Spurs latest accounts - June 2012

[Spursidol]

Why do Man City make barely anything in 'Match Day'?

Considerably less than any of the top 6 and on a par with Villa

I'm guessing because I di not know that much about ManC finances, but Man City acquired the stadium built for the Cpommonwealth games and rather than paying outright aquired on terms which meant that they paid according to match day revenues - in effect splitting the match day revenues with the UK state (old owner of commonwealth stadium).

 

[StartingPrice]

Think this graph frequires an extra word too.

In rough terms it shows that TV money coming from being in CL is £20m+, which added to the UEFA prize money of £30m (see OP) shows that not getting into CL can easily cost £50m - and that is ignoring the extra gate money plus extra merchandising that CL entry would generate, so being in the CL is probably worthy £60m/£70m+.

Its certainly worth fighting for this season (and underlines the reason why HR had to go last season. In what other walk of life could an employee put at risk those sort of sums of money by going awol whilst pursuing tv cameras to explain why you would be a great manager, and expect to retain your employer's trust).

It would certainly make the financing of the stadium easier too.....as well as a shiny new striker !

SI...sorry if it is obvious upon re-reading the OP, but in your graph (SwissRamble makes me think of Swiss Tony ), what constitutes the other and is shown in blue?
It is just that it looks like ours is less than virtually every other club in the EPL.

 

[Spursidol]

SI...sorry if it is obvious upon re-reading the OP, but in your graph (SwissRamble makes me think of Swiss Tony ), what constitutes the other and is shown in blue?
It is just that it looks like ours is less than virtually every other club in the EPL.

I'm confused ! The blue on the last graph of total revenues shows 'Commercial' revenues (sponsorship etc)

The 'other' revenues represents revenue souvrces which vary from club to club - in Spurs case my best guess is that it will incliude fees for loaning out players but whatelse I am not sure, except 'miscellaneous'.

 

[Spursidol]

Why do Man City make barely anything in 'Match Day'?

Considerably less than any of the top 6 and on a par with Villa

Just spotted this.


RishMCFC ‏@RishMCFC5h
@SwissRamble Why is City's match day revenue so less compared to others? Do you see this improving as it's affecting our overall revenue?



Swiss Ramble ‏@SwissRamble5h
@RishMCFC Smaller attendances, cheaper tickets.

He's the man that knows more than me !

 

[Spursidol]

One graph I am glad we are not top of - 'Net Debt'.

ManU's debt is of course the result of the Glazers buying the club,

But the size of Aston Villa's debt shows why they are having to rely a lot on their youth coming through, Newcastle's looks challenging, Arsenal shows that they are well on the way to repaying their stadium debt.

Spurs level of debt shows that he has taken calculated risks in the past to build up the club, with a manageable level of debt

 

[StartingPrice]

I'm confused ! The blue on the last graph of total revenues shows 'Commercial' revenues (sponsorship etc)

The 'other' revenues represents revenue souvrces which vary from club to club - in Spurs case my best guess is that it will incliude fees for loaning out players but whatelse I am not sure, except 'miscellaneous'.

It was from the graph in the post I quoted - but the graph didn't post.

Not to worry, I've figured it out, I think

It's the graph for media revenues. There are three colours, green, yellow, blue (no, it's not Rossi and Leandro, POTL ). I didn't notice the legend at the bottom. If green is for EPL match media revenues, and yellow is for European match media revenues, then I am guessing the blue other revenues must be for CC and FA Cup match media revenues. That would explain why every team has some, and why a lot of teams below us got more than us.

p.s. That Net Debt table with Chelsea at the bottom is a disgrace!

 

[Spursidol]

It was from the graph in the post I quoted - but the graph didn't post.

Not to worry, I've figured it out, I think

It's the graph for media revenues. There are three colours, green, yellow, blue (no, it's not Rossi and Leandro, POTL ). I didn't notice the legend at the bottom. If green is for EPL match media revenues, and yellow is for European match media revenues, then I am guessing the blue other revenues must be for CC and FA Cup match media revenues. That would explain why every team has some, and why a lot of teams below us got more than us.

p.s. That Net Debt table with Chelsea at the bottom is a disgrace!

Abramovic capitalised (code for wrote off as a likely bad debt) his loans to the club.

The blue could also include Spurs TV - one area of the club where Spurs definitely need improvement !

 

[StartingPrice]

Abramovic capitalised (code for wrote off as a likely bad debt) his loans to the club.

The blue could also include Spurs TV - one area of the club where Spurs definitely need improvement !

Oh, I knew he had did that...just can't get over the authorities allowing him to be instrumental in pushing through legislation penalising other clubs for being in debt while, effectively, wiping such a huge debt of his own club. Yeah, it was his money and he owns the club, but that means any other club should be allowed to do the same. Just using the desire of others to put an end to folk like him bankrolling clubs in order to make his bankrolling of his club more effective

Yeah, could be Spurs TV. I think we have mentioned Spurs TV before, in regard to the incentive to have it being much greater if they had regular coverage of the youngling matches.

 

[TH1239]

Out of curiousity, who here thinks we can keep Gareth Bale at Spurs without Champions League football to help pay a wage increase for him? I have a hard time seeing Levy looking at those accounts and being able to turn down 50-60 million pounds for Bale, and instead giving him a 150K a week contract extension. I have a sense, like with Modric in 2011, people aren't remotely preparing themselves for the idea that Bale tries to leave this summer, which I think is pretty likely if we finish 5th or 6th.

The one thing we do have going for us is increased television revenue next year. Will we divert those funds towards a contract extension for Bale, give it to AVB to spend, or try to balance the books and off-set this year's loss by placing it in future reserves? I'm guessing we won't know until late August, either way.

 

[spursfan77]

Oh, I knew he had did that...just can't get over the authorities allowing him to be instrumental in pushing through legislation penalising other clubs for being in debt while, effectively, wiping such a huge debt of his own club. Yeah, it was his money and he owns the club, but that means any other club should be allowed to do the same. Just using the desire of others to put an end to folk like him bankrolling clubs in order to make his bankrolling of his club more effective

Yeah, could be Spurs TV. I think we have mentioned Spurs TV before, in regard to the incentive to have it being much greater if they had regular coverage of the youngling matches.

So, is this how Chelsea are going to get round the financial FairPlay rules then?

They can't be allowed to do it that way surely.

 

[Spursidol]

Out of curiousity, who here thinks we can keep Gareth Bale at Spurs without Champions League football to help pay a wage increase for him? I have a hard time seeing Levy looking at those accounts and being able to turn down 50-60 million pounds for Bale, and instead giving him a 150K a week contract extension. I have a sense, like with Modric in 2011, people aren't remotely preparing themselves for the idea that Bale tries to leave this summer, which I think is pretty likely if we finish 5th or 6th.

The one thing we do have going for us is increased television revenue next year. Will we divert those funds towards a contract extension for Bale, give it to AVB to spend, or try to balance the books and off-set this year's loss by placing it in future reserves? I'm guessing we won't know until late August, either way.

I'm not sure Bale wants to leave this season - its purely non money reasons, and that he has a young child , 6 months, is home loving and does not need to move to improve himself as a player (move from LW to centre for example. At his current age he probably knows another season at Spurs will make him a better player.

From Levy's point of view all players - in theory - wil be for sale if the offer is right, but the chances are that Bale is incrreasing in value (he's not at an age where players are considered to be reaching their peak) so it will take a really big offer for him to sell Bale - and I'm not convined that £50m will do it bearing in mind the amount ManU got for Ronaldo.

Levy also knows that keeping him at Spurs another year will allow other Spurs players to become bigger stars - such as Sandro, Vertonghen, Kaboul, Lloris - and so the effect of Bale's sale would be a lot less.

Just a point of view - and curiously they are more personal and strategic reasons for him not leaving - but as you say we will find out in the summer

 

[Spursidol]

So, is this how Chelsea are going to get round the financial FairPlay rules then?

They can't be allowed to do it that way surely.

One way - and they did it before FFP came in deliberately.

Now they have to get their wages in line with their revenues which will require them to do some slimming - did I mention fat Frank there ?

 

[Dinghy]

Just a thought with regards to FFP... Will players have to be audited?

Surely a simple way around FFP is to pay a large proportion of salaries from another company?

 

[spursfan77]

One way - and they did it before FFP came in deliberately.

Now they have to get their wages in line with their revenues which will require them to do some slimming - did I mention fat Frank there ?

No wonder they were pro FFP when we all wondered why. Not sure how they will fare going forward though. All the development sites large enough for a new stadium in west London have gone so unless they can expand Stamford bridge they maybe a bit screwed in that respect going forward.

 

[Spursidol]

No wonder they were pro FFP when we all wondered why. Not sure how they will fare going forward though. All the development sites large enough for a new stadium in west London have gone so unless they can expand Stamford bridge they maybe a bit screwed in that respect going forward.

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.

 

[MattyP]

Just a thought with regards to FFP... Will players have to be audited?

Surely a simple way around FFP is to pay a large proportion of salaries from another company?

No to the first question, they just have to look at accounts of the clubs concerned.

As for the second question, Uefa have covered that potential loophole in a number of ways.

 

[MattyP]

One graph I am glad we are not top of - 'Net Debt'.

ManU's debt is of course the result of the Glazers buying the club,

But the size of Aston Villa's debt shows why they are having to rely a lot on their youth coming through, Newcastle's looks challenging, Arsenal shows that they are well on the way to repaying their stadium debt.

Spurs level of debt shows that he has taken calculated risks in the past to build up the club, with a manageable level of debt

We'll be second on the list after our new stadium is built, would be my prediction.

 

[Spursidol]

We'll be second on the list after our new stadium is built, would be my prediction.

Without doubt. But the increased net debt will be partly/wholly covered by a naming rights deal from a large corporation paid annually over the next 15-20 years in addition to match day revenues so we'll be a lot better off than the likes of Liverpool, Newcastle, Aston Villa et al with lower levels of debt (and not the same expectation of increased match day revenues)

 

[sloth]

We'll be second on the list after our new stadium is built, would be my prediction.

Not sure we we'd be loaned the kind of money that would put us second? My guess is that we'll either do it via a long-term sponsorship deal, or via a rights issue with Lewis stumping up the cash with an idea that he'll make it back when the club is sold, or more probably a mixture of both. The big question-mark in my mind is whether the increased value of the club with a 55k seat stadium is significantly greater than the money it would require to build it? If it isn't then I can't see the business sense in doing it, in which case I don't think we will (though I've got to say I don't really know enough about it to be confident in that assertion)

 

[MattyP]

Not sure we we'd be loaned the kind of money that would put us second? My guess is that we'll either do it via a long-term sponsorship deal, or via a rights issue with Lewis stumping up the cash with an idea that he'll make it back when the club is sold, or more probably a mixture of both. The big question-mark in my mind is whether the increased value of the club with a 55k seat stadium is significantly greater than the money it would require to build it? If it isn't then I can't see the business sense in doing it, in which case I don't think we will (though I've got to say I don't really know enough about it to be confident in that assertion)

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