Except you're losing money, every year, outside of player trading...
And do you see in the 2011 column, where it says 39 (£39m) in the cups row? Good luck not losing horrendous amounts of money without that. (Before player trading, you lost £7.2m, when you had £39m of cup revenue [~£37m of money from Europe is included that year's finances]...)
They aren't in a particularly profitable situation since Harry has pushed the wages up over 90mil from a MUCH smaller amount before him(this is Harry's MO, buy for 3 years, kill wages, destroy a clubs profitabiliy and flee before the firesale(if said club can offload high wage players) and downfall of the club).
However, you're wrong, you say they made a 7.2mil loss BEFORE player trading, player amortisation is player trading and it was worth 39mil.
It would be hard to go around and tally up which players bought when are included in that, but you can see from the previous amounts that they went up massively 4 years ago, which is when their spree started IIRC. In really only 1-2 years time max that will drop to very very little with most of the big buys gone from that and most of the recent buys have been much smaller.
Basically the hugely heavy 07/08 spending is responsible for the huge amortisation costs(40mil basically for the past 3 years), which will disappear to almost nothing in a year. The more recent buys that will still be on there will be, 5mil parker at 1.25mil a year for 4 years probably, 8mil VDV, probably 2mil a year for another 2 years.
Wage wise, they CAN do a lot about it, Bassong, Hutton, Bentley, Corluka, Pav, maybe Defoe, Kracjar, likely Pienaar, Gallas will be close to retiring, Freidal.
It's still not pretty, if Redknapp had sold players properly and never bought the likes of Pienaar then they'd have had more profit in the past couple years and be more capable of buying big off their own profits.
For Spurs, its a fairly easy fix, just sell all the guys Redknapp doesn't bother selling fixes half their problem, and older bought players cost disappears in the next year or so making a nice 30-35mil lower yearly spend for them.
THe slight difference between Spurs and Harry's older clubs is, Pompie were **** and he gave huge wages to players no where near good enough, to a club vastly less profitable which killed them, West Ham, Pompie, Southampton(to a lesser degree due to lack of time there you would hope? not quite sure where their financial problems came from, Harry or loads of places?), and Spurs. Again the difference is at Spurs due to being a top 6 club, he was buying players and handing out wages to players at FAR closer to their real value. Giving Kanu 60k a week to never play at Pompie and giving Pienaar the same is very different, no one anywhere wanted Kanu, Pienaar is very sellable.
I assume you realise that all those books, all that money on player amortisation basically covers 150mil of spending, and they only posted a loss in ONE of those years? They've spent 150mil AND stayed in the black during their heaviest spending every, where only City and Chelsea have outspent them, and they didn't make a loss, or acrue large debts, there are 2 clubs realistically that can spend like that and not post a loss in this league, Arsenal and Spurs.
Spurs now have the basis of a very good squad, they no longer need to spend 150mil every 5 years, once those player transfers are off the book they go back to being VERY comfortable, and can afford to buy again. If they can cut wages down by 15mil as well(which there is no reason they can't considering the guys they simply don't play), then you're talking about EASILY being able to buy a 20mil player from their own money.
Good business in the style of Newcastle and you can sell a "big" player for obscene amounts and buy as good a replacement for vastly less and both improve the team and make more money.
Bale and Modric are currently heavily over rated, Modric isn't likely to improve much, Bale could if he can find something that works for him or a manager who can get consistency out of him, either way neither is worth close to 40mil. Sell one for 30mil +, replacement at 10mil, an extra player at 10mil and sell the rubbish and Spurs are one of the healthiest and least debt ridden clubs in the league.
Redknapp is certainly hurting them wage wise, their wages are rising as fast as Arsenal are and can't be sustained, and both clubs carry a bunch of players that don't get played and offer nothing to the team and both managers refuse to get shot of them and save 10-20mil a year. Arsenal have actual debt, Spurs don't, but Arsenal have a hugely higher revenue---- and higher costs and MUCH higher wages to go along with it.
Both are exceptionally well run clubs financially, both could be more profitable with managers making better choices, neither is in the slightest bit of trouble.
)
. You couldn't give a rational reason for Bale having a £40m value... or demonstrate how that's his market value.
