Seems unlikely with some european teams playing across the summer and most leagues starting on different dates.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Spurs’ new stadium
- Thread starter Chris Holmes
- Start date
Seems unlikely with some european teams playing across the summer and most leagues starting on different dates.
Do you have a link to this mate? The only thing I can find is a vague mention that FIFA were 'thinking about it'
It was talked about when they were discussing why was our window shutting early and it would be a disadvantage to the premier the “experts” said next summer(2019) the transfer window across Europe will close at the same time.
That's gross though. For example in 2017 it was 119 gross and 30 operating. Both important measures but it's the sort of gloss a CEO puts in a statement.
Well, if you really want to get into the detail.........!!
In 2017, profit from operations excluding football trading and before exceptional items and depreciation was £118m.
After exceptional items and depreciation, it was £78m.
After football trading, it was £70m.
After interest it was £58m.
After tax, it was £41m.
One point worth bearing in mind: depreciation of tangible assets rose from £15m in 2016 to £39m in 2017. There's no detail on that figure but the only explanation for the huge hike that makes any sense to me is that the value of the old stadium had to be wiped from the accounts. That's not an adjustment that Spurs will have to make again.
Five clubs voted against the move Spurs voted for it
Manchester City, Manchester United, Crystal Palace, Watford and Swansea City were the clubs against the move
Indeed. As I already said, I wasn't claiming that Spurs were hard done by. Merely pointing out that, because of Spurs' particular need for financial prudence at this time, the unilateral early transfer window closure worked against them.
Levy is obsessed with a new stadium to increase income to allow Spurs to compete with the top clubs, it’s the Arsenal model. Its short term pain for long term gain. Unlike Arsenal who had a site close to the existing ground Spurs built on the current site, this need a plan which would take 2.5 seasons So season 1 start the build and loose some of the existing structure Season 2 move to Wembley permission granted by PL, no brainer. So how to get round the half season? Well ask PL to play a first few games away, no issue been done before. The next part of the plan involves how to get away with the addition few months required. Simple, blame it on safety that’s always a good one. A blind man can see this is a lie. If the issue was safety the ground would have ready for the Liverpool game. The cranes removed, public areas around the ground would have been made safe, yes tarmac layed, safety barriers installed, pitch layed and ready to play on, the test events completed seats installed etc So stop talking rubbish the facts are before your eyes, just either are taken in by the PR or just choose to ignore what everyone else can see. I said on here before the season started, before safety-gate that the stadium was months away from completion and you said otherwise. Levy was faced with a problem when he saw the fixtures, before they were released, that the City home game was clashing with the NFL weekend, should he come clean and ask the PL to make adjustments so that there was no home game that weekend? Problem being it would highlight to the PL that the stadium was months away, not weeks, to opening. So in true Levy fashion he ignored it. The man has lumbered Spurs with a huge debt approaching £600m that will hamper the team for many years But at least when you have a piss you will be able to admire the nice tiling, eat cheese and drink very expensive beer from the longest bar, near the biggest club shop and watch the goals conceded on the biggest screens. Wake up Jim the man has treated you and Spurs fans with contempt and much worse than that the rest of the PL and their fans. His decisions resulted in the farce of a pitch at Wembley that could have led to injuries fortunately justice was done and the Champions got the 3 points deserved
Once again, if all this was as obvious from the outset as you claim, why ever would Levy have chosen this path? By the time that the stadium is finally completed, it will have cost the club many tens of millions extra; pissed off the fans; pissed off the players and the manager; pissed off the NFL; pissed off sponsors; pissed off other clubs. What possible benefit could Spurs have hoped to derive from it other than playing the first game in the new stadium a mere few months earlier? You can concoct all the conspiracy theories you like but you cannot come up with a rational answer as to why a very prudently run club like Spurs would have gone down this route. It makes no sense whatsoever.
As I said, I have contacts that are high up and very close to this project. They are adamant that the intention was absolutely to play the first game against Liverpool until the fuck up with the safety systems was brought to light. These people are not bullshitters. If you must insist that you know better, that's your prerogative. But I'll pass. We'll just have to leave it there.
Last edited:
Well, if you really want to get into the detail.........!!
In 2017, profit from operations excluding football trading and before exceptional items and depreciation was £118m.
After exceptional items and depreciation, it was £78m.
After football trading, it was £70m.
After interest it was £58m.
After tax, it was £41m.
One point worth bearing in mind: depreciation of tangible assets rose from £15m in 2016 to £39m in 2017. There's no detail on that figure but the only explanation for the huge hike that makes any sense to me is that the value of the old stadium had to be wiped from the accounts. That's not an adjustment that Spurs will have to make again.
So the stadium is free then?
£6m of the £39m is enabling the Northumberland Development Project, which will be higher next year at a guess.
So the stadium is free then?
£6m of the £39m is enabling the Northumberland Development Project, which will be higher next year at a guess.
Enabling costs aren't quite the same as construction costs. Unfortunately for Spurs, the latter aren't tax deductible for the most part!
Last edited:
Spurs own statement said they had extended their borrowing facility to £637m. That's frightening. Of course they may not use it but their debt was £366m at the end of June.
This is Man Utd territory with the difference being that Man Utd generate revenues of £600m per annum and can handle a certain level of debt repayment.
This is Man Utd territory with the difference being that Man Utd generate revenues of £600m per annum and can handle a certain level of debt repayment.
bowp
Well-Known Member
Spurs own statement said they had extended their borrowing facility to £637m. That's frightening. Of course they may not use it but their debt was £366m at the end of June.
This is Man Utd territory with the difference being that Man Utd generate revenues of £600m per annum and can handle a certain level of debt repayment.
Nah the difference is a lot of Man Utd debt was PIK loans with an obscene interest rate of something like 14%. I'm not familiar with the arrangement that Spurs have made but lets assume its 4% as a reasonable rate with it being secured against the stadium, and guarantees from the owner. That would be interest per annum of 25,480,000. United on the other hand would be 89,180,000 so quite some difference in interest on the debt. Further to that when United were first taken over their owner wasn't paying down the debt he was just paying that interest year on year which is why they were all moaning. Spurs no doubt will have a repayment arrangement wherein the debt reduces year by year and as such the interest will as well. You will also find that some of the interest is in effect paid by the UK taxpayer as it will reduce profit and therefore corporation tax - so in effect instead of paying a tax bill they will be paying the bank.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
I think you need to look up the meaning of “unilateral” This was a democratic vote by all the members of the PL each had a vote 5 said no the rest including Spurs yes So Spurs got what they wantedIndeed. As I already said, I wasn't claiming that Spurs were hard done by. Merely pointing out that, because of Spurs' particular need for financial prudence at this time, the unilateral early transfer window closure worked against them.