Spurs thread 2019/20

[Vienna_70]

Spurs have taken on large debt in recent years largely to build their stadium. Unfortunately this stadium cannot be presented as a gift which the club was forced to give supporters and the public. In fact of, course, the building of the stadium was the result of a calculated decision taken by the club's multi-billionaire, tax exile owner and Mr Levy to increase the revenue generating capacity of the club. To this end no expense was spared on the restaurants and bars and facilities in general. The ground can make a claim to be one of, if not the, best in the world but the tickets are by no means cheap and fans, many of whom are in great difficulty for the foreseeable future, are certainly going to pay towards its cost. And it has to be pointed out that the government scheme for furloughing staff was not meant as a measure to help wealthy football clubs balance the books but as a measure to ensure that those fairly low down on the economic ladder don't have to starve and lose their homes as their major contribution to the fight against this dreadful pandemic. And yet we find that two of the very wealthiest clubs in the world - Spurs and Liverpool - don't find that they are pushed, after a long and heroic battle against harsh economic circumstances, into deciding reluctantly to furlough staff; they seize the opportunity, at the FIRST opportunity with both greedy hands to save a bob or two so that Levy - and John W Henry presumably - won't have to make a sacrifice at all. We're all in it together?

And not even a word about receiving tax payers money - state aid - after all the hypocritical whingeing they've done about City and state aid, despite the evidence freely available at Companies House.

Great post!

 

[JimB]

Spurs have taken on large debt in recent years largely to build their stadium. Unfortunately this stadium cannot be presented as a gift which the club was forced to give supporters and the public. In fact of, course, the building of the stadium was the result of a calculated decision taken by the club's multi-billionaire, tax exile owner and Mr Levy to increase the revenue generating capacity of the club. To this end no expense was spared on the restaurants and bars and facilities in general. The ground can make a claim to be one of, if not the, best in the world but the tickets are by no means cheap and fans, many of whom are in great difficulty for the foreseeable future, are certainly going to pay towards its cost.

Yes.........and? I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that.

And it has to be pointed out that the government scheme for furloughing staff was not meant as a measure to help wealthy football clubs balance the books but as a measure to ensure that those fairly low down on the economic ladder don't have to starve and lose their homes as their major contribution to the fight against this dreadful pandemic.

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.

And yet we find that two of the very wealthiest clubs in the world - Spurs and Liverpool - don't find that they are pushed, after a long and heroic battle against harsh economic circumstances, into deciding reluctantly to furlough staff; they seize the opportunity, at the FIRST opportunity with both greedy hands to save a bob or two so that Levy - and John W Henry presumably - won't have to make a sacrifice at all. We're all in it together?

Daniel Levy has taken the same 20% cut that all non playing staff at Spurs are taking. Of course that won't be a great hardship for him by comparison to others. But it's worth pointing out when you wrongly claim that he isn't making "a sacrifice at all".

As to Spurs and Liverpool (and Newcastle, and Norwich, and Bournemouth, and McClaren in Formula 1, and British Airways etc. etc.) acting quickly, perhaps that's just because they are more prudent, or have greater foresight, or aren't so concerned about favouring popular decisions over what they believe to be the correct decision? Time will tell.

And not even a word about receiving tax payers money - state aid - after all the hypocritical whingeing they've done about City and state aid, despite the evidence freely available at Companies House.

Who's been whingeing about City and state aid? Or, by "state", are you referring to Abu Dhabi?

With regard to receiving taxpayers' money, as I've said before, at least Spurs are a significant contributor to the public purse (comfortably the highest of any UK club over recent years) - unlike the vast majority of other clubs.

 

[Gordyola]

Profit before tax over the past three years:

Spurs - £275m
Liverpool - £207m
Man Utd - £133m
Arsenal - £84m
Burnley - £77m
Leicester - £74m

Others have generally made total profits in that period of less than £50m, with some barely making any profit at all. Or even a loss. City, for what it's worth, made total profits of £20m.

Consequently, Spurs would have paid far more into the Exchequer than any other UK club over the that period.

As to this notion that the furlough scheme was designed to help the local pub or cafe, whatever gave you that idea?

It was designed to protect jobs. It was designed to save the economy from total collapse. It doesn't matter how big or small a company is. British Airways, a company with a £13 billion turnover, is furloughing up to 36,000 staff.

Forget PBT let’s have a chart of how much tax has been paid

 

[grandsolo]

Yes.........and? I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that.



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.



Daniel Levy has taken the same 20% cut that all non playing staff at Spurs are taking. Of course that won't be a great hardship for him by comparison to others. But it's worth pointing out when you wrongly claim that he isn't making "a sacrifice at all".

As to Spurs and Liverpool (and Newcastle, and Norwich, and Bournemouth, and McClaren in Formula 1, and British Airways etc. etc.) acting quickly, perhaps that's just because they are more prudent, or have greater foresight, or aren't so concerned about favouring popular decisions over what they believe to be the correct decision? Time will tell.



Who's been whingeing about City and state aid? Or, by "state", are you referring to Abu Dhabi?

With regard to receiving taxpayers' money, as I've said before, at least Spurs are a significant contributor to the public purse (comfortably the highest of any UK club over recent years) - unlike the vast majority of other clubs.

Stop. Just stop. It's inexcusable. You are forever a small club, pulling this shit. And remind me what Levy's bonus was that was announced around the time the furlough was announced.

 

[JimB]

Stop. Just stop. It's inexcusable. You are forever a small club, pulling this shit. And remind me what Levy's bonus was that was announced around the time the furlough was announced.

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.

 

[BobbyBoy]

Yes.........and? I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that.



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.



Daniel Levy has taken the same 20% cut that all non playing staff at Spurs are taking. Of course that won't be a great hardship for him by comparison to others. But it's worth pointing out when you wrongly claim that he isn't making "a sacrifice at all".

As to Spurs and Liverpool (and Newcastle, and Norwich, and Bournemouth, and McClaren in Formula 1, and British Airways etc. etc.) acting quickly, perhaps that's just because they are more prudent, or have greater foresight, or aren't so concerned about favouring popular decisions over what they believe to be the correct decision? Time will tell.



Who's been whingeing about City and state aid? Or, by "state", are you referring to Abu Dhabi?

With regard to receiving taxpayers' money, as I've said before, at least Spurs are a significant contributor to the public purse (comfortably the highest of any UK club over recent years) - unlike the vast majority of other clubs.

I was going to reply to bluesincehyderoad that the actions of an owner and his appointed multi-millionaire don't represent the club or it's supporters. Just like Mike Ashley being a prick doesn't make all Newcastle fans pricks. Your constant defending of the indefensible makes that a hard argument.

Technically what you say is correct but just like in football there undefined laws which are represented by the spirit of the game, its the equivalent of not returning the ball after it's been kicked out to allow treatment, its technically not an offence to do it but it's scummy and against the spirit of the game.

 

[JimB]

Forget PBT let’s have a chart of how much tax has been paid

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.

 

[JimB]

I was going to reply to bluesincehyderoad that the actions of an owner and his appointed multi-millionaire don't represent the club or it's supporters. Just like Mike Ashley being a prick doesn't make all Newcastle fans pricks. Your constant defending of the indefensible makes that a hard argument.

Technically what you say is correct but just like in football there undefined laws which are represented by the spirit of the game, its the equivalent of not returning the ball after it's been kicked out to allow treatment, its technically not an offence to do it but it's scummy and against the spirit of the game.

Okay, if we are going to get into the minefield that is morality, what about the parallel discussion going on in this thread, concerning tax?

In a football industry that is awash with money in normal times, is it morally correct that all but three or four clubs needlessly spend every penny they make and more on player signings and wages in the pursuit of success or Premier League survival - such that they fail to pay anything, or next to nothing, by way of corporation tax into the Exchequer year after year after year? And in the rare event that they do make a small profit, is it morally correct that they still pay next to nothing in tax because they offset it against historic losses?

Really, when it comes to a matter of the simple arithmetic of tax paid versus taxpayer funded schemes used, I don't think Spurs need to be taking lectures from any other club. They are still in far more credit than the vast majority.

 

[BobbyBoy]

Okay, if we are going to get into the minefield that is morality, what about the parallel discussion going on in this thread, concerning tax?

In a football industry that is awash with money in normal times, is it morally correct that all but three or four clubs needlessly spend every penny they make and more on player signings and wages in the pursuit of success or Premier League survival - such that they fail to pay anything, or next to nothing, by way of corporation tax into the Exchequer year after year after year? And in the rare event that they do make a small profit, is it morally correct that they still pay next to nothing in tax because they offset it against historic losses?

Really, when it comes to a matter of the simple arithmetic of tax paid versus taxpayer funded schemes used, I don't think Spurs need to be taking lectures from any other club. They are still in far more credit than the vast majority.

I'm not comparing them to other clubs or other industries for that matter, I'm not interested in what they do. If the 19 other clubs furloughed their non playing staff I would still want my club not to if they were in a position where they didn't need to. It's not hard to understand, they are taking from the tax payer just because they can, the need to it is close to zero.

 

[JimB]

I'm not comparing them to other clubs or other industries for that matter, I'm not interested in what they do. If the 19 other clubs furloughed their non playing staff I would still want my club not to if they were in a position where they didn't need to. It's not hard to understand, they are taking from the tax payer just because they can, the need to it is close to zero.

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.