Our stadium is only due to cost £250m. The other £200m is for the land and other buildings (college, supermarket and housing).
I don't believe that the zero net spend on transfers is to fund the stadium. I think that is because it is a sustainable way of running a football club. The stadium will be paid for by the naming rights, loans and possibly an equity issue.i.e net spend is zero on transfers. Levy lied when he said it wouldn't affect transfer spend. The Bale money helped cover his masterplan to get the stadium done without spending his money yet giving themselves (ENIC) a billion pound asset.
No difference to Glazers.
Fcuk all modern owners. Give clubs back to the fans.
i.e net spend is zero on transfers. Levy lied when he said it wouldn't affect transfer spend. The Bale money helped cover his masterplan to get the stadium done without spending his money yet giving themselves (ENIC) a billion pound asset.
No difference to Glazers.
Fcuk all modern owners. Give clubs back to the fans.
We're not having to generate money from transfers to pay for the stadium, like Arsenal had to.
The benefit of cyphering off money to TH Properties Ltd over the past 7-8 years is that we aren't going to get lumbered with 10 years of crippling loan repayments afterwards.
And why do you say back to fans? Have fans ever owned a club in this country? If you fancy it, why not start a Pledge site to try and raise the £1b?
We're not having to generate money from transfers to pay for the stadium, like Arsenal had to.
The benefit of cyphering off money to TH Properties Ltd over the past 7-8 years is that we aren't going to get lumbered with 10 years of crippling loan repayments afterwards.
And why do you say back to fans? Have fans ever owned a club in this country? If you fancy it, why not start a Pledge site to try and raise the £1b?
I must have missed something in the last 60's odd years as I can't remember when this club was ever run for or by the fans!!!
they should be owned by fans to stop the cycle of being sold and then paying the cost with the profits.
That hasn't happened in our case though.they should be owned by fans to stop the cycle of being sold and then paying the cost with the profits.
Have you got any evidence of the club transferring money to TH Properties? I am only aware of the club transferring land.
Do you mean the annual report?It's in our last financial report that that's the vehicle we are using for the stadium build (presumably for tax purposes). You'd imagine there's got to be money in there to start paying out from it.
It's in our last financial report that that's the vehicle we are using for the stadium build (presumably for tax purposes). You'd imagine there's got to be money in there to start paying out from it.
Do you mean the annual report?
http://m.tottenhamhotspur.com/the-club/investor-relations/annual-reports/
That hasn't happened in our case though.
They will make a big profit when they sell based on the rising value of the asset but I think that this is very different from using the profits of the club to finance the purchase.it should be the case. Agree or disagree?
Land's been sold to the property company at market value (as it's a related party and there's no way the auditors would have signed off otherwise).It's in our last financial report that that's the vehicle we are using for the stadium build (presumably for tax purposes). You'd imagine there's got to be money in there to start paying out from it.
Land's been sold to the property company at market value (as it's a related party and there's no way the auditors would have signed off otherwise).
The property company is either just a debtor to the club or would have taken cash from ENIC.
There's nothing underhand or strange about this, we just have a football club dealing with football matters and a property club dealing with property matters. The only benefit to ENIC is that they don't have to share any future propoerty value increases with the other shareholders (and neither should they).
Land's been sold to the property company at market value (as it's a related party and there's no way the auditors would have signed off otherwise).
The property company is either just a debtor to the club or would have taken cash from ENIC.
There's nothing underhand or strange about this, we just have a football club dealing with football matters and a property club dealing with property matters. The only benefit to ENIC is that they don't have to share any future propoerty value increases with the other shareholders (and neither should they).
I guess if you have a fluctuating cash flow (like a football club would) then you wouldn't want large long-term debts influencing the cost of short-term debt.I am sure that I read that the club transferred the property because they did not want the debts held against the club.