All or Nothing documentary

prestonibbo_mcfc

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 Apr 2010
Messages
19,447
Location
Preston
Don’t be absurd.

The furlough scheme was used by tens of thousands of companies of all sizes in all sectors - many of which are far bigger than Spurs with vastly bigger turnover and profits. You only have a problem with Spurs having applied for it because you hate Spurs.
Think the word you was looking for was ABUSED.
 

Eds

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 Nov 2005
Messages
6,839
If they get Bale I assume that RM will have to stump up 95% of his wages as Spuds are skint or have they saving up furlough payments for a transfer fund? Asking for a friend
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat

Cellarite

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jan 2010
Messages
22,166
Location
in the away end at hillsborough clapping benarbia
Team supported
Manchester City
Spurs estimate that COVID will have cost them £200m.

Out of a possible expected turnover of £450m.

That's a 45% reduction. That is huge. Minimal impact, my arse!

Because of the new stadium, Spurs' business plan is predicated on stadium generated income to a far greater extent than at other top clubs. They charge the most expensive ticket and corporate prices in the country, if not the world; the stadium generates massively more match day food and drink income than any other stadium in the country; and it is designed to be used as often as possible - not just once every two weeks for nine months; Spurs had a long list of big, non football events lined up, sporting and musical. All of that income has been lost.

Where were your complaints about the myriad huge companies that availed themselves of the furlough scheme?
I posted my complaints about Greggs on a pies, pasties and sausage rolls forum I go on called Pastry Faces.
My complaints about Starbucks furloughing their staff went on a forum called Coffee Anon.

I've explained this to you before but you chose to ignore it completely - the difference is that Greggs haven't since invested in a filling depositing machine for £15 million. Starbucks haven't bought a new coffee machine for a similar price.

Why the fuck would people come onto a football forum to complain about the hospitality industry furloughing staff?

Tottenham tried to use a government scheme to claw some money in when they have proved since that they didn't need to take tax payers money to pay members of staff - they could've just made do with the £55 million defensive midfielder they bought last summer.

You can bang on all you like about lost revenue. If the 550 staff they were going to furlough were paid £750 per week, Spurs could have paid their wages for 36 weeks out of the money they paid for either Hojberg or Doherty.

You can attempt to drag Arsenal into it all you like. They made people redundant. That clearly means that their jobs no longer exist. Arsenal would've paid their redundancy money out of their own pocket, not the government's pot during a pandemic.

The furlough scheme was set up for businesses who were going to struggle to pay their staff during the crisis. Spurs showed that they were not skint by purchasing two new footballers for a combined fee of almost £30 million almost immediately.

We won't talk about Gareth Bale's wages because he hasn't signed yet.

The dippers on this forum may spout a huge amount of shite but at very least, they've had the grace to accept that Liverpool attempting to use the furlough scheme was out of order.
 
Last edited:

JimB

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
1,369
I posted my complaints about Greggs on a pies, pasties and sausage rolls forum I go on called Pastry Faces.
My complaints about Starbucks furloughing their staff went on a forum called Coffee Anon.

I've explained this to you before but you chose to ignore it completely - the difference is that Greggs haven't since invested in a filling depositing machine for £15 million. Starbucks haven't bought a new coffee machine for a similar price.

Why the fuck would people come onto a football forum to complain about the hospitality industry furloughing staff?

Tottenham tried to use a government scheme to claw some money in when they have proved since that they didn't need to take tax payers money to pay members of staff - they could've just made do with the £55 million defensive midfielder they bought last summer.

You can bang on all you like about lost revenue. If the 550 staff they were going to furlough were paid £750 per week, Spurs could have paid their wages for 36 weeks out of the money they paid for either Hojberg or Doherty.

You can attempt to drag Arsenal into it all you like. They made people redundant. That clearly means that their jobs no longer exist. Arsenal would've paid their redundancy money out of their own pocket, not the government's pot during a pandemic.

The furlough scheme was set up for businesses who were going to struggle to pay their staff during the crisis. Spurs showed that they were not skint by purchasing two new footballers for a combined fee of almost £30 million almost immediately.

We won't talk about Gareth Bale's wages because he hasn't signed yet.

The dippers on this forum may spout a huge amount of shite but at very least, they've had the grace to accept that Liverpool attempting to use the furlough scheme was out of order.

Spurs were going to furlough half of their 550 staff. Not all of them. Only the ones who didn’t have a job to do at the time because......well, because football, and life in general, was cancelled.

And sure, Spurs have since bought a couple of players and look to be bringing in a couple more imminently. But they now have a £175m loan (to cover their lost income for the coming year) that they didn’t have at the time that they announced the decision to furlough staff. That changed things completely. Spurs still have to repay the loan within a year, of course, but it gives them the breathing space that they wouldn’t otherwise have had.
 

Cellarite

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jan 2010
Messages
22,166
Location
in the away end at hillsborough clapping benarbia
Team supported
Manchester City
Spurs were going to furlough half of their 550 staff. Not all of them. Only the ones who didn’t have a job to do at the time because......well, because football, and life in general, was cancelled.

And sure, Spurs have since bought a couple of players and look to be bringing in a couple more imminently. But they now have a £175m loan (to cover their lost income for the coming year) that they didn’t have at the time that they announced the decision to furlough staff. That changed things completely. Spurs still have to repay the loan within a year, of course, but it gives them the breathing space that they wouldn’t otherwise have had.
Right - let me get this straight...

Spurs finances last season, a season in which they were in the Champions League, were so fragile that when 5 league games plus the addition of - let's be kind and say 3 NFL games and 4 concerts - 12 events in total, had to be either cancelled or played behind closed doors, it meant that they couldn't afford to pay £400,000 maximum to a percentage of 550 members of staff so were forced to apply to use the furlough scheme to keep them in work.

This was, as you say, because they lost approximately £200 million because of Covid.

A couple of months later, they get a loan of £175 million which gives them a bit of leeway but it's less than they were due to earn through event income.

They know that this money will need to see them through a season with no Champions League money coming in and no sign of fans coming back through the turnstiles for the foreseeable future. They are already £25 million down and will have to pay interest on the loan.

Knowing that the lost £200 million left them unable to pay their staff half a million, you would think that they would guard the £175 million knowing that they are still stripped of matchday revenue which will probably lose them most of the £175 loan if last season's losses are anything to go by.

Instead of putting the loan aside though, they immediately spend £30 million of it on another right back and another defensive midfielder and then begin to look into the possibility of paying a 31 year old almost a quarter of a million pounds per week for the next 8 months.

It does make you wonder how we ended up paying such a large fee for Kyle Walker given the incompetence of Tottenham's finance department.
 

JimB

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
1,369
Right - let me get this straight...

Spurs finances last season, a season in which they were in the Champions League, were so fragile that when 5 league games plus the addition of - let's be kind and say 3 NFL games and 4 concerts - 12 events in total, had to be either cancelled or played behind closed doors, it meant that they couldn't afford to pay £400,000 maximum to a percentage of 550 members of staff so were forced to apply to use the furlough scheme to keep them in work.

This was, as you say, because they lost approximately £200 million because of Covid.

A couple of months later, they get a loan of £175 million which gives them a bit of leeway but it's less than they were due to earn through event income.

They know that this money will need to see them through a season with no Champions League money coming in and no sign of fans coming back through the turnstiles for the foreseeable future. They are already £25 million down and will have to pay interest on the loan.

Knowing that the lost £200 million left them unable to pay their staff half a million, you would think that they would guard the £175 million knowing that they are still stripped of matchday revenue which will probably lose them most of the £175 loan if last season's losses are anything to go by.

Instead of putting the loan aside though, they immediately spend £30 million of it on another right back and another defensive midfielder and then begin to look into the possibility of paying a 31 year old almost a quarter of a million pounds per week for the next 8 months.

It does make you wonder how we ended up paying such a large fee for Kyle Walker given the incompetence of Tottenham's finance department.

If you really think that only 12 events in total will have to be played behind closed doors or with hugely reduced capacities, then fair fucks to you. I admire your positivity in the face of all the evidence and informed predictions.

As to Spurs buying players..........buying and paying players is a core element of the business.
 

Cellarite

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jan 2010
Messages
22,166
Location
in the away end at hillsborough clapping benarbia
Team supported
Manchester City
If you really think that only 12 events in total will have to be played behind closed doors or with hugely reduced capacities, then fair fucks to you. I admire your positivity in the face of all the evidence and informed predictions.

As to Spurs buying players..........buying and paying players is a core element of the business.
12 events in total from lockdown to the start of the 2020/21 season you - I won’t resort to insults.

How hard can this be?

You claimed that Spurs couldn’t afford half a million pound when they applied for furlough.

This, according to you, was because they lost £200 million.

This was during a season when they had Champions League football.

Then you get a £175 million loan to cover this season’s shortfall which looks likely to be a bigger shortfall than last season’s.

That’s already a £25 million difference.

Last season, you couldn’t afford to pay the half million for staff, now you haven’t got Champions League money.

At the end of the season, you have to pay back the £175 million. Where will it come from when you’re earning much less than you did last season?

Finally, if you couldn’t afford £500,000 with last season’s much bigger revenues, why are they spending £30 million of the loan this season?

I honestly think you are tying yourself in knots to avoid a simple admission that they were out of order in trying to use the furlough scheme. I think you’ve defended the decision so much that you’re in too far to back out but don’t realise that every one of your posts on the subject makes you look more and more ridiculous.
 

JimB

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
1,369
12 events in total from lockdown to the start of the 2020/21 season you - I won’t resort to insults.

Glad to hear it! I won’t resort to insults either. Not my style. Considerably more than 12 events have been cancelled or occurred in an empty stadium. And there’s no telling when, or to what extent, crowds will be allowed to return to stadiums.

How hard can this be?

How hard can what be?

You claimed that Spurs couldn’t afford half a million pound when they applied for furlough. This, according to you, was because they lost £200 million. This was during a season when they had Champions League football.

According to Spurs, not me, revenue will be reduced by £200m. If you don’t want to believe that such a loss of revenue with no concomitant reduction in costs represents a huge problem, then there’s nowhere else for this discussion to go other than round in circles.

Then you get a £175 million loan to cover this season’s shortfall which looks likely to be a bigger shortfall than last season’s. That’s already a £25 million difference.

The estimated revenue loss of £200m is for the period through to June 2021.

Last season, you couldn’t afford to pay the half million for staff, now you haven’t got Champions League money. At the end of the season, you have to pay back the £175 million. Where will it come from when you’re earning much less than you did last season?

It’s not so much that Spurs couldn’t afford half a million for one specific cost. It’s more that they couldn’t afford not to cut costs across the board. That applies to every company on the planet that is negatively affected by COVID. All non playing staff, including directors, have taken 20% pay cuts. The players have thus far refused to follow suit, as far as I’m aware.

As to how the BoE loan will be repaid, it will be refinanced. It very much goes against Levy’s MO to borrow for day to day operations but these are exceptional times.

Finally, if you couldn’t afford £500,000 with last season’s much bigger revenues, why are they spending £30 million of the loan this season?

The transfer window isn’t over yet. We don’t know how much Spurs will have spent on incomings or received from outgoings. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, transfer payments are routinely staged over a number of years. I would imagine that that practice is even more true of this summer’s transfer deals.

I honestly think you are tying yourself in knots to avoid a simple admission that they were out of order in trying to use the furlough scheme. I think you’ve defended the decision so much that you’re in too far to back out but don’t realise that every one of your posts on the subject makes you look more and more ridiculous.

Not tying myself in knots at all. I simply don’t share your view that there was anything out of order about Spurs’ original decision to use the furlough scheme. All manner and size of companies used it. You disagree. Fair enough.
 
Last edited:

eyalluvitt

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,069
Location
pencil vain ear
The main thing I'm taking from this show is that Dele and "Obviously" Harry will never be on the phone a friend WWTBAM list or on Mastermind.
 

Murph

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Aug 2008
Messages
4,806
I suppose the Spurs all or nothing is more nothing than all? Think I'd rather sit through the last 5 Eurovision song contests than watch the story of peg and his band of losers.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.