What's new

Financial results

yankspurs

Enic Out
Aug 22, 2013
41,884
71,191
Townsend is a squad player for a lower mid table PL side, lol. I can understand him not being a top player but outside the top 6 or 7 he would start for most teams. I wouldn't be surprised if Southampton come back in for him

As for Carroll, he was more highly rated than every player you listed by our coaches. Lets not forget a year ago, pretty much everyone thought mason would be thrown on the scrapheap.
Townsend's lack of end product means saints will want no part of him, same with swansea, stoke, newcastle, etc.

Carroll is the 5th CM for Swansea and doesnt show anything very impressive. He does a job. Rarely bad but rarely noteworthy. For us, he'd be 6th CM i think.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,006
29,551
Townsend's lack of end product means saints will want no part of him, same with swansea, stoke, newcastle, etc.

Carroll is the 5th CM for Swansea and doesnt show anything very impressive. He does a job. Rarely bad but rarely noteworthy. For us, he'd be 6th CM i think.
Townsend has been poor for us but his end product was the reason he has made it as footballer. As he did very well for us in the youth team, Millwall, QPR and England. He is better than the players who play for those clubs but I know you don't like him so I let that slide. LOL wouldn't get in to swansea, stoke and newcastle. FFS routledge made it there. Just over a year ago he was one of our best players in a poor season and Englands best player against Germany

As for Carroll, you need to get your facts right, he was wanted by Swansea and we declined their offer. They then decided to buy Cork and hasn't been seen since yet despite that, he was won player of the month for the swans. We couldnt recall him due to the PL rules. As for the cliches you used, when he is confident he is impressive as seen for the U21's with some brilliant through balls that we have been craving for.
 

rich75

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2004
7,591
3,215
Not sure what it's point is? Comes across as a bit sour whilst distorting the facts.

It's been 14 years since ENIC took over, missed out the new training 'city' and the lilywhite house development.

As for matchday tickets, the minimum wage when ENIC took over was £3.60 p/h for adults. It's now £6.50 - which is an 80% increase. Because of that, it's fair to say that the cheapest ticket price increase is well below growth - probably even more so when you take into account the increase in personal allowance has more than doubled from £4,385 in 2001 to £10,000 now.

Edit: Some figures based on working a 38hr week on NMW:

In 2001/02 tax year

£3.60 (NMW) * 38 (hrs/week) * 52 (weeks/year) = £7114 p/a

£592.83 gross / £542.68 take home pcm

in 2014.15 tax year

£6.50 (NMW) * 38 (hrs/week) * 52 (weeks/year) = £12844 p/a

£1070.33 gross / £974.05 take home pcm


Cheapest ticket price in ENIC's first full season was £22 for a non-PL seat (£29 for PL) in the North Lower (link)

I think it's £32 in the North Lower at it's cheapest this season (link), which is a about a 45% increase, or just a tenner in real terms. Even if we played at home four times a month, 2015's minimum wage supporter would still be about £400 better off each month than 2001's.

Bit less than that if you factor in inflation, 2015 would be £86 better off.
 

225

Living in hope, existing in disappointment
Dec 15, 2014
4,563
9,064
Bit less than that if you factor in inflation, 2015 would be £86 better off.

I was isolating it to ticket prices to make the point, tbh.

The affordability issues with going to the football is down to other factors which aren't scapegoated as much in the context - house prices (mortgage/rent), council tax, train/bus costs, taxis... even the price of a pint has almost doubled in that time in some areas.
 

rich75

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2004
7,591
3,215
I was isolating it to ticket prices to make the point, tbh.

The affordability issues with going to the football is down to other factors which aren't scapegoated as much in the context - house prices (mortgage/rent), council tax, train/bus costs, taxis... even the price of a pint has almost doubled in that time in some areas.
Yeah, I was just interested as £400 seemed a lot so ran the 2001 figures through an inflation calculator to see what they worked out as in todays money. More interesting that the minimum wage, which on the surface has gone up a lot, hasn't massively gone up in line with inflation especially when you add in, as you say, the essentials like rent which have gone through the roof.
 

Dinghy

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2005
6,326
15,561
I wrote a piece taking a look at the dangerous game the Premier League is playing financially

Here it is if anyone's interested: https://shemthfc.wordpress.com/2015...e-premier-league-is-playing-a-dangerous-game/

Love or hate him, Levy has ensured our long-term future is bright.
Don't want to get all pedantic and look like a grammar nazi but this line...
As the table above shows, THIRTEEN of the Premier League clubs’ TV revenue commands over 50% of total revenue
doesn't read right...
My first instinct on reading was; 'surely that is perfect that over 1/2 of the clubs command over 50% of the revenue.
Re-reading it I now know what you mean but... perhaps a slight edit
As the table above shows, for THIRTEEN of the Premier League clubs’, TV revenue commands over 50% of total revenue...
 

tottenmal

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
801
2,082
I wrote a piece taking a look at the dangerous game the Premier League is playing financially

Here it is if anyone's interested: https://shemthfc.wordpress.com/2015...e-premier-league-is-playing-a-dangerous-game/

Love or hate him, Levy has ensured our long-term future is bright.

An interesting point that is never seen mentioned anywhere else. If the next premier league rights deal was to fall flat on its face, due to sky realising it just can't afford it. An awful lot of clubs would find them selves in a lot of trouble.

I guess trying to limit how much of the new deal can be spent on wages is the first step, as that is the biggest outgoing of every club.
 

jambreck

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2013
3,200
5,879
How well do you know McDermott's character? I don't know anything about his character at all, I can't say what he would have done, I can tell you that I would have done exactly as you said if I was McDermott had Sherwood tried to impose his philosophy.

I'm not sure if he had as much faith or more than he had in Sherwood, he was never mentioned as part of the transfer committee and the rise of Sherwood to the top position in such a short space of time makes that doubtful to me, also there is the alleged but I think believable comment about Harry Kane; 'His he Champions League'. Why ask that to Sherwood and not McDermott?

Sherwood claims to have worked with Kane since he was 11.

Really? Let's see....

He didn't join Spurs as a first team coach until 2008, by which time Kane was already 15. And he didn't start working with the U21's until 2010, by which time Kane was 17.

So forgive me, Mullers, if I choose not to believe much of what Sherwood claims about Harry Kane or Spurs' academy more generally.

Suffice to repeat that Sherwood is not responsible for the staff, philosophy or success of our academy. But he can claim credit for at least believing in it to the extent that he was prepared to give graduates a chance in the first team.
 
Last edited:

jambreck

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2013
3,200
5,879
Correct me if I'm wrong (I may have completely misread it), but that £65.3m profit has been used to clear the clubs debts (from -£54.8m to +3.2m), this coupled with the stadium build (and inevitable debt incurred) means that my reading is that the profit has been used to secure the mid-long term future of the club.

Actually, the debt was cleared by a combination of property sales (both the Sainsbury's / UTC site and some buildings to the west of the High Road) and by means of a £40m interest free loan by ENIC which has since been converted into equity.

So the £65m profit should still be sitting in the accounts and is likely responsible, in large part, for the big increase in the club's net assets. We'll know more when the full accounts are published.
 
Last edited:

Amo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
15,795
31,480
Don't want to get all pedantic and look like a grammar nazi but this line...doesn't read right...
My first instinct on reading was; 'surely that is perfect that over 1/2 of the clubs command over 50% of the revenue.
Re-reading it I now know what you mean but... perhaps a slight edit

As the table above shows, for THIRTEEN of the Premier League clubs’, TV revenue commands over 50% of total revenue...

The apostrophe after 'clubs' should be dropped since it's no longer possessive.

As the table above shows, for THIRTEEN of the Premier League clubs, TV revenue commands over 50% of total revenue...

Don't want to get all pedantic and look like a grammar nazi.. (y)
 

Dinghy

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2005
6,326
15,561
The apostrophe after 'clubs' should be dropped since it's no longer possessive.



Don't want to get all pedantic and look like a grammar nazi.. (y)
I don't want to look like a twat either. An apostrophe doesn't change the meaning of this sentence. :whistle:
 

Amo

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
15,795
31,480
I don't want to look like a twat either. An apostrophe doesn't change the meaning of this sentence. :whistle:

Don't mean to be rude, but it's redundant and wrong. If it was "Clubs' revenue was at least 50% from TV", then it would have been fine :)
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
The full accounts now published, so a few more bits of interest coming out.
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/upl...cuments/Annual_Reports/annual-report-2014.pdf

1. Players
Total consideration for the sale of Bale, Caulker, Parker, Huddlestone, Dempsey, Defoe and others was £114, 545 and resulted in a profit on sales of £104m - so we would have made a loss without selling players as Profit Before Tax was £80m (Profit after tax was £65.3m).

There was an impairment charge of £10.2m relating to 3 unnamed players whose net book value was £45m ('cough'....probably Soldado, Lamela and Paulhino). Impairment costs result when their cost less amortisation (nb annual amortisation cost = Total transfer cost divided by length of player contract, this calculation is modified for players extending contracts) or net book value is compared to their estimated transfer value and their on field performances versus expectation, or contract milestones are not net etc.

As a result of the buying of players at a total cost in the year of £110m the amortisation cost for the year increased from £26.8m to £29.8m

Players bought and sold after 30 June 2014 are not included in these accounts - eg sales of Livermore, Sigurdsson, Falque, Dawson, Sandro, Fryers and purchase of Davies, Vorm, Dier, Fazio and Stambouli

2 Wages, Redundancy Costs and Directors remuneration

Wages increased by 5% to £100.4m
Redundancy costs (presumably AVB, Sherwood and coaches leaving before the end of their contracts) cost £4.7m
The highest paid Director (I assume DL) was paid £2.2m (up from £1.7m in previous year)

3. Balance Sheet
£ 40m of capital was raised from Macon Inc (an ENIC company) by the issue of preference shares which with the profit after tax retained by the company (no dividends wre paid) of £65.3m swelled net assets to £183.7m (up from £78.4m), the increase being necessary to attract bank finance to build the NDP.

Last year the Training Centre was completed at a total cost of £60.6m.

Total costs of NDP (and other assets under construction) to date are £81m, of which £41m is capitalised architects and other consultants fees.

4 Revenues

TV and media Revenues £89.5m ( £57.3m - 2013)
Match Day Revenue £34.8m (£33.5m - 2013)
Commercial Revenues £56.2m (£56.6m - 2013)
Total Revenues £180.5m (£147.4m - 2013 )

So the almost 60% increase in TV revenues is the only significant reason for increase in revenues this year with commercial revenues being flat (1% ecline).

EL gate money and prize money (ie excluding TV revenues was £9.2m (£10.4m - 2013) and domestic cup revenues £3.2m (£0.9m - 2013)
 
Last edited:

ginola99

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2005
677
1,403
£60m for a training ground!

Now that is invest, and people say levy sits in his chair with a digit up his yiu know what doing nothing!
 

jambreck

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2013
3,200
5,879
£60m for a training ground!

Now that is invest, and people say levy sits in his chair with a digit up his yiu know what doing nothing!

£60m and ongoing - with the new 500 seat stand to be built for U21 and U18 games and the new accommodation block. Probably another £5m+ for them.
 

yankspurs

Enic Out
Aug 22, 2013
41,884
71,191
The full accounts now published, so a few more bits of interest coming out.
http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/upl...cuments/Annual_Reports/annual-report-2014.pdf

1. Players
Total consideration for the sale of Bale, Caulker, Parker, Huddlestone, Dempsey, Defoe and others was £114, 545 and resulted in a profit on sales of £104m - so we would have made a loss without selling players as Profit Before Tax was £80m (Profit after tax was £65.3m).

There was an impairment charge of £10.2m relating to 3 unnamed players whose net book value was £45m ('cough'....probably Soldado, Lamela and Paulhino). Impairment costs result when their cost less amortisation (nb annual amortisation cost = Total transfer cost divided by length of player contract, this calculation is modified for players extending contracts) or net book value is compared to their estimated transfer value and their on field performances versus expectation, or contract milestones are not net etc.

As a result of the buying of players at a total cost in the year of £110m the amortisation cost for the year increased from £26.8m to £29.8m

Players bought and sold after 30 June 2014 are not included in these accounts - eg sales of Livermore, Sigurdsson, Falque, Dawson, Sandro, Fryers and purchase of Davies, Vorm, Dier, Fazio and Stambouli

2 Wages, Redundancy Costs and Directors remuneration

Wages increased by 5% to £100.4m
Redundancy costs (presumably AVB, Sherwood and coaches leaving before the end of their contracts) cost £4.7m
The highest paid Director (I assume DL) was paid £2.2m (up from £1.7m in previous year)

3. Balance Sheet
£ 40m of capital was raised from Macon Inc (an ENIC company) by the issue of preference shares which with the profit after tax retained by the company (no dividends wre paid) of £65.3m swelled net assets to £183.7m (up from £78.4m), the increase being necessary to attract bank finance to build the NDP.

Last year the Training Centre was completed at a total cost of £60.6m.

Total costs of NDP (and other assets under construction) to date are £81m, of which £41m is capitalised architects and other consultants fees.

4 Revenues

TV and media Revenues £89.5m ( £57.3m - 2013)
Match Day Revenue £34.8m (£33.5m - 2013)
Commercial Revenues £56.2m (£56.6m - 2013)
Total Revenues £180.5m (£147.4m - 2013 )

So the almost 60% increase in TV revenues is the only significant reason for increase in revenues this year with commercial revenues being flat (1% ecline).

EL gate money and prize money (ie excluding TV revenues was £9.2m (£10.4m - 2013) and domestic cup revenues £3.2m (£0.9m - 2013)
So, Im not sure if I am understanding this...We got £114m in the Bale window and spent £110 of it? Or we got £104 and spent £110? So there werent any performance clauses on Soldado, and we actually paid the reported £26m?

What I I also see from reading this for a bit(i'll read it again later):
We had £73,401,000 in trade receivables on the balance sheet date with £39,507,000 due to us in more than a year. Meaning we are owed that much, presumably by Madrid. £33,271,00 had since been received by the report date(Nov 2014). So looks like we are owed a further £40,130,000. In contrast, we have £33,704,000 in trade payables, so we owed that much to clubs, presumably Roma and Valencia.

We secured and repaid a £20m loan from HSBC. We're still repaying a £1,168,000 loan(repayable over 23 years starting in 04 it looks like). We owe a further £14m(repayable over 5 years) on Investec's £16m loan for the training ground. We owe a further £20,209,000 in loan repayments from 2 loans equating to £30m(i think from the bank of england), secured against the lane to be repaid in full by 2023. So in total, we have a long term debt of approx £35m to banks but no short term debt, which is why we reported a profit of £65m.

Confirmation of Yedlin not being a signing then a loan: Not listed under the transactions since the balance sheet date(June 30 2014 balance sheet date - report dated in November). It was a pre contract signing that was originaly supposed to happen in the summer, but we brought him over early.

Edit: Okay, now I'm really confused. Page 11 on the report. Our profit on disposal of intangible assets aka players sold was £103,965,000. Our acquisitions of intangible assets aka players purchased was £91,681,000. Meanwhile our proceeds from intangible assets aka profit from player trading was £47,889,000. The math doesnt compute. What the hell am I missing here?

Damn't Spurs. I'm too stoned for this shit.

Edit 2: Holy shit! Page 13 of the report under 1. d). 4th and 5th paragraph. Im probably reading way too much into it because im high, but that certainly sounds like a reference to the multiples of itk we've had in the past of falling outs between players and management and the club is not counting a select few players.

Edit 3: Our total wage bill increased by £4m. The directors were paid a total of £3,605,000(£1.2m increase). The non executive directors were paid £60,000. Our highest paid director, aka Daniel Levy, was paid £2,166,000. Nice little £500k raise he gave himself. One thing I am wondering is if the club is paying for health coverage or offering it to their employees who also have a permanant residence in America.

Edit 4: The way I am reading the impairment cost of the 3 players is that they had long term injuries, are perma crocked, or past it so will net a loss from purchase price. Outside of the long term injuries, I doubt Lamela counts as that, and I am not too sure Paulinho does either.

Edit 5: Now i'm completely lost. Went back to the beginning. Our profit from football trading was £56,901,000. Then how much did we get from sales and spend on players? The end made it sound like we dont have that much contingent payments owed to clubs on player trading. Which would either mean that we didnt pay much for the 7 players received or we made alot more then that £104m number on sales.
 
Last edited:

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
So, Im not sure if I am understanding this...We got £114m in the Bale window and spent £110 of it? Or we got £104 and spent £110? So there werent any performance clauses on Soldado, and we actually paid the reported £26m?

What I I also see from reading this for a bit(i'll read it again later):
We had £73,401,000 in trade receivables on the balance sheet date with £39,507,000 due to us in more than a year. Meaning we are owed that much, presumably by Madrid. £33,271,00 had since been received by the report date(Nov 2014). So looks like we are owed a further £40,130,000. In contrast, we have £33,704,000 in trade payables, so we owed that much to clubs, presumably Roma and Valencia.

We secured and repaid a £20m loan from HSBC. We're still repaying a £1,168,000 loan(repayable over 23 years starting in 04 it looks like). We owe a further £14m(repayable over 5 years) on Investec's £16m loan for the training ground. We owe a further £20,209,000 in loan repayments from 2 loans equating to £30m(i think from the bank of england), secured against the lane to be repaid in full by 2023. So in total, we have a long term debt of approx £35m to banks but no short term debt, which is why we reported a profit of £65m.

Confirmation of Yedlin not being a signing then a loan: Not listed under the transactions since the balance sheet date(June 30 2014 balance sheet date - report dated in November). It was a pre contract signing that was originaly supposed to happen in the summer, but we brought him over early.

We received £114m from sales, and because the net book value of the players was £10m we generated £104m profit (Note 6 on Page 18).

On page 2, Spurs say they invested £110m in the playing squad.

Trade receivables for player registrations total £73.4m of which £39.5m is due in more than 1 year - which I agree will be mainly in respect of the Bale deal. So £33.9m (£73.4m less £39.5m) will be received by 30 June 2015.

Note 23 says that there was an additional £ 15.3m which may be payable on player registrations (contingent on certain events ocurring) - some of which may relate to Soldado (and indeed we may received up to £18.1m dependent on whether the players we have sold meet certain criteria).

Correct, we owe £33.7m in respect of player registrations which is payable within 1 year but also a further £17.4m which is payable after 30 June 2015 (ie 12 months after 30 June 2014)

We owe about £35m in bank and other loans, only £2m of which is due in the 12 months to 30 June 2015 - but this has no bearing on the profit declared !

Agreed Yedlin looks to be a January 2015 signing as he's not listed as a deal which happened betwen 30 June 2014 a
nd November 2014.
 
Top