Spurs thread 2019/20

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My post pointed out that Spurs and Liverpool have made no attempt to follow City's lead in continuing to pay non contract staff for the duration of the crisis. Spurs acted with indecent speed and Liverpool followed closely behind. This may be "more prudent", it may be the result of "greater foresight" to JimB and he may believe it's a "correct" decision rather than a "popular" one but to the rest of us, especially up north, it's typical of the grubby, penny pinching attitude Spurs, and in particular Levy have to just about everything apart from their own fortunes. Levy allegedly awarded himself a multi million pound bonus for delivering the new stadium -late and well over budget - which more than makes up for the 20% of his salary he has "sacrificed". Well, bully for him. And it's Spurs and Liverpool who are taking the state aid, in the form of wages to laid off staff despite constant claims, along with other members of the cartel, that City are financed by a state - despite conclusive evidence that they are not and never have been.

And, BobbyBoy, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that the actions of Levy and others reflected badly on Spurs supporters because I don't believe that at all but I do believe that the actions taken especially by Levy do not reflect well on a club which actually has a great deal going for it. And a little effort to show some concern for those laid off would have done a lot of good.
 
JimB said:
With respect, you don't know what the need to do it is. Nor do I, of course. I'm not privy to Spurs' financial details save for what any of us can easily glean from annual reports.

But I am pretty sure that this current crisis isn't going away any time soon. Even if football does go back to work within three or four months, I think it quite probable that fans will not be allowed back in stadiums for at least another year. It's a cast iron certainty that there is now a huge hole in the figures that has obliterated whatever financial planning any club has done. And I suspect that the most prudent clubs will have started to cut costs in any way they can until they can begin to see the light at the end of what could be a very long tunnel.

All of which applies especially to a club that is carrying £650m debt on an asset that cannot now earn a penny to service the concomitant interest. No matter how well they already know the club to be run, the creditors will have imposed strict controls given the size of the debt. They have first call on certain income streams (or monies held in cash from such). So Spurs, more than any other club, has its hands tied.

Far too many people react emotionally to issues such as this without having any knowledge or understanding of the real situation. I include Spurs fans in this criticism. They oversimplify what is, in fact, a complex, multi-layered problem.
Click to expand...

Based on saving £1m from this scheme we are speaking about less than 0.25% of turnover here. You are correct, we don't know the exact details but you can't expect anyone to believe savings of £1m can't be made elsewhere in the business?

Levy loves his reputation as a scrooge but he has fucked up plenty in recent years by being stingey. We would still have a Poch if he allowed him buy a player or 2 and keep the squad fresh, he cost the club anywhere from £20m-£40m by being to greedy looking for £100m for Eriksen, paying him for 6months for nothing and then being forced to take peanuts, he has cost the club many more multiples of that by allowing the entire back 4 run down their contract. Here he is again trying to be the smartest guy in the room, well he's not, he's a corporate prick who doesn't care about the club just the balance sheet.
 
Surely the most tax paid would be on players wages not on profit. If Spuds paid higher wages the players would pay more tax leaving less profit.
 
bluegray said:
Surely the most tax paid would be on players wages not on profit. If Spuds paid higher wages the players would pay more tax leaving less profit.
Click to expand...

Am I reading this correctly? Are you claiming players' PAYE and NI contributions as tax incurred by City rather than merely administered by them on the players' behalf???????
 
JimB said:
Stop what?

Correcting other people's inaccurate posts?

Arguing a different point of view?

What problem do you have with either of those? If you can't handle a different point of view, then online forums probably aren't the best places for you - unless you can find a suitably tolerable echo chamber to your liking.
Click to expand...
You're defending your club's greedy money grubbing financial moves on a City forum. Fuck off, with all respect that is due
 
JimB said:
Am I reading this correctly? Are you claiming players' PAYE and NI contributions as tax incurred by City rather than merely administered by them on the players' behalf???????
Click to expand...
Its quite a common thing, for the highest paid players plenty of them have PAYE/NI paid by the club. I can't imagine KDB, Kane, Pogba or anyone else gets his 300k a week and hands over half to the tax man can you?
 
BobbyBoy said:
Based on saving £1m from this scheme we are speaking about less than 0.25% of turnover here. You are correct, we don't know the exact details but you can't expect anyone to believe savings of £1m can't be made elsewhere in the business?
Click to expand...

Firstly, how do you arrive at your £1m figure? I'd say that it's likely to be significantly more. All back of a beer mat, of course, but if the average wage of those furloughed is £20K per annum (likely the lowest estimate given that even the London living wage is now set at £10.75 per hour and all full time employees will work at least 35 hour weeks) and if, as I think likely, this crisis continues to affect football (and many other industries) for at least a year, then the minimum saving from furloughing 250 staff will be £5m.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, historical turnover is meaningless right now. 0.25% of what? Nothing! Cash flow is what's important.

Levy loves his reputation as a scrooge but he has fucked up plenty in recent years by being stingey. We would still have a Poch if he allowed him buy a player or 2 and keep the squad fresh, he cost the club anywhere from £20m-£40m by being to greedy looking for £100m for Eriksen, paying him for 6months for nothing and then being forced to take peanuts, he has cost the club many more multiples of that by allowing the entire back 4 run down their contract. Here he is again trying to be the smartest guy in the room, well he's not, he's a corporate prick who doesn't care about the club just the balance sheet.
Click to expand...

For a different conversation entirely.

Levy has made mistakes. Will doubtless make more. But he makes fewer than most. As to him not caring about the club........utter bollocks.

P.S. I loved Poch. Still do. But he was, in many ways, the architect of his own downfall. He made mistakes too.
 
JimB said:
Firstly, how do you arrive at your £1m figure? I'd say that it's likely to be significantly more. All back of a beer mat, of course, but if the average wage of those furloughed is £20K per annum (likely the lowest estimate given that even the London living wage is now set at £10.75 per hour and all full time employees will work at least 35 hour weeks) and if, as I think likely, this crisis continues to affect football (and many other industries) for at least a year, then the minimum saving from furloughing 250 staff will be £5m.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, historical turnover is meaningless right now. 0.25% of what? Nothing! Cash flow is what's important.



For a different conversation entirely.

Levy has made mistakes. Will doubtless make more. But he makes fewer than most. As to him not caring about the club........utter bollocks.

P.S. I loved Poch. Still do. But he was, in many ways, the architect of his own downfall. He made mistakes too.
Click to expand...

I'm basing the £1m figure on figures I seen floating about for Liverpool for 3 months and assumed it to be similar.
 
BobbyBoy said:
I'm basing the £1m figure on figures I seen floating about for Liverpool for 3 months and assumed it to be similar.
Click to expand...

None of us can be certain how long this crisis will go on.

But do you really see the world getting back to normal within three months? Will we have herd immunity by then? Not a chance, according to epidemiologists. We won't be remotely close to the minimum 60% immunity rate required. Will we have a fully effective, safe, properly tested and universally administered vaccine by then? The most optimistic informed estimates (I discount Donald Trump!) suggest that we are at least a year away.

I'd start the guesstimates as to when football might be allowed to return to normal at a year from now. I don't think that's unreasonable. And I'd suggest that any prudent club will be working on it as a best case scenario.
 
JimB said:
I don't believe that such a table exists.

But since Spurs are one of a tiny number of clubs - no more than three or four - to have reported a profit pretty much every year for the last 20 years and more, they will have no historic losses to offset profits. Which means that they will be paying tax on every penny of profit.
Click to expand...
I bet they have good accountants who know how to offset their tax liability. You really believe they have paid everything due on that profit ?
 
JimB said:
None of us can be certain how long this crisis will go on.

But do you really see the world getting back to normal within three months? Will we have herd immunity by then? Not a chance, according to epidemiologists. We won't be remotely close to the minimum 60% immunity rate required. Will we have a fully effective, safe, properly tested and universally administered vaccine by then? The most optimistic informed estimates (I discount Donald Trump!) suggest that we are at least a year away.

I'd start the guesstimates as to when football might be allowed to return to normal at a year from now. I don't think that's unreasonable. And I'd suggest that any prudent club will be working on it as a best case scenario.
Click to expand...

Yes, congratulations to Spurs on the foresight of seeing the looming disaster ahead and the prudence of their billionaire owners and directors, of one England's largest clubs, maximising as much money as they can from the state at a time society may need the revenue the most.
 
Last edited:
grandsolo said:
You're defending your club's greedy money grubbing financial moves on a City forum. Fuck off, with all respect that is due
Click to expand...

I've been posting on and off on here for years. I get on fine with the majority of regulars even if they disagree with me. I don't troll about City. I defend my club when I believe posts about it to be unfair or inaccurate or at least deserving of the contribution of a different perspective. I'm never abusive. Nor precious when, as sometimes occurs, others are abusive towards me (I get that it comes with the territory of posting on another club's forum). That doesn't mean that I won't stand my ground, though!

Other City fans on here seem to appreciate civilly and good-humouredly discussing Spurs, and a few other wider matters relating to football, with me so.....with my respect to you too.....I'll carry on posting in the manner that I always have until they tell me that I've outstayed my welcome.
 
prestonibbo_mcfc said:
I bet they have good accountants who know how to offset their tax liability. You really believe they have paid everything due on that profit ?
Click to expand...

If the profit is reported, and there are no historic losses against which to offset it, then it HAS to be paid!

The accountants do their creative work BEFORE the accounts are published. Once they are published, there's no getting away from what, if anything, is due the taxman.
 
JimB said:
None of us can be certain how long this crisis will go on.

But do you really see the world getting back to normal within three months? Will we have herd immunity by then? Not a chance, according to epidemiologists. We won't be remotely close to the minimum 60% immunity rate required. Will we have a fully effective, safe, properly tested and universally administered vaccine by then? The most optimistic informed estimates (I discount Donald Trump!) suggest that we are at least a year away.

I'd start the guesstimates as to when football might be allowed to return to normal at a year from now. I don't think that's unreasonable. And I'd suggest that any prudent club will be working on it as a best case scenario.
Click to expand...

No but I don't see the government still paying wages for billionaires in 3 months. If this scheme wasn't available you think the club would allow scouts, analysts, accountants etc all leave to go work for a rival? No chance, they would find a way to find the money within the business. Don't mean to be rude but there is no point continuing this conversation, there are 2 type of people in this world, people that think this wrong and people like you who see no issues with it. Neither of us are moving on this.
 
JimB said:
I've been posting on and off on here for years. I get on fine with the majority of regulars even if they disagree with me. I don't troll about City. I defend my club when I believe posts about it to be unfair or inaccurate or at least deserving of the contribution of a different perspective. I'm never abusive. Nor precious when, as sometimes occurs, others are abusive towards me (I get that it comes with the territory of posting on another club's forum). That doesn't mean that I won't stand my ground, though!

Other City fans on here seem to appreciate civilly and good-humouredly discussing Spurs, and a few other wider matters relating to football, with me so.....with my respect to you too.....I'll carry on posting in the manner that I always have until they tell me that I've outstayed my welcome.
Click to expand...

How the fuck can you defend taking money meant to be available for small businesses and people who will be literally on the bread line by the end of this.
Respectfully fuckoff you sound like a fukin scouser
 
spanishblue said:
How the fuck can you defend taking money meant to be available for small businesses and people who will be literally on the bread line by the end of this.
Respectfully fuckoff you sound like a fukin scouser
Click to expand...

Copy and paste of a previous reply to a similar post:

"Wrong. To furlough is to grant temporary leave of absence to an employee. This coronavirus furlough scheme is specifically designed to protect the long term employment positions for those whose role within their company is currently redundant as a consequence of the coronavirus restrictions. It doesn't matter whether those employment positions are at a local cafe, an airline, a non-essential retail store....or a football club.
 
BobbyBoy said:
No but I don't see the government still paying wages for billionaires in 3 months. If this scheme wasn't available you think the club would allow scouts, analysts, accountants etc all leave to go work for a rival? No chance, they would find a way to find the money within the business. Don't mean to be rude but there is no point continuing this conversation, there are 2 type of people in this world, people that think this wrong and people like you who see no issues with it. Neither of us are moving on this.
Click to expand...

There's a third type actually.....people who don't see everything in simple, black and white terms. That's the one I belong to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top