All of it smoke and mirrors.
They always had, but in the last 18 years they have only one LC to show for. In a tightened budget most likely it's going to get worse rather than better in the short term.
Our net income will increase, not reduce.
That's an apt description of the dire predictions always made about Spurs.
This time around the twisted 'logic' runs thus: new stadium and the increased income (net of debt repayments) that stems from it = less attractive to players than before
Yeah, in fact I do levy it as man utd debt. How do you think it is paid off?? You think the Glazers are willing to pay out of their own pocket??!
The difference between uniteds debt and that of ENIC/Spurs is the Glazers float meaningless shares every now and then to pay off the debt, spurs won't have that luxury.
Wake up and see the owners for what they are, businessmen, the club isn't a charity, they are in it to make money, the four loans totalling £700m is fully saddled with the club whether you like it or not.
You clearly have no understating of finance.
Look, what Glaston is trying to insinuate is that all Glazer debt is man Utds, I know that's not true. However the Glazers and ENIC are not owning a sports club for fun, they are doing it for money.
You cannot compare United's structure with that of Spurs,
I would love to hear how ENIC plan on getting the money to pay for the loans, if you could fill me in with any pearls of wisdom you may have that'd be grand. Cheers.
So they didn't have money to spent (or at least didn't spend any money) and their construction is way behind schedule that it might finish in 2019, but somehow we all just predict doom and gloom for Spurs for no reasons.
That ist just beautiful.
In the long term - yes. In the short term - no.
there's no correlation between both of those scenarios.
First of our debt started repaying 12 years ago. Secondly the debt as it is now is meaningless for United and better to have it otherwise the taxes on profits and dividends to shareholders that we'd pay would most likely be bigger.
The reason why is that is because if we take into consideration turnover, profit and income data :
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17
United:
Turnover: £581m (Highest in league)
Profit: £57m PBT
Gate and match-day income £112m
TV and broadcasting £194m
Commercial income £276m
Net debt £213m
Interest and finance costs £25m
Tottenham Hotspur:
Turnover: £306m (6th highest in league)
Profit before tax: £58m (up from £38m in 2016)
Match receipts £45m
TV and media £150m
All commercial activities £73m
Uefa prize money £38m
Net debt: Stated as a positive, £15m more cash in the bank than the bank loans of £185m
Interest payable: £13m
In other words you will have 700-800m + debt on the books with much higher interest in the beginning until you repay some of it in the first 5-10 years, where the interest afterwards goes down or most likely the debt will be refinanced on better terms.
On top of that your turnover is twice as lower than that of United's and now you have to service both debt and interest much higher than United is at the moment.
You also have to stay profitable to pay off shareholders, hence registered in the Bahamas and also pay off Levy who has I think the highest dividend payout in the league.
Hilarious this place, we started the season well, so no chat in the Spurs thread. So instead we will have a go about Tottenham's stadium, yeah that's a good idea. Oh and I think I will trust the club with the stadium instead of random football fans on our finances 
.
.How is that? Sure you will have more gate and match day income, but even if you reach United's figures(highly doubtful), you still have to cut on wages, paying off agents and large transfer budgets, which I think was the main point?Ummmmm you using our finances in the old WHL
It's always like that regardless of the team- the stadium investment will pay off in the long term whilst unless there is a sugar daddy pumping money in the club(and stadium) you will need to finance the debt on it first.
There are exceptions to the rule - like the very best teams with huge commercial value and income, but you aren't one of them.
Or the chat is happening here because the news of it being delayed into 2019 is very fresh.Hilarious this place, we started the season well, so no chat in the Spurs thread. So instead we will have a go about Tottenham's stadium, yeah that's a good idea. Oh and I think I will trust the club with the stadium instead of random football fans on our finances
Spurs’ Director of finance and operations has conservatively estimated Spurs matchday income will increase by £60m annually. On top of this is annual income from stadium naming rights, NFL football, entertainment events (multi-purpose stadium), increased opportunities for a variety of stadium-related commercial deals/sponsorships etc etc.
.
We will be no where near Uniteds figures no denying that but match day revenue will double, are commercial end is ever increasing (this is where we are improving the most finally), TV money as far as I know has increased from then. No offence but why do you feel you know better than the business men in place? Our transfer model will not change as it hasn't in a long time.
The delay doesn't really bother me if I am being honest, it will be completed and this will be old new like most footballing news.
Increase by £100m? Holy shit. Is that right? That’s a huge amount if it is an overall increase for the football club and the figures aren’t fudged to include something else.
Mate, not saying it's not positive - it's a non brainer you should develop in that direction. But Glaston is telling us that it will have practically no financial implication to the short term as well, which is IMO far from reality.
I was saying the exact opposite …. which is why you cannot add onto Spurs club-debt the debts that any of our shareholders may have.
I might own shares in BT, but owe the bank £100k on my mortage. That bank debt is not added onto BT's debt and has nothing to do with them.
I doubt it will effect what Levy has always tried to do in the transfer window which is look for value. We will continue as normal, not you but some people on here are suggesting we wound be able to pay the loans, which is just moronic.
Much higher maintenance costs (multi-purpose stadium), mich higher interest payments, loans, debt, yet you'll come on top on the books despite missing out on CL?
Wrong. Our net income will increase right from the get-go. There will never be a year in which our stadium-related debt service payments exceed the extra £100m per year income boost provided by our new stadium.
You will repay it of course, my point is that as every club, be it Arsenal or whatever which invests in the long term you might have more financial implications as well as higher than the forecasted costs.
You might need to sell some players in the short term to balance the books (Kane, Eriksen) and look for value, so indeed that core principle wouldn't change. But I'd also believe what is coming out of your club and how the costs are going up as well with the delay you'll face even more implications and higher costs - playing at Wembley for another 6 months etc.
The wage structure is going up for all clubs as the money from TV rights are also going up, but I doubt you would catch up with the rest on the top of the table in the short term.
So what is your loan and debt repayment looking at next year according to your books?
Why is that the info from your club clearly say the cumulative spent and loans have extrapolated 3 times from what was expected?
Let me get this straight you expect to come positive on your balance sheet next year moving to the new stadium if other costs remain the same, yet failing to take into account the debt and interest?
I hardly think selling Kane or Eriksen will really help much in paying off the Stadium, it would be a drop in the ocean.
Do you really expect a rival football forum to wax lyrical about Spurs limping to wins over Newcastle and Fulham? Did you trust the club to buy players this summer?Hilarious this place, we started the season well, so no chat in the Spurs thread. So instead we will have a go about Tottenham's stadium, yeah that's a good idea. Oh and I think I will trust the club with the stadium instead of random football fans on our finances
What do you mean by "on top the books"?
The bottom line is that Spurs net annual income - i.e. after annual debt-servicing payments are taken into account - is going to be considerably increased by our new stadium complex.
The state of the posts some of the posts on here is laughable …. as if Spurs are going to be worse off financially with the new stadium than they were with the old stadium.
I am not asking anyone to wax lyrical, but a drop of perspective would be nice. Limping to a win at Fulham?? Did you watch the game? I thought we could have, but we didn't, no big deal as I would rather we signed players that will improve us rather than more filler.
But I'm not adding on debt from your shareholders? You really are confused.
The main ownership of Spurs has debts with four banks totalling £700m plus relating to the club, my point is whether or not it's under a 'seperate account to that of the football club's to paraphrase, is irrelevant. ENIC and it's multi millionaire owners are looking to make money from the club, and will utilize the club for that basis.
A different account doesn't mean that the two won't overlap.
In this market you can easily take 130m+ for Kane and perhaps 90-100m for Eriksen. Obviously the loans are pretty long term and you would only have "problems" paying off the higher interest in the first 5-10 years. Afterwards the interest will go down and you will easily service it with the bigger(most likely) match days revenues and TV deals.
You would probably replace both of them in a 3rd or something looking for value on the market - something you have done pretty well over the last 10 years and something you got to give it to Levy.
They will want to make sure their investment continues, why would ENIC invest in basically a full new infrastructure ie training ground, new multipurpose stadium, museum etc if all they wanted to do was milk the club for all its worth? why would they saddle their 20 year investment with a burden it cant afford?
Again - you will come with those revenues figures in the long term - but no, you won't get 100m + each year in the first 5-10, because you suddenly moved to a bigger stadium.
Servicing debt and loans means that in the short terms you won't gain value from it as it is a long term project.
The annual income would come up straight away but the annual expenditures will also come up straight away in much higher numbers - at least again the first years.
Unless the players themselves want to leave they wont be sold, its fiction that Levy just sells players. He has never sold a player that didn't want to go or didn't kick up a stink about going. He kept Modric an extra year and didn't let him leave, he sold Bale for a WR fee, but they wanted to go.
I'm sorry, but you are. It's not just different accounts - it's different companies.
Tottenham Hotspur plc do not owe £700m.
ENIC is our biggest shareholder, but they have investments in many other businesses including software companies, retailers and entertainment complexes. So why aren't you (crazily) adding ENIC's debts onto the debts of these other businesses too? Your whole 'logic' is a nonsense.
Last edited:
Yeah of course. But at some point Kane would also want to move on, maybe Eriksen and they would kick a fuss if their head is turned and are promised 300k per week. Something Levy won't give them.
He's a shrewd businessman. Not saying otherwise. Not saying you'll get relegated or something like that or you'll be broke due to the new stadium, but rather just trying to offer a more balanced view to what Glaston is saying here..
I still think the club will be sold within the next 2 seasons so it doesn’t really matter.
I have not said that, so don't put your words in my mouth.
In the short-term we of course will have stadium-related debt payments to make. But even in the short-term, these payments will be outweighed by the income boost from our new stadium … and this is the simple point I'm making.