Tag Archives: Mauricio Pochettino

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.

Advertisements

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.

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.

Building a brighter future, on and off the pitch: Analysis of THFC’s accounts for the 2016 financial year

By Charles Richards / @spurs_report

(Update 21/04: Per ESPNFC, the £10m figure identified in this piece as a potential upfront NFL contribution to the stadium project has been confirmed. The mysterious £45m in accruals and deferred income remains in question. Answers on a postcard!)

Tottenham Hotspur’s newly published accounts for the 2016 financial year show a club in transition, still hamstrung by the constraints of White Hart Lane but moving clearly towards the altogether grander future that beckons.

Spurs chairman Daniel Levy has described the club, in its current state, as essentially two businesses — a football club, and a stadium development. This appears to be a useful mechanism for digesting the swathes of information contained in this annual insight into Tottenham’s finances.

In this analysis, I’ll focus on the football first, and then talk about the stadium. I’ll also talk about the NFL partnership — and ask whether the financial terms have finally been revealed.

For those new to this blog, I wrote a similar analysis last year. You can read my recent piece on stadium costs here, and my analysis of club spending through the construction phase here.

The club’s statement with the key figures is here, and you can find the full accounts in the Investor Relations section of the club website. Bear in mind, the accounts cover the 2015/16 season only — they end on June 30, 2016 and anything that has happened since then will be included in next year’s edition.

ON THE PITCH

skysports-dele-alli-eric-dier_3854133

Cost controls

Spurs achieved something rare in 2015/16, particularly in the inflationary environment of the Premier League: the club lowered football costs and improved on-field performance.

However, if Spurs were hoping for any credit for finishing third in the Premier League on a budget dwarfed by the five wealthier clubs, this was dashed by Leicester’s remarkable title win and the limp finish.

What Spurs achieved in 2015/16 was highly impressive. While Leicester have fallen back to earth and mounted a title defence even limper than Chelsea’s in the previous season, Spurs have kicked on another gear since. There is a sustainability to what Mauricio Pochettino, Daniel Levy and others in the Spurs brainstrust have built, and that’s why the mood among Spurs fans is so positive. We see it, even if others don’t.

Once again, these accounts show Daniel Levy’s tight grip on the club’s finances. Net profit increased from £9.4m to £33.0m.

Spurs managed to reduce wages slightly, from £100.8m to £100.04m. Revenue, meanwhile, increased from £196.4m to £209.8m, an increase of 6.8%. As a result, wage to turnover ratio dropped from 51.4% to 47.4%. This continues the sharp downward trend — in FY 2014 it stood at 55.6%.

How did Spurs achieve this? A look at transfer activity and new contracts in the period shows how:

PLAYERS OUT: Paulinho, Holtby, Capoue, Kaboul, Stambouli, Chirches, Soldado, Lennon, Adebayor

PLAYERS IN: Wimmer, Trippier, N’Jie, Alderweireld, Son

NEW CONTRACTS: Dembele, Onomah (x2), Winks (x2), Alli, Dier, CCV, McGee, Pritchard, Bentaleb

Spurs managed to get rid of a lot of high earners — including a lot of flotsam from the failed Bale money splurge — while of the new signings, only Alderweireld and Son commanded “big” wages.

Meanwhile, Dembele was the only senior player to sign a new deal in the period — the rest were part of the “contract escalator” Spurs have in place for young players to increase their earnings as their role grows. Both Alli and Dier, for example, have signed new contracts in the current financial year, and will soon join the very top earners.

Crucially, with the old Premier League deal in its final season, Spurs were able to hold off on pay rises for all other senior players. This prevented “double dipping” — players seeking new contracts, then demanding another new one the next year citing soaring revenues.

Here are the players who have signed new contracts in FY 2017 so far: Lloris, Kane, Dier, Eriksen, Rose, Walker, Alli, Vertonghen, Winks, CCV, Wimmer, Carroll and Vorm.

That’s a lot of new deals — probably in the region of £15-20m of additional salary, by my estimates. But with Premier League TV income jumping by around £40m next season, it’s the perfect time to do it.

Looking at the ins and outs, you may be wondering why wages didn’t decrease further. Without transparency on player contracts, it’s hard to know — there may well have been some Champions League-related bonuses that kicked in.

Meanwhile, transfer spending ticked down. The “net spend” picture is confusing from accounts: the accounts reported a £27.1m profit from the “disposal of intangible assets”, but this isn’t a true picture of player trading.

I prefer to look at amortisation, the measure of the cost of new signings spread over the length of their contracts and reported on annual basis. A full explanation is in the notes of this story, but in the simplest way: If Spurs sign a player for £10m on a five-year contract, that equals £2m in annual amortisation cost.

For Spurs, amortisation dropped from from £38.6m to £31.8m, thanks to a large number of expensive failures leaving the club and mostly cheap replacements coming in.

If you combine wages and amortisation, you get a good measure of “real football spend” — how much clubs are actually investing in their playing squads. For Spurs, this decreased from £139.4m to £131.8m.

Here’s how Spurs compare with selected other clubs:

image (4)

As you can see, not only is the gap between Spurs and the wealthier five clubs growing, the gap between Spurs and the clubs below is narrowing. Spurs, simply put, are defying gravity — and no club better demonstrates the value of homegrown talent.

Revenue roadblocks

Revenue was a mixed picture, and further underscored what by now barely needs stating — Spurs need a bigger stadium and new sponsorship deals.

Matchday revenue was essentially flat, down from £41.2m to £40.8m, while commercial revenue dipped from £59.9m to £58.6m. If there is one area that will disappoint, it is the latter.

Spurs are stuck in the tail-end of the Under Armour kit deal (expiring at the end of the 2016/17 season) and are midway through the AIA deal, which ends in 2018/19. With each year, these deals grow less competitive. But success on the pitch failed to boost merchandise sales (which declined slightly from £12.3m to £12.0m). Lack of Cup success also hit commercial and matchday income.

As far as I can tell, Spurs did not sign any major new sponsorship deals in FY 2016. The partnership with Kumho Tyres started in FY 2017, and certainly, just comparing the “Partners” section of the club website compared with similar sections for other clubs, and you can see that Spurs are far less active.

Does it matter, given how tacky this stuff gets? Ultimately, if Subway want to offer £2.5m a year to be official sandwich partner, that’s the easiest money a football club will ever make. There’s significant room for growth in this area.

The bulk of the revenue growth came thanks to the increase in Europa League prize money. Previously an irritation, the Europa League is far more valuable now. Prize money increased from £4.7m to £15.5m due to the largesse of BT Sport. That’s a lot of money for not very many viewers, but Spurs aren’t complaining.

Premier League revenue also increased thanks to improved on-field performance. 21 games were selected for UK broadcast, compared with 18 in the previous season — under the old TV deal, each extra selection above the minimum 10 was worth around £750,000, while performance-based prize money jumped by around £2.5m for finishing 3rd compared with 5th.

In a previous piece, I noted a development whereby revenue and spending, previously moving in concert, were starting to diverge.

image (2)

As you can see, this divergence was amplified in FY 2016. I like this chart as I think it tells a story, of Spurs shifting from the “wheeler dealer” mentality to a more sustainable approach as the club enters the stadium build phase.

In the coming three years, this trend is only going to increase. Next year, Premier League revenue should increase to around £140m, while the brief Champions League campaign should bring in around £35m. In the following year, pending the official announcement, Spurs will have much higher gate receipts due to playing home games at Wembley. The financial year after that, we’ll be into the new stadium.

These are exciting times for Spurs: it feels like things are falling into place. We’ve got the right manager, the best core of players in years, and a boardroom focused — almost to the point of obsession — with delivering a world-class stadium. It’s going to be fascinating to see how we manage to screw this up.

OFF THE PITCH

Xtn4WT2

Stadium developments

Arguably the most important disclosure in the annual report concerned the stadium: the borrowing has officially started.

The first £200m portion of the bank finance Spurs have sought is in place, £100m of which was drawn as of June 2016. Interestingly, this facility was entered into on December 10 — six days before Spurs secured planning permission for the new stadium from Haringey council.

This is the “bridge” portion of the £350m loan Spurs will seek to cover a chunk of the construction costs. There has been public posturing over the finance of the project amid negotiations on public sector contributions and infrastructure delivery, but the annual report shows that financing is moving forward broadly as the club said it would in the planning process.

This £200m facility cost £855,000 in arrangement fees, but we don’t yet know the annual finance cost. The first £100m is repayable in December 2017 — or to put it another way, in December this year it will be refinanced into a bigger and longer-term facility. It may be that Spurs are able to borrow more than the planned £350m, given the increasing revenue and rising construction costs.

Overall, spending on the project has increased from £59m to £115.3m, per the club.

Meanwhile, two other unusual items, a long way down the accounts, caught my eye.

The first was a payment of exactly £10m, received from “a company, which is not a related party, as a contribution towards future construction expenses related to the Northumberland Development Project.”

Who is this money from? Public sector contributions have been a matter of contention, and do not extend to the stadium itself — certainly no agreement was reached before June 2016. If it were Tavistock Group — Uncle Joe — injecting money, it would be listed as a related party contribution.

The second, found in the non-current liabilities section, was a disclosure of £45m, again an exact amount, in “accruals and deferred income”. In 2015, the club recorded £0 in the same category, likewise in 2013 and 2014.

Screenshot 2017-04-02 at 8.22.51 AM

Deferred income is income received for services that will take place beyond the period covered in the balance sheet. Season ticket income and payments received for commercial deals that stretch beyond the reporting period are listed in the current liabilities section.

While it has been reported that Spurs have agreed a deal with Nike as the next kit supplier, this has yet to be officially announced, and certainly wasn’t announced during the previous accounting period.

So what is it?

While no major new sponsorship deals were announced during the period, there was one major new commercial partnership: the 10-year, 20-game NFL deal. If there was a payment, it would be reported in these accounts — with stadium completion date yet to be confirmed, it would be deferred income.

No financial terms were announced, but it seems likely that Spurs would seek money “up front” from the NFL to at the very least cover the additional costs of installing NFL facilities within the stadium. Likewise, expect Spurs to see at least a portion of naming rights income up front to help with cash flow when a deal is agreed, and advance ticket sales income.

A concern has grown among some Spurs fans that the NFL may be “using” Spurs, in the same way the organisation brazenly exploits local taxpayers in the USA. But, in reality, trying to gauge the additional costs incurred by the NFL elements is hard.

Once the project stalled amid the legal dispute with Archway, the stadium design was always going to be tweaked so that Spurs could get as much into the site as possible. To make it a true NFL stadium, additional work had to be carried out to basement areas, plus there was the need to reconfigure the interior to allow for enlarged locker rooms and media facilities. The sliding pitch sums up how tricky it is to put a value on the NFL additions: it is a new and expensive piece of technology that, while useful to Spurs when hosting concerts and other sporting events, feels like an extravagance too far if there were no NFL contribution.

So can we now put a price on this partnership? A one-off £10m payment, plus a 10-year, £45m hosting arrangement that has been paid up front. In total, a £55m ($69m) contribution to the £800m or so total cost.

It certainly sounds reasonable, and realistic. For the NFL, it gives them the stadium they desire in London for future growth plans. For Spurs it is money that can be used to turn the stadium into the world-class venue the club has always hankered to build.

I can’t confirm this — any journalists looking for a story could do worse than run this up the flagpole — but it certainly seems possible. Certainly, there have been suggestions that the NFL is putting money into the stadium — including recently by MMQB journalist Albert Breer.

I welcome any other suggestions on where this £10m construction cost and £45m in deferred income may have come from. But my hunch says NFL.

Other business

Away from the stadium, Spurs are continuing to invest in the training centre with construction of a new player accommodation facility. The £16m loan facility for the training centre was expanded to £25m, at a cost of £265,000.

Spurs being Spurs, there is a commercial element to this. In addition to providing accommodation for the first team and youth teams, and players visiting for medicals ahead of signing, the facility will also be used by other teams. An agreement is in place with England to use it before games at Wembley — all those times England train at Hotspur Way isn’t an ad hoc arrangement — while it is also available to European sides ahead of midweek matches against other London sides. Both Barcelona and AC Milan even provided letters of support in the planning process.

The planning agreement makes clear this isn’t a hotel, but no doubt visiting teams and England will pay handsomely for the privilege. Speculation that NFL teams may use the facility is wide of the mark — at 45-rooms, it is simply too small.

There are a couple of other lines of note.

The first is exceptional items of £9.6m in “commercial and employment contract costs”. In the previous year, £6.5m was reported in “redundancy costs and onerous employment contracts”.

My assumption was that at least a part of last year’s exceptional items referred to Emmanuel Adebayor, who at some stage stopped being a footballer. More likely any payoff was included in this set of accounts. But as for commercial costs, it is hard to understand what that may be. £9.6m out of £209.8m total revenue is not an inconsiderable sum, and I’d welcome any suggestions. If there is an inference from the new description, I’m missing it.

Second is £500,000 paid by Spurs to Melix Financial Services, another Tavistock Group company, for “commercial advice on global sponsorship opportunities”. Melix, like much of Tavistock (the investment umbrella for Joe Lewis of which Spurs is just one part), is Bahamas registered — but beyond that, there is no public profile. If you Google the name, you’ll get a few links to a late 2000s Romanian property scandal, and that’s about it.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation, but it beats me. Answers on a postcard – preferably with a nice picture of the Bahamas on it.

Thanks for reading. Please follow me on Twitter for more Spurs chat. Comments welcome, either below or to spursreport at gmx.co.uk.

Can Spurs afford to finish 5th?

wembley_monaco730

With 13 games to go in the 2016/17 Premier League season, just four points separate second place and sixth.

Only Chelsea have managed to pull away from this almighty scrap: eight points clear and with no European distractions, John Terry can surely start dusting off his full kit and boots in preparation for the trophy celebration.

Two of Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool and the Manchester clubs are going to miss out on Champions League football next season — who it will be, however, is anyone’s guess.

An air of manufactured perma-crisis has haunted the top of the table, with one manager continually forced to be “the one under pressure”. Jurgen Klopp felt the heat in January, but in February the spotlight appears to have shifted to North London and Arsene Wenger.

After a dip of form since the hammering of West Brom on January 14, and the ongoing inability of his Spurs team to perform well in Europe even against modest opposition, Mauricio Pochettino has also experienced a frustrating month. But averaging two points a game over 25 matches and into the quarterfinals of the FA Cup, this hasn’t been a campaign where the bad moments have lasted long.

Thanks to the excellent work of Pochettino, Spurs are defying Premier League gravity in terms of the resources they can bring to bear. But in a long, attritional campaign where no team is showing signs of relenting, this may be a season where depth is more important than ever. When Man City lose Gabriel Jesus, they have Sergio Aguero and Kelechi Iheanacho able to come in; when Spurs lose Harry Kane, it’s either an out-of-position Son Heung-min or Vincent Janssen, who has yet to score for the club from open play.

Combining a club’s wage bill and annualized transfer costs (amortisation, FY 2015) gives an idea of the “real football spend” at the top six clubs, and how hard it is for Spurs to compete:

Man Utd — £302.3m
Chelsea — £285m
Man City — £264m
Arsenal — £244.1m
Liverpool — £227m
Tottenham — £139.4m

Spurs, quite simply, are in a different league to the other five in terms of the amount invested in football. While disappointing, it therefore shouldn’t be a surprise if Spurs were one of the the two teams that eventually slipped down into the Europa League spots. This isn’t trying to create an excuse for failure, but rather establishing context: when Pochettino talks about the limitations he faces, it’s all true.

Leicester have shown money doesn’t always equal success, but most of the time it does. Per analysis by Michael Caley, 80 percent of top four places from 2000/01 to 2014/15 were secured by teams with the top four wage bills at the time.

With a £750m stadium project to finance, can Spurs afford to miss out on UEFA’s Champions League millions at this crucial juncture in the club’s history?

With Premier League TV income soaring to unimaginable levels and Europa League income increasing, Champions League football is no longer quite the silver bullet that it once was.

Last season, Spurs earned £95.2m from the Premier League TV deal, while the club’s share of UEFA’s revenue distribution — the governing body’s mechanism for dishing out TV money — was £17.7m. In 2014, Spurs took in £88.8m of PL money, and just £5.5m in UEFA revenue — that’s a jump of £12.2m year-on-year under the BT Sport deal.

This season, Spurs should bring in around £140m from the new Premier League TV deal, while UEFA revenues will be approximately £36m. The exact numbers will be known at the end of the season — the UEFA number is based on what Manchester United earned last season, after crashing out of the Champions League in the group stage, and then making an early exit from the Europa League knockout stages. Spurs are on course for a similar performance — but the 3rd place Premier League finish in the prior season may mean a little more.

As a percentage of club revenue, here’s how UEFA revenue distribution income has varied in recent seasons:

spurs-uefa-rev

(Note: Currency conversion throughout this piece is at current rates)

As you can see, Champions League remains a huge financial incentive. However, while in previous season the Europa League has been an irritation with marginal financial benefit, under the current deal, participation is much more lucrative.

By way of contrast, when Spurs were forced out of the 2012/13 Champions League by Chelsea, this was a crushing blow. Spurs took in just £4.6m in UEFA revenue in the following season, while Chelsea scooped £26m for finishing 3rd in their group (and another £9m for going on and winning the Europa League).

Of course, UEFA revenue distribution is just one part of the picture. Matchday income is much higher for Champions League than Europa League — Spurs sold out Wembley for the three home Champions League ties, while Europa League matches are less of a crowd draw — plus there is the potential commercial uplift that comes with appearing in the more prestigious of the European competitions.

As regards the new stadium, this project is not contingent on Champions League football — in fact, the aim of the new stadium is to enable Spurs to put out a sufficiently strong team to qualify for the competition on a regular basis.

In the Viability Report for the project, “better than estimated on-field performance” is listed among potential factors that may increase return on investment in the scheme — alongside reduced construction costs, player costs dipping below 45 percent of revenues and the club securing an NFL franchise (eyes passim).

Spurs have been prudently run for years, and budgets are based on the expectation of Europa League football, not the hope of Champions League football. This refusal to gamble frustrates some segments of the fanbase, and pleases others — but as long as Daniel Levy is controlling the purse strings, this approach won’t change. There’s no gamble being made about Spurs being able to overachieve on the pitch through the stadium construction phase — two seasons of CL football in a row would be a tremendous bonus.

But this doesn’t mean there isn’t a price to be paid were Spurs to miss out on Champions League football next season.

For fans, it will mean missing out on Europe’s elite competition yet again. This year’s campaign never caught alight, starting with an extremely boring draw that meant no “big” team coming to Wembley in the group stages. Gareth Bale’s heroics against Inter Milan were six and a half years ago — even the most patient of fans need fresh inspiration to feed the soul.

For the players, the Europa League represents a step back. Pochettino has nurtured a hungry group with a solid core of Champions League calibre players. With so many key players signing new deals and a palpable sense of excitement at the club as the new stadium takes shape, there’s little danger of losing players this summer. But footballers who make the top level are by nature ambitious, and Champions League is the benchmark.

However, for both fans and players, there are other ways to square this circle — the FA Cup would give fans a moment to savour, and demonstrate to the players that it’s possible to win trophies at Spurs. Judging by the performance at Fulham, the team is focused on the competition, and lifting the trophy in May would represent an important yardstick for this group.

That’s not to say the FA Cup is a panacea — for the team, there’s still a development cost to missing out on the Champions League. In three years under Pochettino, Spurs have been consistently poor in Europe. It’s hard to put a finger on why: Squad limitations? Focus on the Premier League? Tactical issues? The only way Spurs are going to get better is by playing quality European opposition on a regular basis, and figuring it out. It took Manchester City several seasons to find their way in the Champions League after the club struck oil, but they reached the semifinals last season and it’s not impossible to see them going a step further this time.

Then there’s the cost of one of the other teams sneaking into the Champions League at Spurs’ expense. At every other club, a far greater sense of crisis will be felt if they miss out — another season of failure at, say, Manchester United, has the potential to have repercussions that could open doors to Spurs in years to come. Maybe that’s getting a bit tangential, but to put it another way, it sure is enjoyable making Jose Mourinho squirm.

Hopefully, this is all moot: Tottenham’s run since the West Brom win is simply just a dip in form, an inevitability in a long old slog of a campaign, and the team starts purring like the fine-tuned machine we’ve resembled at times this season. The performance at Craven Cottage suggests as much.

However, if Spurs do end up missing out on Champions League football next season, it’ll be disappointing, but not disastrous.

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