Financials 17/18

[cliff jones]

To be fair - the debt figure of £366M is nothing that I would worry about.

That's like having an annual income of £350,000 and a mortgage of £366,000 - it should not impact your lifestyle...

It shouldn't but it has and it will. I think there's another part of the statement suggesting trading will be affected by the ongoing delays.

 

[coys200]

Great article. The gist is we will be up £50m just on gates with NFL and 16 non football events compared to old WHL. And that’s assuming we max the loan facility. Then add on naming rights and we are still in a very comfortable position and should be able to invest in the pitch.

 

[Stamford]

Isn’t that profit figure of £163m massive. The biggest in 16/17 was Leicester at 90m and then Arsenal at £45m.

But but we might do a Leeds

 

[Lilbaz]

Think it’s worth having a thread to discuss relevant points in that statement and the Nike deal.

So revenue has gone up from £306m to £381m ?

And the debt is £366m ?

Not to clear what the debt restructuring means if someone can explain ?

And the significance of a 15 year Nike deal ?

Have they released the financials? Wasn't expecting them till around march.

 

[coys200]

Have they released the financials? Wasn't expecting them till around march.

Not all the detail but were snippets in yesterday statement.

 

[cliff jones]

so the owners have contributed a paltry £50m contingency fund. And build up infra to the value of £1bn on the back of us, fans in the stadium, and in armchairs. Freeloaders watching on streams saying stop moaning don't bother, you're not putting any more skin in the game than they are after all- no wonder you don't give a toss.

Then they treat us to no new players and wonder why attendances fall.

ENIC in, not out, but don't take the real fans for granted...

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

Just to put this in context if we compare our 2018 results with the last reported results for other clubs for 2017 we have the 4th highest revenue - only goons, City and Utd have higher - and unsurprisingly the highest profits by a country mile. The difference in our revenue and profi rankings just confirms the lack of investment in the team by our owners. Even if we assume other clubs will have higher revenues in 2018 I guarantee you we will be very close to Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal so the notion we can’t compete in transfers or wages is just utter nonsense. This was all entirely predictable but when I’ve said it before lots of posters here have continued to maintain we are way behind our competitors financially when in fact the reverse is true.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17

 

[Lighty64]

Just to put this in context if we compare our 2018 results with the last reported results for other clubs for 2017 we have the 4th highest revenue - only goons, City and Utd have higher - and unsurprisingly the highest profits by a country mile. The difference in our revenue and profi rankings just confirms the lack of investment in the team by our owners. Even if we assume other clubs will have higher revenues in 2018 I guarantee you we will be very close to Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal so the notion we can’t compete in transfers or wages is just utter nonsense. This was all entirely predictable but when I’ve said it before lots of posters here have continued to maintain we are way behind our competitors financially when in fact the reverse is true.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17

we are talking about 1 season, the 5 teams above us have been making big profits since the 90's. the trophies they have won, the history they have, and the wages they have been paying over all that time gives them the advantage. we have now seen that the players that have signed new contracts are not far off of double what they where on last season, which is a step in the right direction.

annoying why we never signed anyone, it's happened and we have to get on with it. the one thing that was mentioned during the window was Levy wasn't wanting to pay players that wasn't going to play. at the moment he is paying 1 extra player because we never sold/loaned him due to injury. due to failing to sell the 4 put in the window, was most probably a big reason why we never added, plus the stadium issues. we have a full squad of 28, 2 are on loan, 1 not in the squad is due to injury. I bet you wouldn't want to pay 3 or 4 employees for sitting on their arses

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

@Lighty64 I really fail to understand your line of reasoning, you seem to have dug your heels in to defend ENIC yet acknowledge that we need to spend to compete. The historical financials you reference are irrelevant, they may explain why we couldn’t compete previously and if our competitors had been storing wealth history may have been an issue but they didn’t, they spent it so all that matters is our relative position now and that is that we are more profitable, by some margin, than any of our competitors. Not only can we compete in transfers and wages, we can blow away most clubs in the world, the fact we don’t is a choice by our owners. Now the facts are transparent your arguments to the contrary are even more hollow than they were previously.

 

[RichieS]

If once the stadium is finished ENIC pocket all the extra money it generates then I will be pissed. All they're doing at the moment is what they've always done - recycling the profits back into the club. I don't see what the problem is with that.

 

[coys200]

Once the stadium is finished and we are in and the 16 non football events are bedded in and naming rights sorted I think we could well go 3rd on revenue probably dependant on CL. Although obviously you will have to knock off £50m annually for debt payment. But essentially there won’t be too many reasons we can’t match Liverpool and Arsenal spending. I firmly believe Liverpool have done their big spending for a good few years and Arsenal won’t spend big.

 

[Lighty64]

@Lighty64 I really fail to understand your line of reasoning, you seem to have dug your heels in to defend ENIC yet acknowledge that we need to spend to compete. The historical financials you reference are irrelevant, they may explain why we couldn’t compete previously and if our competitors had been storing wealth history may have been an issue but they didn’t, they spent it so all that matters is our relative position now and that is that we are more profitable, by some margin, than any of our competitors. Not only can we compete in transfers and wages, we can blow away most clubs in the world, the fact we don’t is a choice by our owners. Now the facts are transparent your arguments to the contrary are even more hollow than they were previously.

I have never denied we have to spend to compete, but your talking because of 1 good year on the finances we can all of a sudden turn players heads and make them want to come to Spurs. The thing is with the stadium debt climbing by 60% that profit has been whipped out if ENIC are so intent on selling us. No one will buy a club for 2b, take on a 630m debt on top, for a team that's not been winning trophies for the last 27years (realistically 34years). Once the stadium is complete and up and running and turning in regular profits, then will be the time to get stuck into ENIC if they still fail to invest in the whole team structure.

the thing is there are so many out there at the moment that are royally pissed off with the ST prices (you being one), then the failure to buy in the summer (everyman and his dog), but none of us know why the players we were in for never come. if Levy knew we was going to have problems, and not have a clue of the exact extra costs the delay would be, he is no way going to blow our profits away on a transfer market that's got way out of hand, and only favours the super rich, on players that might turnout to be total flops and then pay the extra wage bill, and on top of that pay 4+ players wages (approx. 300k in total per week) for sitting on their arses at home playing on their PS4's.

 

[Stamford]

I have never denied we have to spend to compete, but your talking because of 1 good year on the finances we can all of a sudden turn players heads and make them want to come to Spurs. The thing is with the stadium debt climbing by 60% that profit has been whipped out if ENIC are so intent on selling us. No one will buy a club for 2b, take on a 630m debt on top, for a team that's not been winning trophies for the last 27years (realistically 34years). Once the stadium is complete and up and running and turning in regular profits, then will be the time to get stuck into ENIC if they still fail to invest in the whole team structure.

the thing is there are so many out there at the moment that are royally pissed off with the ST prices (you being one), then the failure to buy in the summer (everyman and his dog), but none of us know why the players we were in for never come. if Levy knew we was going to have problems, and not have a clue of the exact extra costs the delay would be, he is no way going to blow our profits away on a transfer market that's got way out of hand, and only favours the super rich, on players that might turnout to be total flops and then pay the extra wage bill, and on top of that pay 4+ players wages (approx. 300k in total per week) for sitting on their arses at home playing on their PS4's.

Some good points here. But ENIC only offering £50m of their own as a contingency is pretty poor. I can see their being a holding company for these separate events that is held by ENIC and not the club. Interesting times ahead

 

[parj]

Some good points here. But ENIC only offering £50m of their own as a contingency is pretty poor. I can see their being a holding company for these separate events that is held by ENIC and not the club. Interesting times ahead

At a time when borrowing is so cheap, why put your own money in? Over time I can see them putting money in but only if needed. Loads of companies expand by borrowing even if they are cash rich.

 

[Lighty64]

Some good points here. But ENIC only offering £50m of their own as a contingency is pretty poor. I can see their being a holding company for these separate events that is held by ENIC and not the club. Interesting times ahead

every business grows through what it sells, yes 50m plus what they bought us for of their own money isn't a lot and pretty poor, but every penny they have taken off of you, me or Joe Blogs since the day took over the reigns becomes theirs after it's been paid. that money has gone towards wages for all staff from Levy to the tea lady, maintenance, purchasing land, paying off Archway Steel and a few years of not having a net spend of zero, the cost of sacking a few managers, and improving what we had on the pitch.

they took the development on a long time ago now (might not of done so if they knew Brexit would double it), and it has had a massive impact, an impact at a time when fees have gone through the roof, they have also been hit big time with the delays. whatever money they have taken over the 17years is kind of their money that has been put back into the club in some ways, just this season it has hit us big time. it would be great if they decided to pay the debt off with their own money, and they will if they sell and if they don't sell they will eventually one day pay off the debts with the money we all pay, and money that comes in via all means. I'm not sure if the rules would allow them to just pay it off. I'm sure at the time somewhere in the near on 2000 pages of the stadium thread that when they paid the 50m that was the maximum allowed at the time.

every club at the top the owners are in the game for a profit, and every club has a price on it's head, but there are 2 owners that bought the club for pennies compared to their value today, and it's their play thing. The Sheik only took City over because they already had a stadium in place and due to the development from the build in the World Athletics championships, if City had still been at Main Road and a shitty training ground, he wouldn't of looked twice. with Abramovic all he has done is throw everything at a club he bought that was in trouble, but had a pretty good squad. if Chelsea hadn't been on the brink, he wouldn't of taken it over at a time there wasn't a thing called FFP, which allowed him to pile a lot of his dirty money in.

Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U already had the success, proceeds the money and stadiums that have allowed them to be paying players silly wages for a very long time, we have had a stadium for 15-16 years, not the success or history to be able to compete. hopefully very soon that will all change whether it's with ENIC or ?????

 

[Lilbaz]

@Lighty64 I really fail to understand your line of reasoning, you seem to have dug your heels in to defend ENIC yet acknowledge that we need to spend to compete. The historical financials you reference are irrelevant, they may explain why we couldn’t compete previously and if our competitors had been storing wealth history may have been an issue but they didn’t, they spent it so all that matters is our relative position now and that is that we are more profitable, by some margin, than any of our competitors. Not only can we compete in transfers and wages, we can blow away most clubs in the world, the fact we don’t is a choice by our owners. Now the facts are transparent your arguments to the contrary are even more hollow than they were previously.

You do realise we are spending that money just on the stadium not on players?
If you would rather spend it on players, sorry not going to happen.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

You do realise we are spending that money just on the stadium not on players?
If you would rather spend it on players, sorry not going to happen.

No we aren't, you are confusing cashflow and profit. I don't want to enter into an accounting lecture but you can't "spend" profit, you can increase expense but that isn't something you do by investing in a fixed asset, which is what the stadium is.

If your point is that we are using all our operating cashflow to invest in property assets rather than transfers or wages then yes I agree and it is my main point, as a strategy it is utterly wrong. As a fan I'd like a greater balance in using our resources. As a shareholder I want the same, I don't believe that the club's value is maximised by starving the playing side of the business of adequate resources to compete.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

I have never denied we have to spend to compete, but your talking because of 1 good year on the finances we can all of a sudden turn players heads and make them want to come to Spurs. The thing is with the stadium debt climbing by 60% that profit has been whipped out if ENIC are so intent on selling us. No one will buy a club for 2b, take on a 630m debt on top, for a team that's not been winning trophies for the last 27years (realistically 34years). Once the stadium is complete and up and running and turning in regular profits, then will be the time to get stuck into ENIC if they still fail to invest in the whole team structure.

the thing is there are so many out there at the moment that are royally pissed off with the ST prices (you being one), then the failure to buy in the summer (everyman and his dog), but none of us know why the players we were in for never come. if Levy knew we was going to have problems, and not have a clue of the exact extra costs the delay would be, he is no way going to blow our profits away on a transfer market that's got way out of hand, and only favours the super rich, on players that might turnout to be total flops and then pay the extra wage bill, and on top of that pay 4+ players wages (approx. 300k in total per week) for sitting on their arses at home playing on their PS4's.

Are you seriously suggesting that our failure to buy players is because we couldn't attract the players we wanted and not because we weren't willing to pay the transfer fees (I won't even discuss wages because I don't think we ever get there) ?

I'm really sorry but I don't think you understand financial statements and like others are conflating profit with cashflow.

Finally your argument on a transfer market gone crazy has been one that has been advocated consistently for the last 10 years only to see prices rise continuously. Dare I say it but the reason we have flops sitting on the bench lies at the feet of Levy 1) for buying second rate in the first place and b) for thinking he is too clever by half when it comes to moving on players.

 

[yankspurs]

You do realise we are spending that money just on the stadium not on players?
If you would rather spend it on players, sorry not going to happen.

Well, we’re actually spending the banks money on the stadium(which will be paid back by the stadiums added revenue). Any money the club generates over its operating expenses is not going toward the stadium at the moment. The stadium loan will become part of the expenses when complete(and will also become part of revenue) but right now it is a side project.

 

[Graysonti]

We are now right up there

As we are a football club first and foremost, I expect some more money spent on team.