Spurs Thread - 2021/22

Alan Harper's Tash said:
How is it possible within FFP?
Click to expand...
49370079-0-image-a-2_1634655221549.jpg
 
ted the grass said:
interesting...would that be the Ton-fifty that they were begging off us for Kane?...I get the impression that they need to balance the books.
Click to expand...
Shirley said:
Exactly, I doubt it will be spent in the transfer market.
Click to expand...
So long as Covid doesn't close down stadiums again, the club is in good financial health. Debt is not an issue if it can be easily serviced. And, with the increased income from the new stadium, Spurs' debt can be easily serviced.
 
brian the blue said:
Surely not the wisest transfer strategy? Publicly stating you’ve got a lot of money to spend.
Click to expand...
No choice but to do so, really. ENIC are majority shareholders, with 85%. But there are some 15,000 other small shareholders. They had to be informed regardless. And once they were informed, the story would have broken anyway.
 
brian the blue said:
Surely not the wisest transfer strategy? Publicly stating you’ve got a lot of money to spend.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not sure if they had too (they’re not on the Stock Market anymore), but does seem a little daft to show your hand. Add another £15 mil onto Jesus thanks
 
Spuds will be rinsed, Levy won’t be able to handle it. As well as us strengthening, the Rags will be paying big bucks to rebuild along with the Chavs who have been promised £175m per season by the new owners. Add in Arsenal, Newcastle, Real Madrid, Barca, PSG and others £150m won’t get them far and they have to cough up for Becantour and the Kuve fella. Enjoy the 4th place Spuds with the CL participation, the one good thing for them is they’ll probably avoid Atletico as both will end up in Pot 2 of the CL.
 
meltonblue said:
It’s not really anything to do with ffp. Just means they’ve got more available cash to spend.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this, more to do with Chelsea. Abramovich effectively lost/invested 45m per season in the Club. This was in the form of “soft” loans so no interest accrued. However that loan has now reached 1.5b, it’s apparently being written off as part of the takeover.

We were obviously investigated over Sponsorship’s and overspending, why couldn’t Sheikh Mansour just do a Chelsea and provide soft loans to cover the Operational costs.

I believe at the very least Chelsea should have to incur costs on the soft loans as part of FFP, IE that loan should have appropriated interest added for Financial calculations, that interest need not appear on the balance sheet but commercial interest on a loan of 1.5b would be 75m at a flat rate of 5%.
 
hammocity said:
Can you explain this, more to do with Chelsea. Abramovich effectively lost/invested 45m per season in the Club. This was in the form of “soft” loans so no interest accrued. However that loan has now reached 1.5b, it’s apparently being written off as part of the takeover.

We were obviously investigated over Sponsorship’s and overspending, why couldn’t Sheikh Mansour just do a Chelsea and provide soft loans to cover the Operational costs.

I believe at the very least Chelsea should have to incur costs on the soft loans as part of FFP, IE that loan should have appropriated interest added for Financial calculations, that interest need not appear on the balance sheet but commercial interest on a loan of 1.5b would be 75m at a flat rate of 5%.
Click to expand...

The way Mansour did it was very similar to how Spurs have done it - he effectively increased his equity in the club, so more funds were able to go on the balance sheet. It’s effectively the same thing, it meant the club could make an operational loss but still had available funds to invest (we haven’t needed it from him for a long while now). They’ll still be limited by the allowable losses for ffp, but they’ve at least got the funds there.

That’s better for the clubs than either taking a loan or the owner giving the club a loan. I don’t agree Chelsea should have paid interest on it, I just think if owners invest, they should only be allowed to do it through an increase in equity.
 
To be honest, I see no objection whatsoever to equity investment. It's no different to (say) Lloyds Bank offering shareholders a chance to buy extra shares to build the business. To me, that is infinitely better than (say) a company borrowing £500 million and putting itself in debt.

Yet somehow, if Sheikh Mansour wants to buy more shares in a company he principally owns, it's 'unfair'. Whereas purchasing a club like Burnley (or United) by borrowing a vast sum against its assets is just fine and dandy. It's the economics of the madhouse. Which is more likely to lead to a club becoming bankrupt?
 
BrianW said:
To be honest, I see no objection whatsoever to equity investment. It's no different to (say) Lloyds Bank offering shareholders a chance to buy extra shares to build the business. To me, that is infinitely better than (say) a company borrowing £500 million and putting itself in debt.

Yet somehow, if Sheikh Mansour wants to buy more shares in a company he principally owns, it's 'unfair'. Whereas purchasing a club like Burnley (or United) by borrowing a vast sum against its assets is just fine and dandy. It's the economics of the madhouse. Which is more likely to lead to a club becoming bankrupt?
Click to expand...
This is what is perplexing about FFP. A club, which is in no danger of going bust because of the wealth of its owner(s), may not benefit from owner investment to buy players but apparently a loan from anyone for the same purpose is OK! Now the argument that FFP is to protect the financial stability of clubs is torn to shreds by the failure to do anything to forbid leveraged purchase. The real problem is, however, that UEFA wishes to choose those parts of the law (the real law) which appease those clubs which consider their past so much more important than football's present. UEFA caved in to threats of break away if it forbade debt, which is an accepted means of raising capital for investment in law throughout Europe, and instead agreed to place controls on spending. Any system of regulation which seeks to draw distinctions between the "cleanliness" of the money potentially coming into the game is bound to be marred by inconsistency and injustice and the financial health of the game will suffer. At the moment UEFA seeks to protect club owners at the expense of fans and the game.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
This is what is perplexing about FFP. A club, which is in no danger of going bust because of the wealth of its owner(s), may not benefit from owner investment to buy players but apparently a loan from anyone for the same purpose is OK! Now the argument that FFP is to protect the financial stability of clubs is torn to shreds by the failure to do anything to forbid leveraged purchase. The real problem is, however, that UEFA wishes to choose those parts of the law (the real law) which appease those clubs which consider their past so much more important than football's present. UEFA caved in to threats of break away if it forbade debt, which is an accepted means of raising capital for investment in law throughout Europe, and instead agreed to place controls on spending. Any system of regulation which seeks to draw distinctions between the "cleanliness" of the money potentially coming into the game is bound to be marred by inconsistency and injustice and the financial health of the game will suffer. At the moment UEFA seeks to protect club owners at the expense of fans and the game.
Click to expand...

A loan or owner investment are both ok, ffp doesn’t stop either of those from happening or differentiate as it doesn’t look at the balance sheet.

I’ve always argued it should do though.
 
JimB said:
49370079-0-image-a-2_1634655221549.jpg
Click to expand...
I’ve not seen this before. Interesting chart, thanks. Gave it a search and is off a daily mail article apparently. Somewhat amazed the rags have so much further they could spend.
Really shows the liverpool owners not bothering to reinvest in the football doesn’t it, and the fact we’re spending at similar levels with respect to our income as Norwich really puts the ffp whining into perspective.

Conte might be onto Levy after he sees this. Now they’re in the CL again have to see if they’re interested in ensuring they stay there and going into the market aggressively
 
meltonblue said:
The way Mansour did it was very similar to how Spurs have done it - he effectively increased his equity in the club, so more funds were able to go on the balance sheet. It’s effectively the same thing, it meant the club could make an operational loss but still had available funds to invest (we haven’t needed it from him for a long while now). They’ll still be limited by the allowable losses for ffp, but they’ve at least got the funds there.

That’s better for the clubs than either taking a loan or the owner giving the club a loan. I don’t agree Chelsea should have paid interest on it, I just think if owners invest, they should only be allowed to do it through an increase in equity.
Click to expand...

Think it's the exact same way Rangers have rebuilt. People going on about the losses Rangers have made and the £100M debt they are in, but that's just not the case. Nearly all the loans were actually investors buying more equity in the club, and this was always the plan, to front load investment to get them competitive again with Celtic until they are at the point they are now, which is break even and rely on player trading and European football to make profits to invest on more players.
 
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