Author Archives: thespursreport

The Spurs Report: Final Call

I’m calling time on The Spurs Report, and moving my writing to Medium.

It’s been a good run — with 117 posts over two and a half years, ranging from in-depth stadium reporting and financial analysis to rants about Jamie Redknapp. In total, there have been more than 332,000 views from 260,000 visitors — a drop in the ocean compared to bigger websites, but not bad for a tiny little blog way out on its own on the fringes of the Spurs internet community.

However, I’m now keen to focus on other things. I’ll still be writing about Spurs — with a focus on the business side of the club — but by moving my writing to my personal page on Medium, it will enable me to push out into other topics as well.

I will remain busy on Twitter, and look forward to keeping in touch with many of my regular readers on there. For those wanting to get in touch, my email is spursreport@gmx.co.uk.

I’ll keep this blog up — it’s a useful reference tool, and costs nothing. There’s loads in the archives — categories include the new stadium and the club’s finances.

If I’m proud of one piece above all, it’s the long read on Mauricio Pochettino from July 2016. We’re in great hands.

Thanks to everyone who has supported this blog — it’s been a blast.

Charles

Advertisements

Away results, not Wembley, will shape Tottenham’s season

Poch frustrated

By Charles Richards / @spurs_report

If Spurs win all 18 remaining Premier League games at Wembley, Mauricio Pochettino’s team will improve on last season’s home record. Any other scenario — even one single draw — will mean that Tottenham’s home record will be worse.

The curse of Wembley, it appears, is unavoidable.

Last Sunday against Chelsea had the feeling of a one-off — a Cup tie or a big European second-leg encounter. All that pre-game cranking up of the crowd, those flags, that sodding drummer, the feeling of abject finality when Marcus Alonso’s late shot inexplicably found its way past Hugo Lloris, ending Tottenham’s season (or at least that’s what it felt like for a minute or two).

My theory on the supposed “Wembley curse” is that there’s no escaping the narrative, win, lose or draw. It’ll be a bit like Brexit — if things go well, it will be despite Wembley; if things go badly, it’ll be because of Wembley.

The reality, of course, is that the success of Tottenham’s season will be shaped by a far more complicated mix of factors, some internal, others external. But Wembley is such an obviously different factor that the narrative is irresistibly juicy. We’re just going to have to stomach it through the transitional period — and hopefully it’s just a year, unlike the three or four years Chelsea are facing at Wembley while Roman’s monument to himself is built — until the new stadium opens.

This Sunday at Wembley will be about “the real season starts now” — it’s Burnley at home, as bog-standard a Premier League home game as they come; no flags, no Jamie Redknapp lurking weirdly in a gantry for Sky Sports. The only reason this isn’t at 3pm on Saturday, and last on Match of the Day, is because there’s some rugby league on.

Pochettino should know exactly what he’ll get from Burnley — a dogged away performance, a team looking for a point. It’s normality, and if Burnley manage to come away with anything, then Pochettino has more serious problems than the choice of venue.

Spurs were never going to repeat a home record of 17 wins and two draws: Spurs were sensationally good at White Hart Lane last season.

It wasn’t a fluke — Spurs earned those points, and the only “fortunate” result that really springs to mind was the point after being largely outplayed, as always, by Liverpool. (It was a year ago, so of course memories vary). But the law of averages would suggest we’ll come down to earth a bit, even if we play equally well.

Pochettino has achieved a lot in his three years at Spurs — a transformation of club culture, instillation of a clear playing philosophy and tactical advancements each season. The result has been season-by-season improvement.

However, in one area, he has not yet been able to move the needle — Tottenham’s away record.

Here are the home and away points records for the past five seasons, since the start of the AVB era.

Home: 53, 36, 33, 36, 38
Away: 33, 34, 31, 33, 34

Those away records are remarkably similar, no? All within the margin of a single victory over the course of a 19-game campaign.

This is hardly a revelation, and no doubt Pochettino is aware of the failure to improve away results. However, he might argue that away performances have improved, even if the points accumulated haven’t.

Here are the total number of draws, home and away, in the past two seasons:

Home: 2, 6, 3, 3, 5
Away: 6, 7, 4, 3, 4

Spurs have arguably become a more stubborn away outfit — although it appears to be a double edged sword, with both victories and defeats being turned instead into draws. That would certainly fit with how it “feels” to watch Spurs away from home — they do seem to play better, it’s just that the results haven’t gotten better.

The key for Pochettino this term will be finding two or three more away wins. How does he do it? Time will tell. Certainly, improved squad options can’t hurt — I can’t recall a more frustrating away performance than at Sunderland last season, when a tired-looking Spurs team couldn’t find a way past a dreadful home side. In that game, Pochettino turned to the bench and saw Moussa Sissoko and Vincent Janssen, rather than players he could trust to send on and change the game. It’s felt for a couple of seasons now that Spurs miss a quality attacking option — ideally one with real pace or ball-carrying ability — off the bench, beyond Son Heung-min.

But transfers are just one solution — i’d be curious to read any home vs away tactical analysis, to see if there are obvious tweaks that Spurs could make with existing players. A consistent theme from Pochettino has been the scope for improving the mentality of squad — it sounds fluffy, but it’s about the expectation that Spurs will win, no matter the adversity. Pochettino succeeded in transforming the mentality in home matches last season, and so now the question will be if he can transform it when Spurs travel. His work is far from done — there is still the issue of consistently poor European performances to address in due course. The good news is, Poch seems well up for it.

For Pochettino and Spurs this season, the goal is simple: increase the number of away points by more than the decline in number of home points. Or at least, reduce the impact of a likely drop in home points with an increase in away points.

Does that make sense?

OK — now I see it: it’s way easier to write about Wembley being cursed.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.

It’s time for Spurs to shatter the wage structure

By Charles Richards / @spurs_report

For the past three seasons, Spurs have been engaged in a high-wire act, trying to bridge the chasm between the Premier League’s financial elite and also-rans, on a far smaller budget while investing £800m in a shiny new stadium.

Thanks to the brilliant work of Mauricio Pochettino, the discovery of a superstar striker from within the academy and the assembly of a strong and cohesive core of players, Spurs have managed to defy gravity. But now, with the new stadium rising from the ground and the end within touching distance, Spurs have started to sway.

Much has already been written about Danny Rose’s uncomfortable (you can pick your own adjective) comments about the club’s strategy and ambition, and I don’t want rehash these arguments. I’d recommend this excellent piece by Daniel Storey on the context of the comments, and this piece by Alan Fisher captured a lot of my torn emotions about the summer Spurs have had.

Instead, I want to look at what Spurs can do to respond on one of the key issues raised by Rose: the club’s wage structure.

(I’ve recently looked at transfer spending, as well as stadium spending — for new readers, there’s plenty in the archives to get stuck into on the stadium and finances.)

For the past three years, the Spurs wage bill has been more or less flat, hovering around £100m. It is the sixth highest in the league, per the last set of financials. Arsenal have the fifth highest wage bill, and at £195m it is almost double Tottenham’s.

The wage structure at Spurs is widely reported as being a series of tiers. Hugo Lloris and Harry Kane are on top, earning around £100,000 per week. Then there is a tight band of senior players on a tier below, earning between £60,000 and £80,000 — the likes of Toby Alderweireld, Jan Vertonghen and Christian Eriksen — followed by younger players such as Dele and Eric Dier, who are regularly rolled onto new deals until they reach the second tier.

It has been a structure that has worked — the team has performed on the field, and seems to genuinely get along off it. It appears that Pochettino has wanted to maintain this balance for the sake of squad unity, rather than risk bringing in expensive players on higher levels that may disturb the status quo. Up until now, Levy and Pochettino have done a good job of persuading current players to sign new deals and buy into this structure, even if at a discount to what they could earn elsewhere.

The approach was always going to run its course eventually. The question now is: has that moment arrived?

Daniel Levy is a stubborn man, and his reaction to Rose’s interview may well be entrenchment. After all, Rose only recently renewed his contract — no-one forced him to sign it, and contracts should be honoured. Pochettino appears to genuinely be on the same wavelength as Levy on wages and spending, and in his pre-match press conference on Friday, made exactly this point.

As principled a stance as this is, it’s also a losing one — players invariably end up getting what they want.

If the frustration was limited to Rose, perhaps he could be quickly shifted up to Manchester United, the money banked, and a new left back sought. But, as widely reported, it seems that Rose’s views on uncompetitive wages are shared by many within the Spurs squad.

Here’s a simple chart of revenue vs wages. The figures are from club accounts, until financial year 2016. For 2017, I’ve estimated revenue conservatively, based on known changes to PL and UEFA money; wages is harder, but I’ve attempted to gauge the shift in total wage spend based on the comings and goings and contract renewals in past 12 months as reported in the media. The figure that came out was about £115m — it’s very rough, but I want to at least illustrate it.

Rev v Wages to 2017

As you can see, wages are starting to diverge a long way from revenue. It’s really quite a big gap now — too big, from the perspective of the players.

WHAT CAN SPURS DO?

A few ideas have been floated in terms of how Spurs can address the frustration within the camp, and see off any potential mutiny. A unilateral wage bump, a lifting of the ceiling, or an expanded bonus pot for on-field performance. But these seem reactive, like trying to stick something that is broken back together, knowing it’ll never quite be the same.

It may simply be time to accept that the status quo has changed, abandon the wage structure altogether, and deal with player contracts on a case-by-case basis.

It’s risky, but if players are complaining in public about being underpaid and about a lack of squad strength, they are less likely to be disappointed to see new signings or current teammates suddenly earning a lot more than them. Instead of the goal of the wage structure being unity, it becomes about ambition — players see teammates’ earnings jump, and accept it in the knowledge that the club is trying everything to win (and that their turn will come).

Levy isn’t stupid — he knows that he’s had the benefit of a relatively low wage bill for several years, enabling him to shovel money into the stadium project. There was always going to come a time when this ended. For several years now, we’ve been talking about Spurs being a “young” team, and they’ve been paid like it. Relatively, Spurs may still be quite young, but actually, this is a group of players in their prime. Of the core 15 or 16, only Winks and Dele are under 23. Kane is 24, Eriksen 25, Trippier 26 — these aren’t kids.

The wage structure has increasingly become a limitation. Players who could have strengthened the team — Sadio Mane for example — have gone elsewhere, forcing Spurs to settle for poorer alternatives.

How would this new approach work in practice? Next up on the contract list is surely Alderweireld — he’s one of the best CBs in the league, so pay him like it, even if it is more than Lloris and Kane. Toby isn’t stupid — he knows what he is worth, and simply isn’t going to accept that what should be the biggest deal of his career is far below market rate. After Toby, it is probably Eric Dier’s turn — again, pay him close to what he is worth, or at least match the highest earners. Spurs need to be realistic — to lose one of the best back five in the league last season is unfortunate, to lose three or four would be careless.

(BTW, I utterly disagree with the “he’s earning more in week than most people earn in a year so he should shut up” complaint — elite sportspeople have enormously valuable skills and very short careers that can end in an instant. They are also humans — people want to earn what they are worth.)

Spurs can never top what these players could earn at Man City — clubs fueled by petrodollars will always be able to outbid those run rationally. But Spurs can offer a competitive wage, in a team that can contend for the title, a manager they respect, London and the best new stadium in Europe from next summer. It’s not a bad pitch.

CAN SPURS AFFORD THIS?

“Hang on”, you’re probably thinking, “how on earth are Spurs going to pay for this?”

I was going to go into a big spiel here with numbers and projections, but ultimately, there is no accurate information for individual player wages, and it’s hard to see where stadium funding begins and ends in terms of football-related revenue vs debt.

But at a higher-level, in the last accounts, wage-to-turnover ratio was 47.4%. Under my projection of the next accounts, the ratio drops to 41.3% — that’s incredibly low. Manchester United are the only other club below 50 percent. Arsenal stand at 55%, while Liverpool are at 69%. With a stadium to finance, it’s not realistic to expect Spurs to stand spending in an unrestrained way — but it is realistic to expect Spurs to spend in a competitive way.

If Spurs were to maintain the current 47.4% ratio into the next financial year, that would mean a wage bill of about £133m — that’s £33m more than is currently spent. Spurs could offer nine players £70,000 per week wage increases, and still the wage-to-turnover ratio would drop in the next accounts. (Of course it’s more complex than that with bonuses and so forth, but you get the point).

Spurs have issued a raft of new deals in the past financial year, including many senior players, but it would appear there is still significant room for more, if the club chooses. And revenue is going to climb further in the next two years — for example, Spurs will have the new Nike and AIA deals showing in the FY 2018 accounts. There’s also the chance to sell huge numbers of tickets at Wembley — all those outrageous £3.50 booking fees will start adding up — and then hopefully we’ll be in the new stadium.

With concerns over growth of TV rights income, fears of stadium cost overruns and no naming rights sponsor, plus an inflated transfer market where value is hard to gauge, let alone find, there are a lot of factors weighing on the club’s decision making. The hope is that Levy doesn’t get seduced by the complexity — Spurs have a team that is good enough to win trophies, and appealing enough to help sell those swanky premium seats at the new stadium. More depth is needed, but the core was cheap to assemble — if the price of success is that it is a bit more expensive to keep together than planned, then so be it. It’s a pretty good problem, in the grand scheme of things. It certainly feels there’s significant scope to increase wages before getting into the territory of the club spending money that doesn’t exist. Hell may need to freeze over first, but it may be that Levy and Joe Lewis reach a point where they accept it’s time to push the envelope a bit on football spending to take that final step.

Is Levy prepared to swallow some pride, and some cost, to keep this squad together? Pochettino’s masterful handling of Friday’s press conference — his “disappointed dad” tone was pitch perfect — showed both firmness, and a little flex. The fact the agency and club were able to get together on a statement to de-escalate the situation beforehand helped, and suggested plenty of work is going on behind the scenes. Pragmatism may yet rule the day — contrast that to the situation with Liverpool and the timing of Coutinho’s transfer request, designed to make Jurgen Klopp look a fool.

Danny Rose, in his hopelessly unprofessional (and scorchingly honest) way, may have done Spurs a favour. It’s time to recognise that the environment has changed, shift strategy quickly, and take a sledgehammer to that wage structure.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.

Analysis: Is the stadium stopping Spurs from spending?

nasdaq730aAfter ringing the opening bell at the Nasdaq Stock Exchange in New York, Daniel Levy was in a punchy mood during a Q&A with investors as part of Tottenham’s pre-season tour to the USA.

In a near hour-long session, the Spurs chairman lashed out at overspending by rival Premier League clubs, and defiantly backed his prudent approach to managing the club’s finances. However, for fans still awaiting the first new signing of the summer, his comments on the club’s transfer policy caused eyebrows to be raised.

Denying that the new £800m stadium was stopping Spurs from bringing in fresh blood, Levy stated: “It’s not impacting us on transfers at the moment as we’re not yet in a place where we’ve found the player we definitely want but can’t afford.”

For a club that finished seven points behind Premier League winners Chelsea, crashed out in the Champions League group stage and failed for a ninth season in a row to win any silverware, it seemed dreadfully complacent.

There was a huge amount to admire in what Levy said about his vision for the club: backing local talent, earning success and not buying it, investing in infrastructure with the long-term future of the club in mind. However, the comment on transfers seemed an odd one as soon as it was uttered, and certainly makes the chairman a hostage to fortune.

Mauricio Pochettino’s subsequent Baldrick-esque reassurance to fans — “We have a plan!” — did little to ease the concern that Spurs are missing an opportunity to strengthen. A brutal dismantling by Manchester City in Nashville only heightened fears.

I wanted to look in a little more depth at Tottenham’s approach to transfers, and in particular try to gauge what impact the stadium is having on the club’s transfer spending.

For those interested in learning more about the club’s finances, I have written in detail about stadium funding through the construction phase, naming rights, rising construction costs and club accounts. Dig in, and do join me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.

The three-phase transfer approach

If you look at the past two summers, Spurs have followed a similar three-phase strategy in their approach to transfers.

In phase one, “essential business” is done. In 2015, Kevin Wimmer, Kieran Trippier and Toby Alderweireld came in early. In 2016, it was Victor Wanyama and Vincent Janssen.

In phase two, there is a long selling period, as Spurs try to maximise returns on those leaving the club (for example Ryan Mason, Nacer Chadli and Kyle Walker).

In phase three, there is a final purchasing period as the club goes bargain hunting and filling squad holes in the final weeks of the window (Son Heung-min, Georges-Kevin Nkoudou, Moussa Sissoko and so on).

This summer, Spurs have skipped straight to phase two. This early spending wasn’t just about filling glaring needs — but also spoke to the club’s approach to the market. Tottenham’s strength has never been in outspending rivals, out-scouting or out-analysing — it has been about having quality market intelligence. Knowing, say, that Trippier had a £3.5m release clause, or that Wanyama wasn’t re-signing his contract and wanted to reunite with Poch. This year, for whatever reason, that sort of bargain was never available. You suspect Spurs hoped Everton would opt to dump Ross Barkley quickly rather than see his situation fester with his contract winding down, but Everton have chosen for various reasons to cling on. There are also no immediate positional needs — a right back will be needed, but Trippier is first-choice for the time being so Spurs can afford to shop around.

Is this an ideal strategy? Of course not, given the number of potentially useful players who get snapped up before Spurs come into the second purchasing phase, and the poor returns on those bought late in the window.

Is this a logical strategy for a club that is also trying to finance a stadium? It would seem so.

Ring-fenced vs sell-to-buy

Levy has previously spoken about the transfer budget being “ring-fenced” — essentially, a portion of club funds are set aside for transfer activity with the aim of ensuring Spurs have a competitive team when the new stadium opens. However, how much exactly is ring-fenced is another question entirely.

Trying to think on a practical level, Spurs must be facing huge cash management challenges at the moment, ensuring the stadium continues to advance at the required rate. Even with the £25m credit facility agreed as part of the stadium funding package, Spurs can’t afford to take any chances: there’s virtually no room for manoeuvre on the timeframe. Think back to the story where Spurs purchased cranes for the site as they weren’t able to wait for rental cranes to become available.

There’s a lot of talk about net spend over the course of the season, as the numbers are remarkable. Since the Abu Dhabi takeover in August 2008, Manchester City have a net spend of £970m, while in the same period, Spurs have made a net transfer profit of £60m.

But I want to drill down a bit further to see to see the cash management in action: is there a “ring-fenced” amount Spurs can spend, or actually are Spurs in a situation where we must sell to buy, in order to avoid going into the red and ensure maximum available funds for stadium construction.

The chart below shows all transfers since the start of the 2014/15 season, in chronological order. For deadline day, I’ve gone by time the deal was announced on the club website — deadline day in September 2014 was a busy one. The line shows the cumulative balance — so exactly how much is in the transfer kitty, using June 2014 as the starting point. The values are what’s on Wikipedia — it’s not perfect, but it’s just what was closest to hand.

Spurs transfers June 14 to August 17

A few things to point out:

1. Spurs have only dipped into the red three times, and barely. The first was on deadline day in Sept 2014, so this was for a matter of hours and it is a technicality. The second was after signing Vincent Janssen last summer. Can you recall the haggling over that deal, dragging on for weeks? Spurs simply didn’t want to spend the extra four or five million AZ were demanding — this deal pushed Spurs £4.4m into the red, until Alex Pritchard was sold to Norwich. The final dip was for Moussa Sissoko — however, this was widely reported to be an installment-based deal, so you can see why this so appealed to Levy. A £30m player, available for £6m initially — perfect for a club managing cash flow, just a shame he is crap.

2. Think back to Georges-Kevin Nkoudou and last summer’s barbershop ITK. It was rumoured he was on his way to London in mid-July, but his transfer wasn’t announced until the end of August. All sorts of reasons were floated — Marseille were being taken over, Clinton N’Jie may have been stalling on a return to France — but was Tottenham’s cash flow also an issue? Having dipped into the red to complete the Janssen deal, it took Spurs until late August to offload Pritchard, Yedlin, Chadli and Mason, while Nkoudou languished in a hotel.

3. You can see the bursts of activity — a few players are sold, a couple come in, a few more leave, and it continues. Up until Man City took a liking to Kyle Walker, the amount in the kitty never got about £36.4m. Now, Spurs have, by this very rough measure, £74.4m.

So, there’s plenty in the kitty if Pochettino wants to spend. You hope, “ringfenced” means this accumulated transfer wealth is separate from the stadium funding and is entirely for squad strengthening (on transfer fees or wages), rather than getting rolled into construction.

Ongoing risk factors

image (12)

Spurs have now secured the main bank finance for the stadium — a £350m loan package, with £25m credit facility and a £50m contingency fund provided by Tavistock Group, the ultimate owners of the club. Coupled with the £240m already poured into the project and funds from advanced hospitality sales, Spurs are in a good place.

However, there are two main risk factors remaining with the stadium. First, a naming rights partner has not yet been found. This leaves a hole — perhaps as high as £300m, although that amount always seemed optimistic — in the project finances. Second, while construction is ongoing, there is the risk of cost overruns. It was reported that during the demolition of the South Stand, an issue with gas pipes delayed work briefly — these little things can add up. It certainly looks like Spurs are going full bore at the moment, judging by the webcams, but if the timetable starts slipping, more money may have to be put in than was originally planned.

In this context, it is understandable that Spurs remain cautious on transfer activity for the foreseeable future. The hope is that, once naming rights are secured and the stadium is completed, Spurs can start to move more aggressively. That may not be January, but perhaps by next summer, the constraints will ease and Spurs can focus more on securing targets they want, when they want them.

Wages to turnover

Of course, transfer fees are just one part of the picture — another issue is wages. There is concern among some Spurs fans about the club being uncompetitive in wages, risking the departures of key players and limiting arrivals. Personally, I’m not quite as concerned. Of course, Manchester City will be able to offer more than Spurs can offer — but Spurs could double the wages of everyone at the club, and that would still be the case.

Here is a look at how wage growth has moved versus revenue from financial year 2005 to 2016, the last published. As you can see, wage growth has stalled, while revenue has continued to slowly climb.

Revenue vs Wages 05 to 16

Next season, revenue is going to go through the roof — simply adding in known amounts for Premier League and Champions League revenue distribution, Spurs revenue should jump to nearly £280m. And it will climb again in the next year with both new Nike and AIA deals kicking in.

In short, Spurs have plenty of money to increase the wage bill — if the club wants to. The wage bill is artificially low at the moment — in FY 2016, a lot of high earners came off the books, such as Paulinho, Soldado and so on. In the past year, there have been more than a dozen contract renewals, so the wage bill should jump somewhat. It currently stands at £100m — if Spurs were to maintain the same 47.4% wage to turnover ratio, that would mean a wage bill of £133m or thereabouts. What isn’t known is the amount of bonuses that are paid out — there may be Champions League kickers and the like. The next accounts may give us more insight.

Spurs being strict on wages isn’t just about Daniel Levy and the stadium — it’s also about Pochettino maintaining the harmonious environment in the squad. It’s frustrating during the transfer window, but so long as Spurs continue to move firmly on offering key players new deals to ensure the core of the team is in place once the new stadium opens, then most fans will be happy enough.

There are lots of other factors that have an impact on how Spurs act in the transfer market — relationships with certain agents, a weak scouting department and failure to embrace analytics, the broader context of the Premier League’s financial situation, the focus on youth, a starting XI that is hard to improve, the personalities of Pochettino and Levy, and so on.

The stadium is undoubtedly a huge constraint, but it’s not an excuse. The key to the success of the stadium will be ensuring it is full — and the best way to ensure that is by having a successful, appealing team. I’m pretty sure Levy and Co know this. There is money in the kitty, and room on the wage bill — now it’s just a case of finding those players who will realistically join and will be able to push us over the line.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.

The 3am transfer feeling — a long Spurs summer

skysports-ross-barkley-everton-premier-league-football_3906418

The human spirit is at its lowest at 3am.

It’s the time the night feels darkest, and the daylight feels the furthest away; at 3am the tiredness is at its deepest, it skews our judgement and weakens our resolve.

For Spurs fans, mid-July is our 3am.

Last season seems like it’s from another era, and the new season is still an agonizing few weeks away. All around, we see other clubs coming to life, new signings signifying the dawning of a new day, while at Spurs, there’s barely a flicker of activity. It does funny things to us.

Take Ross Barkley.

At the weekend, idle and with nothing Spurs-related to occupy my thoughts, I had my first “well maybe Ross Barkley would be a useful player to have on the bench” thought. You can’t unthink thoughts like that: you can try not to have them again, but we’re not really in control of our minds as football fans, especially not in mid-July. Next time it’ll be “well maybe his set piece delivery will be useful if Christian Eriksen gets injured”; then it’ll be “well maybe Pochettino will work his magic and the penny will drop” and there’s no coming back from that.

It’s a slippery slope, and it’s only the chortling of Everton fans — remarkably similar to the reaction of Newcastle fans over the mooted sale of Moussa Sissoko last summer — that’s holding me back. I keep reminding myself of what I’ve seen every time I’ve seen Barkley — an unfulfilled talent, whose technical and physical ability is badly undermined by a lack of defensive discipline and limited footballing IQ. His failure to kick on in 2015/16 could be forgiven due to the presence of Roberto Martinez at Goodison Park, but not his poor season last time around. Empty stats, empty head — repeat, and hope the other thoughts go away.

Take Juan Foyth.

There’s no evidence, really, that Juan Foyth exists. There are a few YouTube videos, but they could easily be someone else entirely — all we have is the captions. He’s supposedly been touted around various European big-ish guns — Spurs, Roma, PSG, Dortmund — but no one has actually set eyes on the chap yet. His Wikipedia entry was changed to show he’d joined Spurs, which may have seemed exciting, if it weren’t for the fact that someone is having some fun with this particular Wiki, having previously changed it to say his father is US actor Alan Alda. Are we sure the whole story isn’t just some elaborate Wiki joke?

But, with nothing else to cling to, we hang on every word. “Spurs offering £5m, but Estudiantes want him back on loan”, “Spurs trying to sort our work permit”, “Juan Sebastian Veron has recommended him to Pochettino”. Nevermind that the “my mate Juan Sebastian says he’s a top, top player” may not be the best basis for a modern transfer policy. Someone wrote that Juan Foyth is the “Argentinian John Stones”, and when we all laughed at that, the narrative was adjusted: “Juan Foyth is like a young Toby Alderweireld.” Just fucking sign him, Daniel, even if it costs every penny of the Kyle Walker money.

Take Ricardo Pereira.

He’s got a 22 million euro release clause, don’t you know. Looks fantastic on that six-second video against St Etienne that keeps getting tweeted around. Simple — Spurs just trigger it, less than half what we got from City for Walker, and we win the transfer window. He may be joining Juventus? Nonsense, he’s coming to Spurs. Issues over player representation? Nonsense, he’s coming to Spurs. Oh, Spurs were never actually interested? Yup, thought that all along. Can’t believe everything you read in the papers, not with all this fake news floating around.

Anyway, we don’t need to sign a right back — we’ve got Kyle Walker-Peters coming through. What’s the point in having a youth academy if we don’t use our youngsters? Pochettino is a fullback whisperer, he’ll have Walker-Peters playing like the other Kyle within minutes. “Trippier might get injured?” “We’ve got Champions League football again?” “Kyle Walker-Peters hasn’t played a single first-team minute in his career?” Sorry, missed that. That Marcus Edwards looks a player, doesn’t he?

Take Mateo Kovacic.

Actually, I really want Kovacic, so everything that I’ve read via Google Translate is true.

25 days to go.

Thanks for reading. Follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.

Q&A: Your questions answered on the new Spurs stadium and the state of the club’s finances

image (10)

Charles Richards / @spurs_report

I have written extensively about the new Spurs stadium and finance issues on this blog for the past two years. I get a steady stream of questions from Spurs fans keen to know more about the stadium, and the club’s financial health. In particular, the jump in construction costs to £800m has caused a considerable amount of concern.

Borrowing the idea from more imaginative bloggers, I asked my Twitter followers to send in their questions — and boy did you. I had more than 40 questions, *most* of which were serious. I’ve grouped the questions into subjects, and tried to answer as many as I can.

NAMING RIGHTS

@KarnaRohit
Any chance we can still have it called White Hart Lane ? How much are the naming rights going for ?
@hertfordlilly
How far off are we from finalising naming rights? This year’s performance must mean we are in a stronger bargaining position?

There is zero chance the new stadium will be called White Hart Lane — well, unless you have £300m burning a hole in your back pocket and want to buy the rights for the next 10 to 15 years. Daniel Levy has made clear, from the outset of this project, that Spurs will look to sell naming rights, and nothing will make him deviate from this plan. It is an integral part of the project funding.

In terms of naming rights, we’re now into the window of when the club may announce it. Levy has previously stated that a deal is typically agreed after the midway point in construction: sponsors want to know the stadium is going to be delivered on time and as specified. In terms of an “optimum” time — you think once demolition of old White Hart Lane is complete, this would be the time to do it. That should be around September — but it is just conjecture. The announcement that Spurs were renewing the AIA partnership until the end of 2022 suggested there won’t be a joint shirt-stadium sponsorship arrangement such as Arsenal have with Emirates. It seems unlikely Spurs would agree to a short extension with AIA if a naming rights deal weren’t signed and sealed.

Whenever I tweet the words “naming rights”, a bunch of people say “it’s going to be Nike”. I’m pretty confident it won’t be — it’s a building, not a superstar striker. I wrote about naming rights a while back, and urged caution on what Spurs could expect — the talked-about £30m per year seems extremely optimistic. I hope I’m proved wrong — Spurs have picked a good time to go up a level in league performance, and the NFL tie-in may appeal to some companies.

WEMBLEY

@njs10
Are we going to make more money next season at Wembley vs last season at WHL and how does that compare to season after at new stadium?
@jakemrich3
How will Wembley affect revenue? If we get nothing from food but how much of ticket sales do we get and will it counter the rent?

It is extremely hard to forecast what impact playing at Wembley will have on Tottenham’s bottom line. First, we don’t know how many tickets/hospitality packages Spurs will sell — maybe we’ll sell out every game, but I strongly doubt it — and second, we don’t know how much Spurs are paying. I’ve seen figures of around £20m per year bandied around. But do Wembley take a slice of ticketing income? And how are concession sales split? We just don’t know.

(Update: Spurs will NOT receive proceeds for concession sales. See comment below, with link to THST minutes)

However, we do know one thing: when full, Wembley is a cash cow, there’s a reason two Champions League finals and countless other major sporting events have been hosted there. If Spurs can come close to selling it out each week, and make a good stab at the corporate hospitality market, then, even with the rental fee subtracted, Spurs should easily exceed the modest £40m or so matchday revenue from White Hart Lane.

On the subject, here’s a fun fact: Daniel Levy once tried to buy Wembley. Talk about things coming full circle.

WAGES

@WindyCOYS
Do you have a feel for (or better, actual info) whether our players are *actually* underpaid compared to similar players at wealthier clubs? And, if so, how long will we need at new WHL before we can expect to see increase in wage spending (i.e. how long did it take other clubs)?
@m13tul
Revenue 2 wages we have always been 40% to 48%. If we try and up that figure to 55% will it make enough of a impact and what is he downside

Spurs had a wage bill of £100m in 2016, and revenue stood at £209m. The average wage bill of the other top six was £211m. Quite simply, Spurs have been playing in a different league to the other five teams, and it only underlines what a remarkable job Mauricio Pochettino has done.

However, things change quickly.

In the coming years, Tottenham’s revenue is going to soar: the next accounts will show Champions League revenue and the new PL deal (income from the latter alone will jump from £95m to £148m). From next season, we’ll have the additional income from Wembley, as well as another season of Champions League football. After that we should be into our new stadium and all the additional revenue that comes with that. There will also be the uptick from the next kit deal.

By my (very rough) projection, Tottenham’s revenue should jump to around £275 million next season, and the only way afterwards is up. Of course, Spurs will have stadium financing costs to absorb, but there is significant scope to increase the wage bill as required.

Spurs aren’t standing still. In the current accounting period, 13 Spurs players have signed new contracts, while Champions League participation likely will have triggered significant bonuses.

Are Spurs players underpaid? Sure they are — every single one could dramatically increase their earnings if they moved to another top six club. Ultimately, Chelsea and Man City are billionaire playthings and will always be able to offer more than a rationally run club such as Spurs. But Spurs, with every window that goes by, will be in a better position to compete. While we’re offering Champions League football, a chance to compete for trophies and be part of a close-knit and ambitious squad, plus the best manager in the league, we’ve got points in our favour too.

I don’t think the relatively low wages is just a case of Daniel Levy driving a hard bargain, Pochettino also appears to have made a virtue out of keeping a relatively fair balance of incomes among the squad. This will remain true through the years ahead — you’ll see the likes of Dele, Eric Dier and Harry Kane regularly sign new contracts, each time bumping them higher and higher, creating new ceilings. If Kyle Walker moves to Manchester this summer, it will be spun as “Spurs can’t afford to keep Walker”; but actually the situation is far more complex. Walker allowed his head to be turned, in the heat of a title race — for Pochettino, this may be an unforgivable breach of the team ethic by a player who is ultimately relatively easily replaced.

As for wage-to-turnover ratio, actually for Spurs it has rarely been in the 40 to 48 percent bracket. Generally, in the last decade, it has been between 50 to 60 percent. It topped out at 65 percent in 2013 — spending more on wages is no guarantee of success.

Spurs are hoping to bring it to about 45 percent through the stadium construction phase — but ultimately, keeping this special squad together has far greater financial benefits than whatever savings could be made achieving that ratio.

You can read my analysis of the 2016 accounts here, and I explored the issue of balancing stadium and on-pitch success here.

OWNERSHIP

@stevecco
THFC in unprecedented position for title challenge. Balancing the books is laudable but why is the owner so reluctant to dip into own pocket

I’m guessing, the photos that spread about “Uncle” Joe Lewis’s new yacht didn’t go down too well?

As Spurs majority owner, Lewis has been consistent through his tenure: he doesn’t speak, and he doesn’t put significant money into the club. Spurs has always been an investment — ENIC stands for English National Investment Company. It’s been a hugely successful one. When ENIC first bought a 27% share in 2001, the deal valued Spurs at around £81m. The value now is comfortably above £1 billion.

Lewis’s worth is estimated at around $5.7bn, per Forbes, but, there has never been any indication that it is for spending. Nothing is going to change at this point. Personally, I’m fine with the current ownership — Lewis isn’t extracting money from the club in dividends, or borrowing against its assets personally, while Daniel Levy is an experienced and competent chairman who cares about the club. Success earned is far more satisfying than success bought — whether it’s dodgy Chinese tycoons, unpleasant Qataris or spivs pretending to be billionaires, be careful what you wish for.

DEBT

@FrankMersland
How huge is the clubs debt stipulated to be when the stadium is built? And how much to be paid in annual mortgage/interest?
@jilllewis33
Seen suggestion Arse made big thing of making funding streams public while we’ve been more secretive. Any cause for concern/funding gaps?
@Phon1k
We will be the most indebted football club in the world when the stadium opens, cant uncle joe lewis just pay it all off?

The simple — and scary — answer: we don’t yet know how big the debt will be, or how much it will cost each year. Spurs have agreed a £350m funding package with three banks, and this will be the main element of the finance. But, with costs set to top £800m, more money is going to need to be found. Naming rights and future ticket sales are the main two elements to add to the funding mix — but it’s not clear how much Spurs will actually be able to bring in and if another debt facility may be required. By my (very rudimentary) assessment, Arsenal’s finance cost peaked at £47m, and hovered around £40m for four years before being refinanced to a lower annual payment. Arsenal pay around £20m per year on their Emirates “mortgage”. Spurs will likely pay more as we are borrowing more, but it’s impossible to say how much it will be until the details are known. We’ll get our first look in the next accounts. In terms of length, think the mortgage on your house — this will be a long-term arrangement.

The transparency question is an interesting one. There’s a balance to be struck between keeping fans informed and protecting commercial information; Spurs will reliably err on the side of the latter. It’s just part of Levy’s personality, and isn’t going to change. The club has said it will announce the funding package, and I would expect it to explain the financing costs when the annual report is published. But we’re not going to get a running commentary, as the saying goes.

Will Spurs be the most indebted football club in the world? It depends how you measure it. Here’s a handy guide.

Manchester United’s net debt, at last recording, was £409.3m — Spurs may or may not end up topping this (I suspect Spurs will, not least as the club has already invested heavily in the training centre). United have that debt for the privilege of being owned by the Glazer family, while Spurs are going to have the best new stadium in the world. Technically, there’s a clear leader in the debt stakes — on paper at least, Chelsea owe Roman Abramovich £1.053bn.

And no, Uncle Joe isn’t paying off Tottenham’s debt.

NFL

@brits_endzone
Is the plan for the new stadium to be the home of the NFL London franchise (if it happens). If so do you think that’s good for spurs overall

Spurs have made clear they are building a home not just for themselves, but also for the NFL if the American league decides it wishes to put a franchise into London. The NFL has put a small amount of money in — around £10m up front plus a 20-game agreement that will be worth tens of millions — and has been actively engaged through the design and construction phase.

A year ago, I wrote that it appeared that the NFL was close to pushing the button on a London franchise, but there has been little in way of developments since then. There are major logistical hurdles: training, travel, tax, and those are just the things that begin with “T”. There’s another scenario, in which rather than having a franchise, the NFL plays a full eight-game schedule in London (or a full eight-game schedule overseas, including London, Mexico City and wherever else they take games). It works well with a 32-team league — each team plays overseas every other year, and loses a home game every four years. It gives London fans the chance to see regular NFL football, but without the risk of having to endure a terrible team such as the Jaguars on a permanent basis.

What does this mean for Spurs? The NFL deal is a winner as it guarantees that at least two of the 16 non-Spurs major event slots are used. Each one will probably be worth between £2m and £3m for Spurs, so the more they can get booked out, the better. The NFL connection may offer some marginal uplift in terms of naming rights, and modestly boost Tottenham’s profile in the USA. But if Cameron Carter-Vickers kicks on and represents Team USA regularly, that would probably be a far greater boost. If the NFL does decide it wants a franchise in London, then Spurs can help in other ways — for example in helping build a training facility, accommodating players, and so forth. Hotspur Way is becoming home-from-home for NFL players visiting the UK — they all head up there for marketing work, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has visited.

TRANSFERS

@ZevRoberts
How much money realistically do we have to spend in the coming transfer windows?

Whatever Spurs spend, it will be dwarfed by what the other members of the top six spend, and possibly a few of those below. But there is money to spend if needed — Spurs found £30m on deadline day last summer for Moussa Sissoko, for example. I’d expect Spurs to have around £30m to £40m net over the next couple of summers, plus whatever profits can be rolled in from player trading. This summer, there is £18m of Nabil Bentaleb money to spend, and likely a decent profit on Kevin Wimmer if he moves on. Plus there could well be Kyle Walker money to spend. On the one hand, we’re not going to spend as much as Manchester United or Manchester City; but on the other hand, we have far less work to do. There’s nothing that should stop Spurs competing for talented youngsters such as Ryan Sessegnon, or spending big to fill the troubled right-sided midfield position.

REVENUE

@mepfish
Current match day revenue is £40m vs Arse £100m. Post stadium build will we eliminate this differential?
@craig4589
Aside from incr revenue from ticket sales, what are the significant commercial opps the new stad brings? What extra revenue could we expect?
@lewkc1
How, specifically (like by revenue stream, can Spurs close the gap with other 5 and how does stadium help that?

The aim of the stadium isn’t to eliminate the gap in matchday revenue with Arsenal, it is to put Arsenal behind us. It’s not a design statement like Roman’s coliseum, if Chelsea’s new stadium is ever built: everything Spurs have done is about maximising revenue. Even without the NFL connection and facilities, it feels very American — designed to make you spend time there and open your wallet, whether you are in the South Stand, or in a Sky Box. Things have moved on a lot in the decade since the Emirates was built.

So aside from beers and burgers, how else can Spurs make money? There are 16 non-Spurs major events allowed each year, two of which are blocked out by the NFL. Spurs will want to fill as many of these as possible, earning between £2m to £3m a time. They may get some help from AEG to fill these slots. In addition, the club is marketing the stadium as a year-round destination, aiming to attract visitors to the Tottenham experience, restaurants and stadium tours; there will also, no doubt, be conferences hosted within the stadium. This will feel more tangible once the hotel and luxury housing is developed on the southern portion of the site — bless it, but Tottenham High Road is hardly Regents Street.

The area Spurs continue to lag most seriously is in commercial revenue. While Manchester United are a money-making machine, and Manchester City pump revenues to evade FFP, Spurs continue to fall further and further behind. The new Nike deal sums up the situation: a £30m annual fee brings parity with the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool, but, seemingly out of nowhere, Chelsea tore up its Adidas deal and signed up with Nike for £60m per year. Spurs don’t seem aggressive or well-connected in this particular market, which is why I’m cautious on naming rights. For now, all Spurs can do is keep on winning and hope this brings new deals.

ACCESS

@basdaly How many Wheelchair Accessible Seats will there be in the New stadium ? Thanks

Per the planning documents, there will be 259 wheelchair spaces in the new stadium. In old White Hart Lane, there were just 51.

I’ve not yet seen confirmation of final number of wheelchair spaces as the seating configuration has been tweaked in the past two years. But, there’s no excuse for a brand new stadium in accessibility. If you look at the stadium cameras now, you can make out some of the areas for disabled fans — right in the centre, not tucked away in the corners.

The full section of the planning statement is here:

Screenshot 2017-05-22 at 9.48.24 PM

READINESS

@pasavito
What happens if new stadium isn’t ready in Aug 2018? Could we play in a stadium that is maybe 4/5′s complete? Would we be allowed to?

The stadium, quite simply, has to be ready. The aim is to be ready for July 2018 — that will enable test events to take place before the season starts, or, heaven forbid, something like Europa League qualification. If it slips into August, there are contingencies — Spurs could open the season with a block of away fixtures, similar to what Liverpool did last summer as their new stand was delayed. Essentially, this gives Spurs until mid September due to the international break. After that, if the stadium still isn’t ready, it would be a second year at Wembley. Daniel Levy has confirmed that there is a contingency arrangement in place for that scenario. Unfortunately, Premier League rules prevent a team from having two home stadiums in a season, so there’s no chance of switching after Christmas, say.

It won’t be possible to play in a partially finished stadium — Spurs will be building the sliding pitch underneath the south stand, so it simply won’t work. Perhaps there is some leeway in terms of internal fit-out, but it promises to be an enormously difficult and stressful 15 months.

In terms of markers, Levy has said that the roof should start to go on in late January/early February 2018. If this happens, things are looking good. Spurs are pretty much working around the clock — here’s hoping they don’t discover any rare newts under old White Hart Lane.

That’s all I have time for — thanks to everyone who sent questions in. If you are looking for answers to specific queries, try the iSpurs section of the club website, or the stadium minisite — there’s a lot of information online. Some I couldn’t answer! If it’s really gnawing away at you, hit me up on Twitter or in the comments — it’s always nice to talk Spurs in the long summer month between post-season and pre-season tours.

How do Spurs get better?

FBL-ENG-PR-TOTTENHAM-SWANSEA

By Charles Richards / @spurs_report

The Premier League is a show that never ends, and with the 2016/17 campaign done and dusted, attention moves immediately to 2017/18.

While players enjoy a well-earned summer holiday (after the dreaded post-season tour), planning for the next campaign will intensify: the transfer market waits for no-one.

For Spurs, after a magnificent season in which only the sustained excellence of Chelsea denied the club some much-wanted silverware, the question that will be asked by the likes of Mauricio Pochettino and Daniel Levy is a simple one: “How do we get better”?

Unlike the Manchester clubs, Spurs have few gaping holes to fill in the transfer market; unlike Chelsea and Liverpool, there is less need for an extensive deepening of the squad to cope with enhanced demands of European football.

But does that mean Spurs can stand still? Absolutely not. The club only needs to look at Arsenal to see the dangers that complacency can bring.

Speaking before the White Hart Lane finale, Pochettino made clear that he wasn’t going to let the summer drift by: “We are so ambitious and always want to improve. We are building step by step for our future. We are preparing for the next season in all the areas we need to improve, and we believe we can improve and be stronger.”

By way of perspective, Spurs got a LOT better from 2015/16 to 2016/17.

  • Spurs gained 16 extra points — increasing from 70 to 86
  • Spurs cut down the number of draws from 13 to 8
  • Spurs scored 17 more goals, increasing the total from 69 to 86
  • Spurs increased goal difference by +26, from +34 to +60
  • Spurs were unbeaten at home, and won all home matches against top six rivals bar Liverpool

This is impressive for a variety of reasons. For starters, Spurs were improving from an already strong base — a 3rd place finish, not an artificially low mid-table position. Also, Spurs didn’t have the same luck with injuries as in Pochettino’s first two campaigns. Harry Kane, Toby Alderweireld, Mousa Dembele and Jan Vertonghen all missed more than a month worth of games; while Harry Winks, Danny Rose and Erik Lamela missed substantially more.

By nature of how good Spurs were in 2016/17, improvements in 2017/18 are likely to be more incremental in nature: we’re highly unlikely to improve by 16 points again. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t clear areas for improvement:

  • Spurs won just 9 away games, joint lowest among the top six
  • Spurs won just two points in away games against other top six sides
  • Spurs won only 10 points out of a possible 21 in October and November, during the Champions League group stages
  • Spurs failed to advance from their Champions League group, and embarrassed themselves in the Europa League

There was also the issue of the lack of silverware — it is nine seasons and counting since the last trophy, which is far too long.

But winning silverware is harder to plan for: Spurs reached the FA Cup semi-final, played well, and somehow conceded four to an utterly ruthless Chelsea. This is now seven FA Cup semi-final defeats in a row — which is a record, and a freakish level of futility. The aim must be to continue to build a squad for which reaching the latter stages of the FA Cup is an expectation, rather than a hope. The hope comes later — namely hoping that Nemanja Matic doesn’t wonderblast it into the top corner from 30 yards, and that whatever other agonies we have endured over the years don’t repeat themselves.

The areas the Tottenham hierarchy will identify as having scope for improvement will be away performance, especially in “big” games, and better balancing of domestic and European schedules.

In particular, you suspect improved away form is essential: going unbeaten at home is unusual and unlikely to be repeated. It’s going to be tedious, next season, when every home setback gets put down to Spurs not adjusting to Wembley: Spurs won 53 out of 57 points at home in 2016/17, a level accumulation that we wouldn’t repeat if we were still at White Hart Lane. It’s as freakish as the run of FA Cup semi-final defeats.

The goal will be to pick up more additional points in away games than we drop in home games.

All sounds simple, no? But here’s the hard part: how exactly are Spurs going to do this?

Here are some ideas.

Sort out the mess on the right flank

Let’s be frank: the right wing position (or whatever the correct term is for the roaming/backtracking/creative equivalent in Pochball) was a garbage fire in 2016/17. Moussa Sissoko started just eight Premier League games, and totalled 901 minutes, contributing zero goals and three assists. Erik Lamela appeared in nine league games, scoring once and assisting once, before missing the rest of the season with a hip injury. GK Nkoudou played 47 minutes of league action in total, and his sole contribution was to not look quite as appalling as Clinton N’Jie.

After the 6-1 demolition of Leicester, Sky Sports pundit Jamie Carragher offered a well-measured diagnosis of Tottenham’s needs — or rather need — this summer, identifying the difference a quality and pacey wideman, such as Sadio Mane, could make. The signing of Sissoko, and gambles on N’Jie and Nkoudou, suggest Pochettino agrees. These three all failed in their first campaigns to show they are the answer, and all may be sold rather than be given more time to prove their worth. They’ve been so bad it’s not clear they’ve earned another shot, unlike, say, Vincent Janssen, who has at least hinted at some modest footballing ability. It is unclear if OM have already activated their option to make N’Jie’s loan move permanent.

However, there are questions of whether this need for pace and ball-carrying ability is really required. Simply put, if Spurs signed a player such as Wilfried Zaha (who is likely staying with Palace anyway, but he’s just an example), would he be used? In big away games, sure, it would be nice to have a player like this — but you rather suspect, when push comes to shove, this player is likely to be benched in favour of an additional midfielder such as Harry Winks as Pochettino seeks to assert control. There is also the question of Son Heung-min — he may not be a ball-carrier like Zaha, but he’s fast, direct and scores loads.

You rather suspect, the decision on what to do in this position will be made at the same time as the decision on what to do with Lamela. If Lamela moves on, this opens the door for a more creative type of player; if Lamela stays and returns to fitness, expect Spurs to look for pace and dribbling ability.  Either way, Spurs are pretty much upgrading from nothing in this position — the only way is up.

Deepen the philosophy

After the Leicester game, Pochettino spoke about his philosophy and how, after three years, it was now deeply ingrained. The 2016/17 campaign saw significant development with the addition of a back three as a tactical alternative to the back four used in his first two seasons. However, this new tactical approach came after the mediocre early October form that saw consecutive draws against West Brom, Bournemouth and Leicester.

As James Yorke noted in his round-up of the season, Spurs continued to play the same basic Pochball as the previous season: dominating the ball, conceding few and taking a ton of shots. There are questions, though, about whether Spurs ran “hot”.

This year they shaved a couple of shots per game off their defensive end, got the breaks at both ends and happily rode the positive variance all the way up to second place. That’s maybe frustrating, and Pochettino knows it, judging by his reluctant acceptance of praise that has come his way.

It certainly sounds like there is some scope for improvement here, in terms of creating better shots, not just taking even more of them: a bit more nuance in the passing and movement, so that every match isn’t just a case of trying to batter the opposition into submission. Some of the football in 2016/17 was sensational — the first half at home against West Brom was perhaps the purest example of Pochball, utterly breathtaking. The goal will be to find that level of performance more often. It won’t happen every game, but it doesn’t need to: it just needs to happen a little more often.

The other thing Spurs should do, in addition to fine-tuning the tactical approach, is to deepen the culture.

Pochettino has assembled a tremendous team in terms of talent, but there is a togetherness to the camp, and a connection between players and fans, that can’t be matched. It’s hard to put a number on the value of homegrown players, but we can all feel that it exists.

With top six rivals all likely to spend between £100m and £200m this summer, Spurs may feel the pressure to also “show their ambition” in the transfer market — whatever the hell the pundits mean by that. Are the current Spurs players really going to walk away if Spurs don’t sign people to replace them? Whatever it means, Spurs should resist and keep the pathways to the first team open, as both Levy and Pochettino have stressed they will continue to to.

The emergence of Harry Winks was the latest example of this process working. After biding his time and learning to play the Pochettino way, Winks’ opportunity finally came this season — and he seized it with both hands. He proved a calm midfield presence, trusted to provide control in key games. Before injury struck, Winks was moving into England senior contention and appears set to be a mainstay in the Spurs midfield for years to come. He is a boyhood Spurs fan who is now living his dream: you simply can’t buy that. It helps Spurs achieve a unity of purpose that all the money in the world can’t match.

So who is the next cab off the rank? Many fans will say Marcus Edwards, or hope that Josh Onomah kicks on after appearing to stall somewhat, but most likely it is Cameron Carter-Vickers. Spurs shouldn’t bother replacing Kevin Wimmer: between Ben Davies and CCV, his minutes are more than covered plus absences for Alderweireld too. If CCV does emerge, this could also have the knock-on effect of allowing Eric Dier to play more games in midfield, or just fewer games overall given the huge workload he shoulders.

While Spurs are integrating young players who’ve had a year or more learning the system in training, other top clubs will continue to introduce three or four major new signings each season and hope they work out. Spurs don’t need to do that: if we can add one homegrown player to the mix each year, that’s the sort of incremental, organic improvement to an already-strong squad that will lead to titles. We’re already good! We just need to keep getting even better.

Throw off the shackles in Europe

Pochettino has done very little wrong in his time at Spurs, but the one area he has consistently struggled to find improvement is in European competition. In three years, there has hardly been a single European performance of note, and crashing out to Gent — or was it Genk? — in February summed up the malaise.

There’s something off about the performances in Europe. Spurs look tense, constrained, unnatural — the press is mechanical, there is a lack of movement, we barely create good chances and look shaky at the back. Spurs look like a team that fears failure, rather than sees Europe as an opportunity to shine.

Instead of amping up the pressure to perform better, you wonder if Pochettino may be better reducing it: more rotation, more attacking line-ups, and unashamedly offensive tactics. Just go for it — dare I say it, like ‘Arry did in that excellent European campaign — and get the opposition out of the players’ heads.

There was something about the performance against Leicester — Spurs revelled in the freedom of playing without pressure, and the movement was a joy. Can Pochettino and his team capture that spirit? It may have consequences for the league, too. Less inhibition in Europe may make that gruelling October/November period less of an ordeal, and maybe turn one or two draws into wins. Remember, it’s just incremental improvement we need.

Avoiding key injuries and better scheduling that ends the draining clustering of London derbies would also help, but that’s beyond Spurs’ control.

Improve the options off the bench

There were a number of occasions this season — Sunderland and Manchester United away jump out — when Pochettino looked to his bench for help in vain.

Quite simply, Spurs got virtually nothing in direct production from substitutes all season long. Spurs substitutes scored four times, and created six assists in total. Of those, three of the goals were by Son, who also assisted twice.

Some caveats: Spurs have had a long injury list, meaning the bench was often weaker than it should have been. Think back to the Autumn when Kane, Dembele and Alderweireld all missed time — take Costa, Kante and David Luiz out of the Chelsea team, and you can bet they would have dropped a few points as well. Furthermore, given the strong performances, particularly at home, Spurs didn’t “need” to go to the bench all that often. Spurs subs played an average of 42.5 minutes, well below the average of 51.6 minutes in the Premier League. The two teams with the lowest average number of substitute minutes? Chelsea (34.7) and Liverpool (37.6) — not being in Europe helps.

But, there were still moments, without doubt, when a stronger bench may have helped Spurs. Again, we’re looking for incremental improvement. In 2017, when you are a Spurs fan and you’re still thinking “I wish Jermain Defoe was on the bench and not playing for Sunderland”, it’s fair to suggest we lacked a bit of punch.

Transfer blueprint

I was going to write a separate piece on transfer strategy, but time is limited. It’s all a crapshoot anyway — who knows what will happen over the next two months. Here’s what I would do, if I was in charge and was being (almost) sensible about who is leaving and potentially coming in:

OUT

Kyle Walker (£40m), Kevin Wimmer (£15m), Moussa Sissoko (£20m), GK Nkoudou (£5m); plus loanees Clinton N’Jie (£5m), Nabil Bentaleb (£18m) and Fede Fazio (£2.5m)
Total: £105.5m

IN

Ryan Sessegnon (£15m), Dani Alves (£0), Gylfi Sigurdsson (£28m), Christian Pulisic (£40m)
Total: £83m

By the time you factor in the £20m we’ll lose on Sissoko, Nkoudou and N’Jie, that’s about breaking even: Net spend is for wimps.

Good thing I’m not in charge, huh?

Thanks for reading. Comments welcome. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat.