Spurs latest accounts - June 2012

[StartingPrice]

Yes plus also despite hiring Aanesen they have never embraced youth developmnent, and unless they do they will find ?FFP prevents them from buying all the players they need - unless Abramovic puts in place an Ehihad type deal (which I'm still hoping againat hope) will be thrown out as a related party deal.

Yeah that's the joke, with that joke of a club: they hired AVB to phase out the veteran players and usher in a more youth oriented approach* - and then sacked him a few months later because the veterans were pissed orf that he weren't playing them = twats

*Let's not forget, while it is true, as SI says, that they have never really embraced youth development despite stealing hiring Arnesen, they have actually spent a fair few quid on some very promising young players.

 

[Sandro30]

Yeah that's the joke, with that joke of a club: they hired AVB to phase out the veteran players and usher in a more youth oriented approach* - and then sacked him a few months later because the veterans were pissed orf that he weren't playing them = twats

*Let's not forget, while it is true, as SI says, that they have never really embraced youth development despite stealing hiring Arnesen, they have actually spent a fair few quid on some very promising young players.

To be fair they have some very good ones coming through, it's just about them integrating them into the team rather than them being the next Bruma, Van Aanholt, McEachran

 

[Spursidol]

To be fair they have some very good ones coming through, it's just about them integrating them into the team rather than them being the next Bruma, Van Aanholt, McEachran

Spurs find it hard enough to bring youngsters through into the first team - Chelsea seem to struggle even more as its soooooo tempting to get out the cheque book and buy an Eden Hazard, Victor Moses rather than bring one of their own youngsters into the team who will obviously be less mature/less good than a starlet who has already gained a lot of experience playing with another team.

 

[ItsBoris]

I'm not an accountant but what that says to me is we made 144 million in revenue, plus 9 million in play sales, and spend 120 million.

We then have "non cash flow expenses" which means we "make no profit" and therefore pay no tax. Levy is a genius.

 

[ItsBoris]

Btw aren't all premier league clubs supposed to start bringing in more TV money next season? How much extra should that give us?

 

[sloth]

Even if we got a loan for £100m, we'd still be second in the net debt table. I seem to recall previous statements from Levy saying the funding will be a combination of debt, equity, sponsorship etc, so I doubt £100m would be an outrageous amount to expect to be debt funding in a project of £450m

You're probably right, £100m seems reasonable, but the question in my mind is regards the lenders, are they going to lend that amount to a club of our size? Which is not to imply they wouldn't, but that I genuinely don't know. I also wonder whether Lewis would ever realise a return on his investment were he to spend a chunk of money on a stadium.

 

[Spursidol]

You're probably right, £100m seems reasonable, but the question in my mind is regards the lenders, are they going to lend that amount to a club of our size? Which is not to imply they wouldn't, but that I genuinely don't know. I also wonder whether Lewis would ever realise a return on his investment were he to spend a chunk of money on a stadium.

The reason why they will be happy to lend is the naming rights sponsor (eg £200m payable in equal annual payments over 20 years).

In effect the majority of the interest and capital repayments are backed by a similar receivable from the sponsor itself a 'blue chiip' rated company to be able to afford that level of sponsorship, the balance being met by match day revenues.

If the sponsorship was not there, I agree being abble to borrow that amount without giving away (for example) a considerable amount of equity (whether by shares or options over the shares or whatever) would probably not be on

 

[leffe186]

The infrastructure expenditure (land, buildings, fees to experts to get it built) are capitalised in balance sheet - only depreciated (ie cost in P & L) when brought into use, so training ground depreciated from September 2012 and stadium....later. Not sure if that helps enough or not

Well almost, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Cheers!

 

[Spursidol]

The Swiss Ramble has just published an analysis of all PL clubs cash flow - he's head and shoulders above anyone else in explaining football finance. A 'must read' for anyone interested in why Spurs or any other club makes certain decisions
http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2013/04/show-me-money.html

The full analysis is well worth a read, although its obviously a dry subject. This is the section specifically on Spurs (the full article also contains a number of other references to Spurs in relation to specific points) :

Tottenham made a £7.3 million loss before tax after revenue fell to £144 million (from £164 million the previous year), due to only qualifying for the Europa League instead of the more lucrative Champions League. The wage bill was held at £90 million, leading to an operating loss of £11 million.
Adding back £35 million for player amortisation and depreciation plus £3 million for working capital movements, due to a rise in creditors, means that cash flow from operating activities was a healthy £27 million.
This was boosted by net player sales of £6 million (player sales £33 million, purchases £27 million) with Spurs being one of only four Premier League clubs to generate cash from this activity.

​

"Stadium Arcadium"​

At the moment Spurs are investing almost all their surplus cash in fixed assets, having spent £42 million last season on plans for a new stadium (Northumberland Development Project) and the new training centre in Enfield. This was more than any other Premier League club spent on infrastructure in 2011/12. In addition, they paid £4.5 million interest, as debt climbed to £86 million, made up of bank loans and securitisation funds.
After the significant investment off the pitch Tottenham’s cash flow before financing was a negative £13 million, partly financed by £8 million additional bank loans, leading to negative net cash flow of £5 million.
Tottenham’s financial future will be dictated to a very large extent by what happens with the stadium development, though they would be greatly helped if they could again qualify for the Champions League. The club estimated that the 2011/12 Europa League campaign brought in £31 million less revenue than the previous season’s foray into the Champions League.

 

[Lilbaz]

Sorry didn't see this thread when i started the other.

Good bit about chelsea, the debts are not written off but are owed by the parent company to abram. Which if he calls in will have to be paid within 18 months. Only £895m.

Not likely he'll call them in though.

 

[sloth]

...

It's well worth reading the rest of the article too, as there's plenty about Spurs in there, and puts a lot of it into context.

 

[Spursidol]

Sorry didn't see this thread when i started the other.

Good bit about chelsea, the debts are not written off but are owed by the parent company to abram. Which if he calls in will have to be paid within 18 months. Only £895m.

Not likely he'll call them in though.

Apologies - I updated this thread not seeing you had already posted in a new thread.

Interesting re Chelsea, they have written off the loans in the football club (to meet FFP regulations), but in the 'holding company' which owns Chlsea FC, that company still ows Abramovitch the £895m. I guess that if/when RA sells Chelsea he hopes to recover most or all of the £895m.....