The £250m loan covers the Covid losses with a far bit over. So no not really.
Financial Results - club announcement
- Thread starter alfiemacdaddy
- Start date
The £250m loan covers the Covid losses with a far bit over. So no not really.
SpartanSpur
Well-Known Member
- Jan 27, 2011
- 12,560
- 43,103
Levy is saying that the pandemic came at a very unfortunate time for us and that we have yet to see the true benefits of the stadium when it comes to it's money making potential. Overall we have weathered the storm very well and a lot better than most clubs and are well set for future growth.
There is a note in there that we have to improve the quality of our spending via improved recruitment (which I'm sure we all agree with) however I do not believe that is an indication that we plan to spend less.
Finchyid
Well-Known Member
- Jun 27, 2017
- 3,823
- 12,034
I would say they are positive results, people could focus
Net debt of £706m (2020: £605m) with average interest rate of 2.7% and repayment terms extended to 2051, extending the average term of debt to over 22 years.
Securing a debt of that size at 2.7% is pretty good going
Net debt of £706m (2020: £605m) with average interest rate of 2.7% and repayment terms extended to 2051, extending the average term of debt to over 22 years.
Securing a debt of that size at 2.7% is pretty good going
We are free to spend £400m without falling afoul of FFP apparently
And £706m debt is far better than the £1bn+ we were looking at. Either we paid off 1/3 of it already or the numbers out there were absurdly exaggerated.
arthurgrimsdell
Well-Known Member
- Feb 16, 2004
- 843
- 826
Yes they are, and optimism is good and I share it.
However, the club is still on a knife edge, with further lockdowns and therefore periods with no matchday income still possible. Look around the world.
Our spending power will only increase if and when such income increases can be relied on to continue without hindrance. What I think must be guarded against is the delusion that the Club can spend more on transfer fees and higher wages without risk.
Daniel Levy has pointed out that around £400 million has been spent on new players in the last few years while the Club's performances on the pitch have deteriorated noticeably, and that money when spent in these areas has to be done so more sensibly.
We are in a position where we have just made an £80 million loss and our net debt has risen to over £700 million. We need the extra income which might be generated in future first of all to keep on an even keel, and then afterwards to progress, which i hope and expect us to do.
We should be in a far better place than our rivals. Unfortunately, 2 of them are backed by a bottomless pit of money & another is the biggest club in the world so the 2 to pick off are Liverpool & Arsenal. But even more unfortunate for us, the league has now added a club with the richest state owners on earth looking to wash away their multitude of crimes against humanity with sports.
Drink!Drink!
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2014
- 1,366
- 5,039
NFL and property investment loom large in that statement
it is a financial statement, but even with that proviso I think the absence of an on the field strategy is glaring. strategy in other areas is clear, whether you agree with those strategies or not, on the sporting side it’s a confused muddle
a statement that confirmed a lot of what we already knew.
it is a financial statement, but even with that proviso I think the absence of an on the field strategy is glaring. strategy in other areas is clear, whether you agree with those strategies or not, on the sporting side it’s a confused muddle
a statement that confirmed a lot of what we already knew.
Drink!Drink!
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2014
- 1,366
- 5,039
Hilarious that Levy chooses April 19 as the start date to talk about transfer spending. What was it about the transfer windows of summer 2018 and Jan 2019 that he wants erase from history 
SpartanSpur
Well-Known Member
- Jan 27, 2011
- 12,560
- 43,103
Of course caution is required however things are looking a lot brighter already. I'd imagine the stadium has raked in significant funds since the start of the season (multiple PL games, NFL and boxing events) and we have secured additional commerical deals such as Getir since then.
I just can't see the UK government will enforce another nationwide lockdown following the strong vaccine uptake.
Recruitment has to improve, that much is obvious. Conte's arrival will lead to a significant amount of spending, I don't think he would have agreed to come otherwise. I also think the improved outlook and projections are why ENIC agreed to Conte's demands.
Good way to start the day. It is starting to look like a well thought out business plan being executed even in trying circumstances with some self imposed bumps along the way (Olympic Stadium, various coaches, players).
- Upgrade training Ground.
- Upgrade Stadium.
- Hire world class DOF
- Attract and hire world class Coach with the above
- Upgrade Recruitment and Scouting
- Upgrade Training Methods/Academy
spursfan77
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2005
- 46,701
- 104,998
Well, the stadium is valued at just over £1.3 billion, so I guess it depends on your definition of rich ?
spids
Well-Known Member
- Jul 19, 2015
- 6,647
- 27,841
The stadium cost £1.2 Billion. The fact we 'only' owe £706M (we actually only owed ~£600M when the stadium was completed - the additional £100M is COVID pandemic related) shows how Levy has been investing money in the stadium for the last 10-12 years. The £1.2B costs include buying property, architectural designs, materials, legal fees, planning fees, clearing land etc. I know ENIC said it would not impact transfers, but it clearly did in the last 10 years (and what else were they going to say). All the years people were moaning about NET spend being lower than our rivals did not take into account we were squirrelling away the equivalent of £50-60M per season on infrastructure (note that the training ground cost north of £100M as well). Whilst we now have much bigger debts, we have less stadium expenditure, greater facilities to attract top talent, and roughly double the income as we did 10 years ago. This will mean we can spend significantly more money on players and wages than we have at any time in our history. Whilst the Poch peak years were a missed opportunity it was really just bad timing (and we did luck into that golden generation and over perform). It was always about putting the foundations in place. And now we have. Covid was terrible timing for us, but also levelled the playing field across Europe and has resulted in worse run teams being in a much weaker financial position than us.
JUSTINSIGNAL
Well-Known Member
- Jul 10, 2008
- 16,037
- 48,788
Spot on.
arthurgrimsdell
Well-Known Member
- Feb 16, 2004
- 843
- 826
We mainly agree, though you have a lot more faith in the government than I do.
Trix
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2004
- 19,667
- 332,028
That's not the way you do it though is it. You set a maximum a club can pay in total on wages and how they proportion that is up to them. It's how it works in Rugby union, so as one team can't just hoover up all the talent and pay them all over the odds.
ShelfWatcher
Well-Known Member
- Sep 9, 2021
- 3,169
- 4,814
I hope you are reading it wrong ?
Because we definitely need to splash the cash, maybe 80m in Jan 140m in summer, less sales of course
spids
Well-Known Member
- Jul 19, 2015
- 6,647
- 27,841
Another way to look at it is that the debt we have (£706M at 2.7% interest) means we have to pay £19M in interest per year. The new stadium match day revenues have almost doubled since we were in old WHL (an increase of ~£45M per year exc. non-football events). Our commercial revenues have also nearly doubled (increase of ~£80M). So after the £19M in interest we are still over £100M a year better off.
