Spurs thread 2020/21

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Not really. Spurs made the decision to apply for the furlough scheme one week after the government announced it. They reversed that decision a further two weeks later. Ample time to determine that it was so deeply unpopular that it would likely prove to be counterproductive.

Nay, even embarrassing.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Spurs got a government loan of £175m back in June. one of their promises requirements to the Bank of England that secured the loan would be that it wasnt used on player aquisitions. not quite sure how they can defend the latest purchases as coming from different money. we the tax payer appear to have bought Spurs Gareth Bale.

 

[Ribchester]

But other posters on here KNOW that Levy was "shamed" into a U-turn? They must be his right hand men too, right? ;-)

I don't know Levy. But it isn't unfair to say that I know more about him than you guys, is it? Just as you doubtless know far more than me about Mansour and Al Mubarak. I have closely followed and observed Levy at Spurs for 20 years. I have met him on a few occasions. Been in supporters meetings with him. I know people who know him well - what motivates him; his values etc. You guys, by contrast, have likely had little more than a passing interest in him. Which is entirely understandable.

Additionally, I get to read Spurs itk, which you probably don't. And in this instance, the itk from various credible sources was that Levy genuinely thought that most clubs would use the furlough scheme; that it was the prudent thing to do given the complete uncertainty as to the potential overall losses as a consequence of COVID; and that he called off the furlough move because, from a business perspective, it was proving to be entirely counterproductive.

It pleases me to say you’ve got your own Peter Swales

 

[Vienna_70]

Not really. Spurs made the decision to apply for the furlough scheme one week after the government announced it. They reversed that decision a further two weeks later. Ample time to determine that it was so deeply unpopular that it would likely prove to be counterproductive.

I d realise that the U-turn was so long after the original announcement.

 

[JimB]

It pleases me to say you’ve got your own Peter Swales

I'm pleased that you're pleased!

But, not knowing enough about your former chairman, in what respect is Levy analogous to Peter Swales other than the fact that both have only one League cup win to their name?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Spurs got a government loan of £175m back in June. one of their promises requirements to the Bank of England that secured the loan would be that it wasnt used on player aquisitions. not quite sure how they can defend the latest purchases as coming from different money. we the tax payer appear to have bought Spurs Gareth Bale.

I could add that the £175m is about twice what Spurs earn on average from gate receipts and CL prise money a year. So it appears the loan wasnt brought in to just cover lost revenue for the end of last season and this. Doesnt sound like there was a lot of duediligence by the Bof E when handing out an unsecured loan? ! Levy looks to be is using the money to buy players and move money from higher interest loans to the gov one. The lack of scrutiny and criticism by the press and football authorities isnt very good imo, especially given the scutiny and criticism we receieved even after being exonerated over FFP. I dont hear the loan even mentioned when I listened to Sky reporters fawning over Bale returning at £300 - £600k a week.

 

[JimB]

Spurs got a government loan of £175m back in June. one of their promises requirements to the Bank of England that secured the loan would be that it wasnt used on player aquisitions. not quite sure how they can defend the latest purchases as coming from different money. we the tax payer appear to have bought Spurs Gareth Bale.

It would be impossible to determine what monies have been spent in what way. The only thing that is pertinent is that Spurs pay the interest and repay the loan within a year. In other words, you the taxpayer will get your money back with interest. Nothing to see here.

I could add that the £175m is about twice what Spurs earn on average from gate receipts and CL prise money a year. So it appears the loan wasnt brought in to just cover lost revenue for the end of last season and this. Doesnt sound like there was a lot of duediligence by the Bof E when handing out an unsecured loan? ! Levy looks to be is using the money to buy players and move money from higher interest loans to the gov one. The lack of scrutiny and criticism by the press and football authorities isnt very good imo, especially given the scutiny and criticism we receieved even after being exonerated over FFP. I dont hear the loan even mentioned when I listened to Sky reporters fawning over Bale returning at £300 - £600k a week.

What Spurs have historically earned from their stadium on average isn't at all relevant. They are now in a new stadium that is on an altogether different level in terms of revenue generation. At the new stadium, general admission and corporate sales for Spurs games will now bring in some £100m per annum. Additionally, the stadium is generating a further £500K-£1m per game from food and drink sales.

On top of which, because of the versatility provided by the sliding pitch, the stadium was attracting numerous big events - both sporting and musical. Lastly, the stadium is specifically set up for conferencing and other events. That schedule too was heavily subscribed. I don't know exactly how much of the estimated £200m of lost revenue is attributable to the inability to utilise the stadium but I do know that it is far more than the £85-90m figure that you are suggesting.

Listen, I get that you obviously don't like Spurs. And I get that you don't like the fact that City get a raw deal in the media. But given the extraordinary success that you have enjoyed over the past 10 years or so, the laugh is on them, surely? So why be bitter about the fact that a well run business like Spurs is using a perfectly legal and entirely sensible means of coping with the problems created by COVID19? You're in clover, mate. Enjoy it. I wish we had your problems! ;-)

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

It would be impossible to determine what monies have been spent in what way. The only thing that is pertinent is that Spurs pay the interest and repay the loan within a year. In other words, you the taxpayer will get your money back with interest. Nothing to see here.



What Spurs have historically earned from their stadium on average isn't at all relevant. They are now in a new stadium that is on an altogether different level in terms of revenue generation. At the new stadium, general admission and corporate sales for Spurs games will now bring in some £100m per annum. Additionally, the stadium is generating a further £500K-£1m per game from food and drink sales.

On top of which, because of the versatility provided by the sliding pitch, the stadium was attracting numerous big events - both sporting and musical. Lastly, the stadium is specifically set up for conferencing and other events. That schedule too was heavily subscribed. I don't know exactly how much of the estimated £200m of lost revenue is attributable to the inability to utilise the stadium but I do know that it is far more than the £85-90m figure that you are suggesting.

Listen, I get that you obviously don't like Spurs. And I get that you don't like the fact that City get a raw deal in the media. But given the extraordinary success that you have enjoyed over the past 10 years or so, the laugh is on them, surely? So why be bitter about the fact that a well run business like Spurs is using a perfectly legal and entirely sensible means of coping with the problems created by COVID19? You're in clover, mate. Enjoy it. I wish we had your problems! ;-)

Good response Jim. fyi i dont particularly dislike spurs anymore than the rest of the london clubs. I was just pointing out the differences in the way our two clubs are treated in the media. Cheers

 

[bluemoon32]

 

[jimharri]