Bedfordspurs
Chris Waddle
I guess the £400m statement could include money owed for previous deals
As in we spent £400m on transfers which may be true although I’d struggle to reconcile it
-
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
Financial Results
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
As in we spent £400m on transfers which may be true although I’d struggle to reconcile it
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
Considering the financial landscape it's sizeable chunk whatever the ball park figure. That said we owe £170m to other clubs in transfer fees...that is us kicking the can down the road....at some point that can squeeze us or we have a mechanism to level it up somewhat.
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
It is quite possible that the manager appointments were a lot worse than the player acquisitions?
Considering we are in the 3rd season now, Lo Celso Ndombele Sess Bergwijn barely feel like they've settled/contributed.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Yes, that. Probably deserves its own thread in gen footy. It will be quite significant.
Bit of both. Teams playing well the players look good. Players playing well the manager looks good.
johnola
Jermaine Jenas
Any insights in the debt position? Was the additional borrowing opportunistic rather than essential?
The £175M we borrowed from the government had gone onto the long liability pile (now £1100M), but net debt up only £101M. So somewhere we have squirrelled away £74M?
I can see they reference debt restructuring to allow debt repayment at a more digestible rate and cost.But that’s not the whole story.
(Paying off that long term principal debt over 22 years is £50M a year.)
The £175M we borrowed from the government had gone onto the long liability pile (now £1100M), but net debt up only £101M. So somewhere we have squirrelled away £74M?
I can see they reference debt restructuring to allow debt repayment at a more digestible rate and cost.But that’s not the whole story.
(Paying off that long term principal debt over 22 years is £50M a year.)
RunTMC
Steven Caulker
He actually says almost £400m spent on players. We don't actually don't know what his cut off is. Is £360m almost £400m? I wonder if wages are included as money spent on players
Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
We borrowed the £175m in May 2020 so that showed up in the 2020 accounts.
We borrowed £250m in financial year 2021 but used it to pay off the £175m BoE loan and a £50m loan from Merrills, which after costs left £22m that was used to strengthen our cash position.
Bullet
Colin Calderwood
An Athletic Daily Podcast the other day said:
The EPL signed a great deal with US television NBC, doubling their current deal to $2bn over 6 years which with a VERY CRUDE divisor is $17m per club per year.
Not all that much in the grand scheme of things, but still a very nice sum from one market.
LaLiga is 120m = 36% of the EPL deal e.g. about 6m per club per yr = hmmm
Serie A is 50m = 15% = 2.5m/club/yr = almost nothing
Bundesliga is 25m = 8% = 1.3m = meh
INTERESTINGLY they said the German clubs know they cannot market the BL as a top product that will garner those sorts of sums the EPL can get BUT in a clever move, they know they can scrape the EPL money out of the EPL clubs by selling us players, so they get their hands on the cash that way.
I'd not really thought of it so simply like that; we congratulate the EPL on getting all the money, then we pour it all into Europe anyway!
They also said that mainland European clubs will continue to push for the ESL super league and that Spurs are miles off but Conte at least gives us a glimmer of glamour and so if we improve quickly during the next 2 years we might just make it onto the ESL SUPER TRAIN.
So it might be financially PRUDENT to spaff loads of cash suddenly now to make sure we don't miss the gravy train i.e. spend a lot now and reap the rewards over the next 20 years.
The EPL signed a great deal with US television NBC, doubling their current deal to $2bn over 6 years which with a VERY CRUDE divisor is $17m per club per year.
Not all that much in the grand scheme of things, but still a very nice sum from one market.
LaLiga is 120m = 36% of the EPL deal e.g. about 6m per club per yr = hmmm
Serie A is 50m = 15% = 2.5m/club/yr = almost nothing
Bundesliga is 25m = 8% = 1.3m = meh
INTERESTINGLY they said the German clubs know they cannot market the BL as a top product that will garner those sorts of sums the EPL can get BUT in a clever move, they know they can scrape the EPL money out of the EPL clubs by selling us players, so they get their hands on the cash that way.
I'd not really thought of it so simply like that; we congratulate the EPL on getting all the money, then we pour it all into Europe anyway!
They also said that mainland European clubs will continue to push for the ESL super league and that Spurs are miles off but Conte at least gives us a glimmer of glamour and so if we improve quickly during the next 2 years we might just make it onto the ESL SUPER TRAIN.
So it might be financially PRUDENT to spaff loads of cash suddenly now to make sure we don't miss the gravy train i.e. spend a lot now and reap the rewards over the next 20 years.
johnola
Jermaine Jenas
Thank you very much Finney.
Essentially then, we have a large scale version of a residential mortgage. But where the property mortgaged is a thriving business centred around the stadium, and the lending multiple is about 2x/3x earnings (with optional revenues at full bore) and all over a similar standard mortgage term of 22 years.
(It’s a bit like the national debt, it needs to be managed but doesn’t really need to be paid off as long as the nation/business has a functioning economy).
I guess the impact is that the additional burden muddles the funding round of the next phase of development - but even if that enterprise needs to be ringfenced it should be a very profitable and beneficial venture.
Please don’t correct me if I am wrong even on multiple levels as I am now at peace with this. We’re going to be rich!
We'll never look to clear the debt entirely though. A decent portion of our revenues are stable enough through TV money, ticket sales, events etc so I cant imagine that we'd ever look to clear it.
It might be that we look to nibble away at it so that we're not vulnerable to interest rate increased in the years to come, but reducing it by say £20m p.a. over the coming years would be fine. The investments which we're making in hotels etc should also increase our income/profits as well so the debt pile relatively to ability to service it becomes more and more manageable
So I dont see the debt level as a problem at all - just depends on how conservative/aggressive Levy wants to be with it
It might be that we look to nibble away at it so that we're not vulnerable to interest rate increased in the years to come, but reducing it by say £20m p.a. over the coming years would be fine. The investments which we're making in hotels etc should also increase our income/profits as well so the debt pile relatively to ability to service it becomes more and more manageable
So I dont see the debt level as a problem at all - just depends on how conservative/aggressive Levy wants to be with it
johnola
Jermaine Jenas
Yes that I the picture I have and the attitude I take.
johnola
Jermaine Jenas
You know what, imagine what the stadium would have cost had we been pricing materials and expertise now.
The costs the likes of Leicester, Everton and perhaps Chelsea will experience (it’s gone a bit quiet on that front) will be bloody ridiculou by comparison.
(A poor example - but to illustrate this, I built a cabin in my garden which cost me £4500 all in three years ago, and would now be £7500- That’s just raw materials inflating).
Last edited:
Aside from interest rate / refinancing risk, I agree. Cant remember what our maturities are and whether we're paying fixed/floating rates
Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
As broadcast and sponsorship revenue goes up and up stadium income may become less relevant anyway. PL broadcast revenues continuing to go up (especially overseas ones) is actually probably bad for Spurs as the money is evenly distributed. At present the £120m to £150m revenue our stadium can generate is significantly more than PL broadcast revenues. That swinging the other way makes us less comparatively competitive.
It's not evenly distributed anymore. Changed a couple of years back.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/707720
Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
Max of 1.8 to 1 though and only for revenues over the cap with revenues under that being equally distributed. Still dilutes the advantage we have with our stadium.
Not by that much though. We will get what £80-90m more than some prem teams from our stadium. Let alone if we could finally get naming rights.