'Highest ever profit by English Club' - Guardian on us

  • 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!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

I also await Randomitable's reasoning as to why this perfectly respectable accounting term is 'bollocks'. :thumbup:

Evening. I am an accountant. Not a bookkeeper or 'somebody who works in accounts' but an actual real-life accountant. I've been drinking too.....but the accountant part is solid.

On the one hand yes, amortisation is a perfectly acceptable term used in the profession.

Amortisation by definition (in this example) refers to intangible assets, and this is why it's bollocks. Because it's intangible. Therefore arbitrary. Yes there might be particular conventions or accepted practice but ostensibly we're calculating (and charging to our I&E) a monetary value - which lest we forget is in part used to determine profit for example - based upon something arbitrary. And therefore bollocks. Or to use a more sophisticated term, made-up.

Or maybe it all is....who am I to say?
 
I have been banging this drum on here for years only to be met by

"Oh yeah, let's do a Leeds shall we?"

Just shows how we have underspent solidly for years.

We will never succeed with Levy strengthening the balance sheet for the end game
But we've stayed competitive for years, while teams like newcastle aston villa and everton have gone up and down. Newcastle went from champions league to championship in something like 8 years. The amount of money it would cost us to move up a level, is way more than we currently have. United spent 60million on di maria and pay 300'000 a week to falcao just to get them back in the champions league, and even still only just.
 
Still it's rather irrelevant isn't it, to the actual health of the club. It doesn't relate to actual cash flow or spending power.

What do our debtors/creditors look like?
Hey Nick,
Yep the sale for Bale was largely matched by the purchases. And while that does not translate to all cash in 2014, you are on the right track with debtors/creditors position, when i looked at the accounts a month or so ago things seemed in balance, so ok with that.
What i did not was though was some loans outstanding at +7%, reckon we need to knock those out, credit should be cheaper.
But the big green apple is the EPL money, Levy would have loved the extra £30 odd mill with only a small bit going to player wages.
It is going to be very interesting seeing how the Levy strategy plays out over the next 5yrs.
1. Extra EPL money will support stadium loan/interest repayments.
2. Poch/Mitchell and co are expected to improve our league position by choosing/coaching quality players on the rise.
3. Player profits (and ultimately cash) to support infrastructure development.
4. League and Cup performances to attract sponsorship and crowds to justify 56k seater stadium.
5. Levy doing the and making a surplus on the housing/commercial redevelopments.
Exciting times indeed.
 
Evening. I am an accountant. Not a bookkeeper or 'somebody who works in accounts' but an actual real-life accountant. I've been drinking too.....but the accountant part is solid.

On the one hand yes, amortisation is a perfectly acceptable term used in the profession.

Amortisation by definition (in this example) refers to intangible assets, and this is why it's bollocks. Because it's intangible. Therefore arbitrary. Yes there might be particular conventions or accepted practice but ostensibly we're calculating (and charging to our I&E) a monetary value - which lest we forget is in part used to determine profit for example - based upon something arbitrary. And therefore bollocks. Or to use a more sophisticated term, made-up.

Or maybe it all is....who am I to say?
Bollocks, you need to keep drinking until you come to your senses.
It is very practical to allocate a player purchase over the contract agreement (the life of value until otherwise sold or extended).
 
Absolutely true, but then it obviously wasn't like Levy just phoned in the deal and didn't really try to push it through, and left Poch hanging. We clearly went very hard after the both of them, but just neither ended up working out. Not all deals go through, and it really doesn't reflect poorly on Levy that his record for potential transfers isn't 100%.

I just think that most of us severely underestimate the time and difficulty of carrying out these transfers. We get the luxury of just sitting back and saying "hey, Poch wants that guy, so what's the big problem? Why haven't we bought him yet? What is taking so long? Levy clearly isn't backing him..."

Most people seem to then say "If player x is just another £5m, £10m, £15m, and Poch really wants them, then Levy needs to stop being so tight and just bite the bullet."

Of course we never used that transfer strategy before when buying players :lamelashock: :paulinhofacepalm: :soldadowtf:
 
My only real beef with these result are what Levy pays himself. Everything fits neatly e.g. 6th Highest revenue, 6th highest Salaries = Ave league position 6th. So why is he joint top highest paid Director not 6th? It would appear he has rewarded himself with a pay rise because of the increase in revenue from TV deals, which actually has nothing to do with him, the club and therefore him are the benefactors of the TV deal.

Tbf not many other Directors are presiding over the development of a new stadium - his job is a little more involved than the same role is at any other club.
 
Evening. I am an accountant. Not a bookkeeper or 'somebody who works in accounts' but an actual real-life accountant. I've been drinking too.....but the accountant part is solid.

On the one hand yes, amortisation is a perfectly acceptable term used in the profession.

Amortisation by definition (in this example) refers to intangible assets, and this is why it's bollocks. Because it's intangible. Therefore arbitrary. Yes there might be particular conventions or accepted practice but ostensibly we're calculating (and charging to our I&E) a monetary value - which lest we forget is in part used to determine profit for example - based upon something arbitrary. And therefore bollocks. Or to use a more sophisticated term, made-up.

Or maybe it all is....who am I to say?
Well, I'm glad you finally got round to justifying your assertion :thumbup:

But Spurs presumably use actual accountants too, and they presumably aren't drinking at the time they prepare the accounts and use the concept of amortisation. Add in Shawry's views, amongst others, who are knowledgeable on the subject, and I'm quite happy to stick to my view that amortisation is a perfectly acceptable/respectable accounting term.
 
Bollocks, you need to keep drinking until you come to your senses.
It is very practical to allocate a player purchase over the contract agreement (the life of value until otherwise sold or extended).
Well said Shawry. And thanks for your very knowledgeable contributions to this debate, which have helped a layman like myself understand a bit more about the arcane wonders of accountancy :)
 
I think what Randomitable Randomitable was saying was not that amortisation on accounts is bollocks but that it's not cash flow, just accounting principles. So saying we have lots of costs coming up is rather misleading. As is pointing to £80mrofit and saying therefore we have £80m to spend.

Assessing accounts is much more than just looking at net worth and net profit, this is a good example of exactly that! You have to look at several years worth of movements, not take one financial year in isolation.
 
But we've stayed competitive for years, while teams like newcastle aston villa and everton have gone up and down. Newcastle went from champions league to championship in something like 8 years. The amount of money it would cost us to move up a level, is way more than we currently have. United spent 60million on di maria and pay 300'000 a week to falcao just to get them back in the champions league, and even still only just.
Why , why ,why , young Anthony sets our standards at the level of the fallen . To honour ,
and love mediocrity is to live the life of the downtrodden . To walk with the foolish and
the weak is the sign of the oppressed .

" We will never succeed with Levy strengthening the balance sheet for the end game "
Enlightened Carlos B.

The truth hurts the blind .
 
Tbf not many other Directors are presiding over the development of a new stadium - his job is a little more involved than the same role is at any other club.
Then he should reward himself handsomely with the mother of all bonuses and a salary to match the increase in revenue that his work has resulted in, which would mean completing the stadium and winning big commercial deals on par with other "big" clubs with big stadia. I would have no problem with this.
 
Levy is paid £40k per week, probably not even top 10 of Spurs' employees, yet that's too much even though he's the head of the club? Where else would you find an MD paid considerably less than their employees? Seems perfectly reasonable to me
 
Why , why ,why , young Anthony sets our standards at the level of the fallen . To honour ,
and love mediocrity is to live the life of the downtrodden . To walk with the foolish and
the weak is the sign of the oppressed .

" We will never succeed with Levy strengthening the balance sheet for the end game "
Enlightened Carlos B.

The truth hurts the blind .
Or, I'm just not blind to the fact chelsea and city needed billionaires to buy their clubs in order to win the fucking league. The only way we're going to win the league is by getting bought by billionaires. Either that, or by the other teams above us getting shitter whilst we stay at the same level.
Im not setting standards of anything. What is it you don't understand about the premier league at the minute. Chelsea and City spens a billion pounds. £1'000'000'000'000. Thats more money than all of us on this forum will ever have in our lifetimes, combined. A fucking billion pound. Look past the fucking narrative and your naive wide eyed view of football, and let it sink in that the days of anyone having a chance at winning the league have gone. The definition of success in modern football has been re-written. To the point where even turning a small profit is a minor miracle.
We clearly don't have an extra £50million a season to spend. And its not like money isn't being spent. This is real life not fifa. you fucking speng.
 
Levy is paid £40k per week, probably not even top 10 of Spurs' employees, yet that's too much even though he's the head of the club? Where else would you find an MD paid considerably less than their employees? Seems perfectly reasonable to me
But the other 19 PL chairman get paid less than Levy. Yes Premier league footballers are hugely overpaid. We all know that. But you can`t use that as justification for Levy vastly over paying himself in comparison to his own premier league counterparts.
 
Or, I'm just not blind to the fact chelsea and city needed billionaires to buy their clubs in order to win the fucking league. The only way we're going to win the league is by getting bought by billionaires.This is real life not fifa. you fucking speng.
Ummm` ...were already owned by a billionaire. He`s a tax exile in the bahamas.
 
Ummm` ...were already owned by a billionaire. He`s a tax exile in the bahamas.
Actually we're majority owned by the English national investment company, also known as ENIC. Currently they have an 85% share of tottenham hotspur.
Enic is joint owned by Daniel Levy, and the Tavistock group.
 
Well, I'm glad you finally got round to justifying your assertion :thumbup:

But Spurs presumably use actual accountants too, and they presumably aren't drinking at the time they prepare the accounts and use the concept of amortisation. Add in Shawry's views, amongst others, who are knowledgeable on the subject, and I'm quite happy to stick to my view that amortisation is a perfectly acceptable/respectable accounting term.
Greaves357_bestever Greaves357_bestever Can you speak the Kings English please and not Eatonian.:myword:
 
Back
Top Bottom