Repetitive bickering and point scoring about money and our transfer policy

[Modric THFC]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

Pardon me? excuse me?

If this is the case then why exactly have you not said this when countless others decided to mention the report as evidence that we have no money to spend now...and we didn't have any to spend then? how come you're just saying this now when it was some other posters that actually brought up the reports first?

also if it's not the report...then what has now made you think we won't have much?

Because magic new streams of income done appear in the accounts.
The sponsorship deals are over a fixed periods of time and will be the same as last year.
Gate receipts will be pretty much the same.
Prize money from the league and europa league is predictable.
Unless someone has decided to buy a few million away kits or something, its all very predicable.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: what has happened to the transfer section?

:ross:

What's so funny?

Arcspace's post seemed to be questioning the integrity of the published accounts. I'd like to know whether he meant to do so or whether it was merely accidental.

 

[Kingdawson]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

I'm a simple guy that looks at things from a very..ummm...simple viewpoint. I don't pretend to be an expert in this or that. I mostly base my opinions and make judgement on common sense.

If i'm told that the financial report says we have no cash to spend (or very little) then it doesn't make sense that we can bid 23m on a player. People claiming it's because of instalments are:

1) guessing

but more importantly i don't get what difference it makes. I mean i get that paying more upfront would generally hurt a person/business more but offering that sum means you either have the cash or are extremley confident you can pay the sum (certain when it comes to someone like Levy tbh). If it's not feasable then we wouldn't be making the bid so obviously we have the money to play with (we might not have that cash in a lump sum but bidding that means we have it imo).

If Chelski paid the 50m they spent on Torres in instalments, does it mean they didn't spend 50m on him? of course it doesn't so why now are we going into specifics about payment plans when the majority of premier league clubs operate in this manner.

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: what has happened to the transfer section?

Can you clarify - are you suggesting criminality on the part of the directors of Tottenham Hotspur? Are you suggesting dishonest reporting of the accounts?

None of the above - I'm suggesting there is so much more to our finances (knoweldge/information wise) than is published in those pdfs

Unless you are intimately involved witht the club (which I sincerely doubt you are, anymore than an active participant on the skyscraper forums) - there is abosolutely NO WAY you can conslclusively state what we can and cannot afford

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

So, no examples? Come on, I'm sure there are some to find...

---------------------

Is your question a rhetorical one? What kind of answer were you expecting here?

In case not: No. I don't believe so. Do you have a point?

Example of excuces? Well - the transitional season is a classic and you pushed it yet again. Is that your question?

How about looking at our players and managers for not being good enough - is that also a possible 'explanation' in your frame of reference?

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

He's not above criticism at all.

He's just above nonsensical criticism that is based on ignorance.

Are you the self-appointed Levy paladin who decides what is 'nonsensical' and 'ignorant', jimmy?

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

Our actual financial results are available for most of the period you discussed, that actually shows our profits and losses. That shows how much money we've had available to spend that hasn't been spent. Seems way more relevant.

We did sign those players - which means whatever mode of finance was available was 'available'.

Are you disputing that?

 

[Spursalot]

Re: what has happened to the transfer section?

None of the above - I'm suggesting there is so much more to our finances (knoweldge/information wise) than is published in those pdfs

Unless you are intimately involved witht the club (which I sincerely doubt you are, anymore than an active participant on the skyscraper forums) - there is abosolutely NO WAY you can conslclusively state what we can and cannot afford

These accounts will be used by banks to determine whether or not Tottenham Hotspur are in a financial position to pay back loans, yet we can't use them to ascertain the financial situation of the club?

Madness.

 

[braineclipse]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

I'm a simple guy that looks at things from a very..ummm...simple viewpoint. I don't pretend to be an expert in this or that. I mostly base my opinions and make judgement on common sense.

If i'm told that the financial report says we have no cash to spend (or very little) then it doesn't make sense that we can bid 23m on a player. People claiming it's because of instalments are:

1) guessing

but more importantly i don't get what difference it makes. I mean i get that paying more upfront would generally hurt a person/business more but offering that sum means you either have the cash or are extremley confident you can pay the sum (certain when it comes to someone like Levy tbh). If it's not feasable then we wouldn't be making the bid so obviously we have the money to play with (we might not have that cash in a lump sum but bidding that means we have it imo).

If Chelski paid the 50m they spent on Torres in instalments, does it mean they didn't spend 50m on him? of course it doesn't so why now are we going into specifics about payment plans when the majority of premier league clubs operate in this manner.

Simple viewpoint.

Club A: Has 30 million pounds in the bank. Bids 23 million for a player, money straight up.

Club B: Has 6 million pounds in the bank, can't spend all of it, must pay wages. Bids 23 million for a player, saying that we'll give you 5 of that now, then another 5 next year, 5 after that, 5 after that and 3 the year after that because right now we can't afford any more, but we will have the money in the future and we'll sign the contracts and get a bank to guarantee it for us.

Both clubs can make offers of 23 million, but club A has more money than club B.

 

[Kingdawson]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

I'm aware Club A has more chance signing the player but that doesn't mean Club B doesn't have the money for the player.

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: what has happened to the transfer section?

These accounts will be used by banks to determine whether or not Tottenham Hotspur are in a financial position to pay back loans, yet we can't use them to ascertain the financial situation of the club?

Madness.

?

According to that logic - no bank would lend us 2 cents seeing that we are continously in debt and potentially getting worse. With respect - that is not how it 'works', fella

 

[Spursalot]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

Are you the self-appointed Levy paladin who decides what is 'nonsensical' and 'ignorant', jimmy?

Well no, of course he's not. He's just stating that he thinks it is nonsensical. That is his opinion. Is he no longer allowed to have an opinion?


Levy doesn't get everything right. That's clear as day to see. However blaming him for money that he has not spent, that he may not even have is a reasonable point of debate.

 

[DHSF]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

Simple viewpoint.

Club A: Has 30 million pounds in the bank. Bids 23 million for a player, money straight up.

Club B: Has 6 million pounds in the bank, can't spend all of it, must pay wages. Bids 23 million for a player, saying that we'll give you 5 of that now, then another 5 next year, 5 after that, 5 after that and 3 the year after that because right now we can't afford any more, but we will have the money in the future and we'll sign the contracts and get a bank to guarantee it for us.

Both clubs can make offers of 23 million, but club A has more money than club B.

But I think the 23m has to be recognised in the accounts and then amortised over the length of the contract. So 23m would be 23m which represents an acquisition of an aseet and would hit your balance sheet and subsequently your bottom line. (Whilst im an Accountant I dont really practice it so not 100% certain im correct)... So my jist is youre correct and would look even worse in the accounts for Club B and not A.

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

There is ZERO proof we were Club B when it came to Moutinho last year or that is the reason why he didn't sign

Make believe stuff again - remarkable spin

 

[Spursalot]

Re: what has happened to the transfer section?

?

According to that logic - no bank would lend us 2 cents seeing that we are continously in debt and potentially getting worse. With respect - that is not how it 'works', fella

Not really, the reports prove we are a going concern, which is what the banks are looking at.


Being a going concern does not mean we have millions upon millions to spend however.

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

\However blaming him for money that he has not spent, that he may not even have is a reasonable point of debate.

As is protecting him from ANY and ALL criticism regarding his actions and general attitude to transfers

 

[Spursalot]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

There is ZERO proof we were Club B when it came to Moutinho last year or that is the reason why he didn't sign

Make believe stuff again - remarkable spin

There is zero proof that we were club B when it came to Moutinho last year.


'Remarkable spin' just seems to be when someone differs with your opinion.

 

[Spursalot]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

As is protecting him from ANY and ALL criticism regarding his actions and general attitude to transfers

Well not exactly.

You can debate that he has made mistakes. At the point you are talking about the people that are defending him you are no longer discussing Levy.

 

[ArcspacE]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

'Remarkable spin' just seems to be when someone differs with your opinion.

No - just when someone is pushing speculation as factual events constructed in a clever screenplay to make the scenario 'work'

i.e. We did sign Crouch - fact

i.e. We didn't sign Damiao because we couldn't afford his lunch allowance - speculation

 

[jimmyb]

Re: **Official Other Games Thread, Season 2012/13**

I'm a simple guy that looks at things from a very..ummm...simple viewpoint. I don't pretend to be an expert in this or that. I mostly base my opinions and make judgement on common sense.

If i'm told that the financial report says we have no cash to spend (or very little) then it doesn't make sense that we can bid 23m on a player. People claiming it's because of instalments are:

1) guessing

but more importantly i don't get what difference it makes. I mean i get that paying more upfront would generally hurt a person/business more but offering that sum means you either have the cash or are extremley confident you can pay the sum (certain when it comes to someone like Levy tbh). If it's not feasable then we wouldn't be making the bid so obviously we have the money to play with (we might not have that cash in a lump sum but bidding that means we have it imo).

If Chelski paid the 50m they spent on Torres in instalments, does it mean they didn't spend 50m on him? of course it doesn't so why now are we going into specifics about payment plans when the majority of premier league clubs operate in this manner.

Once again, there's no point discussing the attempted Moutinho deal in the same terms as deals that occurred during or prior to the 2011-12 accounting period.

The point that was made about the published accounts - namely that they show that the club spends the money that it makes - is a valid one. The point that you are trying to make about the attempted Moutinho deal, by contrast, is moot............for the simple reason that it occurred during the current accounting period and there are therefore no published figures on which to base any kind of hypothesis.