This simply isn't true.
thats how much we spent on Pogba at the last check
You are contracting yourself. You are saying the dept and loan payments will be outweighed by the new stadium incomes which is something I can’t agree on. It won’t happen right away but after 5-10 years which is my point.
Since you are so sure about it what will your loan and interest outlay will be next year?
Didn’t you just say that 700m debt belongs to Enic and not Spurs? Why would Spurs need to make stadium related debt payments if the debt is in Enic and not Spurs?
If Spurs are responsible for paying the debt does it matter if the debt is in Enic or Spurs does it?
There’s a thread for performance, this is for the stadium. Do you talk about United’s performances when we win games?
I did watch it. Is there a follow up question to that?
Looks unlikely at this point IMO.
You are looking at having 1 billion asset on your books just because of the stadium. How much would the controlling interest is going to be worth and much more importantly who is going to pay it?
You said we limped to a victory... that’s why I asked if you had watched it.
And I did. My opinion doesn’t change. Do you think Spurs played really well or something? Did you comment on Utd’s win against Leicester before wading into debates about Paul Pogba leaving?
It will be an American who wants to bring an NFL to London on a more regular basis, there has been many touted about the place. I very much doubt Levy decided to incorporate an American Football pitch for no reason at such expense.
What are you babbling about? I thought we played reasonably well yes, we certainly didn’t limp to a 3-1 win. I watched both Uniteds games yes, what’s your point, am I not allowed to comment on Pogba in the Pogba thread?
When th
I'm not sure why you can't accept it, there's nothing wrong with running a club this way and I'm sure Spurs will be better off once the loans are repaid.
When the loan is secured against matchday and commercial revenue then it kinda does link in with the club, ENIC gave £50m credit to the club, that's something I'm sure that's going to be repaid with interest.
I'm not sure why you can't accept it, there's nothing wrong with running a club this way and I'm sure Spurs will be better off once the loans are repaid.
I've heard the rumors but do the English really care about the NFL?
He can loan it and hold events for sure, but makes little to no economic sense for someone to buy the club outright, just to use that.
Also wouldn't make sense for Levy to sell his stocks or seat on the board given that he pulls 6m per year and sits on assets that would likely be much more appreciated 10-15 years in the future.
I'm not fully sure on the exact structure, but no bank would give out loan just for that as a collateral.
You are right about the rest.
EDIT: If ENIC are financing it themselves they can of course take it as a royalty off the top of club profits, but I doubt they are using any of their own money as from what I've read it's all loaned out or secured as debt.
Last edited:
The NFL has poured nearly half a billion pounds to broaden their market as domestically its saturated. Every NFL event held in London is sold out so yeah the following is definitely there, especially with the younger market.
Also Levy salary last year included back pay and bonus incentives, don’t believe everything you read. It’s not just Levy’s decision to sell up.
You are but you’re the one bleating about United fans discussing your stadium issues rather than singing from the rooftops about wins against Fulham and Newcastle. It’s pointing out hypocrisy. United fans can’t talk about Spurs negatives but it’s ok for you to talk about United’s.
I don't mind at all, the Stadium delay is all a bit of a ball up il be the first to admit it, but when people come in saying we are crippled financially, broke, unable to service the debt it's all just bollocks so il say it. I don't think I've slagged off United once in this forum, in fact I've said you will probably beat us on Monday. The Pogba situation isn't a slight against United, it's one against a "shitbag" of an agent and egotistical diva of a player.
I get deja vu from this thread. I feel like some of these arguments about new stadium being instantly more profitable are the exact same some Arsenal fans were optimistically posting back in 2005-07. Same arguments. Truth is they dont know exactly how much more revenue the project will generate and we havent seen any proof that short term costs are not going to be restrictive. I havent seen any concrete proof that Spurs wont face the exact same crunch Arsenal faced 12 years ago.
And I also doubt some of these NFL predictions. The research Ive seen both Canada and Mexico City are more attractive than London with bigger markets and higher projections. Plus NA is simply more logical for travel. I doubt the NFL player union is going to support debilitating flights across the pond every week over the logical choices of Canada and Mexico. And unlike in football, the NFL players union ironically actually has influence on the NFL. So there is a lot of speculation, much like with Arsenal fans in 2006, but not a lot of actual facts supporting it.
Who is saying that?
As for financially crippling - sure will be on the pitch. You saw it this transfer window already.
Precisely my reasoning about it.
The Spurs project is also more hefty in terms of investment and Arsenal has generated 10-20% more on the commercial side(at least) compared to Spurs over the period.
Last edited:
the bottomline is that this team is most likely your golden generation and spurs is celebrating that with a new stadium at the expense of actually challenging for trophies.
On one side that isn't too bad. They will grow in terms of infrastructure, whilst even with this generation it won't be enough to challenge City for the title.
I might ask you the same question.
But it's impossible for me (or anyone else) to say, because I only have access to the last financial statement, which runs to June 30th of last year.
But whatever the annual loan and interest outlay will be, I'm pretty sure it will be less than £100m, very likely far less ... which will mean that the extra annual income from the new stadium will outweigh annual debt costs.
I can't accept it, because it's simply not true that Spurs owe £700m.
Here's the most recent financial statement: https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/media/5679/2017-tottenham-hotspur-plc-annual-report.pdf
So go see for yourself, rather than trying to pretend that any debts owed by one of our investors somehow become debts that Spurs have to pay.
Levy and family also own a substantial percentage of shares in Spurs. But likewise, any debts that he or his family members have are not debts that accrue to Spurs.
All of which ignores the fact that Spurs wage bill is far lower than Arsenal's and that Spurs are one of the most profitable clubs in the entire Prem.
In the year to June 30th last year, for example, we made a profit before interest and tax of nearly £70m … and £43m the year before that.
So during this period of supposedly 'crippling' and rising stadium costs, our profits have actually risen … and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they rise again in the next financial statement.
Yet the club signed no players in the summer. Something's not adding up here.
The figure of £700m for ENIC's debts come from another poster, not me. I've no idea what ENICS's debts are, and nor do I care, but the point is that they are not debts that Spurs have to pay. ENIC is an investor-shareholder in Spurs. They are a separate company.
Spurs have a debt of their own to pay, mainly linked to the new stadium complex - but it is not £700m.
Last edited:
I suggest you sue the auditors of our last financial statement for fraud then.
The dogs on the street know the stadium has gone over budget and will not be open until 2019. Any profits made last year are getting eating up with the new stadium, it's obvious. Doesn't matter how much profit you made on paper if it's not being used on a single signing. If Levy told you the moon was made of cheese you'd believe him (and probably ask him will this moon cheese be on sale in the state of the art cheese room).
Daniel Levy and the entire Spurs team could murder dozens of children and Glaston would still defend them, debating Spurs with him is pointless as he'll never admit he's wrong or back down.
you actually think that? Why didn't you invest in new players this Summer then? I know Poch wanted new signings if everything is fine and dandy?
Come on mate. Of course you would be the most profitable clubs in the entire Prem. You are registered in fecking Bahamas for a reason.
If you want to talk about crippling how much did you spent in the transfer window this year? What about next year? How does your wage structure compare to the other top 6 teams?
Do you think those 100m you keep banging about will be put to use right away to bring in top players?
Next year Toby's contract will run out, Eriksen will have 1 year left on his. You have to raise your wage bill, raise the fees you pay to agents, transfer budget and on top of that also service debt and interest.
You are making it out that you will have no downside as soon as next year as it is only upward trajectory since you step on the new stadium.
The budget is for the entire stadium complex, which includes a hotel, apartments, club shop, museum, health centre and much more … not just the stadium itself. And the delay is not due to any budget issues, but a problem with faulty wiring in fire-safety systems, which in turn has delayed the issuing of the necessary safety certificate. Nor does the delay matter that much in the grand scheme of things - the important thing is that we will have a fantastic new stadium.
Yes, our profits have largely been ploughed back into the stadium. But what else did you expect? It's better than having to increase debt.
The fact that we didn't sign any new players does not prove a lack of money, especially when we've committed a lot of money on new contracts this summer. And nor has the lack of new signings led to the predicted slow start for Spurs - we've 6 points from 2 games so far, which is better than last season despite the absence of Son at the Asian Games.
What is there to defend against except the usual dire predictions made about Spurs for the last several seasons and counting? Such predictions have all failed.
The only difference here is that, having failed with predictions of losing all our best players, losing our manager, failing to reach top 4, dropping out of the top 4, etc. etc., attention now turns to dire predictions about the state of Spurs finances in relation to the new stadium complex and its alleged implications for our ability to compete on the pitch.
It's really all quite laughable when you consider that Spurs have the lowest ratio of wages to income in the entire Prem, are one of the most profitable clubs around, and have a booming income stream that's set fair to boom much higher.
If many of the criticisms were founded on reality or sound reasoning it might be a different story, but most of them fall into the category of wishful thinking.
A lot of this reflects how I felt about FSG. It seemed like Klopp was their golden ticket. A way to assemble a squad on a shoestring budget and churn out profits whilst delivering top 4 finishes without ever really threatening.
I think spurs are going to have to cash in on one of Alli Eriksen Kane for big money and reinvest much like we did with Coutinho. The investment has to be spot on though.
Standing still is a big risk but spurs are probably the most equipped out of all the top clubs to be able to handle that.
Indeed, and honestly I don't trust that with our patchy recent transfer record. Especially since our wage structure will hamper us, for example I imagine VVD is on better wages than pretty much everyone in our team barring Kane, and the likes of Alisson/Keita too were probably out of our reach. We would have to go for players on the rung below, riskier buys. I think FSG probably would have been content with top four, but then realised what Klopp was capable of and made the decision to back him fully in the market due to his popularity with the players/fans, something Pochettino also boasts yet hasn't been backed at all in the market.
I think the loss of Coutinho for you was massively offset by Salah arriving before he left. He replaced his goals/assists (and then some) and took over as your star player, so you struck gold there, as you had basically already added another attacking star to the team, and could then use the Coutinho money to fix your defensive woes/bring in another CM. I think that contributed a lot to you cashing in successfully on a star player, but it's still a massive risk to do so, I think if we lost either of Kane/Eriksen it would be impossible for us to find anybody close to their quality.
Levy's refusal to invest in the squad over the summer certainly seems to suggest there is a lack of funds at present given the move to the new stadium, indicating that the club needs to sell certain valuable assets (Alli, Eriksen, Kane for example) before any acquisitions can be made.
Is that reasonable enough?
You display your ignorance I'm afraid. Spurs - Tottenham Hotspur Ltd - are not registered in the Bahamas. Our registered office is Lilywhite House, 782 High Road, London, N17 0BX, which is the new building that adjoins our new stadium and is linked to it by a pedestrian bridge.
You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you actually think that Spurs will have to pay £100m per year - around 25% of our entire projected income (and nearly one-third of our income as record in in the most recent financial statement) - in debt/interest payments.
Toby's contract does not run out next year, as Spurs have the option to extend it. Eriksen? Well, similar things have been said about Kane, Pochettino, Son etc … all of whom have signed new contracts this summer, so don't be surprised if the club announce that Eriksen has done the same.
So we have already raised our wage bill from the new contracts issued, with more such announcements to come. And the main point here is that keeping most of our squad and manager together is far more important than signing the new players that so many are obsessed about.
I don't know why we didn't sign any new players - I certainly expected one or two. But there are many possible reasons other than some alleged lack of money. It could be, for example, that we simply couldn't get the players identified at a price that Levy and Pochettino considered reasonable, and so preferred to keep their powder dry until prices drop, which I believe they will. And nor do I consider failing to sign Grealish or Zaha or whoever as that important, given that we already have a strong squad IMO.
And after all, United mostly failed to get the players they wanted, despite having bags of money, so a lack of funds it not necessarily the reason for a lack of signings.
Stadium debt payments are a downside, of course, but far outweighed by the net positives stemming from the new stadium
Isn't it the case that United simply have a case of Woodward/Mourinho not quite being on the same page, with the latter wanting to sign the likes of Alderweireld and Perisic, but Woodward simply not liking the profile/age of these players as it isn't a 'sound' investment? Which (if that is true) would be less a failure in terms of attracting players, more a problem with the club's current direction. United fans also seem pretty annoyed, justifiably IMO, with the lack of investment during the summer.
Also, why would Pochettino give two hoots whether the price for a player was 'reasonable' ? Was 75m for VVD 'reasonable' ? No, but it's still a very successful signing for Liverpool, I doubt managers pay much attention to transfer fees as long as they're getting the players they feel are needed. If there's a problem with us refusing to pay a certain amount, that will all be down to the owners/Levy, let's not pretend it's Pochettino going 'Yeah you're right, way too pricy'.
No, it isn't.
It's reasonable to suggest that our not signing any new players this summer - which you categorise as a "refusal" by Levy - might suggest a lack of funds.
But there are many other possible explanations. As I've said in a post above, it could be, for example, that we simply couldn't get the players identified at a price that Levy and Pochettino considered reasonable, and so preferred to keep their powder dry until prices drop, which I believe they will. And after all, United mostly failed to get the players they wanted, despite having bags of money ... so a lack of funds it not necessarily the reason for a lack of signings.
And if we have a lack of funds, then how come we've been dishing out new and improved contracts left, right and centre?
Your explanation re. United might well be true, but it still shows that transfers can be a complex business with many possible reasons for not succeeding other than a lack of money.
Pochettino would care because excess money spent on Player A now, means less money down the road (in January or next summer) to try and get players B and C. It's fine not to care if you are a short-term and cheque-book manager like Mourinho, who'll likely be gone next summer anyhow. But Pochettino has been at Spurs for 4 years now and counting and has just signed on for another 5 years.
I agree that Pochettino will care less than Levy about money, but to suggest that he doesn't care about it all is not likely to be true IMO.
As I've said before, Levy is on record as saying that he thinks the transfer bubble will burst and prices will drop. Now he may be right or he may be proved wrong, but at least he has a clear strategy and is sticking to it.
You can't compare Liverpool's signing of VVD in the 'reasonableness' stakes to that of Spurs' approach. First because they received a huge sum for Coutinho and second because they don't have a new stadium to fund. I'm sure if the situations were reversed then Levy might consider VVD's price to be a lot more reasonable in the circumstances.