- Apr 13, 2006
- 4,575
- 13,169
Yes, but I was just talking in principle and making a point about how little choice they have in who to sell.Terry was a free so no amortisation cost.
Yes, but I was just talking in principle and making a point about how little choice they have in who to sell.Terry was a free so no amortisation cost.
You keep on peddling this but ENIC haven’t financed the stadium. They have borrowed the money. They would have been lent the money on the basis that the stadium will generate enough revenue to pay back the loan over that period and more. I’m sure ENIC have put some money in but they will get all that money back and plenty more make no mistake. Can we drop this idea that ENIC are in it for anything but the money at least then it’s a bit more palatable
I'm just providing a reason why we're not spending money like City, even if we somehow could viably do so.
I want us to buy pretty much every top level player we're linked to, don't get me wrong. But if I had money in the club right now I don't know if I'd want that on top of the huge loans that's been taken due to the stadium construction and I also can't say for sure that it'd be in the club's best interest to do so.
this year 60 mill next year 120 mil not the way spurs do dealsYeah I don't think we should be spending money like city, united, liv but we can't spend as much as fulham, leicester? I mean 60 mill negative net spend is going to turn us into Portsmouth if I believed this forum.
You keep on peddling this but ENIC haven’t financed the stadium. They have borrowed the money. They would have been lent the money on the basis that the stadium will generate enough revenue to pay back the loan over that period and more. I’m sure ENIC have put some money in but they will get all that money back and plenty more make no mistake. Can we drop this idea that ENIC are in it for anything but the money at least then it’s a bit more palatable
You seem to be completely oblivious as to the conditions in which £500m loans are set out. I have to keep "peddling it" because there's a lack of understanding on the subject.
As an aside, if ENIC were "in it for the money", then you'd have expected us to be ran like Blackpool or Newcastle, with asset stripping. As it happens, ENIC (owned by Spurs fans) are interested in making the club more valuable, the methods of which align with the ambitions of the fans.
That part I don't know ....yet. I'll ask again in January. ?When you say this window..... January? ?
Who is claiming this?
The stadium is the reason we’ve been given for spending modestly for 15 years.
Now it’s the reason we’re using to justify Levy spending fuck all (while taking a £5M salary himself)
This madness needs to end
Ok, enlighten, what are the conditions for this loan? Or any loan of this size for a football or Sports business.
How much more valuable can they make the club?You seem to be completely oblivious as to the conditions in which £500m loans are set out. I have to keep "peddling it" because there's a lack of understanding on the subject.
As an aside, if ENIC were "in it for the money", then you'd have expected us to be ran like Blackpool or Newcastle, with asset stripping. As it happens, ENIC (owned by Spurs fans) are interested in making the club more valuable, the methods of which align with the ambitions of the fans.
How much more valuable can they make the club?
We'd have to win the league as the next step, and that would take investment we are unlikely to see until the stadium is paid off, or Enic have sold us to a multi billionaire.
This is looking to be a very disappointing window but just maybe we are moving into the last stage of Enic's ownership.
Just throwing it out there.... as you were.
This is completely wrong.
The financial fair play regulations are to do with profitability not debts.
The new owners at Villa can put in money to pay off debts but Villa will still fall foul of the FFP regulations if its losses exceed £39m over a three year period including the current season. The only practical way out of the problem for Villa is to sell players at a profit and that means selling Grealish.
If they fail the FFP test the punishment can now include a points deduction or exclusion from automatic promotion or the play-offs. Basically failing FFP means another season in the Championship.
Thank youPost of the day
There's me thinking @yankspurs would win this.Post of the day
I’m afraid you are wrong.I didn't say it was to do with debts but a part of ffp does include debts not paid to other teams. Most of the clubs that have been prosecuted under uefa rules ffp is because they owed other teams money for player transactions.
It is not really to do with profitability either. It is about player transactions and wages.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.da...mpetition-one-three-seasons-unpaid-debts.htmlI’m afraid you are wrong.
The FFP regulations govern the maximum amounts teams are allowed to lose.
Of course if you run up losses you are liable to owe people money, including other clubs, but it is quite possible for a club to owe nothing because it had been fully funded by its owners but still fail the FFP tests.
"save him money".
Save us money. Save the club money.
"Smooth things through" = pay more money. I don't really know why that differentiates what you say from the rest if I'm honest. Ultimately you're saying pay up. £1m more is £20k a year on some-one's wages. When you're dealing with £100m, you think 1 or 2 per cent doesn't make much difference.
You know why rich people are rich? They look after every little fucking penny. We have to look after every little penny. So it's not just the case of being a million here and a million there. A million is a lot of bloody money.
Can't be bothered to read through the last couple of hours of Grealish posts, do they have to sell because of FFP or not? A simple yes or no would be perfecto
Can't be bothered to read through the last couple of hours of Grealish posts, do they have to sell because of FFP or not? A simple yes or no would be perfecto