-
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...
Management Levy / ENIC
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
What's interesting here is that Levy (or the 'club') seem to be acknowledging that he did indeed make the statement......But it applied to the club he previously owned.... the one he owned at that time..not his current one.
The words Leopards and Spots spring to mind.
The only conclusion is that he saw Tottenham Hotspur as a bigger financial opportunity than Rangers
Hopefully we can now all put this bullshit “quote” to rest.
Has all the hallmarks of Levy doing his big shop, muttering to his missus “I’m not paying that” whilst holding a bottle of Heinz ketchup and then this forum spends decades attributing the quote to not pitching up the cash for Mbappe.
You can’t argue that Levy doesnt seize opportunities. Ever. Never maximises a position of strength
We currently have a big opportunity to spend, based on the 30 events happening. Other clubs don’t have r this headroom, however they will.
It currently creates an opening for us to maximise but there’s not a chance in hell that other clubs don’t copy this and catch us up. Others will do the same and the value of those niche will be removed
We currently have a big opportunity to spend, based on the 30 events happening. Other clubs don’t have r this headroom, however they will.
It currently creates an opening for us to maximise but there’s not a chance in hell that other clubs don’t copy this and catch us up. Others will do the same and the value of those niche will be removed
It's actually quite a clever play by CFT.
They are undeniably Levy's words and he would have to explain publicly that they have been used out of context; which the coward would never do.
It was a crass and stupid thing to say about any football club when you are an owner.
It's typical of Levy and ENIC's MO.
Contempt for the punters.
He’s pretty much already said he won’t be seizing on any opportunities football related .
It’s the same old story but now he has non footballing revenue so whatever losses we make through football failure is covered
We used to think Nelsen and Saha was not seizing an opportunity… it’d be Mana from Heaven now.
He's far too risk averse to ever seize a opportunity in regards to sports.
It is true that Levy and Lewis doesn't really have external money to pump in to be a bit more risky. Their wealth is bound up in the club and Lewis' other investments. Which is why Levy always says that they are open to entertaining outside investors.
But Levy keeps shooting himself in the foot by overvaluing the club and thus driving interested parties away.
I have been on boards where a poster or two really understands finance especially in football.Do we have anyone on here in that category that can explain our massive income but posting losses.Thanks
I'm not what you call a financial wizard, but typically that happens when you spend more than you make.
Looking through their tweets and it sounds like they are going about things the right way, contacting the club and not being dicks about things. Yet obviously the club are doing all they can to disrupt things for Sunday. I dread to think what they will do to try and stop the march and protest outside the ground. I wouldnt be surprised if they have a few snide tricks up their sleeves.
Seems like a lot of other clubs want to help Change for Tottenham. If you look through their replies to their posts you can see supporter groups including Man City and West Ham backing them and some other who arent happy with their owners who want to partner up and work on things. Quite interesting. I think a lot of fans have just had enough now of their clubs treating them like cash machines.
Their was a quite noticeable protest by City fans last night in regards to their ticket prices and the club having 9 resell partners. All/most of the organised supporter groups stays out of the stands for the opening 9 minutes and there was a pre match protest.
No expert but I do work closely with accountants and the ‘losses’ which are driven by depreciation are not real losses but part of accountant standards. They are obviously perfectly legal by the way and enable the club to offset future tax revenue so of course we need to do it.
1 stadium depreciation. We are putting a £60-70m loss each year until the stadium is worth zero. Of course our stadium won’t be worth zero at the end of this, it not like we hit zero and the stadium falls down and we have to rebuild it. Woolwich also used this.
2 player amortisation. When you sign a player say on a 5 year deal their value amortises (reduces), the declining value of the contract is then set as a loss. In practice this could be real (player fucks off on a free and you have to buy a new one for the same amount) but equally player might sign a new deal or you sell them for a profit so it’s a very prudent approach. I believe this was £140m roughly, some of this will materialise eventually but some won’t.
All clubs will do this, nothing dodgy but it makes a bit of a mockery of the ‘losses’. It would probably be better to get a cash in and out statement. Part of an accountants job is to use the tax code to find ways to pay less tax so it can be a bit of smoke and mirrors.
But can other clubs get their local councils to approve up to 30 non football events at their stadiums and it's not guaranteed that there is enough free weekends in the year for Spurs to use up the full permitted 30 event allowance. Concerts for example have to be held in the warmer months so are basically restricted to end of May to beginning of August when football season starts, suppose you could hold a concert on a free weekend in September .
Woolwich hold the odd concert but maybe they are restricted by the local council, no reason why Chelsea couldn't hold concerts but don't recall them having any , again may be the local council won't sanction it.
Rugby Union recently complained that they can't get permission to hold many extra events at Twickenham, so it's not as easy for others to follow the example set by Spurs.
At the moment Spurs have the finest state of the art stadium in the UK with hospitality areas second to none , so it's an easy choice for many in the concert/boxing/rugby business etc to pick Tottenham .
Last edited:
I agree with what you are saying
1 but say the old WHL West stand was built and now demolished and so if it had not been depreciated the entire cost of the stand would have been taken out of 1 year's accounts. The present stadium will need replacing one day and so depreciation is sensible. I do not know over how many years though but it should be the same as the lending say 20 years. There is always value in the land the stadium is built on and so it does not need to go to zero.
2 likewise player amortisation is sensible although youngsters like say Bergvale should increase in value but if they do and are sold then that profit comes into the accounts when sold creating a profit which should be utilised to buy a replacement and if they do not then they end up with a hefty tax bill,
One good thing is that no tax was paid. It is all a balancing act but depreciation and player amortisation are sensible and all clubs do it.
Currently, no they can’t. Some will in future which is my point. Time is now
How far are we from a Wimbledon situo where the fans need to reclaim the club?