So what is the aim this season then?

No, we never dominated an era in the way that Arsenal did the '30s, or Liverpool the '80s (though we were the overall top club of the '60s, at least according to the old London Evening News, using a table based on points per trophy and league position), but total domination like that was very much the exception before the PL arrived - EIGHT different clubs won the old Division One in the '60s, against six in the '70s and four in the '80s - now if it ain't Chelsea, it's one or other of the Mancs.
We've never been consistent at any point in our history until the past few years under ENIC - we've been more or less fifth for the last ten years, but we're definitely losing ground on the Top Four now, and Levy's fans can't have it both ways - if we're where our turnover and wage bill dictates we belong, how does that reflect any credit on the chairman? We're bang average, consistently, boringly average, and sadly that sums up our football, as well as our finances these days.

 

Would you be able to name a team in the Top 4 who's wage bill is not in the Top 4/6 and consistently outperformed his club's wage bill over the last 5 years? I believe there's going to be a high correlation between wage bill and league success.

Given the wage bill you can afford, there's still a job to be done to make sure you accomplish what you are capable of. It's not something to take for granted. In 2014, Fulham had the 9th largest wage bill and ended up being relegated.

I don't know how things were like in the 50's to 70's. When I look at the statistics, Wolves and Leeds were able to dominate and perform consistently. I'm not sure why the Spurs team in that era could win leagues and cups but yet be so erratic. No sure whether it's the same problem of not being able to keep our best players and money is again the devil.

I do think that money is a very important factor in the modern game. You cannot consistently outperform the resources you have.

 

Wage bill ranking (2013/14)

1. Man U (215.8m)
2. Man City (205m)
3. Chelsea (192.7m)
4. Arsenal (166.4m)
5. Liverpool (144m)
6. Tottenham (100.4m)
16. Southampton (55.2m)

Southampton were exceptional as they finished 8th. The Top 3 spend twice what Spurs spent. Spurs gate receipts were about 35m on a stadium capacity of 36k. The increased capacity might bring additional revenue of 25m or more depending on what tickets are going to cost then. That plus the NFL games I think will bridge the gap significantly with Arsenal in the longer run. Initially, some of the additional revenue will go towards repayment of the stadium.

 

Even someone as obtuse as me can see the logic of the turnover/wage bill to success correlation, but the joy of football, surely, is (or used to be!) its unpredictability - if financial clout is all that matters, why don't Man City (who presumably have the deepest pockets in the PL) win everything domestically, and Real Madrid sweep the board in Europe? Good managers and good players CAN buck the system, as Redknapp, Bale et al came tantalisingly close to proving only three or four years ago, and I'm horribly afraid that Pochettino and his bang average brigade may well prove that the system can be bucked in the opposite direction this season, but let's see.

 

There is a high correlation, not perfect correlation. I fished out the data to show the gap between us and Arsenal and how we might be able to close the gap. I never any statement that if you are No 1 in the list, you'll make a clean sweep of everything. Take note that I pointed out that there's still work to be done to achieve what you are capable of given your resources. Not sure how you misinterpreted that though.

 

Think the correlation is definitely there and clear to see. The key is breaking it and understanding which way round it actually works. Are the big four big because they pay big wages n fees or do they pay big because they are bigger and can afford to. Have there been times when we as a club could have speculated a little more with further investment firstly under jol but more tellingly under Harry when we signed saha and nelson. Absolutely yes. Without question a trick was missed in two January transfer windows that I recall.
Would a little more investment now push us on-i think not personally the gap has become too big so that now major investment is required to just even grab on to the coat tails of city who I believe are the team most at risk of falling out of the CL spots. The reason we are so far behind is because of them missed opportunities IMO. Not talking about doing a Leeds or nothing but a striker up a level of Pav and Defoe and decent centre half would have made a real difference.

 

Another right winger would ill be great. Lennon, Townsend and Lamela have unconvincing down that right hand side.

 

A few weeks ago I was feeling optimistic with the arrival of defensive reinforcements. But with no sign of a quality striker or two arriving ( Timo Werner hardly a goal to his name ) or midfielder of substance. We are only an injury away from disaster (Harry). We will be lucky to finish top 8 unless this is rectified soon players arriving transfer deadline day is too late.

 

If every single contract in EPL was limited to 1 year term, then the correlation would became a function. The longer club's average contract lengths are, the lesser that correlation gets, as deadwood builds up. That is the reason we have unpredictability. That 's the reason transfer window exists. That is why Spurs go with younger players having built up quite substantial deadwood pile in the past.
Yes, LFC signed many this window. How many perform to expectations remains to be seen. They clearly follow Spurs footsteps, while we copy gooners in almost every aspect.

 

To maintain 5th and win a trophy whilst developing young players such as alli Carroll etc.

 

Never meant to impress on the correlation between wages and positions for a single season though I only dished out one year's data. The clubs were spent big in 2014, spent big in 2013 and presumably previous seasons. That's how they established their dominance. While a club may drop out of the Top 4 for a season or so like Chelsea and Man U or break into the Top 4 like Liverpool or Spurs, in the longer term the teams who dominate are those who spent big. I tend to think that the longer the term, the higher the correlation between wages and performance.