Daniel Levy/Joe Lewis

Martin567

Dublin Spur wrote: »

The city and Chelsea owners want the best for the club's they bought and are prepared to walk the walk as apposed to talk the talk

How is that a bad thing ?

Would love to see the likes of Agureo, hazard etc at Spurs

It should never have been allowed by the football authorities. It completely messes up any concept of fairness or competition. Two sugar daddies decide to play games with their monopoly money and this then distorts other clubs' supporters views of how a football club should be run.

The City & Chelsea owners don't 'care' about their respective clubs. They just happened to be the clubs available for sale at the time they decided they wanted to own a football club. They could just as easily have purchased Spurs, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Leeds, etc. Should success on the pitch really be determined by which direction a billionaire with too much time on his hands decides to throw his loose change?

yiddo59

Martin567 wrote: »

It should never have been allowed by the football authorities. It completely messes up any concept of fairness or competition. Two sugar daddies decide to play games with their monopoly money and this then distorts other clubs' supporters views of how a football club should be run.

The City & Chelsea owners don't 'care' about their respective clubs. They just happened to be the clubs available for sale at the time they decided they wanted to own a football club. They could just as easily have purchased Spurs, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Leeds, etc. Should success on the pitch really be determined by which direction a billionaire with too much time on his hands decides to throw his loose change?

How could the football authorities have stopped it?

Dublin Spur

Martin567 wrote: »

It should never have been allowed by the football authorities. It completely messes up any concept of fairness or competition. Two sugar daddies decide to play games with their monopoly money and this then distorts other clubs' supporters views of how a football club should be run.

The City & Chelsea owners don't 'care' about their respective clubs. They just happened to be the clubs available for sale at the time they decided they wanted to own a football club. They could just as easily have purchased Spurs, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Leeds, etc. Should success on the pitch really be determined by which direction a billionaire with too much time on his hands decides to throw his loose change?

But you're crying over spilt milk Martin, it has been allowed to happen and you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Do you think there are any Blackburn fans who didn't appreciate the investment Jack Walker made in the 90s that delivered a league title ?

I would love to see Spurs complete with the best in Europe for trophies and players. Spurs were one of the biggest spending clubs from the 60s to the 90s, we'd often out-bid big clubs and broke several UK signing records. Greaves and Gazza were UK record signings for example. In both cases it was proven to be money very well spent. ENIC just won't (not can't) take similar punts. It was great back then, now sadly we are a shadow of our former selves.

I don't care how we get back to the days when we competed with the best. If this happens again via a "sugar daddy" investor like City/Chelsea or an ambitious board of directors like Arsenal it fine by me. The thing is, that in in both of these owner models, football glory this is primary goal. That's the key for me. We just need to get back to that place.

Our owners back in the 60s/70s/80s warn't sugar daddies but they did have ambition for Spurs and they did believe that the best players should be playing for Spurs. ENIC don't see it that way and for that reason we will never be great under their ownership.

We're still a great club in terms of history and fan base but not much else. ENIC are responsible for a large part of our gradual demise from glamour to gloom. We're just so ordinary, treading water going no where season after season. It's sad.

Martin567

yiddo59 wrote: »

How could the football authorities have stopped it?

By attaching and strictly applying rules for entry to their own competitions. Wage caps, forcing clubs to be somewhere near breakeven, etc. There are many possibilities. Chelsea and City were allowed to incur hundreds of millions in trading losses while winning trophies. Quite simply, they were not playing by the same rules as every other club which is completely unfair.

The PL are perfectly entitled to impose conditions for entry to their own competitions. Sure, clubs could have threatened to breakaway and form their own leagues but I believe their bluff could have been called on any such threats. How many teams would actually break away and would such a group be viable?

Spurs were far ahead of City up to summer 2008. Looking at the tables since 2010, it's not unreasonable to say that Spurs would have played in the CL four or five times since if it hadn't been for the Arab money. Therefore, City's Arab money hasn't just benefited them. It has arguably cost Spurs millions in lost revenue. Is it fair that a well run club, gradually improving each year, should be overtaken by a club spending money they don't even have?

Dublin Spur

Martin567 wrote: »

Spurs were far ahead of City up to summer 2008. Looking at the tables since 2010, it's not unreasonable to say that Spurs would have played in the CL four or five times since if it hadn't been for the Arab money. Therefore, City's Arab money hasn't just benefited them. It has arguably cost Spurs millions in lost revenue. Is it fair that a well run club, gradually improving each year, should be overtaken by a club spending money they don't even have?

I agree with all of that - the timing of the city investment really hurt us but that's the modern game for you and I'm afraid its not going away, if anything its getting worse. Its the entertainment business now, purely designed for for a worldwide TV audience.

I agree that it's not fair that Man City were propelled to champions literally overnight but life isn't fair. Man City got a sheikh and we got Joe Lewis. The Sheikh wanted to make Man City a force in the world game, Joe Lewis wanted a return on his investment.

That's just the modern game for you. There's very little comfort in knowing that we are run prudently whist the big boys (of which we once were) move farther and farther away from us each season.

What can you do ?

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I agree with all of that - the timing of the city investment really hurt us but that's the modern game for you and I'm afraid its not going away, if anything its getting worse. Its the entertainment business now, purely designed for for a worldwide TV audience.

I agree that it's not fair that Man City were propelled to champions literally overnight but life isn't fair. Man City got a sheikh and we got Joe Lewis. The Sheikh wanted to make Man City a force in the world game, Joe Lewis wanted a return on his investment.

That's just the modern game for you. There's very little comfort in knowing that we are run prudently whist the big boys (of which we once were) move farther and farther away from us each season.

What can you do ?

Support your club.

Dublin Spur

Ormus wrote: »

Support your club.

Season ticket holder

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Season ticket holder

Great. But do you support them? As in actually cheer them on? Even when times are tough?

I'm not saying you don't. I don't know you. But I've just never heard you being supportive or say anything which suggests you like Spurs.

Dublin Spur

I love the club Ormus, I don't really have much time for the current owners
If I didn't care I wouldn't be bothered with these discussions.

The club and the owners are not the same thing, you can love one and dislike the other.
It's like I love my country but not the government so much

Ormus

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I love the club Ormus, I don't really have much time for the current owners
If I didn't care I wouldn't be bothered with these discussions.

The club and the owners are not the same thing, you can love one and dislike the other.
It's like I love my country but not the government so much

Fair enough. Good answer.

MrKingsley

Does that equate to a ceasefire lads?

Ormus

MrKingsley wrote: »

Does that equate to a ceasefire lads?

Let's not get carried away here.

mass_debater

MrKingsley wrote: »

Does that equate to a ceasefire lads?

No, it's just the end of another lap.....

Ormus

Rome wasn't built in a million posts.

DubPerryman

http://tottenhamhotspur.blogspot.ie/2015/05/tottenham-wages-break-100m-barrier.html


It has been interesting delving into the club finances and how it affects us on the football field, the series has been well received and I thank you for the kind comments you have left. Today I have looked at debt.

Levy doesn't put his hand in his pocket, if only we had bought a striker we would have qualified for the Champions League (not if he performed like Roberto Soldado we wouldn't have) are arguments you hear all the time. Fans seem to think ENIC money is actually Tottenham's money, it isn't and can no longer be used for players or to subsidise wages anyway.

In 2014 ENIC did put £40 million into the club in the form of an interest-free unsecured loan. This was converted into non-voting, preference share capital. In the meantime we have paid of £50 million of loans in the last 2 years, which of course were not interest-free. We have to prepare to build the stadium so we can't afford to have to may outstanding loans if we want to raise capital, even though it can be raised against projected future income. The club still needs to be a sound business investment and have a record of such.

In 2007 we had bank loans of £1.9 million, no property loans and other loans of £28.7 million. Our gross debt was £30.6 million with cash in the bank of £28.3 million giving us a Net Debt of £2.3 million.

In 2008 we had bank loans of £1.8 million, property loans of £20.3 million and other loans of £27.7 million. Our gross debt was £49.8 million with cash in the bank of £35.3 million giving us a Net Debt of £14.6 million.

In 2009 we had bank loans of £6.8 million, property loans of £32.1 million and other loans of £26.7 million. Our gross debt was £65.6 million with cash in the bank of £19.6 million giving us a Net Debt of £45.9 million.

In 2010 we had bank loans of £16.7 million, property loans of £33.2 million and other loans of £25.9 million. Our gross debt was £75.8 million with cash in the bank of £11.3 million giving us a Net Debt of £64.5 million.

In 2011 we had bank loans of £16.6 million, property loans of £36.2 million and other loans of £24.6 million. Our gross debt was £77.5 million with cash in the bank of £20.7 million giving us a Net Debt of £56.8 million.

In 2012 we had bank loans of £21.3 million, property loans of £41.2 million and other loans of £23.3 million. Our gross debt was £85.8 million with cash in the bank of £15.7 million giving us a Net Debt of £70.1 million.

In 2013 we had bank loans of £21.1 million, property loans of £15.0 million and other loans of £21.8 million. Our gross debt was £58.0 million with cash in the bank of £3.2 million giving us a Net Debt of £54.8 million.

In 2014 we had bank loans of £1.2 million, property loans of £14.0 million and other loans of £20.2 million. Our gross debt was £35.4 million with cash in the bank of £38.5 million giving us a Net Debt of (£3.2 million), in other words a profit.

As you can see from those figures bank loans have all but bee wiped out with only £1.2 million remaining, other loans are being paid off £1 million a year and we have returned to having cash in the bank after property purchases around the stadium to prepare for the redevelopment of White Hart Lane, the building of a new stadium, Northumberland Development Project.

The net debt reduction means the company is carrying less debt and is a more attractive proposition for the bank financing that will be needed to build the new stadium. Fans have been frustrated by the delay but now that Tottenham have won the court case and have come to an agreement with Archway Steel Metal Works Ltd, plans can start to come to fruition. We await an announcement from the club over the summer.

At the same time our wages have taken a rise and we now pay over £100 million, 56% of our total income. We need to keep them under control and with a reliance on youth, you'd expect we could do that.
Wage Bull Since 2009

2009 £60.5 million
2010 £67.1 million
2011 £91.1 million
2012 £90.2 million
2013 £96.1 million
2013 £100.4 million

Of course our income has increased as well so looking at it as a percentage of total income is perhaps more accurate.
Wages as percentage of total income

2009 54%
2010 56%
2011 58%
2012 63%
2013 65%
2014 56%

We have bought property and land for the new stadium, reduced our borrowings, recorded a profit while increasing our wage bill 200% since 2005, but in effect only by 2% since 3009. Revenue has grown 60% since 2009, wages have grown by 66% in the same period.

The highly paid football mercenaries are up for sale as we look to replace them with hungry youngsters and a core with a real feeling for the club. It is hoped that that the passion Kane, Mason and Bentaleb particularly have for the club rubs off on people like Eric Dier and they become long term Tottenham Hotspur players.

We all love, we all want players who play for the badge, we have some now, the more the merrier, not badge kissers, badge lovers.

Hatch99

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-slip-into-further-debt-as-tottenham-record-premier-leagues-highest-ever-pretax-profit-10295765.html

Dublin Spur

We're a very well run football club - Levy doing a great job as a company chairman.
But that's little consolation when every season ends without a trophy.

Maybe we could parade our balance sheet on an open top bus down the high road.
That would show Arsenal who's boss !

DubPerryman

Hatch99 wrote: »

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-slip-into-further-debt-as-tottenham-record-premier-leagues-highest-ever-pretax-profit-10295765.html

Chelsea winning the league while being £1bn in debt is scandalous!

Dublin Spur

AS Roma President James Palotta claims Daniel Levy is still frustrated about the deal for Erik Lamela.

Palotta - "Erik Lamela was also a great deal. Last week I was at a birthday party in Sardinia with the owner of Tottenham Hotspur."

Palotta - "He (Levy) still couldn’t come to terms with the deal we had done."

Hatch99

Dublin Spur wrote: »

AS Roma President James Palotta claims Daniel Levy is still frustrated about the deal for Erik Lamela.

Palotta - "Erik Lamela was also a great deal. Last week I was at a birthday party in Sardinia with the owner of Tottenham Hotspur."

Palotta - "He (Levy) still couldn’t come to terms with the deal we had done."

Did Mr Baldini pulled Daniels pants down?

yiddo59

Dublin Spur wrote: »

AS Roma President James Palotta claims Daniel Levy is still frustrated about the deal for Erik Lamela.

Palotta - "Erik Lamela was also a great deal. Last week I was at a birthday party in Sardinia with the owner of Tottenham Hotspur."

Palotta - "He (Levy) still couldn’t come to terms with the deal we had done."

No wonder he can't. Done up like a kipper into paying 30 millon for a 10 millon player.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Hatch99

Rumours on some sites that levy has been in serious negotiations with the nfl brigade regarding our future? Anyone hear anything? Naming rights being discussed too?

mass_debater

Hatch99 wrote: »

Rumours on some sites that levy has been in serious negotiations with the nfl brigade regarding our future? Anyone hear anything? Naming rights being discussed too?

One of the ITKs said it's done and due to be announced next week

2nd Row Donkey

Naming rights to what. The new stadium or current or something else?

mass_debater

2nd Row Donkey wrote: »

Naming rights to what. The new stadium or current or something else?

The whispers are of a deal on the stadium with the NFL and also a deal on the naming rights to the stadium

Dublin Spur

apparently the new WHL will become the venue for NFL games (currently Wembley) and the a permanent home for any future UK based NFL team.

it sounds very plausible to me, and if true I would love to know how much $$$ he has squeezed out of the NFL, is it enough to cover the majority of the construction costs ? If it is it's a great bit of business.

DubPerryman

There's an average of over 50 players in an NFL team, so the application for planning permission to develop large dressing rooms was granted last month - I doubt Levy would have applied for it if there wasn't at least a handshake on the NFL deal.

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/premier-league/17290-spurs-digging-deep-with-new-white-hart-lane-stadium-amid-nfl-rumours

irishmover

http://www.thefightingcock.co.uk/2015/08/the-sins-of-tottenham-hotspur/

Great article for both 'sides' of the debate.

Dublin Spur

doing a great job in maximising revenue and profit - he has a real talent for this.

doing an awful job in the provision of an efficient football structure & playing squad that gives THFC a chance to complete at a higher level. Our 5 year negative net spend and our measly 1 trophy in 15 years is all the evidence you need.

there's no guarantee a new chairman or owner would improve things - they couild actually get a lot worse - but at least there would be some hope - there is abolutely no hope left with it comes to Levy and Lewis

Revenue streams have never been higher, ticket prices have never been higher and yet the trophy cabinet has never been emptier.

Something doesn't add up....