason they keep getting good young players.
We’ve got Alli, Dele Alli
I just don’t think you understand
He only cost five mill
He’s better than Ozil
We’ve got Dele Alli
Kinda missed the boat on this Spurs argument. They're definitely doing everything they can to close the gap with the top English clubs, to the point where media is referring to it as the big 6. Hopefully they remain successful on the pitch and growing their brand of it. Cheers from a Canadian fan. Coys!!!
maclean
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2014
- 8,496
- 2,601
top-earning clubs according to Deloitte - Tottenham just behind Dortmund at 12th and 11th respectively
1. Manchester United 689,
2. Barcelona 620,2,
3. Real Madrid 620,1,
4. Bayern Mnichov 592,
5. Manchester City 524,9,
6. Paris Saint Germain 520,9,
7. Arsenal 468,5,
8. Chelsea 447,4,
9. Liverpool 403,8,
10. Juventus 341,1,
11. Dortmund 283,9,
12. Tottenham 279,7,
13. Atlético Madrid 228,6,
14. Schalke 224,5,
15. AS ŘÃm 218,2,
16. AC Milán 214,7,
17. Zenit Petrohrad 196,5,
18. West Ham 192,3,
19. Inter Milán 179,2,
20. Leicester 172,1.
1. Manchester United 689,
2. Barcelona 620,2,
3. Real Madrid 620,1,
4. Bayern Mnichov 592,
5. Manchester City 524,9,
6. Paris Saint Germain 520,9,
7. Arsenal 468,5,
8. Chelsea 447,4,
9. Liverpool 403,8,
10. Juventus 341,1,
11. Dortmund 283,9,
12. Tottenham 279,7,
13. Atlético Madrid 228,6,
14. Schalke 224,5,
15. AS ŘÃm 218,2,
16. AC Milán 214,7,
17. Zenit Petrohrad 196,5,
18. West Ham 192,3,
19. Inter Milán 179,2,
20. Leicester 172,1.
