• 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
Would have thought Spurs valuation could be estimated by the recent valuations of Manure and Chelsea, Spurs have much lower revenue than MU but have better infrastructure . Revenue is higher than Chelsea and will continue to be so if we can closely match or better their PL league positions and involvement in Europe , what is harder to judge and needs a financial expert to work out is how our debt although responsibly structured effects our valuation, our stadium is an earner something Chelsea deperately want but like Manure need about £2 billion and space to build it.
 
Great to see Vinai already hiring subject matter experts in executive positions. Hiring the ECBs Chief Communication Officer (Kate Miller) is good to see, that follows the recent hire of Chief Marketing Officer (Adam Gardiner). Will Matthew Collecott stay on as our Chief Finance Officer? More importantly, who will become our Chief Football Officer. I'd imagine whoever that will be will end up being Lange's and Frank's boss, assuming Nunn is on the way out.
 
The ECB have still got the new comms. woman on the executive page on their website.
Do you think she hasn’t told them and is just moonlighting for Spurs!?
 
Muckleflugga said:
Would have thought Spurs valuation could be estimated by the recent valuations of Manure and Chelsea, Spurs have much lower revenue than MU but have better infrastructure . Revenue is higher than Chelsea and will continue to be so if we can closely match or better their PL league positions and involvement in Europe , what is harder to judge and needs a financial expert to work out is how our debt although responsibly structured effects our valuation, our stadium is an earner something Chelsea deperately want but like Manure need about £2 billion and space to build it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Comparative valuations are undertaken by Forbes and Football Benchmarks, using different methodologies for 'enterprise value'.

Spurs is valued at £2.6bn by Forbes, in 9th place in their global ranking. We're also in 9th place in the Football Benchmarks list, valued at £3.2bn.

The Football Benchmarks methodology seems more plausible to my highly amateur eye.

One back of envelope way of valuation is to multiply revenues by six, which, for the season covered by the most recent rankings above (2023/24), comes out at £3.1bn.

Apparently, when Rothschild was recently engaged to look into selling a stake, Levy valued Spurs at £3.75bn. If that's true, then this would likely be the value related to regular CL participation, which is what we really should be doing sooner rather than later.
 
Play Up Spurs!!!! said:
No, not significant in terms of what some would like to see, but if it was any more significant then we'd run into FFP/PSR problems.

But I guess it is something that might have helped with little short-term obstacles in the financial situation, and could help with further capital investment related to the stadium, Hotspur Way or in the southern development. (There's been stuff going on at Hotspur Way, land purchase, etc.)

I thought something like £100m was used initially, and then £30m odd last December. Is any of this 'visible' in the accounts?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Chelsea have pumped in billions - I don’t think PSR is something we need to worry about
 
McCOYS said:
Apparently this is her, I got the picture from here Linkedin.

1722601547397
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh my god. That's my mates ex!! She beat him up several times and put him in hospital. She's a fucking maniac with borderline personality disorder.
 
Spursidol said:
I'd like to see how Forbes has calculated a value for Spurs which I suspect is slightly on the high side. The calculations in my post are standard ways to value companies.

But the biggest issue is possibly seeing the detail as to how Forbes have got to a value of Lewis as it doesn't seem to tally with with the number and size of the assets listed on the Tavistock website ...., or his billion dollar art collection plus 250m million dollar boat etc. As he's been resident and domiciled in Bahamas with low/no tax paid for 40 years he's grown his assets without paying the taxes needed for most people.

In my previous business life, I've been able to disprove values given to various businesses by the likes of Goldman Sachs so Forbes would not be first big name who I've not agreed with yet been proved correct.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Your valuation seems to be basing the value on net tangible assets and therefore ignores intangibles like goodwill. I expect that Forbes are basing their value off a multiple of EBITDA which I think is the right way.

That said, when I look at my personal investments I love a company whose market cap is less than their nett tangible assets.
 
Ulrika-ka-ka-ka said:
Your valuation seems to be basing the value on net tangible assets and therefore ignores intangibles like goodwill. I expect that Forbes are basing their value off a multiple of EBITDA which I think is the right way.

That said, when I look at my personal investments I love a company whose market cap is less than their nett tangible assets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Goodwill is, as you say, an intangible, and in reality impossible to value.

When you see it stated in the accounts its the difference between the price someone was prepared to pay for the company and the tangible assets.

Spurs profitability is actually really low by comparison with the gross capital employed which would almost imply negative goodwill - the only thing making it attractive in financial terms is the bonds with an interest rate of under 3% and average repayment of over 20 years. As part of the price a bidder is prepared to pay, they might well put a value on that of say [2%] x the gross bond value for the 20 years remaining life of the bonds - its not a conventional thing to value, but its rare to find such funding..

However it all comes back to what is the price an external bidder is prepared to pay, and what is the minimum price the Lewis Family is prepared to accept - which in theory might be what is the future price if Spurs has sufficient funds to improve its squad to be a genuine PL winner contender and are the Lewis family prepared to make that funding available.

The valuation of football clubs at present is not dissimilar to the valuation of some tech companies in the tech boom of 20 years ago which, I think it was George Soros, described as irrational - the valuations are multiple of gross revenues not ebitda or profits unlike other industries !.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top