Well done Levy and co.
- Thread starter lukespurs7
- Start date
- Status
What spare money? We were supposed to have a -ve net spend? It seems like you agree with me after all.
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
Money not used in the day to day running of the club. It might help if you read it.
I never disagreed with you. Although you are wrong that because we have borrowed we have a net spend as the last financials showed that we had more money in the bank than what we owed in loans hence no net spend.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17
Net debt Stated as a positive, £15m more cash in the bank than the bank loans of £185m
So tell me, where is this £26.25m surplus represented?
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
You seem to be arguing about something i've not said.
All i said was that i think that the tweet was meant to be regarding player transfers. This is because people on the internet often use net spend when refering to how much the club has spent on players. It was used so often on here that people got the hump with it.
Now i don't care about the tweet as it is meaningless. My posts have just been to try and give you a better understanding. As my last post showed at the end of our last financial year we had £200m in the bank. £15m more than we have borrowed from the banks. £100m was probably used to pay off some outstanding debt that was due in december the rest has most likely been used to build the stadium but we wont know for sure till the next financials.
Do yourself a favour, stop trying to argue with people. If you ask a question read the answer the person has given. It might save you a lot of greif.
Last edited:
jt hotspur
Well-Known Member
- Feb 4, 2012
- 163
- 387
They are worth nothing unless u sell them. Levy's plan is to move every one on at some point. Spurs is a business first.
southlondonyiddo
My eyes have seen some of the glory..
- Nov 8, 2004
- 12,655
- 15,219
So since 2008 we have paid out 20% in dividends (profits to shareholders) as opposed to 11% on strengthening the 1st XI
To a supporter like me that split doesn't add up especially when you open the trophy cabinet
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
Look again we paid 1% in dividends. 20% to increase cash balance (in preperation for the start of the stadium build).
southlondonyiddo
My eyes have seen some of the glory..
- Nov 8, 2004
- 12,655
- 15,219
That is why I'm not an accountant. Colour Blind!!!!
nailsy
SC Supporter
- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
Have you got a link to that?
Most people talking about net spend in reference to football will be talking about transfer fees.
Not got a link but both were quite widely reported on twitter yesterday. If you do a search sure they will come up.
shelfboy68
Well-Known Member
- Jun 14, 2008
- 14,566
- 19,651
Football is such a global business now that our board and owner are only interested in the sound and smell of cold hard cash, so opening up a empty trophy cabinet is of secondary concern to people in their position and most clubs are like that now.
Neon_Knight_
Well-Known Member
- Jul 20, 2011
- 4,022
- 6,738
So we still pay the lowest wages as % of turnover (42%). Do we expect this % to increase or stay roughly the same over the coming years?
am_yisrael_chai
Well-Known Member
- Feb 18, 2006
- 6,409
- 10,931
Where is the stadium naming rights deal ? If Levy haggles so much he doesn’t get a sponsor then I can understand why we are having problems with transfers. Get the right deal and it should pay for most of the stadium which would mean all of that extra matchday revenue is available for the squad. Given there has been no announcement yet my read is that means either Levy hasn’t snagged a sponsor (criminally incompetent for a CEO) or he has landed such an amazing deal that we can’t announce it because selling clubs will know we are mega flush.
Not sure how most naming rights are structured. But unless they pay a lump sum then £15-20m really ain’t making much difference a year. Of course it’s a tidy sum but we are nearly making same off pre season tour. It’s been stated many times the naming rights is not crucial for financing stadium. So why rush make sure you get the best deal if it’s lasting 20 years. As said unless they are plonking down a lump sum it will have minimum impact. You also have no idea how it may be tied in with future plans to sell. What if Zuckerberg rolls up in 2 years and wants to call it Facebook stadium. Maybe levy wants to keep his options open as it could devalue a future sale.Also find it really weird how desperate some people are to give our name away.
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,368
- 83,733
If only Levy understood finances as well as us.
RichieS
Well-Known Member
- Dec 23, 2004
- 11,916
- 16,436
I agree with you that it's not crucial but if we get a deal for say £20m per year for 20 years, that's £400m of guaranteed income against the loan repayments.
Lighty64
I believe
- Aug 24, 2010
- 10,400
- 12,476
the thing is, and I used to get angry with the Paulinho abuse. When a player joins any club from Brazil, they join at the end of their football season. so they usually join after a gruelling season to then start a different league, a different culture and to be honest do well to still be fit by Xmas.
if Richarlison isn't a hit this season, I really expect him to be the season after. Paulinho suffered with all that was going on with AvB and hardly played, and when he did he never played in the same position. I expect he also struggled to climatize in England which should be taken in to consideration.
Sp3akerboxxx
Adoption: Nabil Bentaleb
- Apr 4, 2006
- 5,383
- 8,097
You've contradicted yourself in the first two lines mate. You say Levy "haggles so much he doesn't get a sponsor", and then say "Get the right deal and it should pay for most of the stadium". So you want Levy to get the "right deal" but not negotiate too much? That seems like a borderline oxymoron to me.
- Status
Similar threads
