who was it who said "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics?" would be interesting to see a profit/loss account, but to be fair, as long as we do go bust i dont mind how we do.

That's a pretty good summary. I like the Footballing World site too - I only discovered it a week or two ago and was impressed by the quality of writing, as well as the unorthodox and un-clichéd opinions.

I'd only add that most of the debt is probably general borrowing, the same general cash flow management that most businesses arrange as a matter of course. As Danny says, anything the club have received money for "in advance" is shown as a creditor, but things like season tickets won't account for too much of it.

Incidentally, you can find the summary profit and loss accounts on the official site if you look. Good cure for insomnia.

What a bizarre thing to say Eek Obviously you meant "do NOT go bust" but if you can't see how important it is for us to do well financially and strive to continue to do so, given the state of the modern game i give up. You obviously have your head buried in the sand and deserve to be upset when your club have to sell their best players.

Sorry for sounding harsh but "i don't mind how we do" just sounded so weak and weedy - glad DL isn't satisfied with mere survival.

Unlike others, I don't like this writer at all.

He always seems to flatter to deceive, pretending a sophistication or depth of knowledge which he doen't possess. He dresses his ignorance so well though that if you can't be bothered to think it through it seems to make sense...


Look at what he's written this time...

"debts falling due within one year amount to more than £70million.

That figure seems large. But if you bought a £560 season ticket in June, technically the club owed you £560 at the end of the financial year. That payment will be paid over the year by the club effectively buying your match day ticket for you."

So by my reckoning, if we have what 25,000/30,000 season ticket holders? Paying around £600 each, that comes to 30,000 x 600 = £18 mil, so where's the other 55 million? But he just moves on as if the mojority of the debt needs no explanation.

Then he says,

"Spurs sold Sean Davis, Michael Brown, Noe Pamarot, Pedro Mendes, Andy Reid, Grzegorz Rasiak, Nourredine Naybet, Goran Bunjevcevic, John Jackson, Dean Marney, Stephen Kelly and Mounir El Hamdaoui in the twelve month period.

In the same 12 months, Spurs bought Danny Murphy, Hossam El Sayed Ghali, Benoit Assou-Ekotto, Didier Zokora, Pascal Chimbonda, Steed Malbranque, Dimitar Berbatov, Dorian Dervite and Tomas Pekhart."

Now maybe my memory's playing tricks on me but I'm sure a few of those players were neither bought nor sold in the 12 months we're talking about...

Zokora bought on June 30th (in or out of the accounting year? Perhaps he sneaks in)
Malbranque signed on deadline day
Chimbonda signed on deadline day
Reid sold in August

It's all smoke and mirrors with this guy and when you get down to it all he's really said is we're going to be getting more money this year because we sold Carrick for 18 mil, we signed great deals with Puma and Mansion and we're playing more matches including some in Europe... Well whoppeee doo, isn't that surprising!!! And guess what, all that money means we're gong to be able to buy more players and hold to the one's we have!!!

I'm sure I remember celebrating all those things when they happened.

Apart from that what's he written?? A load of half-baked gumph that doesn't hold up to the slightest of scrutinies. And he has the cheek to suggest he's imparting knowledge to us poor ignorant fans.

Wise man say, "man must be wise to say "wise man say" otherwise man is ignorant tit"

Chill out.

:grin:

As I said above, his example is silly and irrelevant. But that's really the only misleading thing in the article. The rest of it is a not-bad attempt to put financial results into normal English. And he writes accurate, clear prose, which sets him apart from most of the other football websites.

So you're going a bit OTT, I think.

In. Definitely.

that is what i meant yeah, and what i meant was that id rather make 1p profit and have several more quality players, or maybe stadium extentions etc. than have the shareholders rolling around in the profit we made. i deserve to be upset do i? well you deserve to walk into a giant blender

"So you're going a bit OTT, I think."

Yeah, probably and I agree he writes good copy...

I suppose it depends on whether you're looking at the long term or the short term.

Yes, we need a few more really good players now, to complete our regeneration from the grim years of the 90s, but we also need to make the overall business sound and to keep the shareholders sweet, so we can continue to attract big sponsorship deals, big players and people who will lend us big money to carry out that stadium extension.

Unless the business looks profitable, we won't be able to compete, especially as an increasing number of our rivals are being bought out by the global super-rich and are willing to live with multi-million losses for the several years that it takes to build a trophy-winning side. We can't do that. So we need a healthy balance sheet, well-managed debt and to make a profit more years than not.

i like the idea of a giant blender :rofl: dunno why just tickled me! No offence meant, i understand what your saying is invest in the team and don't pocket a tidy profit - i ofcourse agree with you (as i do re the stadium).

The club has to 'mind how we do' or we won't be able to pay the future wages of the quality players we both want brought in.

yeah thats fair play, im just not sure i liked how the report was written as it almost seemed to try and bend the truths in our favour, but im sure were plenty well off (unlike arsenal)

oh and no offence meant dude

Does anyone know the clubs position in regards to land ownership. I have heard things about one of the board members being promised a percentage of any future land deals.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
Would this suggest future plans for WHL going on the market?<o></o>

Im pretty sure Arsenal are making significantly larger profits than Spurs. The difference lies in their leverage (ie. large loans to finance Cashburden Grave) that ought to give higher returns at the expense of a higher risk level. As much as I hate to say it, Arsenal are running a very sound project with higher future cashflows as a result of their investments.

My guess is that TV rights are handled the same way as season tickets, and perhaps the advertising incomes too. That would explain some of the 'debt'. Spurs have also bought players where payments are due over several years (>=3?). These figures should make up at least another 30-40 mill.

"My guess is that TV rights are handled the same way as season tickets, and perhaps the advertising incomes too. That would explain some of the 'debt'. Spurs have also bought players where payments are due over several years. These figures should make up at least another 30-40 mill."

Not sure about TV rights, I'm pretty certain they're apportioned to us by the Premier League so don't know how they could be construed as debt...? And on the player issue we would reap the same benefit over a period of years from players we've sold...

I very much doubt that TV rights payments are paid to the clubs in full and in advance. If not, then they would not appear in the accounts as if they were creditors.

One of the executive directors (a property developer himself) has a consulting agreement with the club that gets him a percentage of the profits on land deals that he arranges for THFC plc.

My understanding (which is rather lacking in detail) is that this is mainly about acquiring areas of land around and near WHL to facilitate a stadium expansion. The club does own a number of properties near the stadium. I don't know which ones, how big or how many.