• 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

The new, new manager thread - Pt 3

Gutter Boy said:
It's based on evidence.

We've had zero net spend on transfers every year since 2007 (summer 2007 was the last time we invested anything significant).

Ramos never had transfer funds beyond what was generated through sales. Redknapp never had transfer funds beyond what was generated through sales. AVB never had transfer funds beyond what was generated through sales.

People that believe every window that we're going to have some kind of 'war chest' are just naïve ('the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result'). 7 years of evidence suggests differently. There will be no money beyond sales until at least when the stadium opens in 17/18. We're in the middle of same decade of austerity that Arsenal similarly had to go through to build their ground.

Remember both Poch and FdB are coming from clubs that have to sell to survive (make significant net profits from transfers). Selling to buy will be a step up from that. They are also both 'coaching' coaches - who like organic growth rather than buy-in success.

The tv money will disappear almost overnight in inflated transfer fees and wage rises across the board. It won't change anything.
Click to expand...

I largely agree, although I haven't checked the numbers myself.

However, I don't think it's impossible that we have a net spend of say £15-20m in a season at this point. Our wages are under control, tv money is being increased dramatically, and we're well run financially.

billyiddo said:
people seem to confuse breaking even on transfers with breaking even as a club. The only constant through ENICs time is that we break even overall, whether that be with a negative 60m transfer spend or with a 0m net transfer spend.
Click to expand...

I agree that people confuse those, but I'm not sure about the breaking even overall. Didn't ENIC invest £15m-ish at one point? And the debt of the club has increased significantly in recent seasons with the building of the new training facilities and the investment in stadium planning.

As far as the owners go Spurs is pretty much breaking even as little money is being injected and no money seems to be taken out.

What also often gets ignored is sign on fees, agent fees etc and to some extent wages.

Edit: Speaking of wages, didn't all the clubs agree to limit the increase in their wage budgets with the new tv-money?
 
Last edited:
Nezza said:
Well, it turned out it was 40 million as reported here

"ENIC has supported the Club by way of an interest free, unsecured loan of £40m. This loan will be converted, subject to shareholder approval, into non-voting preference share capital."
Click to expand...

indianspur said:
thats for the stadium though isnt it? not the 50 mill earmarked for new signings according to the ITKs last summer
Click to expand...

Nezza said:
I have no idea - it doesn't say either way. It could be that it was originally intended for transfers but once the Bale sale was on the cards it wasn't needed for that and went into general funds.
Click to expand...

The 40m was to clear the debt accumulated buying properties for the stadium site. The debt had crawled up to about $60m over the last few years. It was part of the promise that the stadium development wouldn't come at the expense of the team.
 
indianspur said:
but since 2008 there has been a pattern that Gutter explained, with a 5-10 mill difference either plus or minus in net spend (it was never an exact zero net spend as he said though)
Click to expand...


yes, because our wage bill rose in tandem with the team becoming better. better players = higher wages. a higher wage bill means there is less money to play with in the transfer market. If the club has any 'spare' money then id be pretty certain that it'll be available for transfers, should it be required.
 
Armenia Spur said:
Carolina Baldini is her name... but can't find anything that says she's Franco's daughter
Click to expand...

she isnt....anyway it seems Simeone is divorcing her so even if she was Baldinis daughter, a fat lot of use that would be right now:lol:
 
braineclipse said:
I agree that people confuse those, but I'm not sure about the breaking even overall. Didn't ENIC invest £15m-ish at one point? And the debt of the club has increased significantly in recent seasons with the building of the new training facilities and the investment in stadium planning.

As far as the owners go Spurs is pretty much breaking even as little money is being injected and no money seems to be taken out.

What also often gets ignored is sign on fees, agent fees etc and to some extent wages.

Edit: Speaking of wages, didn't all the clubs agree to limit the increase in their wage budgets with the new tv-money?
Click to expand...

any debt acquired will be planned for id assume, most likely bank loans and such whereby we have repayments planned out over the next few years.
 
jts1882 said:
The 40m was to clear the debt accumulated buying properties for the stadium site. The debt had crawled up to about $60m over the last few years. It was part of the promise that the stadium development wouldn't come at the expense of the team.
Click to expand...
Thanks
 
billyiddo said:
yes, because our wage bill rose in tandem with the team becoming better. better players = higher wages. a higher wage bill means there is less money to play with in the transfer market. If the club has any 'spare' money then id be pretty certain that it'll be available for transfers, should it be required.
Click to expand...
oh absolutely, i agree with all that. Its just regarding the headline grabbing transfer fee spend where we seem to have been balancing the books since 2008 and that ties in with what you say
 
jts1882 said:
The 40m was to clear the debt accumulated buying properties for the stadium site. The debt had crawled up to about $60m over the last few years. It was part of the promise that the stadium development wouldn't come at the expense of the team.
Click to expand...

Not according to the report:-

"Phase 1 of the NDP and a number of properties to the west of the High Road have been divested, at arm's length, to a Group company, TH Property Limited a subsidiary of ENIC International (‘’ENIC’’), the Company’s principal shareholder."

"The sale of the properties has extinguished the Club's property borrowing which had accumulated over the last decade"

"In addition to acquiring the non-core properties and financing the Phase 1 build, ENIC has supported the Club by way of an interest free, unsecured loan of £40m."
 
billyiddo said:
yes, because our wage bill rose in tandem with the team becoming better. better players = higher wages. a higher wage bill means there is less money to play with in the transfer market. If the club has any 'spare' money then id be pretty certain that it'll be available for transfers, should it be required.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, question is what happens with wages this summer?

If we can keep wages relatively similar for next season the added tv-money alone (£33m according to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2627954/Liverpool-earn-money-champions-Man-City-relegated-Cardiff-boosted-62m-payout.html) could free up a good chunk of money for transfers if the club chooses to.

Even if £15m of that is put into increased wages (essentially 3 £50k p/w contracts) that would still leave a good chunk of money either for a net transfer spend, to put towards the stadium or paying back some loans. But yeah, wages are the key here.
 
billyiddo said:
i don't think that incurring a debt via bank loans contradicts the idea of breaking even?
Click to expand...

My idea of breaking even is much more basic, i was thinking "turnover more or less equals all expenses = breaking even". (With a bank loan not included as turnover)

My understanding of financial stuff is severely limited though, I'll assume that you're right :)
 
braineclipse said:
That's the thing, question is what happens with wages this summer?

If we can keep wages relatively similar for next season the added tv-money alone (£33m according to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ity-relegated-Cardiff-boosted-62m-payout.html) could free up a good chunk of money for transfers if the club chooses to.

Even if £15m of that is put into increased wages (essentially 3 £50k p/w contracts) that would still leave a good chunk of money either for a net transfer spend, to put towards the stadium or paying back some loans. But yeah, wages are the key here.
Click to expand...


i don't think we'll expect to see a significant rise in wages over the summer and ive always been under the impression the line from the club is that stadium development will not impact on the money available to strengthen the team (hence the debts we have taken on via bank loans and what not)

I don't know the finer details of our finances but assuming the rise in TV revenue isn't matched by a rise in outgoings elsewhere then id expect there be room for us to spend 20-30 net on transfer fees this summer. although whether the club feel it's necessary to do so is another question


braineclipse said:
My idea of breaking even is much more basic, i was thinking "turnover more or less equals all expenses = breaking even". (With a bank loan not included as turnover)

My understanding of financial stuff is severely limited though, I'll assume that you're right :)
Click to expand...

the way i see it is that any repayments/interest fee's etc ARE factored in to turnover and that if after all out goings and all incoming (including said loan repayments) you are in the ball park area of 0 then you can be considered to be breaking even.
 
Can people see this now?

<iframe height=481 width=1366 src="//docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15u8pWcZF5Sy7R_8XbHRlt5ztVh4P2-hoSjSR0fuRNrs/gviz/chartiframe?oid=847380519" seamless frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>
 
Here's the poll again for anyone who hasn't voted

<iframe src="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1RWvmhECbaTTQ7KoAfdstsMvy_9j8NaJ99iWkg-3oFBE/viewform?embedded=true" width="760" height="500" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">Loading...</iframe>
 
milo said:
Can people see this now?

<iframe height=481 width=1366 src="//docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15u8pWcZF5Sy7R_8XbHRlt5ztVh4P2-hoSjSR0fuRNrs/gviz/chartiframe?oid=847380519" seamless frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>
Click to expand...

so thats Frankie with 21 votes, Rafa with 12 and Pocha with 8. Frankie running away with it again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back