Financial position

[Donki]

Can't see the interest being correct. We pay £8m on £55m debt while west ham pay £4m on £77m debt? We have more assets so should be paying less interest no? Or will it depend on if it was long or short term?

We could be paying over a shorter term, therefore less intrest. The Porn bothers probably went to Wonga and got a loan over 100 years!

 

[whatsappnin]

Can't see the interest being correct. We pay £8m on £55m debt while west ham pay £4m on £77m debt? We have more assets so should be paying less interest no? Or will it depend on if it was long or short term?

Are you bored!

 

[NEVILLEB]

Levy may not be great at picking managers but he does have us in very good financial state. If it's true that our debt is gone, then that's a few million in interest per year wiped out, plus an additional 30 million of TV revenues. So our turnover for this year should be up to about 180 million.

The stadium difference is huge - Arsenal make around 90 million from match day revenues. When we get a new stadium that should also increase our turnover by another 30 million or so.

But looking at that report it seems most of the extra revenue we need to make up lies in tv and commercial activities.

Man City's gate receipts aren't that different.

So the stadium will help but isn't a magic ticket

 

[sloth]

The Spurs info is out of date. Net debt is not £55m.

Since the sale of the Sainsbury's / UTC site and various other non-core properties, and with the £40m loan from ENIC (soon to be converted into shares), our net debt is now "negligible".

All accounts are necessarily a year behind by virtue of the fact that they can't be compiled until the year is over. So a year behind, but a complete picture.

 

[sloth]

But looking at that report it seems most of the extra revenue we need to make up lies in tv and commercial activities.

Man City's gate receipts aren't that different.

So the stadium will help but isn't a magic ticket

City are bankrolled, their commercial revenue is from an airline owned by sheik Mansur's family, it is a way for them to avoid ffp rules. We can't catch Chelsea, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, or Utd, but the stadium will help level the playing field somewhat.

One interesting snippet is that despite our season tickets being around a third more expensive than Chelsea's, and our standard tickets more expensive too they make double what we make on a match day. That's 35m more than us a season. A partial explanation is that they get 100k more through the gate each season, but that will only explain a very small amount of it. The fact is they make almost as much as Arsenal, despite their yearly attendance being dwarfed by Arsenal's, and Arsenal having the most expensive tickets on the block. What's going on?

 

[Sir Henry]

City's wage bill is a disgrace.

Agreed but how how else were they supposed to sign anyone better than vassell and dickov?

 

[greaves]

City are bankrolled, their commercial revenue is from an airline owned by sheik Mansur's family, it is a way for them to avoid ffp rules. We can't catch Chelsea, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, or Utd, but the stadium will help level the playing field somewhat.

One interesting snippet is that despite our season tickets being around a third more expensive than Chelsea's, and our standard tickets more expensive too they make double what we make on a match day. That's 35m more than us a season. A partial explanation is that they get 100k more through the gate each season, but that will only explain a very small amount of it. The fact is they make almost as much as Arsenal, despite their yearly attendance being dwarfed by Arsenal's, and Arsenal having the most expensive tickets on the block. What's going on?

Theft. Corruption. Murder.

 

[Lilbaz]

Are you bored!

Yes. Reading threads bashing tim can only keep you occupied for so long.

 

[NEVILLEB]

City are bankrolled, their commercial revenue is from an airline owned by sheik Mansur's family, it is a way for them to avoid ffp rules. We can't catch Chelsea, City, Liverpool, Arsenal, or Utd, but the stadium will help level the playing field somewhat.

One interesting snippet is that despite our season tickets being around a third more expensive than Chelsea's, and our standard tickets more expensive too they make double what we make on a match day. That's 35m more than us a season. A partial explanation is that they get 100k more through the gate each season, but that will only explain a very small amount of it. The fact is they make almost as much as Arsenal, despite their yearly attendance being dwarfed by Arsenal's, and Arsenal having the most expensive tickets on the block. What's going on?

I think the stadium will help but it does seem we are behind on commercial revenue with the top clubs and I don't know why that is.

 

[jambreck]

All accounts are necessarily a year behind by virtue of the fact that they can't be compiled until the year is over. So a year behind, but a complete picture.

Yes, I know that.

I just mentioned that the debt figure was out of date for the benefit of those who might be reading this thread but who hadn't previously read Daniel Levy's statement accompanying the financial report a month ago.

 

[vicbob]

Theft. Corruption. Murder.

You mean John Terry's family account for the whole difference.............................add in racism, drug dealing and a bit of shoplifting and you might have a point.

 

[jambreck]

But looking at that report it seems most of the extra revenue we need to make up lies in tv and commercial activities.

Man City's gate receipts aren't that different.

So the stadium will help but isn't a magic ticket

I think the stadium will help but it does seem we are behind on commercial revenue with the top clubs and I don't know why that is.

The top clubs' much greater commercial income is simply a reflection of the far greater global exposure and fan bases that those clubs have.

They are far more valuable to potential sponsors.

Still, Spurs do pretty well and are miles ahead of the rest.

As to TV money, the gap is mostly a consequence of not being in the Champions League.

Lastly, Arsenal is a far more relevant comparison than City in terms of how much more the new stadium might earn us. As it stands, Arsenal's match day income exceeds ours by some £60m.

 

[SteveH]

The top clubs' much greater commercial income is simply a reflection of the far greater global exposure and fan bases that those clubs have.

They are far more valuable to potential sponsors.

Still, Spurs do pretty well and are miles ahead of the rest.

As to TV money, the gap is mostly a consequence of not being in the Champions League.

Lastly, Arsenal is a far more relevant comparison than City in terms of how much more the new stadium might earn us. As it stands, Arsenal's match day income exceeds ours by some £60m.

Wow! Now thats a big gap.

 

[Wheeler Dealer]

The season that we had Modric, Bale, VDV, Adebayor and King, should have really seen us kick on, as this presented us with a great opportunity. This highlights Redknapp's ineptitude, as no one has since had a squad with this world class talent.. a complete wasted opportunity.

 

[jambreck]

Wow! Now thats a big gap.

Sure is.

Only caveat being that I have a suspicion that Spurs might include their corporate hospitality income under Commercial Activities rather than Match Day income. If so, then our actual match day income is probably 'only' £40-50m less than theirs.

 

[Lilbaz]

The season that we had Modric, Bale, VDV, Adebayor and King, should have really seen us kick on, as this presented us with a great opportunity. This highlights Redknapp's ineptitude, as no one has since had a squad with this world class talent.. a complete wasted opportunity.

Because the other teams didn't have world class players? Chelsea, utd, arsenal, city's players were all crap it's just they had better managers?

 

[Shadydan]

The season that we had Modric, Bale, VDV, Adebayor and King, should have really seen us kick on, as this presented us with a great opportunity. This highlights Redknapp's ineptitude, as no one has since had a squad with this world class talent.. a complete wasted opportunity.

If recent history is anything to go by then we'll get back to that kind of level soon enough, we potentially have a couple of players who could get us firing.

 

[NEVILLEB]

The season that we had Modric, Bale, VDV, Adebayor and King, should have really seen us kick on, as this presented us with a great opportunity. This highlights Redknapp's ineptitude, as no one has since had a squad with this world class talent.. a complete wasted opportunity.

How was he inept?

What decisions did he make?

As far as I can remember he didn't drastically alter the formation or personnel that season.

I do remember we lost Ledley King to injury around the time we started to falter in the league,

 

[parklane1]

The season that we had Modric, Bale, VDV, Adebayor and King, should have really seen us kick on, as this presented us with a great opportunity. This highlights Redknapp's ineptitude, as no one has since had a squad with this world class talent.. a complete wasted opportunity.

He should have done better with those players i agree.

 

[nightgoat]

But looking at that report it seems most of the extra revenue we need to make up lies in tv and commercial activities.

Man City's gate receipts aren't that different.

So the stadium will help but isn't a magic ticket

Man City may have an extra 10,000 capacity on us, but uur ticket prices are higher than theirs - our most expensive season tickets are over twice the cost of theirs, whilst their match day tickets range from £26 - £58 compared with £32 - £81 for ours.

Their match day income of £40m against a capacity of 47,805 works out as £837 per seat for the season. Our £33m from a capacity of 36,284 works out as £910 per seat. Extrapolate that against the supposed capacity increase of the new stadium of 56,000 and our match day income would be up to around £51m.