Spurs financial muscle

[mawspurs]

Tottenham pack more financial punch than Champions League winners Real Madrid, according to a new study.

Read the full article at Evening Standard

 

[tiger666]

Before anyone asks why we aren't bidding for Bale or paying Kane 300k a week without actually reading the article, this is about assets, debt etc.

"Their ranking is a reflection of the club's professionalism and a sound business model"

 

[beuller]

Just missed out on the top 4

 

[Gb160]

Before anyone asks why we aren't bidding for Bale or paying Kane 300k a week without actually reading the article, this is about assets, debt etc.

"Their ranking is a reflection of the club's professionalism and a sound business model"

A lot of people dont understand that sort of jargon though, and will start calling Levy stingy.

 

[Spurrific]

Levy is tite

 

[guiltyparty]

Blimey, Chelsea 800m in debt?

 

[Spurslove]

Tottenham pack more financial punch than Champions League winners Real Madrid, according to a new study.

Read the full article at Evening Standard

After having clicked the link to read more about Tottenham having more 'financial muscle' than Real Madrid, Manchester United and Chelsea, imagine my great surprise and disappointment to discover that most of the article was about Arsenal as being the second richest club on the planet with fixed assets of over £750 million, and barely a word about Tottenham other than we are in 5th place in the rich list.

 

[thebenjamin]

Blimey, Chelsea 800m in debt?

All to Abramovich tho

 

[BasingstokeYid]

Blimey, Chelsea 800m in debt?

Would imagine most of the debt is a directors loan (money owed back to abhramovich)

 

[bigspurs]

Blimey, Chelsea 800m in debt?

I hope the squeaky mouthed gangster leaves them in £800m worth of debt too! That would make me very happy.

 

[WorcesterTHFC]

Blimey, Chelsea 800m in debt?

Most businesses wouldn't be able to get £800 in debt without the bank breathing down their necks.

 

[Pellshek]

A lot of this sounds pretty ridiculous. For example, what is Arsenal's $766m fixed assets actually worth, given replacement value would likely be higher? I don't see that stat as meaningful in any way wrt overall value of the club, except inasmuch as it helps them earn income on an on-going basis.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

After having clicked the link to read more about Tottenham having more 'financial muscle' than Real Madrid, Manchester United and Chelsea, imagine my great surprise and disappointment to discover that most of the article was about Arsenal as being the second richest club on the planet with fixed assets of over £750 million, and barely a word about Tottenham other than we are in 5th place in the rich list.

The value of "fixed assets" is primarily in buildings and land.

I haven't read the article, but I'd guess that this is so because Arsenal's stadium and its ancillary land and buildings are in one of the highest-value areas of North London.

Land in Tottenham is obviously less valuable per hectare than land in Islington, but not so much as you would imagine - it's still in North London and that means that the new stadium and its associated developments will also be worth insane amounts of money. Expect us to rise up the list as the NDP progresses - although much depends on who eventually owns the residential towers. I think they will probably be developed by one of the big residential development players and I don't know who will; end up owning the completed buildings and the land.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

A lot of this sounds pretty ridiculous. For example, what is Arsenal's $766m fixed assets actually worth, given replacement value would likely be higher? I don't see that stat as meaningful in any way wrt overall value of the club, except inasmuch as it helps them earn income on an on-going basis.

It provides a vast well of uncharged assets that can be used as security when the clubs needs to borrow money.

 

[Lilbaz]

The value of "fixed assets" is primarily in buildings and land.

I haven't read the article, but I'd guess that this is so because Arsenal's stadium and its ancillary land and buildings are in one of the highest-value areas of North London.

Land in Tottenham is obviously less valuable per hectare than land in Islington, but not so much as you would imagine - it's still in North London and that means that the new stadium and its associated developments will also be worth insane amounts of money. Expect us to rise up the list as the NDP progresses - although much depends on who eventually owns the residential towers. I think they will probably be developed by one of the big residential development players and I don't know who will; end up owning the completed buildings and the land.

Which is why i'm suprised fulham isn't on the list. Craven cottage has to be worth a fortune.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Which is why i'm suprised fulham isn't on the list. Craven cottage has to be worth a fortune.

I took care to refer to the stadiums "and ancillary buildings". Craven Cottage not only has no associated housing development (etc.), but it's also a listed building, which means the land hasn't got a viable alternative use and the stadium cannot be expanded from its capacity of only 26k. All of which knocks the value.

 

[sebo_sek]

Most businesses wouldn't be able to get £800 in debt without the bank breathing down their necks.

800 pounds I understand but 800 MILLION?

 

[Hoops]

These reports are bullshit

 

[shelfmonkey]

Blimey, Chelsea 800m in debt?

One very nasty accident (?), to the ruskie crim, away from oblivion!!