The Rich List

[sendorange]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3526851.stm

15th in Europe, 6th in England. Same spot as usual, if we could actually finish higher than 10th for once we'd be within touching distance of the next rung. Just goes to show that when it comes to money this is still a big club.

[musicl]

Only £100m behind us.

[sendorange]

Yeah but that's not something to boast about when your club has all that money yet still can't outbid Barcelona, let alone Chelski.

[Winston Smith]

Originally posted by sendorange
Yeah but that's not something to boast about when your club has all that money yet still can't outbid Barcelona, let alone Chelski.

Is that necessarily a good thing? We're not exactly renowned for our ability to spot cutting edge talent...

[DigitalTron]

This is indeed a good sign. A similar study was done based on 2001-2002 data by World Soccer, and it placed Spurs at 16th overall, but speculated that Spurs, Leeds United, and Aston Villa would probably drop out when the "new" TV deal was negotiated. Thanks to BSkyB, Spurs and Leeds United appear to have remained (possibly temporarily for poor Leeds) in the Top 20.

So, if Spurs could ever assemble a complete squad of top players, it appears as though we'd have the wherewithall to keep that squad together. And, it somewhat validates all of our recent transfer spending, as we've managed to keep our wage bill down, so those revenues aren't as dangerous as they have been for clubs like Leeds, Lazio, and Roma.

It also underscores the value of a large stadium. While, obviously, Manchester United does tremendously with its marketing, a substantial part of their gap at the top (over the other English clubs) is a result of the large stadium size. With Newcastle already gigantic, Arsenal and Liverpool building large, and the potential for other English teams, Spurs need to make some progress on that front.

Expansion of WHL to 50k would help, but IMHO, that's not enough. Spurs should be looking at other locations (I have no idea where and that's the real problem) to build a new larger stadium. It's going to be necessary to prevent being left far behind over the next ten years or so. Ultimately, expansion needs to allow for 70k+, and to that end, expanding WHL may be money poorly spent. :(

-Digital

[soccernutter]

The problem with surveys like this is that there is very little adjustment to currency value, salaries, cost of living, tax laws, and the general profit margin, not to mention how much an owner/board is willing to put into the club. I remember that survey done by World Soccer. I also remember one of the things they said is that ManU was on top, but their purchasing ability was further down the list due to tax laws (clubs sometimes pay the taxes for the player, which is illegal in Britian) as well as general turnover. ManU don't do alot of selling, specially compared to thier Italian counterparts, as well as being run by a board. Thusly, ManU is thwarted by the profit takers where as Italians and Spanish are not hindered so much.

That is one of the reasons that Spurs, despite being up in those surveys so high, don't really have the pull to bring in big names/wages (stadium size is also an issue). This seems to be changing, but it will be a while before we are one the level with the likes of the Italians, Spanish, and ManU.

[Winston Smith]

Originally posted by DigitalTron
This is indeed a good sign. A similar study was done based on 2001-2002 data by World Soccer, and it placed Spurs at 16th overall, but speculated that Spurs, Leeds United, and Aston Villa would probably drop out when the "new" TV deal was negotiated. Thanks to BSkyB, Spurs and Leeds United appear to have remained (possibly temporarily for poor Leeds) in the Top 20.

So, if Spurs could ever assemble a complete squad of top players, it appears as though we'd have the wherewithall to keep that squad together. And, it somewhat validates all of our recent transfer spending, as we've managed to keep our wage bill down, so those revenues aren't as dangerous as they have been for clubs like Leeds, Lazio, and Roma.

It also underscores the value of a large stadium. While, obviously, Manchester United does tremendously with its marketing, a substantial part of their gap at the top (over the other English clubs) is a result of the large stadium size. With Newcastle already gigantic, Arsenal and Liverpool building large, and the potential for other English teams, Spurs need to make some progress on that front.

Expansion of WHL to 50k would help, but IMHO, that's not enough. Spurs should be looking at other locations (I have no idea where and that's the real problem) to build a new larger stadium. It's going to be necessary to prevent being left far behind over the next ten years or so. Ultimately, expansion needs to allow for 70k+, and to that end, expanding WHL may be money poorly spent. :(

-Digital

There's rumours that Spurs intend to move to Stratford, which is a shi thole and on West Ham's doorstep. Not a fan myself, but it would rival Ashburton Grove in size.

[DigitalTron]

Originally posted by soccernutter
The problem with surveys like this is that there is very little adjustment to currency value, salaries, cost of living, tax laws, and the general profit margin, not to mention how much an owner/board is willing to put into the club. I remember that survey done by World Soccer. I also remember one of the things they said is that Manchester United was on top, but their purchasing ability was further down the list due to tax laws (clubs sometimes pay the taxes for the player, which is illegal in Britian) as well as general turnover. Manchester United don't do alot of selling, specially compared to thier Italian counterparts, as well as being run by a board. Thusly, Manchester United is thwarted by the profit takers where as Italians and Spanish are not hindered so much.

That is one of the reasons that Spurs, despite being up in those surveys so high, don't really have the pull to bring in big names/wages (stadium size is also an issue). This seems to be changing, but it will be a while before we are one the level with the likes of the Italians, Spanish, and Manchester United . The World Soccer article had Real Madrid on top and by a very wide margin, but Manchester United was 2nd. Your point is well taken, and those things make rankings extremely complex, but hopefully they can normalize things. One other major outlier was/is ancilliary revenue of one-off large amounts (tail wagging the dog syndrome) such as when Real Madrid sold a very large chunk of property, or Chelsea's real estate cross-over. These kinds of revenues are quite substantial, but are not recurring, so don't really reflect the power of the club in any real way, because the money is strictly for one year, and afterwards, the asset is gone.

When I have more time I'll try to post some of that article, because I found it quite a good read, and it tracked the more recent BBC article as far as domestic clubs were concerned. While the ranking of Italian vs. Spanish clubs may have changed, the ranking of Italian vs. Italian clubs generally remained in the same sequence. The numbers for the English clubs were very similar in both surveys.

Winston, I'm quite glad to hear that Spurs may have identified a potential location. Most stadia are built in less-than-perfect areas so as to keep the massive real-estate expenses down, and to minimize the Nimby effect. But, is Stratford even in North London? I'm not well versed in London geography.

-Digital

[DigitalTron]

It begins ...

Manchester United considering a capcity rise of Old Trafford to 75k. This is a direct response to the Ashburton Grove project and an attempt to remain well ahead of its Premership rivals in the all-important financial game. Spurs cannot afford to fall too far behind.

http://www.skysports.com/skysports/article/0,,31-1126284,00.html

-Digital

[Winston Smith]

Originally posted by DigitalTron


Winston, I'm quite glad to hear that Spurs may have identified a potential location. Most stadia are built in less-than-perfect areas so as to keep the massive real-estate expenses down, and to minimize the Nimby effect. But, is Stratford even in North London? I'm not well versed in London geography.

-Digital

Stratford is part of the east end heartland so no. Which would mean abandoning north london completely. Not a fan of it myself, especially as it's established Hammers territory (apart from all the plastic Arsenal and Chelsea fans).

It's also very difficult to get to from Tottenham by transport and about five miles away as the crow flies. Stratford has land available and good transportation though. But saying that, another fan mentioned it on the way home from one of the matches so not sure how credible it is. There's always Ponders End which is north of Tottenham with lots of waste land. And other sites, so hopefully no to Stratford.

[musicl]

Being 15th on the list will be good for attracting a new manager for you's.
I hope Spurs dont move from North London and if they build a new stadium they better call it White Hart Lane.

[comme]

Stratford is the home of Judas so I don't favour going there. Personally I still favour taking on Wembley, as we can cut costs through it. It would also give us the best stadium in the world, and allow us to seriously expand.

[Danners9]

Stable, which is good.

I'd rather be average and in the black to overachieve one season and pay for it for the next 5.

[Bizarro Spur]

I can't imagine Spurs moving away from WHL, but I agree that if they want to compete they need more seats.

Just figure at 50 pounds/seat, 20,000 extra seats would mean 1,000,000 per match. That's a lot of extra revenue at the end of the season.

Personally, I think it would be a disaster if they move away from North London. Remember, one of the reasons Spurs' fans hate Ars*nal so much is because a long time ago they moved to our side of town and took away from the fan base. Imagine how Hammers fans would feel if we move to the East end.

-Biz