You seem to have a problem in need of some evidence rather than some evidence that suggests a problem. As others have pointed out 3 or 4 of our first team lineup were established prem players when we bought them
Spurs finances report 22/23 (swissramble writeup)
- Thread starter tom4s
- Start date
BehindEnemyLines
Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
- Apr 13, 2006
- 4,646
- 13,425
It's worth understanding that depreciation is purely a balance sheet adjustment (and not cashflow affecting)......and one that isn't quite as simple as you might imagine when you have commercial assets that appreciate or depreciate at varying rates.
Tottenham will set out their accounting policy within their accounts, but generally, they would depreciate under IFRS IAS16 as per Property Plant and Machinery (PPE). However, it's very pertinent to realise that we have a variety of assets within our portfolio, and they will be depreciated over their expected commercial lifespan.......Land is generally not depreciated at all, leases will be depreciated over the length of the lease (i.e if it's a 10 year lease then you would depreciate at 10% a year), and the stadium probably isn't depreciated as a single item (as constituent parts may well have differing lifespans and there may be individual and separable entities within it) - I think I saw we are depreciating between 2 and 20%.
It is also worth mentioning that we may well revalue assets for the balance sheet throughout their lifespan (under IAS 8), which would create an appreciable revaluation reserve.......oh, and they may well not depreciate on a straight line basis (reducing balance is also an option).
McFlash
In the corner, eating crayons.
- Oct 19, 2005
- 12,940
- 46,328
True but then on that list posted on the previous page, he's the only one of 10 massive transfers who's been a success.
That's a massive gamble to take and when there's better value to be had with better scouting/data, I'd rather go that route because a miss won't cripple the club for years.
I'm not saying we wouldn't, or shouldn't spend that amount but it carries a massive risk and I'd probably rather not go that route, with the current financial situation as it is.
Last edited:
To be fair, Bissouma had a year left on his contract and Everton needed to sell Richarlison.
Yid-ol
Just-outside Edinburgh
- Jan 16, 2006
- 31,168
- 19,421
Forrest needed to sell Johnston also. Though both Everton and Forrest still fucked up their finances even with selling.
If we don't need to spend £100 million (or similar) on players to catch Arsenal and Liverpool to compete with them and we just need the right manager and the right tools and players, why did we spend a billion pound on a stadium? Why put the club into so much debt?
leffe186
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2004
- 5,359
- 1,822
There’s been some discussion about the wage bill increases, and in particular the comparison with Arsenal. Is it fair to say that a decent amount of the wage bill increase has nothing to do with the playing staff and is more to do with the staffing of all our operations (new stadium, world-class training centre, effectively a new Women’s team?
Trix
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2004
- 19,566
- 330,900
What answer are you trying to find here? The mental gymnastics you are trying to do to make Levy look bad are crazily ott. We were falling further and further behind the other big clubs financially now we are catching up, seriously mate, what is so difficult to understand about that. We are nowhere near falling foul of PSR rules, like Everton, Villa, Forrest etc(clubs with similar sized grounds to WHL) because of the new stadium. Like I've said in previous posts I'm far from Levy's biggest fan, I think everyone knows that, but looking to twist every narrative like you are doing in order to constantly go after him is worryingly odd.
Trix
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2004
- 19,566
- 330,900
There are also a number of players out on loan that we are paying a significant chunk of wages towards because it was the only way to get them out of the building. Once they are off the books it'll look a bit better in that regard imo.
And the fact in the next set of accounts Kane's, Lloris, Dier and Perisic wages will be gone. Those 4 must have been 4 of the top earners at the club, and their replacements wont be on as much (yet!)
The problem is the goalposts keep shifting with Levy. We have built a stadium to help us compete financially (which has put the club into a lot of debt) but we can't then compete financially because of various reasons (even when we have caught up with Arsenal financially) and apparently we don't need to spend a lot of money to compete anyway.
When will be able to compete financially? 15-20 years? and if we don't need to spend a lot of money to compete, why did we build a stadium to do so?
Did we spend nearly £1 billion on a stadium so we would comply with PSR rules? Is that all we have to show for it?
I just think Levy is getting away with turning the club into a revenue maximising business at the expense of the success of the football team and the fans don't seem to care that much (and even some seem to be pleased).
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,185
- 7,756
Have a read of the accounts it might make you feel better, excluding football trading, depreciation and exceptional items the club made a profit of £138.7 million.
I am sorry if this is rude but I don't care how much the club has made in profit.
leffe186
Well-Known Member
- Sep 2, 2004
- 5,359
- 1,822
I’ve come into this party late, but the impression I’m getting is that you care about us being successful, and us spending money on players to achieve that?
If that’s the case, then read the guy’s post more carefully. We made a profit excluding football trading. We actually made a significant loss overall in great part due to the loss we made in football trading. So…isn’t that what you want? We generate money through the stadium to spend on players? Am I missing something?
SpursSince1980
Well-Known Member
- Jan 23, 2011
- 4,754
- 14,485
Did the Kane sale and subsequent wages reflected on the latest balance sheet? I honestly couldn’t tell.
You would think, with Kane, Tanguy, Hugo, Dier, Perisic all be jettisoned from the operating costs, will impact our bottom line. Unless that was also reflected?
From what I read, he seemed happy the club made a profit and didn't emphasis the excluding football trading part. My problem isn't necessarily just spending money (though I think it is the one of the most important factors to consistently win trophies and compete for the highest honours) but that the club itself seems more worried about using the football team to win as much prize money as possible rather than try and win some of the competitions we participate in.
Trix
Well-Known Member
- Jul 29, 2004
- 19,566
- 330,900
But the more profit we make the more we spend on players, which btw we have done. What's so hard to understand mate?
Either you don't understand the financials at all, or you are trolling at this point
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,185
- 7,756
Kane money will show in next years accounts but that will be offset by a lack of income from European games.
PS Kane's salary would have been included within the £250 million in these accounts up to June 30th 2023 , he would be off the wage bill from August 12th when he left.
Last edited:
