It seems odd that almost at the end of his managerial career (well he is over 60), that he is managing at the highest level he ever has done. He really should have managed a bigger club before now. Yes, some say West Ham is a big club (maybe fan base wise perhaps) but like now in the 90s West Ham was a yo-yo team.
Interestingly enough, Harry Redknapp has the best record, statistically speaking, of any Tottenham Hotspur manager since the club joined the Football League in 1908. He is also Spurs' longest serving manager during the Premier League Era... [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Harry Redknapp's Tottenham Hotspur Premier League Record[/FONT]
The problem with Redknapp, not unlike Moyes perhaps, isn't that anyone ever doubted his managerial ability, but that no one ever took a chance on him for one reason or another. Man Utd have been sorted with Ferguson for 25 years so they were never in the market for a manager, and Arsenal went with Wenger in 1996 and have never had cause to look any further than him. Chelsea went with Hoddle, Gullit, Vialli and then a precession of other high profile foreign coaches with relatively justifed results, whilst Liverpool kept it within the club up until Evans, who was evetually ousted by Houllier. Since then, they have gone with foreign coaches as well, whio have delivered relatively impressive results, albeit somewhat erratically. Tottenham was always the best fit for Redknapp, the only shame being that they went with Gross, Hoddle, Graham, Santini, Jol and Ramos (interspersed with Pleat here and there....) before settling on Redknapp. Of those managers, Hoddle was reasonably impressive and Jol did very well until it all went down hill towards the end. Ramos had a fabulous record with Seville and it's understandable why Tottenham wernt with him at the time. With Redknapp, he's probably been unlucky with timing more than anything, as whenever he was available, the bigger clubs weren't looking. It's a good fit with him there now. You just have to hope that, with the England job looming after this summers Euro's, he doesn't abscond again. He has no problem walking out on clubs if something better comes along, if his history is anything to go by.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGIg-kd3xhY&context=C32e01d4ADOEgsToPDskKrxQ3ZxWPxA7Gzt_iOFzkM"]Harry Redknapp Reckons Tottenham Haven't Spent Any Money - YouTube[/ame]
FYI, Tottenham Hotspur's Net Spend during the 20 seasons of the Premier League Era is £167,235,320. This is around £8.36 million a season. Since Harry was appointed Spurs' manager, we've spent £97 million on incoming players and received £66.77 million on players sold-on. His net spend has been £30.23 million, or just over £10 million a season. Tottenham Hotspur's entire first choice starting XI cost less to assemble than Chelsea paid for Fernando Torres.
Net spend? Net spend is a bullshit term. You spend.... you spend... and the figure for Tottenham from 1992-2011 is actually £178,332,500. But it looks they have waisted their money considering Man United net spending is 180 million in that period. Basically the same. Spurs haven't done much better than Aston Villa or Everton in that period. Everton = 52,9750,000 Aston Villa = 128,115,000 And certainly less than Arsenal. Arsenal = 21,216,000 net spend. http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/1992-to-2011.html It still puts Tottenham as one of the biggest spenders in the league since the league began. No matter which way you look at it.
Just found a nice family picture of Harry and Jamie Redknapp. Wish they had put some clothes on though.
Where do Tottenham get their money from, anyway? For club who's ground capacity is just 36,310, they spend alot of money. Especially when you consider that Everton (40,157) and Villa (42,788) both have bigger grounds and spend relatuively little in comparison.
Both Everton and Villa spend considerably more on their annual player's wage bill than Spurs do. But as for income, only around 25% of Tottenham's revenues are derived from ticket sales. The lion's share comes from TV broadcast fees, merchandise sales, corporate hospitality and sponsorship.
No. I don't think Everton have spent more than Spurs on wages for about 20 years. In 2010 we increased the wages by about 10 percent. ANd it was still less than Spurs. By about £15 million a year. And since then we've got rid of Yakubu, Arteta, Pienaar who were the highest paid. Whereas I'm sure Spurs have increased even more. Aston Villa I think are the same as Spurs. But they used to be higher. Tottenham make 31% off matchday, The cheapest season ticket prices for 2011/12 for Spurs supporters is £690. Whereas Everton it's £443. 2009 season ticket prices (cheapest ------ most expensive) Everton £443 ------ £586 Tottenham £690 ----- £1,640 Even when Tottenham get less attendence they still make more money. Simply because of the ticket prices. It's always been that way. Spurs make far more on corporate hospitality too. Tottenham are the 9th highest ranked in Europe in matchday revenue despite having a fairly average stadium size. More than Celtic, Benfica, Inter Milan, Atletico Madrid, Rangers, Manchester City, Valencia.
I don't, for one minute, believe that Everton spend more on wages than Tottenham do. They might spend a higher percentage of their turnover on wages, but not a higher figure. Everton are one of the most skint clubs in the country, illustrated by the fact that their team is made up of free transfers and loan signings. In 2007-2008 these figures were released clearly showing Tottenhams wages to be higher. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/table/2009/jun/03/premier-league-turnover-wages-debt See figures for 2009, also. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/19/football-club-accounts-debt Maybe Tottenham don't spend as much as is perceived, mind. But they never seem short of a bob or two, when you conside that in the last 3 or 4 seasons they've bought the likes of Keane back, Crouch, Defoe, Pav, VdV, Modric, Parker all at decent prices, to my knowledge.
Any discussion on finance is irrelevant without taking into account player wages and % of wages to turnover, which are by far and away the biggest impact on the finances of any club. Let alone the player sales at Spurs, 20 million for Crouch and Palacios combined, 31 million for Berbatov amongst others. Those wages/turnover figures clearly show the difference between Everton and Spurs in terms of wages spend has been negligible, Spurs slightly higher but offset by lower % of revenue. More importantly, the Spurs wage bill has consistently been a fraction of the wage bill of the likes of United, City and Chelsea, Arsenal and even Liverpool. If Everton were remotely close to Spurs in the table, they may actually have a point in terms of a comparison. However under Redknapp Spurs have been way above them in points performance, far more so than they should be given relative spend, and are comparable in points to the other Big 6 clubs who spend vastly more every year. Hence why Redknapp is fully entitled to point to a lack of spending, as it is in relation to those clubs Spurs are now competing with at the top end of the table. Since Redknapp's first full season in charge Everton have been about as relevant to Tottenham in the table as Wigan have been to Liverpool. That is the reality they do not want to accept. It is also a reality a number of Big 6 fans do not want to accept, as it shows just how dependent their clubs have been on having a financial buffer to gain success. Now there are clubs like Spurs, and bizarrely even Newcastle who are performing far better than them £ for £ and have enough turnover to take the CL spots.
------ Spurs --- EFC 2011 - 5th - 7th 2010 - 4th - 8th 2009 - 8th - 5th 2008 - 11th - 5th 2007 - 5th - 6th 2006 - 5th - 11th 2005 - 9th - 4th money spent from 2005-2011 £260 million = Tottenham £68 million = Everton
Your bizarrely acting like Spurs haven't spent any money? Since 2006 only three clubs have spent more than Spurs in the transfer window. And since Spurs are third in the table we should act like they are over-achieving. Newcastle have spent almost double than Everton within that period yet still well under half as much as Spurs.
No income tax, no VAT, no Premier League points off Man City, in the dock, face so pale, Harry Redknapps going to jail. (to fools & horses) Not my work, but it made me smile.
Hello there. I'm new to this site. Luckily I'm not new to the most basic principles of economics. Seems that you might be though. So please expand on why net spend is a "bullshit term", as I'm incredibly interested to understand why on earth anyone would solely look at a football club's (or indeed a business') expenditure without taking into account their incoming revenue? Generating money which then can be spent is not the same as simply spending. In the last 4 seasons, Spurs have made more money from transfer sales than they've spent. -1 million infact (www.transferleague.co.uk). They have a wage bill that is only the 6th biggest in the league, behind Man City, Man United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool. (http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/12/tottenham-grounds-for-optimism-or.html) The % wages to total turnover at Spurs is 56%. This is less than Everton (69%) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/19/football-club-accounts-debt) because Everton generate almost 50 million less revenue a year than Spurs (and that gap is going to get wider). This explains why Spurs were one of the sole few clubs to post a profit for last season, and therefore one of the few clubs left in the country spending within their means and who will have no problems in adhering to the UEFA financial fair play rules that come into play shortly. So, from a financial point of view, Spurs being in 3rd IS over achieving. I welcome hearing how net spend is bullshit though.
This. Spurs are not the plucky paupers, punching above their weight. They have money to spend, and they're not shy to throw it around.
FYI, since Harry was appointed Tottenham's manager, out net spend has been just £22,230,000... ...which averages-out at around £7.4 million a season. Absolute peanuts by today's standards.