I'm not an accountant but...

[Everlasting Seconds]

Oh great, another "but the cost of the stadium" thread.

The club is already filthy rich, incredibly profitable and amazingly solid.

Furthermore, the financial impact of the stadium, once completed, won't be that huge. It's not like it all of the sudden will negate the gap to any club ahead of us in the league revenuewise. We'll still be more or less the 5-6th biggest club measured by revenue (unsure whether we will in fact overtake Liverpool. Probably not, but we'll get very close).

So we'll still be best of the rest, scraping by to sign the best of the players the other top PL clubs won't have. Nothing wrong with that, really. However the only sure thing about the stadium is all the myths it has been the cause of.

 

[riggi]

Oh great, another "but the cost of the stadium" thread.
The club is filthy rich, incredibly profitable and amazingly solid.

Ooo err!

 

[Rocksuperstar]

Spending bajillions is not "the norm". The inflated transfer market is not "the norm". There are perhaps a dozen teams across Europe's top leagues that operate with an apparent bottomless pit of money, we are not one of them. We are one of the others, which there are vastly more of.

Now we've established we don't have the same "pedigree", we are, arguably, the best of "the norm". I can't think of many other clubs that have achieved what we have using the same frugal financial approach. And you have to also remember that funding a new stadium isn't just down to Enic's pockets - the club needed to be in a position on the pitch where it could attract the necessary sponsors and enthusiasm from the local council, so now we've not only managed to climb the table and sign some of the best young talent available to us, it has attracted the necessary interest from the parties that have made our new stadium happen without relying on some huge, false injection of cash.

It's frankly admirable that while the clubs we're competing with rely on the money tree we still cultivate a belief of earning your wages with performance and bonus based contracts. If you took the Sheikh or the Russian away, these clubs would be under serious threat - they are unimaginably rich and know that they can recoup billions simply by moving other billions around a bit. There are only so many that rich who are interested in owning a football club. I'm much more content with an owner who has, and continues, to "future-proof" the club financially, training facilities that rival the best in the world and a new stadium in the works to match.

 

[ebzrascal]

I see no good reason why we're not throwing money around like it's going out of fashion. It's not as if the club are spending £400m on a new stadium.

Give me a break the £400m loan for the stadium is like a mortgage and will be paid back at probably around £20 million a season. BTW half the quoted £800m costs are for Flats, Hotels etc so will be quickly recouped with sales.

We know bigger income is coming soon we could spend money now if we wanted to.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

Oh great, another "but the cost of the stadium" thread.

The club is already filthy rich, incredibly profitable and amazingly solid.

Furthermore, the financial impact of the stadium, once completed, won't be that huge. It's not like it all of the sudden will negate the gap to any club ahead of us in the league revenuewise. We'll still be more or less the 5-6th biggest club measured by revenue (unsure whether we will in fact overtake Liverpool. Probably not, but we'll get very close).

So we'll still be best of the rest, scraping by to sign the best of the players the other top PL clubs won't have. Nothing wrong with that, really. However the only sure thing about the stadium is all the myths it has been the cause of.

Why on earth would we be spending £750m on a new stadium if it wouldn't make a big difference?

 

[Lighty64]

Oh great, another "but the cost of the stadium" thread.

The club is already filthy rich, incredibly profitable and amazingly solid.

Furthermore, the financial impact of the stadium, once completed, won't be that huge. It's not like it all of the sudden will negate the gap to any club ahead of us in the league revenuewise. We'll still be more or less the 5-6th biggest club measured by revenue (unsure whether we will in fact overtake Liverpool. Probably not, but we'll get very close).

So we'll still be best of the rest, scraping by to sign the best of the players the other top PL clubs won't have. Nothing wrong with that, really. However the only sure thing about the stadium is all the myths it has been the cause of.

no but IF, and I'm hoping IF Levy does start a higher wage structure, then the next time a little gem like Mane comes along we will be able to afford/match what Liverpool pay their players

and with your "we are filthy rich" statement have what profits have we made since ENIC took over? we haven't paid the wages because a 36k stadium didn't generate enough. when was the last time there was a real increase in season ticket prices (I'm sure they stayed the same for quite sometime). or must we be filthy rich because we don't over spend in the transfer market?

 

[thinktank]

Ooo err!

I laughed at that way more than I should have.

 

['O Zio]

Do you really think Levy change his ways after the increase rev comes in I don't think so

No I don't, and nor should he. He'll carry on spending a sensible percentage of our turnover on wages. The difference is that our revenue will be much higher so we will be able to offer higher wages.

Contrary to popular belief, his strategy has never been to be cheap, his strategy has been to spend what we can afford so the more we can afford the more we'll pay.

 

[spurs9]

 

[TH1239]

View attachment 32240
View attachment 32241

This chart is completely irrelevant. Revenues across the league exploded after 2015-2016 due to the new television rights deal. We earned an additional 50+ million pounds in television revenue last season, and with Champions League qualification and new commercial deals with AIA and Nike, our overall turnover will come close to, or possibly even surpass 300 million pounds this season (with a wage bill that probably won't surpass 125 million pounds unless we see a whole slew of improved contracts signed again this year). With early indications that the television payouts from 2019-2022 will be even more lucrative (watch for transfer spending to be even more out of control next summer), the club is going to see revenue streams continue to remain robust, irrespective of new stadium income.

There's a reason the club has gone against past precedent and spent 30 million pounds on Sissoko and 42 million pounds on Davinson Sanchez. Pochettino clearly wanted these players, and Levy spent the money because the club has the ability to pay with a near doubling of turnover in the last 5 years.

 

[shelfmonkey]

I'm banned from the transfer forum but let me guess people in the ITK thread have sand in their vagina's because we left it late and may not possibly get their preferred targets bladi blah blah blah, oh do cry me a fucking river.

In that case please don't un-ban me

I think I must've been banned too, no idea why!! Is lurking now a banable offence? Also, I'm not an accountant either.

 

[Lilbaz]

Maybe people should read this before posting. Might give them a better idea of what is going on.

http://m.tottenhamhotspur.com/reports/annual-statement-june-2016/

 

[Metalhead]

This chart is completely irrelevant. Revenues across the league exploded after 2015-2016 due to the new television rights deal. We earned an additional 50+ million pounds in television revenue last season, and with Champions League qualification and new commercial deals with AIA and Nike, our overall turnover will come close to, or possibly even surpass 300 million pounds this season (with a wage bill that probably won't surpass 125 million pounds unless we see a whole slew of improved contracts signed again this year). With early indications that the television payouts from 2019-2022 will be even more lucrative (watch for transfer spending to be even more out of control next summer), the club is going to see revenue streams continue to remain robust, irrespective of new stadium income.

There's a reason the club has gone against past precedent and spent 30 million pounds on Sissoko and 42 million pounds on Davinson Sanchez. Pochettino clearly wanted these players, and Levy spent the money because the club has the ability to pay with a near doubling of turnover in the last 5 years.

It's the wages though isn't it. Levy seems willing to pay the larger fees where necessary but presumably only on players that will accept a wage that is within the existing structure (+ bonuses).

 

[Lilbaz]

This chart is completely irrelevant. Revenues across the league exploded after 2015-2016 due to the new television rights deal. We earned an additional 50+ million pounds in television revenue last season, and with Champions League qualification and new commercial deals with AIA and Nike, our overall turnover will come close to, or possibly even surpass 300 million pounds this season (with a wage bill that probably won't surpass 125 million pounds unless we see a whole slew of improved contracts signed again this year). With early indications that the television payouts from 2019-2022 will be even more lucrative (watch for transfer spending to be even more out of control next summer), the club is going to see revenue streams continue to remain robust, irrespective of new stadium income.

There's a reason the club has gone against past precedent and spent 30 million pounds on Sissoko and 42 million pounds on Davinson Sanchez. Pochettino clearly wanted these players, and Levy spent the money because the club has the ability to pay with a near doubling of turnover in the last 5 years.

This might also be a good read to understand what we can pay in increased wages.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/premier-league-update-their-ffp-rules

 

[Metalhead]

This might also be a good read to understand what we can pay in increased wages.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/premier-league-update-their-ffp-rules

Interesting that 'own revenue' includes player sales, which are technically a 'one off' source of revenue but perhaps it assumes that the fee is staggered over several seasons.

 

[Lilbaz]

Interesting that 'own revenue' includes player sales, which are technically a 'one off' source of revenue but perhaps it assumes that the fee is staggered over several seasons.

Football finances are weird. When you sell a player the fee is recorded as a one off even though it might be a staggered payment. But if you buy a player the cost is spread over his contract.
So if you sell a player for £100m but are only paid £20m for 5 years but you buy a player for £100m but he is on a 5 year contract, the accounts show an £80m profit (this happened with bale). It's called player amortisation.

 

[Metalhead]

Football finances are weird. When you sell a player the fee is recorded as a one off even though it might be a staggered payment. But if you buy a player the cost is spread over his contract.
So if you sell a player for £100m but are only paid £20m for 5 years but you buy a player for £100m but he is on a 5 year contract, the accounts show an £80m profit (this happened with bale). It's called player amortisation.

That really is a bit odd. Whilst I don't think that TV revenue can necessarily be relied on as an income in the long term, it is guaranteed income for a set period. What is the reason(s) for it not being included as a valid reason for raising wages? Is it because the players' contract periods might exceed the TV deal?

 

[Lilbaz]

That really is a bit odd. Whilst I don't think that TV revenue can necessarily be relied on as an income in the long term, it is guaranteed income for a set period. What is the reason(s) for it not being included as a valid reason for raising wages? Is it because the players' contract periods might exceed the TV deal?

It is a valid reason to raise wages and we have offered improved contracts and are buying new players.
Premier league ffp was brought in to limit (what alan sugar called) the prune juice effect. Where any increase in revenue went straight into the pockets of agents and players so that the club itself saw no real benefit.

 

[topper]

I'm banned from the transfer forum but let me guess people in the ITK thread have sand in their vagina's because we left it late and may not possibly get their preferred targets bladi blah blah blah, oh do cry me a fucking river.

In that case please don't un-ban me

I'm banned too - still not sure why but I assume A&C had a particularly bad weekend a few weeks back and was itching to vent his spleen over poor me - so now scrabbling for crumbs of info from any forum. Joking aside I think your spot on with your guess

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

Why on earth would we be spending £750m on a new stadium if it wouldn't make a big difference?

It will make a big difference in relation only to our selves. So Tottenham pre and post stadium will look different. And it will make A difference in relation to clubs ahead of us revenue wise. The gap will be smaller. However, I think it is likely that we will still have at least 4 clubs ahead of us with higher revenue, if not 5. I guess also it will mean that we leave behind other clubs behind us, such as the West Hams and Evertons of PL.

no but IF, and I'm hoping IF Levy does start a higher wage structure, then the next time a little gem like Mane comes along we will be able to afford/match what Liverpool pay their players

and with your "we are filthy rich" statement have what profits have we made since ENIC took over? we haven't paid the wages because a 36k stadium didn't generate enough. when was the last time there was a real increase in season ticket prices (I'm sure they stayed the same for quite sometime). or must we be filthy rich because we don't over spend in the transfer market?

Yeah, I think it's likely that we can pay somewhat higher salaries post stadium. But we will only be able to compete more evenly, we won't necessarily be able to frequently bear the other big clubs to signings land loads of players from the category that already is choosing choosing Chelsea, United and City.

We are filthy reach in market value, mainly because of the insane market value of our squad which is not always reflected in the annual accounts.