THFC6061 said:This season's UEFA Champions League participation is estimated to bring-in an extra £40 million in revenues for Spurs.
The lion's share of our income these days comes from TV and broadcasting rights with actual ticket revenues only accounting for around 25% of our gross income.
An increase in our seating capacity from 36,000 to 60,000 would obviously make a big difference to our revenues, as it also affect other income sources such as merchandising (most sales are made on a matchday).
Tottenham's business plan has proved to be very successful, as we are one of the very few top European clubs who regularly post a profit from our football operations.
The key to this is keeping our player's wages in check - Spurs currently pay around the Premier League average.
In fact, the last available figures show Spurs' wages at 52.3% of our turnover.
By contrast, Manchester City pay 94.4% of their turnover on their player's wages...
simon23 said:its between us and spurs for 4th place.
and we have a harder run in than spurs....before we play them we have to play liverpool (who are suddenly looking a lot better) and chelski away with sunderland at home
spurs have wigan westham and stoke....
we are 5 pts in front of spurs but they have a game in hand......
it could be very very close by the time they come to Coms
the only real advantage is that we have a far superior goal difference to them
we need to win at least one of those away games but we are looking very very tired and it was a laboured performance against wigan especially in the second half.
we need a bit of luck and hopefully spurs will slip up against one of their opponents (maybe stoke??)
they will beat wigan and westham
THFC6061 said:Well it's simply a case of supply and demand.
There are far more people who want to see Spurs play than there are seats available - hence the relatively high prices charged.
If we were able to have a stadium with the extra 15,000 to 20,000 seats we desperately need, I think the prices would come down a little or at least remain stable.
In the absence of a rich Arab Sugar-Daddy who is willing to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into the club, without any regard for the financial viability of the business, I can't see that there's a lot more Spurs can do.
fbloke said:THFC6061 said:Well it's simply a case of supply and demand.
There are far more people who want to see Spurs play than there are seats available - hence the relatively high prices charged.
If we were able to have a stadium with the extra 15,000 to 20,000 seats we desperately need, I think the prices would come down a little or at least remain stable.
In the absence of a rich Arab Sugar-Daddy who is willing to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into the club, without any regard for the financial viability of the business, I can't see that there's a lot more Spurs can do.
A tad bitter then? ;-)
You do in fact have a Billionaire owner who HAS pumped many millions into your club, and did so before City were as fortunate.
The problem for Spurs is simple, he wont pay for the stadium and told Levy that 18 months ago when the real price of WHL2 was realised.
( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...s-billionaire-Joe-Lewis-is-500m-casualty.html )
THFC6061 said:Spurs since the beginning of the premier league: 3rd highest spender on transfers.
Perhaps, but how much have Spurs received from players sold-on?
Our net spend on transfers during the Premier League Era is £175.5 million.
Our current playing squad cost £208.3 million to assemble.
Which means we've made quite a healthy profit on player trading during the 19 seasons of the Premier League.
And then there's the fact that Spurs spend considerably less on player's wages than almost all of their rivals.
malg said:I agree with him. We have some real tough games coming up, and I hope to God we're not sitting here in a couple of months time saying 'those draws at home have cost us a CL place'.