Harry Kane

JPBB said:
Of course, I would always concede to a City fan when it comes to FFP. You, of course, are the world champions in this field. I mistakenly thought that infrastructure projects, like the our nice new stadium, were not covered by FFP.
Click to expand...

I’d be less concerned about whether we can afford him or not than the fact your best player wants to leave you. Joining the long list of best players who have left you since you last won anything of note.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Neville and now Redknapp both now saying Kane should stay and City will have to meet levys valuation or not get him.

I hope we pull out, not having our club held to ransom by the media, they hate us.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what issue you could have with this

If someone owns something they don't have to sell it for less than they value it, nothing to do with media bias its just facts of life
 
Calv_from_the_frog said:
He really isnt.

They won't qualify for the CL, which means that he falls into the 1m quid per place between 5th and 17th only.

Thats a maximum of 13m quid a season. He's 28. Will probably play until he's 34.

So even if he plays a key role for them during all that time, he' s probably worth 78m quid tops.

They haven't won anything in ages, so forget other competitions, and it's not like he's a significantly larger marketing tool than any replacement they could get.

So that's maybe an additional 15-20m quid in prize money and marketing.

Minus the astronomical wage difference between him and a replacement (perhaps 30m quid @ 100k per week over 5 years) and you're looking at his actual worth to Spurs being somewhere like 70m tops.

They should be biting our hands off, but like the previous poster said, that Trump style 'Art of the Deal' bullsh*t is no way to negotiate.

Looks great, but its counterproductive.

Ask Napoli's owner.
Click to expand...
Not true , with Kane, a couple of signings and new manager Spurs are a top 6 side, without mid table to lower half.

The difference is huge financially, Spurs have a shiny new stadium to try and fill, a Kaneless team in the lower reaches and it will be like spot the fan, the drop off in income will be scary
 
lancs blue said:
My understanding:

Capital costs for infrastructure projects are excluded from FFP.
Interest payments incurred on loans for infrastructure projects are only excluded during construction.
Once your new stadium was opened and revenue-earning then subsequent interest payments counted towards FFP.
Click to expand...
Yep, and if Spurs are servicing their stadium debt to the tune of circa £40 million in interest payments each year then that blows a significant hole in any transfer budget they may have. Now some people might think £40 million isn't too much in the grand scheme of things regarding today's football market but as I understand it - and I could be mistaken so anyone please correct me if I'm wrong - that's the equivalent of a £125 million signing on a 5 year contract at £300,000 a week. Some may ask how is it the same but as clubs amortise transfers over the period of the contract it comes out something like this:

£125 million transfer fee/5 years = £25 million per year
£300,000 per week wages - £15.6 million per year

Added together that gives an amortised cost of £40.6 million per year on the club's books - about the same as the annual interest payments on Spurs' stadium
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
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.