ENIC

[Raziel]

Yes. Bonuses are counted as part of the wage bill in the financial reports. That is the same for us and all clubs. We have typically always been at or under 50% with our wage to turnover ratio.

New FFP rules look at combined wage and transfer fee spend (with agents fees included as part of the transfer fee). Many clubs in Europe will struggle with the new FFP regulations and I'll be interested to see how that unfolds and how heavily UEFA punish those who do not apply. We are quite well placed for the new regulation (though missing the CL will definitely have an impact on our transfer budget).

Unfortunately we have now missed our window for a high level of spending on the playing side of the club. The time to do this was a few years ago when we were the furthest under the FFP line of all clubs in Europe (we had a massive £400m of wiggle room at one point) though the club couldn't take on more debt to spend due to the high level of debt that the overspend on the stadium resulted in, it would therefore have had to have been done via injection of capital from owner or outside investment.

From a cynical perspective FFP always smelled like it was designed to keep the status quo while pretending to protect the game.

That said, the current model doesn't work, having state ownership or unlimited spending isn't a good thing for the game and no fan (other than the ones of those clubs) should want that. The problem will be if someone can actually spend like Chelsea is now (spending more than entire leagues) and can still make it fly under FFP, just like City somehow has more "income" than Real Madrid via interesting sponsorships, you really still aren't doing anything substantial.

Someone did a review of the proposed changes, it's over 3 years, Spurs is one of the only clubs in Europe that could get in line with the year 3 requirement at this point.

 

[Lilbaz]

Yes. Bonuses are counted as part of the wage bill in the financial reports. That is the same for us and all clubs. We have typically always been at or under 50% with our wage to turnover ratio.

New FFP rules look at combined wage and transfer fee spend (with agents fees included as part of the transfer fee). Many clubs in Europe will struggle with the new FFP regulations and I'll be interested to see how that unfolds and how heavily UEFA punish those who do not apply. We are quite well placed for the new regulation (though missing the CL will definitely have an impact on our transfer budget).

Unfortunately we have now missed our window for a high level of spending on the playing side of the club. The time to do this was a few years ago when we were the furthest under the FFP line of all clubs in Europe (we had a massive £400m of wiggle room at one point) though the club couldn't take on more debt to spend due to the high level of debt that the overspend on the stadium resulted in, it would therefore have had to have been done via injection of capital from owner or outside investment.

Lists the punishments uefa may impose and how they are calculated.

https://documents.uefa.com/r/UEFA-C...-of-the-financial-disciplinary-measure-Online

All a bit moot if the esl is a reality by 2025.

 

[Lilbaz]

I've never been one for allowing regulatory bodies to interfere in the amounts that workers can be paid other than ensuring that there are minimums in place to avoid exploitation.

Doesn't have to be a maximum. Can pay what ever you want, but part of that pay willbe a prem bonus. You get relegated you lose that bonus and are paid a championship bonus instead. Relegated again you lose that bonus.

 

[Finney Is Back]

From a cynical perspective FFP always smelled like it was designed to keep the status quo while pretending to protect the game.

That said, the current model doesn't work, having state ownership or unlimited spending isn't a good thing for the game and no fan (other than the ones of those clubs) should want that. The problem will be if someone can actually spend like Chelsea is now (spending more than entire leagues) and can still make it fly under FFP, just like City somehow has more "income" than Real Madrid via interesting sponsorships, you really still aren't doing anything substantial.

Someone did a review of the proposed changes, it's over 3 years, Spurs is one of the only clubs in Europe that could get in line with the year 3 requirement at this point.

I agree with you that that is exactly what it was. The big clubs with the benefit of already having CL money pulling up the drawbridge.

I suspect that UEFA will continue to turn a blind eye to 'in-house' provided commerical income and the cheaters like Emirates Marketing Project and PSG (and likely now Saudi Sportswashing Machine going forward) will continue to cheat.

 

[Bishop]

Doesn't have to be a maximum. Can pay what ever you want, but part of that pay willbe a prem bonus. You get relegated you lose that bonus and are paid a championship bonus instead. Relegated again you lose that bonus.

The clubs have no real interest in this kind of model. Being able to pay more than their rivals is how they attract the better players.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

 

[Lilbaz]

The clubs have no real interest in this kind of model. Being able to pay more than their rivals is how they attract the better players.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

There is no limit to how much they can pay. Just part of that £1m or £100k a week would be a premier league bonus, say 30%. That they lose if relegated. You could even have a minimum amount before requiring a prem bonus say £20k a week. To protect the less well paid players.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

though the club couldn't take on more debt to spend due to the high level of debt that the overspend on the stadium resulted in, it would therefore have had to have been done via injection of capital from owner or outside investment.

It could only be done that way....no bank is going to lend you money to buy football players.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I'd imagine (without any expertise on the matter) that in order to secure favourable bank loans regarding stadium financing and debt management we may have had to show that the club was in a healthy financial position- if we had a high wage to turnover ratio then would banks have seen that as a risk? Probably need to have shown that the club is not reliant on european football income in order to cover it's financial commitments

Bingo. The 'record profits' declared at that time could be saving us £20m a year, every year, for at least 20 years.

They're the decisions you make if you're playing the long game.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

From a cynical perspective FFP always smelled like it was designed to keep the status quo while pretending to protect the game.

That said, the current model doesn't work, having state ownership or unlimited spending isn't a good thing for the game and no fan (other than the ones of those clubs) should want that. The problem will be if someone can actually spend like Chelsea is now (spending more than entire leagues) and can still make it fly under FFP, just like City somehow has more "income" than Real Madrid via interesting sponsorships, you really still aren't doing anything substantial.

Someone did a review of the proposed changes, it's over 3 years, Spurs is one of the only clubs in Europe that could get in line with the year 3 requirement at this point.

I agree with you that that is exactly what it was. The big clubs with the benefit of already having CL money pulling up the drawbridge.

I suspect that UEFA will continue to turn a blind eye to 'in-house' provided commerical income and the cheaters like Emirates Marketing Project and PSG (and likely now Saudi Sportswashing Machine going forward) will continue to cheat.

The annoying thing about this is the frustration/desperation/ire it creates amongst fan groups (often with each other, wink wink) as the goal 'silverware' becomes more elusive and out of reach. Another area of society that gets divided by the haves and have nots, and once again facilitated by corrupt and underhand methods.

Not forgetting the damage to individual clubs trying to keep up.

 

[Finney Is Back]

It could only be done that way....no bank is going to lend you money to buy football players.

A bank will lend you money for anything (legal) providing you provide the appropriate amount of collateral.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

A bank will lend you money for anything (legal) providing you provide the appropriate amount of collateral.

So Barcelona levers territory.

 

[Lilbaz]

So Barcelona levers territory.

The levers were selling off assets. They'd already got the loan.

 

[Grays_1890]

Doesn't have to be a maximum. Can pay what ever you want, but part of that pay willbe a prem bonus. You get relegated you lose that bonus and are paid a championship bonus instead. Relegated again you lose that bonus.

The % of income spend was always a good idea IF policed better and I think in terms of safeguarding the game and clubs it was the way forward. The bigger issue came from lower down the leagues in that respect because clubs like Wigan were topping up their wage bill by a million a week and by the time the owner left they nearly went to the wall along with a number of overspending which was more prevalent in the EFL. Just never seemed like it was policed at all

 

[Lilbaz]

The % of income spend was always a good idea IF policed better and I think in terms of safeguarding the game and clubs it was the way forward. The bigger issue came from lower down the leagues in that respect because clubs like Wigan were topping up their wage bill by a million a week and by the time the owner left they nearly went to the wall along with a number of overspending which was more prevalent in the EFL

Everyone gambling chasing a dream. Don't work out walk away limited liability.

 

[Grays_1890]

Everyone gambling chasing a dream. Don't work out walk away limited liability.

Thats why, I respect the Enic vision of it because if you are one of 5/6 clubs doing the same thing and only one club winning the league, the only way to ensure or at least give an advantage to win is to ensure you are spending more, its a race to the bottom for sure.

Its takes a braver man to stand up and say what most sensible people think and that the money spent on fees and wages is ridiculous and not long term sustainable AND then work towards a longer term plan which ensures stability for the club, its not exciting but its brave. At the end of the day overpaid wages are a blackhole, once the moneys gone, its gone, its not like it stays in the game and we could probably list more players in the PL in history that have not deserved their wages than have. I mean even if a player plays well half the time it means half their wages are messed up the wall. BUT in this desperation for success the time for logic is lost and as proven on here and the game over, people don't care about logic just success and how thats delivered and by whom, who cares

 

[Lilbaz]

Thats why, I respect the Enic vision of it because if you are one of 5/6 clubs doing the same thing and only one club winning the league, the only way to ensure or at least give an advantage to win is to ensure you are spending more, its a race to the bottom for sure.

Its takes a braver man to stand up and say what most sensible people think and that the money spent on fees and wages is ridiculous and not long term sustainable AND then work towards a longer term plan which ensures stability for the club, its not exciting but its brave. At the end of the day overpaid wages are a blackhole, once the moneys gone, its gone, its not like it stays in the game and we could probably list more players in the PL in history that have not deserved their wages than have. I mean even if a player plays well half the time it means half their wages are messed up the wall. BUT in this desperation for success the time for logic is lost and as proven on here and the game over, people don't care about logic just success and how thats delivered and by whom, who cares

I want new owners, that will gamble (and lose possibly lose everything). We're big enough that someone will buy us and gamble again.

Just think hating levy (who actually has the majority of his and his families wealth tied into the club) is totally unfair. He's done a good job.

 

[metalgear]

Unfortunately we have now missed our window for a high level of spending on the playing side of the club. The time to do this was a few years ago when we were the furthest under the FFP line of all clubs in Europe (we had a massive £400m of wiggle room at one point) though the club couldn't take on more debt to spend due to the high level of debt that the overspend on the stadium resulted in, it would therefore have had to have been done via injection of capital from owner or outside investment.

Debt is huge. If anyone buys spurs its buying over crazy levels of debt. No success on the pitch yet, more issues with staff and team, we probably look like a good target for money launderers. Can't imagine what our monthly installments are like. I know we are safe as cash flow is good, but our debt levels are at the levl of Man U and Brighton's compbined.

 

[Lilbaz]

Debt is huge. If anyone buys spurs its buying over crazy levels of debt. No success on the pitch yet, more issues with staff and team, we probably look like a good target for money launderers. Can't imagine what our monthly installments are like. I know we are safe as cash flow is good, but our debt levels are at the levl of Man U and Brighton's compbined.

What's our interest payments compared to utd though?

 

[Gazza]

What's our interest payments compared to utd though?

That's all that matters really in business, cheap large serviceable debts open so many avenues.

Only issue is you need a solid product that will service that debt. If people stop attending home games on protest of Levy .... he will have no choice but to walk. However that's not going to happen is it?

 

[metalgear]

What's our interest payments compared to utd though?

not sure. i hear we got the best rates. servicing debt is important and i believe both man u and spurs have no problems with it. but from the chart man u has more transfer debt than us and perhaps that is the bigger question.

also, man u and barca have more debt in playte transfers tha "financial" which i believe are fixed assets like stadiums etc.

the glazers are said to put the club in massive debt, draw dividends but are able to invest heavily into player stock time after time.

enic has put the club in even more debt, don't take out dividents (but pay themselves handsome salaries and bonuses) and we've marginally increased investments in player stock.