Financials 17/18

[DogsOfWar]

Not sure how you get it going to £500m. We sold season tickets for the new stadium this year.

I dont believe the new stadium would have been built just based on the extra £60 million in match day income.
Other events, naming rights, and non-matchday income will be close to £100 million which is what will primarily pay off the stadium and has made it viable.

 

[Lilbaz]

I dont believe the new stadium would have been built just based on the extra £60 million in match day income.
Other events, naming rights, and non-matchday income will be close to £100 million which is what will primarily pay off the stadium and has made it viable.

You think we will get £100m from non matchday income? I think you are being very optimistic. We'll see.

 

[DogsOfWar]

You think we will get £100m from non matchday income? I think you are being very optimistic. We'll see.

If we have 16 events that pay match day income (4 million) that's £64 million. Naming rights at £15 million a year take it to £79 million.
Typical number of non-matchday visitors to a big stadium is 200,000+ a year, if they all spend £100 on tours, merchandise, food etc that's another £20 million taking it up to £99 million.

There's nothing particularly outrageous from those numbers so I think its doable.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

You might be able to guarantee that but the last set of like for like financial results shows we are in fact some way behind all of the rest of the top 6. Different leagues. And that’s before you factor in the stadium.



That’s some good info for you to get stuck into if you are amenable to evidence.

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything new, the comparable 2016/17 revenues were in the link I attached to my post. What did you want me to look at exactly ?

 

[Lilbaz]

If we have 16 events that pay match day income (4 million) that's £64 million. Naming rights at £15 million a year take it to £79 million.
Typical number of non-matchday visitors to a big stadium is 200,000+ a year, if they all spend £100 on tours, merchandise, food etc that's another £20 million taking it up to £99 million.

There's nothing particularly outrageous from those numbers so I think its doable.

You do realise we don't get all the money from the events? Also we have no idea what the events will be.
The os reported catering brings in £30k a match.
It's not like we are suddenly trebling the number of supporters that buy merchandise. There may be more but how much is up for debate we currently make around £14m from merch sales.
When you say big stadium what you mean is big clubs that have fan bases a lot bigger than ours.

 

[Graysonti]

You might be able to guarantee that but the last set of like for like financial results shows we are in fact some way behind all of the rest of the top 6. Different leagues. And that’s before you factor in the stadium.



That’s some good info for you to get stuck into if you are amenable to evidence.

Mate these are old old numbers and we have gone over this.

We are now turnover with Pool, Arse and Chelsea

 

[Lilbaz]

Mate these are old old numbers and we have gone over this.

We are now turnover with Pool, Arse and Chelsea

Not yet. Liverpool just got to a cl final. Chelsea just signed some massive sponsor ship deals that dwarf ours.
We have caught up but wait till 17/18 financials for the clubs come out before stating we are the same.

 

[LeParisien]

Mate these are old old numbers and we have gone over this.

We are now turnover with Pool, Arse and Chelsea

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything new, the comparable 2016/17 revenues were in the link I attached to my post. What did you want me to look at exactly ?

Profit after tax has gone up 8m last year. Good but a drop in the transfer kitty. In any case, that surely includes loans which we will have to pay back. Profit that’s not ours to spend.

Also - do we have any idea how the accounts are being affected by front-loading of sponsorship deals? That is likely to be distorting the picture in the accounts.

2 years ago (the last year we can compare with other clubs), we were some way off the revenues of our rivals. Chelsea and Liverpool were close but I don’t share your optimism well have caught them. Commercial revenue is almost certainly still some way behind all the rest of the top 6. Chelsea and Liverpool earned more CL money than we did last year.

So the gap has probably not closed significantly. Yet. We’ll see in due course but I don’t share your confidence. Particularly given the likelihood of accounting tricks skewing the figures.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

Profit after tax has gone up 8m last year. Good but a drop in the transfer kitty. In any case, that surely includes loans which we will have to pay back. Profit that’s not ours to spend.

Also - do we have any idea how the accounts are being affected by front-loading of sponsorship deals? That is likely to be distorting the picture in the accounts.

2 years ago (the last year we can compare with other clubs), we were some way off the revenues of our rivals. Chelsea and Liverpool were close but I don’t share your optimism well have caught them. Commercial revenue is almost certainly still some way behind all the rest of the top 6. Chelsea and Liverpool earned more CL money than we did last year.

So the gap has probably not closed significantly. Yet. We’ll see in due course but I don’t share your confidence. Particularly given the likelihood of accounting tricks skewing the figures.

I’m sorry to be the accountant again but loans can’t inflate profit. The fact you don’t understand that pretty much makes it impossible to explain why the rest of your post is completely wrong but I will try.

Put simply our match day revenues increased dramatically as our average attendances nearly doubled, none of our competitors had a similar impact in their finances. Revenues in the new stadium will be even higher due in part to significantly higher ticket prices but mainly due to the boxes and premium seats.

No comment on your claims of accounting tricks and front loading of sponsorships, it is just utter rubbish.

 

[LeParisien]

I’m sorry to be the accountant again but loans can’t inflate profit. The fact you don’t understand that pretty much makes it impossible to explain why the rest of your post is completely wrong but I will try.

Put simply our match day revenues increased dramatically as our average attendances nearly doubled, none of our competitors had a similar impact in their finances. Revenues in the new stadium will be even higher due in part to significantly higher ticket prices but mainly due to the boxes and premium seats.

No comment on your claims of accounting tricks and front loading of sponsorships, it is just utter rubbish.

You have let your beliefs get that better of you.

That one sentence is not a key assumption or claim of my post. It may have been wrong but it makes your assertion in your first paragraph a convenient rhetorical device but sadly without substance. In fact it gets worse - it wasn’t even a key feature of that short paragraph ie whatever way you spin it we made 8m more profit after tax. Woop de doo.

You’re right to say Wembley represents a huge increase in our earnings as compared to our rivals. You may have followed a fairly huge drain on income compared to our rivals that we’ve been quietly building too.

You rubbish the claim that sponsorship tricks could have an impact. I wouldn’t know about that. But the Swiss Ramble blog (someone who would) finds this to be the best explanation for certain features in the detailed accounts for 16/17 and believes this could be true for this year too.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

You have let your beliefs get that better of you.

That one sentence is not a key assumption or claim of my post. It may have been wrong but it makes your assertion in your first paragraph a convenient rhetorical device but sadly without substance. In fact it gets worse - it wasn’t even a key feature of that short paragraph ie whatever way you spin it we made 8m more profit after tax. Woop de doo.

You’re right to say Wembley represents a huge increase in our earnings as compared to our rivals. You may have followed a fairly huge drain on income compared to our rivals that we’ve been quietly building too.

You rubbish the claim that sponsorship tricks could have an impact. I wouldn’t know about that. But the Swiss Ramble blog (someone who would) finds this to be the best explanation for certain features in the detailed accounts for 16/17 and believes this could be true for this year too.

I mean sorry but I really don’t understand what you are saying.

 

[DogsOfWar]

You do realise we don't get all the money from the events? Also we have no idea what the events will be.
The os reported catering brings in £30k a match.
It's not like we are suddenly trebling the number of supporters that buy merchandise. There may be more but how much is up for debate we currently make around £14m from merch sales.
When you say big stadium what you mean is big clubs that have fan bases a lot bigger than ours.

Very true regarding events, we could just rent it out for 16 events for a million a time. But my assumption would be a mix of concerts (around 6 million) as well as renting it out for the NFL at the bottom end etc so an average of £4 million or so.

Regarding visitors to a big stadium that includes places like Wembley who aren't a club stadium. As a similar multi-event venue we would expect to attract NFL fans, music fans, boxing fans, as well as our own lot.
We've not previously sold NFL merchandise so that will all be extra. And I don't believe we have had catering facilities/museum open on non-matchdays in the past which will also be extra sources of revenue for those who are coming to visit/tour the stadium.

Worst case scenario should see an extra £60 million, doubling the extra match day revenue which would still be enough to take us to 7th in the rich list (also assuming other teams growth isn't considerably bigger).

 

[Lilbaz]

Very true regarding events, we could just rent it out for 16 events for a million a time. But my assumption would be a mix of concerts (around 6 million) as well as renting it out for the NFL at the bottom end etc so an average of £4 million or so.

Regarding visitors to a big stadium that includes places like Wembley who aren't a club stadium. As a similar multi-event venue we would expect to attract NFL fans, music fans, boxing fans, as well as our own lot.
We've not previously sold NFL merchandise so that will all be extra. And I don't believe we have had catering facilities/museum open on non-matchdays in the past which will also be extra sources of revenue for those who are coming to visit/tour the stadium.

Worst case scenario should see an extra £60 million, doubling the extra match day revenue which would still be enough to take us to 7th in the rich list (also assuming other teams growth isn't considerably bigger).

Hopefully you're right.

 

[LeParisien]

I mean sorry but I really don’t understand what you are saying.

Is that all you could manage ? Hard to see you’re discussing in good faith.

The stadium.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

Is that all you could manage ? Hard to see you’re discussing in good faith.

The stadium.

The stadium isn’t a drain on income at all. The stadium impacts cashflow, which is something completely different.

I’ve tried to be polite but you haven’t, so let me just say that when you don’t know the most basic things about financial statements, as you evidently don’t, you should probably stay out of a debate where that is the topic.

 

[LeParisien]

The stadium isn’t a drain on income at all. The stadium impacts cashflow, which is something completely different.

I’ve tried to be polite but you haven’t, so let me just say that when you don’t know the most basic things about financial statements, as you evidently don’t, you should probably stay out of a debate where that is the topic.

You have done two things. You have:

1) Ignored clear evidence presented to you which weakens your narrative.

2) Resorted to technocratic arguments whilst ignoring the substance of those claims. That is the kind of tactic which is legitimate in a philosophy essay but in a football forum screams bad faith.

The point - which I’m sure you understood - was that the stadium build has come with costs. You were right to highlight the move to Wembley has come with increased ticket sales (mitigated by cost of renting) and this comes with a substantial increase in revenu vis a vis our rivals. However we are also accumulating vast amounts of debt vis a vis most of our rivals (exception of Man Utd) because of the stadium build. This debt impacts or ability to spend as much as our rivals.

Of course 1) and 2) are related. By employing technocratic arguments you steer conversation away from the substance of those points and completely ignore other points that weaken your narrative.

If you are not prepared to discuss in good faith then we should leave it there. A dieu.

 

[am_yisrael_chai]

You have done two things. You have:

1) Ignored clear evidence presented to you which weakens your narrative.

2) Resorted to technocratic arguments whilst ignoring the substance of those claims. That is the kind of tactic which is legitimate in a philosophy essay but in a football forum screams bad faith.

The point - which I’m sure you understood - was that the stadium build has come with costs. You were right to highlight the move to Wembley has come with increased ticket sales (mitigated by cost of renting) and this comes with a substantial increase in revenu vis a vis our rivals. However we are also accumulating vast amounts of debt vis a vis most of our rivals (exception of Man Utd) because of the stadium build. This debt impacts or ability to spend as much as our rivals.

Of course 1) and 2) are related. By employing technocratic arguments you steer conversation away from the substance of those points and completely ignore other points that weaken your narrative.

If you are not prepared to discuss in good faith then we should leave it there. A dieu.

What evidence ? Do you think that in this entire thread we’ve only just woken up to the fact that we are building a stadium which has significant cashflow requirements ?

The entire debate has been about how we find a balance between capital investment and investing in the playing squad.

You aren’t debating on substance you have a view which you believe is correct and are resorting to copy/pasting other views in an attempt to support your own because patently you don’t understand the technicals well enough to actually debate the topic.

 

[Graysonti]

Profit after tax has gone up 8m last year. Good but a drop in the transfer kitty. In any case, that surely includes loans which we will have to pay back. Profit that’s not ours to spend.

Also - do we have any idea how the accounts are being affected by front-loading of sponsorship deals? That is likely to be distorting the picture in the accounts.

2 years ago (the last year we can compare with other clubs), we were some way off the revenues of our rivals. Chelsea and Liverpool were close but I don’t share your optimism well have caught them. Commercial revenue is almost certainly still some way behind all the rest of the top 6. Chelsea and Liverpool earned more CL money than we did last year.

So the gap has probably not closed significantly. Yet. We’ll see in due course but I don’t share your confidence. Particularly given the likelihood of accounting tricks skewing the figures.

Profit after tax is irrelevant - it will include lots of non cash accounting entries like dep and amortisation.

What is important is EBITDA and cash generation.

We are and will further be, huge revenue generators.

 

[vegassd]

What evidence ? Do you think that in this entire thread we’ve only just woken up to the fact that we are building a stadium which has significant cashflow requirements ?

The entire debate has been about how we find a balance between capital investment and investing in the playing squad.

You aren’t debating on substance you have a view which you believe is correct and are resorting to copy/pasting other views in an attempt to support your own because patently you don’t understand the technicals well enough to actually debate the topic.

Just a small note on the "passionate" side of this... I've seen you truly piss off at least three different posters over the last week or so with your posting technique in relation to club finances. Hopefully you will appreciate that it can't just be everybody else that is wrong and/or inept at understanding money - there might be some culpability on your side as well.

But on to the finances, as I believe it your main grumble is that whilst our revenues have increased over the past 18 months and we have drastically closed the gap to our rivals, we aren't reflecting that by spending as much as our rivals do in terms of the playing squad. I hope I have that right.

Firstly, I totally agree that our revenues have been increasing at a higher rate and that we have closed the gap to the lower earners (Liverpool and Chelsea) to a negligible level. Liverpool obviously had a huge CL run last year so they maybe stretch the gap somewhat, but we're probably talking less than 30m difference now.

However, we are going through the stadium costs which will have an impact on our spending ability. We don't have an excuse for spending like a mid-table club for sure, but hopefully we can agree that if our spending is a touch below that of the other top six it would be understandable. Or at least wouldn't indicate a complete lack of ambition.

I made a point to you before about player wages which I think got lost in the fog somewhat so I'll have a go again to see what your opinion is of the wage side of things.

When we look at the top earners for the top six clubs we have de Bruyne and Sanchez on 350k, Ozil on 300k, then Kane/Salah/Hazard on 200k each. We could assume that if Salah and Hazard were to sign new contracts their wages would increase, but is it fair to say that we are at least getting in the mix in terms of our top earner?

I also took a look at the top three earners at the club (due to our new contracts for Kane/Son/Lamela) and compared that to club revenues as a percentage. I did this before the latest THFC statement and the Alli contract btw. I also ignored Chelsea and City in this regard because they are often considered the "doped" clubs. So not completely on point but the numbers were:

Spurs: 7.6% (Kane, Son, Lamela)
United: 7.9% (Sanchez, Pogba, De Gea)
Arsenal: 7.5% (Ozil, Auba, Laca)
Liverpool: 7.5% (Salah, Firmino, VVD)

Like I say, that Spurs number would go down in relation to the newer revenue figure, but then that would be offset if Alli is on something like 150k. I would also imagine that if the other clubs released interim revenue figures their revenues would increase as well. Would you say that we are at least starting to compete with the other top six in terms of the new contracts we are awarding?

A final thing I thought might be interesting whilst writing this post was what the managers are earning. Finding solid info for this seems to be more of a crap shoot but after scanning the net for a bit I came up with the following:

Mourinho: 15m
Guardiola: 15m
Poch: 8.5m
Klopp: 7m
Sarri: 6.5m
Emery: 6m

We can caveat this again by saying that if Klopp were to re-sign I would imagine him at equal or higher levels than Poch. But again this must be an indication that we are prepared to pay top six money on wages where it makes sense. Would you agree with that?

PS. I'm not trying to say that Spurs spend more than our rivals and I'm not trying to paint a picture of this having been a long-running thing. We have traditionally trailed our rivals in terms of wage spending for many years and this level of spending is completely new. I'm also not trying to kill the debate by claiming I'm right - I would be really interested to hear some alternative takes on those numbers and whether they represent sporting ambition or something else.

 

[coys200]

I think revenue will definitely hit £450m. The latest £380m figure doesn’t include:

ST hike £20m
Naming £20m
16 events £20-30m

Not sure if NFL been included already but will lots of other bits and bobs we might even push £500m. Also not mentioned is we will make a fair whack from the flats. There’s no social hosing in the flats we could easily make £150-200m from the development.