Uncle Joe is an investor, not a benefactor. The only reason he'll donate £175m is if he's pretty sure it'll net him £200m in the end. And that's a state of affairs I'd much prefer to the alternative of having some murderous state take over with the aim of making PR rather than profit.
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Are you saying The Sun isn't reporting facts correctly over a sensationalised headline? Doesn't sound like them!
Probably to ensure other clubs don't put the prices up for players we bid for.
What Spurs haven't said is that the loan frees up other funds Spurs have for player acquisitions (and haven't said how much we could have as an acquisition budget for obvious reasons) !
On top of that, inflation sitting well above the 0.5% rate for this facility means that it is gaining value just by Spurs having access to it. With inflation around 2%, that's a 1.5% margin every year...
That boy Daniel's done it again...
THFC Stadium is as we know a subsidiary of THFC. All gate revenue is accounted for through the stadium. This loan isn’t going to be used to pay down debt this is additional debt basically to finance the loss of gate and match day income.
No matter which way you look at it ( unless it’s through THFC tinted specs) is money that is going to have to be repaid and irrespective of how much interest that’s going to take some doing. The conditions around the loan are a lot tighter that “ Yep have £175 million do with it what you want”Irrespective the majority of the Bonds are long term commitments which undoubtedly will cost THFC significant sums by way of early redemption penalties
Forget how long or how much the bonds are going to cost or what % of income is attributable to wages when this debt matures repayment is either going to have to come out of income generated or further long term borrowings.
It’s far from good news
No matter which way you look at it ( unless it’s through THFC tinted specs) is money that is going to have to be repaid and irrespective of how much interest that’s going to take some doing. The conditions around the loan are a lot tighter that “ Yep have £175 million do with it what you want”Irrespective the majority of the Bonds are long term commitments which undoubtedly will cost THFC significant sums by way of early redemption penalties
Forget how long or how much the bonds are going to cost or what % of income is attributable to wages when this debt matures repayment is either going to have to come out of income generated or further long term borrowings.
It’s far from good news
The stadium isn't a problem. Unfortunately due to covid/economy we will bring in less money in all areas and have less to spend and pay off the stadium in the next two years. After that though it will largely be as before except stuff like conferences will take longer to come back and entertainment stuff less lucrative at first. The stadium debt is already well structured. There is no issue. The covid debt from govt was very cheap money which is why we got it. It was just business prudence not desperation.
Covid was not foreseen by anyone, so can't blame Levy who wanted to deliver the 'best stadium' possible - and some of the overrun comes from Brexit affecting exchange rates putting up prices of the metal used in the stadium, again not foreseen. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing but when Levy took those decisions they were good decisions.
Spurs have paid off half the cost of the stadium and the other half financed by bonds and Spurs will pay those off by profits over a 23 year period. And it doesn't matter who owns the bonds provided Spurs keep up interest payments (which at circa £16m are not significant) and any other term of the bond (usually not onerous). So I repeat Spurs are in a very good financial position now with a stadium which will deliver cash flow for the foreseeable future - possibly not as much as estimated pre-covid but still significant profits.
And Bank of England cannot change the terms of the bonds, and nor can the US banks who currently own the bonds nor can anybody that buys the bonds from the current owners - .so that's not even a risk.
The only thing on revenues is loss of european revenues - nothing to do with covid - and I doubt these were in Spurs business plans for every year, one in two or three years perhaps. So whilst we want to get into Europe every year, financially its not a problem if we are out every other year.
TV revenues are fixed by contracts for typically 3 or 5 year contracts, so its irrelevant whether there is a reduction in numbers of subscribers in the short term. Its possible the next TV round might be at lower revenues, but that has never happened, and indeed growth has been highest in the sale of overseas tv rights, and that is expected to continue.
So I repeat the effect of covid on Spurs is likely to be short term (eg. clearly the period from March to the end of this season, matchday revenues will be almost zero) and will have limited effect on Spurs abilities to generate some profits. Worth recalling that Spurs last couple of years profits are amongst highest seen in PL, in part due to the lowest wages/revenues in PL, so Spurs will remain better off than probably 75%+ of other PL clubs.
Which means other clubs will go out of business a long time before Spurs
Ideally we do both but they are a money spinner we can use to pay off the loans. But according to most people on here the club isn't going to see the money, its going to be spent on Joe Lewis's new dinghy for his yacht.
Surely nobody in their right mind would buy the club without the stadium
Entirely agree with this - people are always saying "Enic have taken the profits" etc
Unless you think they are fraudulently reporting the annual accounts then the figures are right there every year
One area to comment on :
Profit from operations, excluding football trading and before depreciation was £172.7m (2018: £162.5m). Profit for the year after all charges including interest and tax was £68.6m (2018: £113.0m).
Be interesting to see the explanation (possibly in the full accounts when released) for
1. Profit from operations being only £10m better off than 2018 despite an £80m increase in revenues.
My guess would be all of :
- Wembley rent hired on a match by match basis rather than a full season, so cost is higher
- Higher player wages (due to new contracts)
- A number of staff would have been hired in say June 2018 with the expectation that the stadium would open in August/September 2018, even though it only opened in 2019, and
- Not to forget staff hired to start up new businesses such as conference and exhibitions inside the stadium (new business start up costs).
- and not forgetting that the new stadium will have had operating costs of its own (security electricity etc) for the first 9 months or so of the reporting period until the first game, meaning Spurs will have had the costs of not one but two stadiums to bear.
2. Profit after tax and interest being £45m down on last year, even though operating profit is £10m higher.
My guess would be one off costs, possibly one or two player values being written down, but I'd guess the majority of the £55m extra (say £30m) cost is the costs of opening the stadium in training costs and pre-opening costs for new staff, agency fees - all the building costs capitalised but not the 'soft costs' of opening.
Edit - Interest will also be higher on the bank debt which will be higher in the year versus previous year and thus interest also higher. Of course in the following year interest will drop as the bank debt was converted to bonds more than halving the interest rate. Not sure on quantum until the accounts are published but could be £20m ish
Hopefully some explanations in the full accounts, but that's my initial guesses
Profit from operations, excluding football trading and before depreciation was £172.7m (2018: £162.5m). Profit for the year after all charges including interest and tax was £68.6m (2018: £113.0m).
Be interesting to see the explanation (possibly in the full accounts when released) for
1. Profit from operations being only £10m better off than 2018 despite an £80m increase in revenues.
My guess would be all of :
- Wembley rent hired on a match by match basis rather than a full season, so cost is higher
- Higher player wages (due to new contracts)
- A number of staff would have been hired in say June 2018 with the expectation that the stadium would open in August/September 2018, even though it only opened in 2019, and
- Not to forget staff hired to start up new businesses such as conference and exhibitions inside the stadium (new business start up costs).
- and not forgetting that the new stadium will have had operating costs of its own (security electricity etc) for the first 9 months or so of the reporting period until the first game, meaning Spurs will have had the costs of not one but two stadiums to bear.
2. Profit after tax and interest being £45m down on last year, even though operating profit is £10m higher.
My guess would be one off costs, possibly one or two player values being written down, but I'd guess the majority of the £55m extra (say £30m) cost is the costs of opening the stadium in training costs and pre-opening costs for new staff, agency fees - all the building costs capitalised but not the 'soft costs' of opening.
Edit - Interest will also be higher on the bank debt which will be higher in the year versus previous year and thus interest also higher. Of course in the following year interest will drop as the bank debt was converted to bonds more than halving the interest rate. Not sure on quantum until the accounts are published but could be £20m ish
Hopefully some explanations in the full accounts, but that's my initial guesses
Last edited:
I’m confused, I watched alisdair gold earlier talk about how we won’t be able to sign many players with a 68mill profit.
Thought he actually knew what he was talking about but I guess not lol.
Its not available to anyone apart from us and utd
Its being reported as 0.5% so £875k - roughly one month pay for Kane or Ndombele
I've seen comments from other fans saying we should have a transfer ban
Gregg's have also used the same loan scheme so presumably they are banned from buying flour
Although Levy was saying this before the pandemic.For a moment.... imagine that this was Levy and not Rummenigge saying this:
Football has to be rational – Rummenigge expects transfer market to change post-coronavirus
Football has to be more rational in regards to the transfer market in the wake of the coronavirus crisis, says Karl-Heinz Rummenigge.uk.sports.yahoo.com
Bayern Munich chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge insists football must "become more rational" due to the financial impact of coronavirus.
After an enforced two-month break due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bundesliga returned in May, with Europe's other top-five major leagues – with the exception of Ligue 1, which opted to cancel the remainder of its season – resuming in June.
"Football has to try to become a bit more rational in order to be more stable for future crises," Rummenigge, who had previously revealed Bayern would be cautious with their transfer policy over coming seasons, told Handelsblatt.
"In the past 10 years, with this ever-higher-ever-further-ever-faster sums for player transfers and player salaries, football has shot a long way past the goal.
"This can no longer be called rational. That filled every summer break. We have to find better solutions in Europe."
Rummenigge is not convinced, however, that the introduction of a salary cap would be a feasible option, instead preferring more stringent Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.
"The legal requirements probably do not allow this [a salary cap]," he said.
"No, we need more rationality, and we have to develop FFP in Europe more rigorously with clear, key figures. Originally, it was always about not spending more money than is earned."
Coming out with regular comments such as we have to get over our obsession with spending money, it doesn't happen in other countries.
spending money doesn't necessarily equate to being successful
we are unique. We are different.
This is the kind of patronising bullshit that riled so many of us. Particularly as it coincided with the club announcing world record profits again and the revelation of Levy's record breaking bonus / salary.
To try and justify this now, using the hindsight of the coronavirus pandemic, ain't gonna wash, I'm afraid.