Wrong to say Spurs underachieving, we win 25% of trophies

The Deloitte Football Money League 2015 Report (DML) is out and Tottenham have climbed one place to 13th but remain 6th in the Premier League financial income table.

Wrong to say Spurs underachieving, we win 25% of trophies


Deloitte use direct sources from each clubs own financial statements and information from UEFA. As we know club expenditure is limited by income, including wages. Clubs has to break-even to compete in European competitions, they can not have outstanding unpaid debts, meaning they must be up to date with their payment schedules. UEFA have put together the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) to verify clubs comply with FFP requirements.

Clubs can spend up to £3.74 million ($5.68m - €5m - AU$7.1m) more than they earn per assessment period (3-years), however for 2014/15 the figure is £33.63 million ($51.12m - €45m - AU$63.92m) and for the next 3-year assessment period, for seasons 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18, over expenditure is reduced to £22.42 million ($34.08m - €30m - AU$42.62m).

These higher amounts are to allow clubs time to tighten the purse strings. This higher figure has to be covered entirely by the owner or related party. Expenditure on stadiums, training facilities and youth development are excluded from the break-even calculation.

Clubs that have received UEFA sanctions for failing to comply so far:
2012/13
FK Borac Banja Luka, FK Sarajevo and FK Zeljeznicar (Bosnia), CSKA Sofia (Bulgaria), Maccabi Netanya (Israel), FK Shkendija 79 (Macedonia), Floriana (Malta), Buducnost Podgorica and Rudar Pjevlja (Montenegro), Ruch Chorzow (Poland), Sporting Clube de Portugal (Portugal), Vaslui (Romania), Rubin Kazan (Russia), Atletico Madrid (Spain), Eskisehirspor and Fenerbahce (Turkey).

2013/14
Anzhi Makhachkala, Rubin Kazan and Zenit Saint Petersburg (Russia), Bursaspor, Galatasaray and Trabzonspor (Turkey), Levski Sofia (Bulgaria), Paris Saint-Germain (France) and Manchester City (England).

The Premier League have also agreed new regulations so that the increases in TV revenue money (more this summer) can not be soaked up by player wages. In 2014/15 only £8 million ($12.17m - €10.71m - AU$15.29m) from Premier League Central Funds can be spent on wages and £12 million ($18.25m - €16.06m - AU$22.93m) in 2015/16.

We are thus seeing clubs trying to tighten their wage bill and Spurs are no different, we want the high earners off the books. Would we rather pay Emmanuel Adebayor £100,000-a-week ($152.105 - €133,820 - AU$191,094) or Harry Kane £35,000-a-week ($53,237 - €46,837 - AU$66,883), a third of the wage but producing three times the performance.

If you look at the changing Spurs squad now then the likes of Yedlin, Townsend, Mason, Rose, Dier will all be on £35,000-a-week. Having those type of players is vital to our wage bill, it's why Kyle Naughton was such a valuable player to Spurs. We have a wage structure that due to our income is on a lower level than our rivals, which makes attracting players difficult.

We appear to have four basic bands of pay, £35,000 for a player breaking into the squad, then £50,000 ($76,053 - €66,910 - AU$95,547), £60,000 ($91,263 - €80.292 - AU$114.656) and £70,000 ($106.474 - €93,674 - AU$133,766). There will be variations of course but that seems to me to be the basic structure.

At the moment financial stability is of paramount importance to Premier League clubs said the Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck last year. Winning trophies has to be done within those financial constraints, easier if you have a larger income and can play larger wages for the best players.

We can negotiate with players but if they want wages out of our structure then there is nothing the club can do, simply saying yes we will pay an exorbitantly inflated transfer fee doesn't solve the problem we can't afford the wages. A player like Danny Ings however on a free transfer would fit perfectly within our structure, then we have to improve players like him and hang on to them.

If we want a successful team I wrote a year ago we need to get a group of younger players together who play together and grow together as a team or squad, thus we would not be relying on the individual brilliance of a Gareth Bale to carry us. We had to develop a successful system that everyone knew off by heart that would mean we passed and moved around teams.

Mauricio Pochettino is attempting to put that in place, these are the early days of it and tonight we hope to reach a Cup Final during our formative stages. That can only add to our pull as it reminds we are one of the six clubs who have a realistic opportunity to win something each year (Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool).

Our income tells us that Spurs are overperforming when we finish above fifth so the suggestion we are underachieving isn't born out by the trophies won in relation to income figures. Each year it is usually the top four highest income clubs who win the trophies.

Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea have won the Premier League every year since 1994/5 and recently Manchester City as they have come into money.

Wigan (23rd in Championship) and Portsmouth (18th in League Two) are the only clubs outside the five with a higher income thus us to win the FA Cup since 1994/95, then back to us in 1990/91.

In 16 years of the League Cup since 1998 it has been won by Liverpool 3 times, Manchester United 3, Chelsea 3, Manchester City 1 and Tottenham Hotspur twice.

We have won the trophy 2 times out of the 6 it has not been won by a club with a higher wage bill, we win it 33.33% of the available time. Over all the 56 competitions mentioned above, we have won 2 out of the 8, a success rate of 25%.

To suggest we are underachieving is nonsense, money dictates and the stadium is a must to increase match day revenue to compare with Arsenal who generate £64.3 million ($97.80m - €86.05m - AU$122.87m) more than we do. Then we can generate more commercial income but the stadium is the bread and butter we need.