The topic of Tottenham Hotspur’s ability to spend big on squad costs compared to some other Premier League clubs has been debated long and hard for much of the summer.All through the summer, Aston Villa and Newcastle United fans have been moaning about the fact that the Premier League’s spending restriction rules do not allow them to spend as much as Tottenham.While that is explained by the simple fact that Spurs generate more revenue, that has not stopped the likes of Gabby Agbonlahor from suggesting that the financial rules are unfair.The complaint of the Villa and Newcastle fans seems to be that the big six have written the rules such that they cannot do what those clubs did in the past.However, one would think that if that was their complaint, their ire would be aimed at Chelsea and Man City (who were funded by owner money before the tightening of the rules), as everything that Tottenham have done to increase their revenue can theoretically be repeated by both the Villans and Magpies.Photo by SpursWebFormer Everton CEO says Tottenham Stadium’s revenue streams are not unfairThe reason Spurs are able to operate on a different financial footing to some of their rivals is mainly down to the revenue generated by their stadium.Not only does the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium generate more income on matchdays than many of their rivals’, but it also hosts several other sporting events like the NFL as well as concerts through the year.That means that the money generated from these events has been able to increase the club’s revenue base against which their squad cost ratio is measured.When asked if it is fair that revenue coming from non-footballing events are considered for SCR, former Everton CEO Keith Wyness told Football Insider: “We should always encourage clubs to build great facilities for fans and to reinvest in infrastructure, rather than wasting it so much on stuff that ends up…we used to call it the prune juice effect, where the money floats right through to the players’ car park.“We shouldn’t be punishing people who do that. I get the point that it becomes a non-footballing activity, but nevertheless, we should not be punishing people for building great facilities for the fans and for the football club. And don’t forget, the football club is the main tenant. Spurs’ NFL contract, I don’t have a problem with that. That’s a proper contract that’s there.”The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium was built specifically for SCR and PSR purposesThis whole framing by some opposition fans to suggest that the revenue generated by the stadium should not matter is nothing less than idiotic. The financial rules were brought in to ensure clubs are sustainable, which means that they have to generate greater revenue to spend more.This was not retrospectively applied by the Premier League to advantage Tottenham. In fact, the whole reason for Daniel Levy deciding to build a billion-pound stadium was due to the realisation that these restrictions were coming and that was the best way for Spurs to compete at the top over the long term.Tottenham made big sacrifices to fund this stadium, and one could argue it cost them a couple of Premier League titles, as Mauricio Pochettino’s team could have won major honours had Spurs invested more into the first team.The club were unable to do that because they had committed to a new stadium, and they are now reaping the rewards of their planning.READ MORE: Everton were not only English club to ask Tottenham about late Richarlison dealThe post Tottenham ‘should not be punished’ for stadium use, says former Everton chief appeared first on Spurs Web.