Club Finances - Swiss Ramble

jurgen

Busy ****
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
4,918
#61
Well I certainly hope we find a partner because prioritising stadium funding over your playing staff is one thing, but using that money to fund a housing development is quite another.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
12,029
#62
Well I certainly hope we find a partner because prioritising stadium funding over your playing staff is one thing, but using that money to fund a housing development is quite another.
It's not one or the other. The funds would come from different sources and be structured differently. If the club opted to develop the housing themselves, the funding would probably be a specific, separate facility, secured on the development site itself, because (a) they own it and (b) it will have full planning consent by then.

Player acquisitions come from general funds/borrowing, which might be unsecured, or secured on other assets of the club.

I don't think it's likely. I'd expect them to find a partner.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
4,511
#63
People are still forgetting that we’re only 2 phases through a 3 phase project. There still remain capital costs for 500+ units of housing and a hotel to be borrowed and invested.

It would not surprise me if THFC partners up with an experienced residential developer and a hotel operator, with the partners responsible for cash flowing phase 3. That would keep the debt off the club’s books, but they’d have to share a substantial percentage of the profit with their partners.
How does the old expression go? Never let the facts get in the way of a good moan about how Levy is destroying our club
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
19,369
#64
Just read through that again and it shows clearly that Leicester City bought the title, third highest owner input after City and Chelsea, all part of the fairy tale I suppose.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
35,103
#65
Going by the swiss ramble we've been ploughing most of our money into it, considering our income (TV, MatchReciepts, Commerical, PrizeMoney etc) hasn't been ploughed into purchasing playing staff for years (net0) if it's not near paid off something doesn't add up, our capex in just one year was 493m.
Total cost around £1bn. The £493 includes the money we spent on the training ground. So it will be a while till it's paid.
 

parj

I ate all the pies
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
1,909
#66
I'm sure the long Nike contract helped reduce that bill a bit... Assuming just £10m a season that's £150m, but probably closer to 15-20m a season
 

ToDarrenIsToDo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
968
#67
I'm sure the long Nike contract helped reduce that bill a bit... Assuming just £10m a season that's £150m, but probably closer to 15-20m a season
Does anyone know if this is or has been paid in lump sum or if it's paid per season?

No idea how the Nike sponsor or any kit manufacturer works with the £££ side of it
 

tobi

Clear Eyes Full Hearts Can't Lose
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
14,237
#68
I'm sure the long Nike contract helped reduce that bill a bit... Assuming just £10m a season that's £150m, but probably closer to 15-20m a season
The original deal was £30m per season.
 

ToDarrenIsToDo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
968
#72
That's really good. Brings back memories of the clubs that suddenly popped up, spending a fortune as they went, like Lazio. Seeing Blackburn, Leeds and Newcastle rise and fall.
And the frightening rise of Chelsea, then Man City.
The frightening rise of Chelsea & Man City, two of the teams we are compared to when we are deemed to not show ambition. Crazy hey?
 

parj

I ate all the pies
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
1,909
#73
What was interesting was how we were in three top 10 around 2012 and spent more than Liverpool overall for 2 seasons... Shows Levy has backed managers and now he backing the infrastructure to help us kick on
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
35,103
#74
What was interesting was how we were in three top 10 around 2012 and spent more than Liverpool overall for 2 seasons... Shows Levy has backed managers and now he backing the infrastructure to help us kick on
We were also selling. Modric etc...
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
12,029
#75
What was interesting was how we were in three top 10 around 2012 and spent more than Liverpool overall for 2 seasons... Shows Levy has backed managers and now he backing the infrastructure to help us kick on
I noticed that blip and thought the timing was extremely revealing. In 2001 ENIC took over. Levy spent 2 seasons continuing with the strategy of his predecessors: buy second rate young-ish players for solid sums and lard the squad with a couple of superannuated, declining stars, to keep the entertainment and hope levels high enough not to deter the fans.

By 2004, he had learned enough to see that this approach wasn't going to achieve his objectives, which were (a) to make Spurs competitive again and (b) to make a long-term increase in the value of ENIC's investment.

So he recruited Frank Arnesen and charged him with recruiting unsung and young international talent. Arnesen demanded Jol. Levy insisted on Santini, to keep the fans from freaking out. Both were right. Fortunately, Santini threw a strop and walked.

Suddenly we were back in Europe on a perennial basis and Levy could see that a bit of investment might bounce us up another rung on the ladder. So we started buying more expensive players. We also had a lot of wasted expenditure as a result of constant managerial changes: Jol to Ramos to Redknapp, each of whom wanted to remodel the squad to his taste. Spending goes up when a club keeps changing managers; it goes down when one of them stays for a few years.

Then we qualified for the Champions League for the first time and that is what gave Levy the wherewithal - a valid financial excuse - to bang down some of the CL money on expensive players. And we were press-ganged into selling Bale - spending that money bounced us briefly into that top-10 list, to fulfil AVB's desired remodelling of the squad.

All this time, for 10 years, the academy had been developing in the background. Pochettino's arrival coincided with the academy starting to produce high-standard Premiership players. It wasn't a coincidence. It was one reason he was keen to come.

Since then, the investment in players has declined again. Because we were finding better ones for free and improving the ones we already have. But we have continued to grab players at high-ish fees when Pochettino wanted them: Sanchez, Aurier and Sissoko being the obvious examples.

We don't buy unless Pochettino sees youth, value and character in the same package. I wish people would get their heads around that. We just don't buy players unless Pochettino thinks we can improve them and they will fit into his team ethos. It's not going to change as long as we have this manager.
 

ToDarrenIsToDo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
968
#76
I noticed that blip and thought the timing was extremely revealing. In 2001 ENIC took over. Levy spent 2 seasons continuing with the strategy of his predecessors: buy second rate young-ish players for solid sums and lard the squad with a couple of superannuated, declining stars, to keep the entertainment and hope levels high enough not to deter the fans.

By 2004, he had learned enough to see that this approach wasn't going to achieve his objectives, which were (a) to make Spurs competitive again and (b) to make a long-term increase in the value of ENIC's investment.

So he recruited Frank Arnesen and charged him with recruiting unsung and young international talent. Arnesen demanded Jol. Levy insisted on Santini, to keep the fans from freaking out. Both were right. Fortunately, Santini threw a strop and walked.

Suddenly we were back in Europe on a perennial basis and Levy could see that a bit of investment might bounce us up another rung on the ladder. So we started buying more expensive players. We also had a lot of wasted expenditure as a result of constant managerial changes: Jol to Ramos to Redknapp, each of whom wanted to remodel the squad to his taste. Spending goes up when a club keeps changing managers; it goes down when one of them stays for a few years.

Then we qualified for the Champions League for the first time and that is what gave Levy the wherewithal - a valid financial excuse - to bang down some of the CL money on expensive players. And we were press-ganged into selling Bale - spending that money bounced us briefly into that top-10 list, to fulfil AVB's desired remodelling of the squad.

All this time, for 10 years, the academy had been developing in the background. Pochettino's arrival coincided with the academy starting to produce high-standard Premiership players. It wasn't a coincidence. It was one reason he was keen to come.

Since then, the investment in players has declined again. Because we were finding better ones for free and improving the ones we already have. But we have continued to grab players at high-ish fees when Pochettino wanted them: Sanchez, Aurier and Sissoko being the obvious examples.

We don't buy unless Pochettino sees youth, value and character in the same package. I wish people would get their heads around that. We just don't buy players unless Pochettino thinks we can improve them and they will fit into his team ethos. It's not going to change as long as we have this manager.
Agreed. We can't compete with the big teams for finished articles, the only unique selling point the club has is turning a rough diamond into a top talent. Our USP is Pochettino adding to the player as much as the player eventually does to the team. Sometimes he gets it right (Dele, Son, Dier etc), sometimes he doesn't hit the mark but for me he needs to see enough raw talent, good work ethic and strong mentality for the time being at this stage in the clubs evolution on and off the pitch.

The benefits players get from joining but us aren't financial compared to the clubs we deem as our rivals now, we are the lowest wage spenders in the top 10 richest clubs. What players do get however is two things. Firstly they get exposure to the Premier League and Champions League which will clearly be a huge appeal em their own career and international aspirations and recognition and secondly they get to learn off of a manager who does have time for youth.

Pochettino has given the likes of Kane, Winks, Dier, Davies, Sanchez, Foyth, Son, Dele etc platforms to grow their skill sets and stature as footballers. None of these players would have hit the ground running at clubs we compare to now, they've all been given the time required to grow whereas other teams such as Chelsea, Arsenal etc need and expect the finished article even if they do buy young. The positives are we get these players where we can mould them and give as good as we receive but the negatives are we need to feel the same pain that their growing pains bring with them.

People write Foyth, Sanchez & Winks etc off far too early, even did the same about Kane but what we get is their talent to develop and what they get is a club prepared to help them grow and show patience with their frailties. Our model is unique as it's similar to Dortmund but not the same as we don't look to sell in a way they do anymore. Spurs are an educational and progressive football club. A blend of expenditure and nurturing in equal supply gets us into the big time through the back door somewhat and it's all done within the clubs financial means, not through how deep the owners pockets are
 

RichieS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
8,988
#77
What was interesting was how we were in three top 10 around 2012 and spent more than Liverpool overall for 2 seasons... Shows Levy has backed managers and now he backing the infrastructure to help us kick on
Two things are clear to me about Levy/ENIC:
(i) They spend on purchases what the club receives from sales.
(ii) They've spent a lot on infrastructure as it's the only surefire way to increase the value of their investment.
I believe the split opinion of the fanbase comes down to whether an individual thinks these are acceptable or not. I do. I want the club to live within its means and I'm pleased that it's now set up for the next century off the field.
 

RichieS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
8,988
#78
We were also selling. Modric etc...
True, but the way I see it one could only wheel out "not backing the manager(s)" if the money from sales wasn't being reinvested in the squad. But it was/is. Every time. See Newcastle for an example of what happens when it isn't.
 

buckley

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
775
#80
I still say the net spend is the real indicator if it was we would not appear on this list at all .
PSG.Juventus.Chelsea . City . have all been financially doped and it still continues .
Just to be amongst these uber rich clubs on the field of play is pretty amazing really.
You never know we might get a few bob to compete next season but don't hold your breathCOYS
 
Top