• 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
Spursidol said:
If Spurs enterprise value is currently £3bn including £700m of debt then equity value is £2.3bn.

If a 10% placing brings in £250k to £300k then the equity value rises to £2.55 to £2.85 bn.

So not sure what the error in the calculation is ? Genuine question

Although you could say I'm expecting the new 10% shareholder to bring something to the table, other than cash, with extra commercial income from somewhere to arrive at the upper end of the £250m to £300m value of the placing, which is true, I am hoping that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We're saying the same thing - the initial post I replied to suggested that a sale would be at 250m below current valuation - whereas in reality it would be at a premium and include the value of new cash injected - otherwise why would a shareholder sell?

FYI - the debt (bond repayment liabilities) are in the stadium company not the football club company.

As the owners file "Group Accounts" for THL it's very hard to split the numbers down to the individual companies

https://find-and-update.company-inf...gyNWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

Interesting to note that all charges against assets held by lenders were released when the bond placement was successful, in essence the Football Club (THFAC) now has zero debt liability.

https://find-and-update.company-inf...Q4MWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0
 
stevee said:
I don't agree with that.
We're in with a shot of CL qualification, which is worth £60 -100m, we still haven't had a full season of attendences in the new stadium and we've all the extra events lined up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a fair point, if we make top four we have a decent chance of approximating 2019 revenue.

VirginiaSpur said:
I'm confused. Match receipts are down year over year by over 90m, due to Covid.

Get butts back in the seats and we're almost back to 460m right there, no Champion's League final necessary.

Honestly, sometimes the hysteria on this forum is a bit much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But the run to the Champions League final IS a substantial portion of the matchday take, that's the thing.

Without those full house midweek games, matchday revenue is never going to look anything like 2019 levels.

It isn't rocket science. There are the three legs of the stool, TV, matchday, commercial. Our 2019 peak represents us as a durable Champions League force. To the extent that's no longer true, the revenue will come to reflect that across all three categories.
 
The Outsider said:
We're saying the same thing - the initial post I replied to suggested that a sale would be at 250m below current valuation - whereas in reality it would be at a premium and include the value of new cash injected - otherwise why would a shareholder sell?

FYI - the debt (bond repayment liabilities) are in the stadium company not the football club company.

As the owners file "Group Accounts" for THL it's very hard to split the numbers down to the individual companies

https://find-and-update.company-inf...gyNWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

Interesting to note that all charges against assets held by lenders were released when the bond placement was successful, in essence the Football Club (THFAC) now has zero debt liability.

https://find-and-update.company-inf...Q4MWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The original bank debt was certainly held in the Tottenham Stadium company, and agree the bank charge has now been released on repayment of bank debt (ie the loan notes are not secured on the stadium specifically).

However the wording on the Tottenham Stadium company is VERY poor if the bonds remain in the Stadium company

TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR STADIUM LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR STADIUM LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Note 9 constantly refers to The Group when referring to the bonds refinancing the bank debt - the Group presumably meaning Tottenham Hotspur Limited and its subsidiaries as referred to in Note 12. It would be logical if the bonds were taken out in the company which owns the £1 bn stadium the bonds were financing - but in which case the note should refer to 'The Company' just as Note 9 does when analysing the repayment profile of liabilities.

So I was left unsure whether the bonds were now in the stadium company or another company. If in the stadium company, I can only assume that note 9 was largely copied from the Tottenham Hotspur Limited notes by a junior accountant and the poor drafting not picked up on review
 
Spursidol said:
The original bank debt was certainly held in the Tottenham Stadium company, and agree the bank charge has now been released on repayment of bank debt (ie the loan notes are not secured on the stadium specifically).

However the wording on the Tottenham Stadium company is VERY poor if the bonds remain in the Stadium company

TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR STADIUM LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR STADIUM LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Note 9 constantly refers to The Group when referring to the bonds refinancing the bank debt - the Group presumably meaning Tottenham Hotspur Limited and its subsidiaries as referred to in Note 12. It would be logical if the bonds were taken out in the company which owns the £1 bn stadium the bonds were financing - but in which case the note should refer to 'The Company' just as Note 9 does when analysing the repayment profile of liabilities.

So I was left unsure whether the bonds were now in the stadium company or another company. If in the stadium company, I can only assume that note 9 was largely copied from the Tottenham Hotspur Limited notes by a junior accountant and the poor drafting not picked up on review
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's annoying isn't it .... I agree the wording suggests the bond is at the THL level, indeed in the bond offer document it refers to THL but as the deal was multi-tranched hard to say which goes where

£50m, 15-year USPP tranche priced at a 2.59% coupon;
£125m, 20-year USPP tranche priced at a 2.76% coupon;
£50m, 25-year USPP tranche priced at a 2.89% coupon; and
£300m, 30-year (21-year weighted average duration) USPP tranche priced at 2.79% coupon.

The average maturity of the total debt package is 23 years, while the weighted average coupon is 2.66%.
 
The Outsider said:
It's annoying isn't it .... I agree the wording suggests the bond is at the THL level, indeed in the bond offer document it refers to THL but as the deal was multi-tranched hard to say which goes where

£50m, 15-year USPP tranche priced at a 2.59% coupon;
£125m, 20-year USPP tranche priced at a 2.76% coupon;
£50m, 25-year USPP tranche priced at a 2.89% coupon; and
£300m, 30-year (21-year weighted average duration) USPP tranche priced at 2.79% coupon.

The average maturity of the total debt package is 23 years, while the weighted average coupon is 2.66%.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But there is no reference within the Company accounts (ie not the consolidated accounts) of Tottenham Hotspur Limited to the bond issue, which means it cannot be in that company but has to be in the name of a different entity. Frustrating the Stadium company loan note is poorly drafted to make the situation opaque.

Any chance of you sending me a copy of the bond offer document - aside from the Spurs interest I'm looking at a similar Loan Note debt facility from US sources in another life.
 
The Outsider said:
Club's revenue tanking - you're an idiot - tell you what I'll bet you 20 quid to any charity you want that club revenue goes up this season ..... come on put your money behind your nonsense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I bet it goes up too, but nowhere near 460M

Don’t go around calling people idiots pal for stating facts that you choose to ignore. Your the bloke living in Thailand, not me
 
VirginiaSpur said:
I'm confused. Match receipts are down year over year by over 90m, due to Covid.

Get butts back in the seats and we're almost back to 460m right there, no Champion's League final necessary.

Honestly, sometimes the hysteria on this forum is a bit much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Butts aren’t back in seats, we are c.25% below capacity based on recent apathy attendances
 
FightingIllini said:
That's a fair point, if we make top four we have a decent chance of approximating 2019 revenue.


But the run to the Champions League final IS a substantial portion of the matchday take, that's the thing.

Without those full house midweek games, matchday revenue is never going to look anything like 2019 levels.

It isn't rocket science. There are the three legs of the stool, TV, matchday, commercial. Our 2019 peak represents us as a durable Champions League force. To the extent that's no longer true, the revenue will come to reflect that across all three categories.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Aside from CL football there are a number of other revenue streams which could contribute a significant revenue stream recovery including :
- Spurs have the 3rd largest exhibition and conference facilities in London. Not surprisingly these revenues went to zero after having built up from almost zero in a few months to a decent level by March 2020 when pandemic first struck UK. These business users also consume a healthy level of food and drink etc
- There are 16 non football days activities allowed at the stadium - NFL, rugby, concerts etc which again were stopped during pandemic

Both these revenue streams will be capable of generating tens of millions of pounds in a full year

I'd guess that there are a number of other revenue streams which either stopped (eg stadium tours), or were significantly reduced (eg sales of clothing and merchandising when shop was closed) which will have restarted and add a few millions to revenues,

My guess these revenue streams would be £60m+ in a full year ..... and as they say every little helps
 
Spursidol said:
Aside from CL football there are a number of other revenue streams which could contribute a significant revenue stream recovery including :
- Spurs have the 3rd largest exhibition and conference facilities in London. Not surprisingly these revenues went to zero after having built up from almost zero in a few months to a decent level by March 2020 when pandemic first struck UK. These business users also consume a healthy level of food and drink etc
- There are 16 non football days activities allowed at the stadium - NFL, rugby, concerts etc which again were stopped during pandemic

Both these revenue streams will be capable of generating tens of millions of pounds in a full year

I'd guess that there are a number of other revenue streams which either stopped (eg stadium tours), or were significantly reduced (eg sales of clothing and merchandising when shop was closed) which will have restarted and add a few millions to revenues,

My guess these revenue streams would be £60m+ in a full year ..... and as they say every little helps
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Stadium tours probably cost more to run than they make back. Not a bad thing but unlikely to add much whatsoever

Are all 16 events confirmed?

It’s a good point re: 60M assuming it flows back to the FC….. if we could sort naming rights we could be in a strong position but I’m concerned re: ticket apathy. That said, our wage bill is currently miles lower than peers and probably lower than a few years ago which is a nice platform to build from
 
Spursidol said:
apathy or people still nervous of covid - other stadiums are also showing as less than full (don't forget a number of clubs report seats sold, not seats occupied by people
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Places like Leeds, Utd etc are packed out

Tons of seats available for the next three games this week and Covid is far less of a risk than say mid Dec when Omicron was an unknown
 
Zomb said:
Stadium tours probably cost more to run than they make back. Not a bad thing but unlikely to add much whatsoever

Are all 16 events confirmed?

It’s a good point re: 60M assuming it flows back to the FC….. if we could sort naming rights we could be in a strong position but I’m concerned re: ticket apathy. That said, our wage bill is currently miles lower than peers and probably lower than a few years ago which is a nice platform to build from
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Adult price for a stadium tour is £24, so high profit margin even for a small group oif people being taken round. Not multi million £ revenues by themselves but there are a few of these small revenue stream items (eg programme sales) which all add up.

These will be no problem in selling out 16 events in a year, providing there is time in advance to organise them. For the year to 30 June 2022, obviously there will not be 16 events - for most of the half year there will be none.

The £60m+ will flow back to FC, less of course the £22m pa (est) interest costs.

Wages costs are low, but will certainly be higher than a few years ago, not lower. But as % of revenues almost certainly lower than 80% of other PL clubs
 
Zomb said:
Places like Leeds, Utd etc are packed out

Tons of seats available for the next three games this week and Covid is far less of a risk than say mid Dec when Omicron was an unknown
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A fair few empty seats at ManU last night (lets say 5% - 10%), although I'm sure a lot fuller than a month ago when people more nervous of covid.

As I said most clubs do not publish actual attendances
 
Zomb said:
I bet it goes up too, but nowhere near 460M

Don’t go around calling people idiots pal for stating facts that you choose to ignore. Your the bloke living in Thailand, not me
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So you claim the revenue is tanking but won't put your money where you big mouth goes .... that comes as no surprise to me and probably to nobody else either.

If you think our revenue "is tanking" because of financial mismanagement and not Covid - then you are obviously being an idiot, now that's a fact.
 
Last edited:
Spursidol said:
But there is no reference within the Company accounts (ie not the consolidated accounts) of Tottenham Hotspur Limited to the bond issue, which means it cannot be in that company but has to be in the name of a different entity. Frustrating the Stadium company loan note is poorly drafted to make the situation opaque.

Any chance of you sending me a copy of the bond offer document - aside from the Spurs interest I'm looking at a similar Loan Note debt facility from US sources in another life.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'll see what I can do, these were only available to private investors exclusively in the US at a substantial fee, they were subject to strict NDA's as always, it was way out of my price range but I know a group who bid (without success) as it seems the offer was heavily over subscribed.

There is a very strong view that Spurs will return to the private placement market as all the indications are that we left 100's of millions on the table.

If you're looking at something similar Merrill Lynch have billions of private investors cash all aimed at sports finance that last I heard they couldn't place, Elliott McCabe is the main man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top