• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Management ENIC

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

ENIC In or ENIC Out

  • Total voters
    209
Guido 🇺🇦 said:
= 2 Marcus Rashford's on a 5yr contract. Doesn't really move the needle required for us to be challenging for a PL title, such is the vast void required to bridge the gap.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, if we paid out contracts in one go, sure. We also don't need cash to pay contracts. Cash is used for transfers, most of which are paid over 3/4 years.

So as much as it doesn't look like that much, it's a lot. But whether it gets used is another matter.
 
One possible scenario is that Levy (and a consortium) are planning to buy out the Lewis family trust share of ENIC. If it were a hostile takeover, it would stand to reason that Levy would have to step down in his role in advance of this.
 
Papafeels said:
I mean, if we paid out contracts in one go, sure. We also don't need cash to pay contracts. Cash is used for transfers, most of which are paid over 3/4 years.

So as much as it doesn't look like that much, it's a lot. But whether it gets used is another matter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That’s fair.

Main issue for me is a) this isn’t owner backing, it’s just a lever to pull that accesses money the club are due to make in the future today. b) £100m, £200m heck even £500m is not enough c) and as you say whether it’s used is also a factor.

The reason I sound so negative is why did they wait to get rid of Levy until after the summer transfer window? All of their pieces were already in place personnel wise. To me they waited until after the window because they’ve bought themselves an entire year (Jan window isn’t the window for squad building) to sell the Club.
 
Spursidol said:
We should see bigger sponsorship income over the next year or so - the AIA shirt sponsorship contract ends at end of 2026/27 and as bondholders wanted guaranteed income streams we ended up with a 7 year deal at £40m pa. The going rate is now much higher (ManU @ $75m pa or circa £60m pa) so that sponsorship should increase.

Whilst a stadium naming rights deal has been much talked about it looks from comparable deals that £15m - £20m pa might be the most Spurs could get, but that would mean the loss of revenue generated from NFL matches being broadcast from 'The Tottenham Hotspur stadium' as it becomes the XYZ stadium instead. So the real income increase will be a lot less than the £15m-£20m pa.

FYI historically Spurs sponsorship deals seem to have been increasing by maybe £30m pa for a few years.

However Spurs needs are multiple hundreds of million of pounds over the next couple of years to plough into the squad - far higher than can be got from increases in sponsorship.

So the only realistic way to get that is from either enic/Lewis family pumping that money in - something they have been very reluctant to do in past (at total of £110m has been invested over 25 years, including the £100m about 3 years ago) or to create new shares (so money goes directly to Spurs) for a minority investor (lets say 10% or 15% for £300m investment assuming Spurs worth £3 bn - £4 bn ish).

So are the Lewis family going to put hundreds of millions in the club themselves or accept dilution of ownership ? Both options available to them for 25 years but neither option taken up.

So we wait to see if Lewis family find the money - or its all talk of 'wanting success for Spurs' is just ...... all talk no trousers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The AIA deal ending at around the same time a new owner could come in is fortune. If it’s Qatari for instance they could whack their airline on as the shirt sponsor straight away for a nicely inflated sponsorship deal, which are now allowed.
 
FightingIllini said:
They didn't make it up, sources who Bloomberg believes would have reason to know the amount told them that number.

It's a banal, plausible figure.

I dunno, I'm not betting my life on the accuracy of that report, but it seems reasonable to me, whereas clearly those specifics are not on offer in the public filings and I find it less plausible to think you could just intuit the amount from first principles.

Not trying to get into a row with you here, I don't even really know what we're talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you read through the document I suggested it says that its a facility to pay ay any time over the next 8 months the PL media monies which are usually paid up to May 2026. So the document implies its ALL the monies PL pay Spurs in May 2026 which is the subject of the contract.

We know that PL paid Spurs circa £150m in last published accounts to 30 June 2024 (ie season 23/24), so if Spurs perform as well in 25/26 amount to be paid in May 2026 will not be less than that. So unless Bloomberg have a magic ball which forecast Spurs performing so badly in PL we'll only get £90m from PL, their figure is very conservative.

I prefer to use the original source documents (Spurs annual accounts plus the document creating the Macquaries charge) as journalists often get things wrong as they do not understand in depth the subjects they are writing about - nothing for them to get ashamed about, banking deals are complex if the journalists have not met them before, whether that's Ali Gold or the Bloomberg journalists
 
Brian Fantana said:
The AIA deal ending at around the same time a new owner could come in is fortune. If it’s Qatari for instance they could whack their airline on as the shirt sponsor straight away for a nicely inflated sponsorship deal, which are now allowed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

'Market value' rather than 'inflated' otherwise I agree with you - the AIA amount of 40m pa is definitely under market value by comparison with other clubs so maybe Qataris would double or so the sponsorship.

'Every little helps' as they say
 
Spursidol said:
'Market value' rather than 'inflated' otherwise I agree with you - the AIA amount of 40m pa is definitely under market value by comparison with other clubs so maybe Qataris would double or so the sponsorship.

'Every little helps' as they say
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, the MV lines seem to have been completely blurred this week as the PL deal with City has allowed them to fudge one of their sponsorship deals, which basically sets the comparable at a really high amount. They'll dictate the market with that deal.
 
Reported by Bloomberg, that we sold (at discount) this seasons future Premier League TV money receivables to Macquarie Bank, presumably to fund the recent transfer window, and prior windows liabilities.

Surely shareholder investment should have been the preferred route to go.
 
Trotter said:
Reported by Bloomberg, that we sold (at discount) this seasons future Premier League TV money receivables to Macquarie Bank, presumably to fund the recent transfer window, and prior windows liabilities.

Surely shareholder investment should have been the preferred route to go.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If this is the so called investment it does not bode well. This the smoke and mirrors bullshit we dont need. Id rather just got on with finding the correct buyer.
 
Spursidol said:
If you read through the document I suggested it says that its a facility to pay ay any time over the next 8 months the PL media monies which are usually paid up to May 2026. So the document implies its ALL the monies PL pay Spurs in May 2026 which is the subject of the contract.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think that's right. The full PL monies are the assets against which the loan is secured, but the loan terms and value itself are contained in a different document not provided publicly.

Spursidol said:
I prefer to use the original source documents (Spurs annual accounts plus the document creating the Macquaries charge) as journalists often get things wrong as they do not understand in depth the subjects they are writing about - nothing for them to get ashamed about, banking deals are complex if the journalists have not met them before, whether that's Ali Gold or the Bloomberg journalists
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We don't have the relevant source document.

This is not a contest of a journalist's interpretation of the source document versus yours, this is reporting from people with knowledge of the actual deal versus internet-brained speculation.

This is such a silly dispute with no real concrete implication, I'm dropping this.
 
Isn't this just invoice finance? Releases cash when needed. Low risk, presumably low cost way to go? Unless the big tv deals collapse.
 
Trotter said:
Reported by Bloomberg, that we sold (at discount) this seasons future Premier League TV money receivables to Macquarie Bank, presumably to fund the recent transfer window, and prior windows liabilities.

Surely shareholder investment should have been the preferred route to go.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In effect its a short term loan by bringing forward via a loan from Maquarie the monies we get from PL which would usually be paid at the end of this season.

The Macquarie documentation is dated 28 August (same date as Simons was bought) so could in theory have helped finance his deal, but the timing would be very tight, so I'd guess it was taken out to give funding for January window.

As its short term (in effect it come to an end at end of May when PL usually pays over our 25/26 media earnings/prize money) there is a necessity for other finance to have been put in place no later than this date -preferably by the shareholder (current probability the Lewis family) by that date, in addition to whatever increases in sponsorship revenues happen by then.
 
FightingIllini said:
I don't think that's right. The full PL monies are the assets against which the loan is secured, but the loan terms and value itself are contained in a different document not provided publicly.


We don't have the relevant source document.

This is not a contest of a journalist's interpretation of the source document versus yours, this is reporting from people with knowledge of the actual deal versus internet-brained speculation.

This is such a silly dispute with no real concrete implication, I'm dropping this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The source document is the one lodged at Companies House - the only thing missing from it is is various schedules which might firm up various numbers which do not need to be filed as its a document showing the 'charge' over the PL revenue stream..

Many people will not be used to dealing with such documentation so no surprise its not easy to understand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top