• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

DubSpur said:
That doesn't include what we owe on transfers and other liabilities. 158m does seem high though.
Click to expand...
Ah, there is 158m in there falling due within 12 months which will get accounted for in our P&L and will be paid, largely, by money we brought in in 2024. We still have more than enough headroom to increase wages.

I'll bet any amount of money, when the accounts come out in April, our cash balance will not have reduced by 158m or anything like it.
 
DeanoAustin said:
Ah, there is 158m in there falling due within 12 months which will get accounted for in our P&L and will be paid, largely, by money we brought in in 2024. We still have more than enough headroom to increase wages.

I'll bet any amount of money, when the accounts come out in April, our cash balance will not have reduced by 158m or anything like it.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, but there will again be payments due in the next 12 months, transfer installments etc.
 
DubSpur said:
I doubt it, but there will again be payments due in the next 12 months, transfer installments etc.
Click to expand...
That number, or close to it, is there every year. But it largely gets offset against revenue rather than our cash reserves. I'd venture a guess most clubs of our size have similar liabilities in their accounts because it's mostly player trading.

Bedfordspurs said:
That cabs I’ve always assumed is an assurity on the loans
Like Arsenal had to do
Click to expand...

Do we know that to be true and, if so, how much do we need to hold?

Does anyone believe that Levy is paying as much as we can on player wages without seriously risking the future of the club?
 
DeanoAustin said:
That number, or close to it, is there every year. But it largely gets offset against revenue rather than our cash reserves. I'd venture a guess most clubs of our size have similar liabilities in their accounts because it's mostly player trading.



Do we know that to be true and, if so, how much do we need to hold?

Does anyone believe that Levy is paying as much as we can on player wages without seriously risking the future of the club?
Click to expand...
We wouldn’t know as fans
But it was true at Arsenal as it got leaked
It’s been the case when I’ve done property loans before as by default there is no security
The security is the ground which actually isn’t of much benefit to anyone unlike a house
On the wages all I can say is we lose money
If we had cash left over I’d say we haven’t spent enough
 
DeanoAustin said:
That number, or close to it, is there every year. But it largely gets offset against revenue rather than our cash reserves. I'd venture a guess most clubs of our size have similar liabilities in their accounts because it's mostly player trading.



Do we know that to be true and, if so, how much do we need to hold?

Does anyone believe that Levy is paying as much as we can on player wages without seriously risking the future of the club?
Click to expand...
I'm sure we have room to increase the wage bill. However, I'd rather continue spending it our budget on the top young talent and they will naturally have a lower wage demand then older established players. Over time the wage bill should grow as those players develep. I wouldn't be surprised if Gray, Bergval, and Moore all get offered new improved contrats during the summer. We should get to the point in 2-3 years that we can go out and offer higher wages on one or two ready made players. That's of course if we stick to the strategy and don't panic at the end of this season.
 
DubSpur said:
I'm sure we have room to increase the wage bill. However, I'd rather continue spending it our budget on the top young talent and they will naturally have a lower wage demand then older established players. Over time the wage bill should grow as those players develep. I wouldn't be surprised if Gray, Bergval, and Moore all get offered new improved contrats during the summer. We should get to the point in 2-3 years that we can go out and offer higher wages on one or two ready made players. That's of course if we stick to the strategy and don't panic at the end of this season.
Click to expand...
There is a strategy there and it is coherent. And if that’s what it is, fine. But you need a massive amount of hits with that strategy because as Bervall, Gray and so on improve to the level they can carry us, we’ll see Solanke, Bissouma and Bentancur (as three examples) hit the downward slide in their career that we’re seeing with Son now. You’ll also probably have some of Romero, VdV, Udogie etc leave.

If you were cynical, you could say the signing of young talent is done with resale value in mind as much as any chance of them being a difference maker for us on the pitch.

Have many clubs adopted a strategy like this and had it elevate them to success?
 
DeanoAustin said:
Where are you seeing that in the accounts? From what I can see, we owe £851m made up of loans for the stadium and the Covid loan. Of that amount, £816m does not fall due for more than 5 years - page 38 of last year's annual report. Only 4m falls due in the next year or so (that obviously doesn't include interest but the interest payments are ~25m per year).

View attachment 18629
Click to expand...

Very drunk now. I'll try and find it tomorrow. Wasn't bank liabilities. Or at least not only.
 
DeanoAustin said:
There is a strategy there and it is coherent. And if that’s what it is, fine. But you need a massive amount of hits with that strategy because as Bervall, Gray and so on improve to the level they can carry us, we’ll see Solanke, Bissouma and Bentancur (as three examples) hit the downward slide in their career that we’re seeing with Son now. You’ll also probably have some of Romero, VdV, Udogie etc leave.

If you were cynical, you could say the signing of young talent is done with resale value in mind as much as any chance of them being a difference maker for us on the pitch.

Have many clubs adopted a strategy like this and had it elevate them to success?
Click to expand...
Currently in the squad that are 24 or under:
Kulu, Spence, VdV, Johnson, Sarr, Dragusin, Udogie, Kisky, Odobert, Lankshear, Yang, Gray, Bergvall, and Moore.
That's not including the likes of Phillips, Veliz, Vuslovic, and others who are on loan. So we already have a very good hit rate with these type of buys recently (even though some of those still have to be proven). Another few quality young additions and we'll hopefully be in a good situation in a few years with a few close to hitting their peaks and others with good experience at this level.

To me that's that the only way we are going to ever challenge for the league. We are never going to attract the finished article over the likes of City so we need to get them before they hit that level.
 
DeanoAustin said:
That number, or close to it, is there every year. But it largely gets offset against revenue rather than our cash reserves. I'd venture a guess most clubs of our size have similar liabilities in their accounts because it's mostly player trading.



Do we know that to be true and, if so, how much do we need to hold?

Does anyone believe that Levy is paying as much as we can on player wages without seriously risking the future of the club?
Click to expand...
We've definitely had higher than usual transfer liabilities in the last couple of years accounts... probably because of the spend on duds (hence having to go back into the market to buy more players) and the combination of tinkle poor resale value and lack of buyers to bring any cash to balance things out a bit with sales.

Nothing too restrictive but something we had to keep an eye on. Plus it'll probably ease as our purchases have been better and we sold Kane for a good chunk.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
We've definitely had higher than usual transfer liabilities in the last couple of years accounts... probably because of the spend on duds (hence having to go back into the market to buy more players) and the combination of tinkle poor resale value and lack of buyers to bring any cash to balance things out a bit with sales.

Nothing too restrictive but something we had to keep an eye on. Plus it'll probably ease as our purchases have been better and we sold Kane for a good chunk.
Click to expand...

Also isn't a season ticket considered a liability? Spurs have received the payment, but haven't yet played the games.
 
It’s worth considering just how much wages would have dropped getting players off our books last summer. I expect as some of that happened late the % will head back up towards the 55% figure with transfers over the summer etc
 
DubSpur said:
Currently in the squad that are 24 or under:
Kulu, Spence, VdV, Johnson, Sarr, Dragusin, Udogie, Kisky, Odobert, Lankshear, Yang, Gray, Bergvall, and Moore.
That's not including the likes of Phillips, Veliz, Vuslovic, and others who are on loan. So we already have a very good hit rate with these type of buys recently (even though some of those still have to be proven). Another few quality young additions and we'll hopefully be in a good situation in a few years with a few close to hitting their peaks and others with good experience at this level.

To me that's that the only way we are going to ever challenge for the league. We are never going to attract the finished article over the likes of City so we need to get them before they hit that level.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the club are readying themselves for 12 new contracts in the 25/26 season. Obviously covers all types including academy promotions into the 1st team. I think you'll see some of the wages move up in that process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back