Tottenham Hotspur - Financials

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Spursidol

Spursidol

TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
beta.companieshouse.gov.uk beta.companieshouse.gov.uk

Spurs year ended 30 June 2018 accounts are now on Companies House web site.

I'll add a more complete commentary later, but a few initial comments :

1. Results Summary
Record revenues at £381m (last year £310m)

Profit before Interest and Tax £157m (£73m)

Retained Profit after Interest and Tax £113m (£63m) - our highest ever retained profit

Results include profits on sale of players of £73m (last year £40m) from the sale of Walker, Bentaleb, Wimmer, Fazio and N'Jie amongst others.

2. Revenue Analysis (last year in brackets):
Match Day £ 71m (£ 45m)
UEFA Prize Money £ 53m (£38m)
TV and Media £ 148m (£150m)
Commercial £ 109m (£76m)
Total £ 381m (£310m)
So the big increases were from match day income where Spurs benefited from the size of the stadium to attract record crowds and revenues. This will continues into the next year albeit with reduced crowds but including a few matches at NWHL with bigger premium/corporate areas which will help offset a little the reduced attendances at Wembley. The increase in UEFA money probably mainly reflects increased money in the competition. The biggest surprise is the increase in Commercial income of £33m, hadn't expected this increase until we were in NWHL. Augers well as we should get another big jump in 2019/20 from a full year at NWHL.

3. Wages
Spurs wage bill £147m is just above Everton and chasing pack but circa £100m behind Woolwich and other top 6 PL clubs. Spurs and their contractors pay the London Living Wage as their minimum pay to their staff.

DL remuneration £3m (down from £6m including bonuses last year).

4. Fixed Assets

Spend on property and equipment in the year was £493m (mainly on the stadium) to total just over £1 billion (£1.025 bn) at the year end - obviously there has been a further 9 months of spend since that date. The 'spend' in the year includes borrowing costs (interest) of £11.8m which has been capitalised

There is now a breakdown of cost between projects showing the cost of the training centre of £65m (before the hotel/players lodge) and Iillywhite House of £12m, most of the rest of the £1bn relates to the stadium (including equipment) cost.
 
Last edited:
Claud601 said:
Champions of the balance sheet in London! We can raise the Q1 on the final day of the season and feel proud
Click to expand...

"8th in the Deloitte league, you'll never sing that"

spurs-fans-singing-arms-air-newcastle-united-nufc-650x400-1.jpg
 
BangkokSpud said:
You do know that you saying "FACT" doesn't make it a real fact

In the 1980's we averaged 7/8th place ... please explain how that makes us top four when six sides were consistently better than us ... and FYI just saying fact ten times, well sorry to break this to you that doesn't actually work ...

1980's Spurs - 14,10,4,4,8,3,10,3,13,6 - average 7.5 ...... how is that a top 4 fact?

We were so well off in the 90's that Sugar sold the club in 2002 saying his ten years was "a complete waste of time" pointing out that the club was still struggling to make money and needed huge investment that he wasn't willing to make ... but hey he was only the Chairman what does he know compared to your imaginary 'fact' ..... you are funny in a very sad way.
Click to expand...

How anyone can say that we haven't significantly grown as a club during the ENIC years I have no clue.

The PL table during ENICs first season in charge:

Man U
Woolwich
Liverpool
Leeds
Ipswich
Chelsea
Sunderland
Aston Villa
Charlton
Southampton
Newcastle
Tottenham Hotspur
Leicester
Middlesborough
West Ham
Everton
Derby County
Man City
Coventry
Bradford City

If people can't see how many teams have stumbled compared to how few have prospered during that time then there's no speaking rationally with them.

Top training facilties during that time, a top stadium, a team that's gone from Zidane saying "who are Tottenham" to wiping the floor with them in the Champions League and extremely healthy on a financial level. Yes we strive for trophies but literally everything at the club is set up long term for that and all organically done. Ours wasn the a quick fix, ours took plenty of time. Just ask the fans of West Ham who have had their owners in place for 10 years or those that tried and failed with Aston Villa, or the Newcastle fans if they'd swap the last 10-20 years worth of build with what we've been doing. We are in a very good place, have been for a while now all it requires are the finishing touches which I'm sure Levy and co won't be losing sight of anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
It's worth summarising the bank loan position. :

1. The Invesec loan to fund the training ground was extended to be £25m facility which was fully drawn down but after repayments £21m was outstanding at the year end.

The loan is repayable in 2022 but is likely to be re financed together with the loans to fund stadium build

So the majority of the training ground facilities have been funded out of Spurs own cash ( possibly within the player lodge being funded by the stadium loans - it's not clear)

2. A loan facility totalling £ 537m was entered into with 4 banks of which £ 445m. Had been spent by June 18.

In October the loan facility was increased by £100m - as the accounts were signed later that month there may be other loan increases agreed but not yet disclosed.

3. There was also a loan facility of £50m from an ENIC company, but that seems to not be drawn - possibly a contingency funding

So assets at the year end of £ 1 bn have been funded at the year end by about £ 470m of borrowing ( the figures probably need adjusting for the £ 100m in cash held at the year end and the £100m of trade creditors at the year end, but there is not enough information to be accurate) showing that a big chunk of the stadium and training ground facilities have already been paid off over the last 5 or 19 years.

We are in pretty good shape !

We have almost certainly avoided the problems Woolwich got themselves into when they built their stadium !
 
Last edited:
The above analysis shows how important to Spurs the CL is - with the total prize money for distribution being 50% higher than last year when our run to CL final netted us over 100m euros - before match day revenues from tickets, food and drink, sponsorship and advertising monies !

So far this year we have banked 58m euros by getting to Group stages, with hopefully more to come through good results in matches to come. And that despite UEFA's introduction of the 10 year coefficient to distribute 30% (euros 585m) which will not be in Spurs favour as its only in the last few years have we been gaining good co-efficient points - Chelsea have the best 10 year coefficient points despite their recent lack of success.

Also underlines how important a top 4 place is - and if we can get to 2nd or 3rd the extra prize money over and above getting 4th place is worthwhile, being a multi million pound difference.
 
Joe Clash said:
Subscriptions. Sky have over 23 million subscribers across Europe paying between £600-£800 p.a.

I understand that not everyone has the sports channels, nonetheless that is some serious cheddar.

Not sure how it works where you are.
Click to expand...
I understand that this is the historical model for basically all sports broadcasting globally - but it relies on an outdated model that is quickly, and easily, being replaced. The subscriber monetization model relies on paid subscription being the only method of accessing the product. All one has to do is visit a match thread here around kickoff and you'll see that the in increasing numbers consumers are turning to pirated streams for watching live sporting events. The old model was to force people to pay for your service by offering sports programming which was difficult to monetize and then redirect that audience to conventional programming (MOTD, talk shows, etc.) which sold high revenue advertising.

Consumers now, with the option available, aren't paying £X /mo. because they want to watch 4 hours of football when they can just watch a dodgy stream for free. Especially given that the commentary is shite anyway.

Hollywood is suffering from similar issues - people aren't going to the theater or buying DVDs nearly as much anymore. It's why they make little more, at least big budget, than comic book movies and star wars. You can't make money on the movies anymore, it's the lunchboxes you need to sell to turn profit.

Going forward it is only going to get easier to steal the commodity that is football. Look how much money has evaporated in the past 20 years from the music industry. Sales and concert revenues peaked at $21.5 billion/yr in 2000...15 years later that figure was down 68% to $6.9 billion/yr. Music industry revenue is still lower than at any point since the 70s...digitalization, piracy, and shifting consumer habits have cut the industry off at the knees.

The idea that sports programming is invulnerable to the wholesale paradigm shift of mass media in the 21st century is simply false, and a lot of companies will lose a lot of money buying tomorrow's business on yesterday's model. The way we consume football in 5, 10, 15 years is going to be vastly different to the way we consume it today - and it will be less profitable for the football clubs. Which is why it's important we have a stadium that allows us to efficiently monetize the asset whose importance will begin to grow again - live arses in seats, drinking pints, eating chips, and buying shit.
 
TDLR:
That ten-year coefficient is a bastard.

What I don't get is Liverpool's share of the coefficient, we've been in the CL once more than they have in the last ten years and they have failed to qualify for any European comp THREE times in the same period! Whilst we've qualified for Europe every single year.
 
Last edited:
Guido said:
TDLR:
That ten-year coefficient is a bastard.

What I don't get is Liverpool's share of the coefficient, we've been in the CL once more than they have in the last ten years and they have failed to qualify for any European comp THREE times in the same period! Whilst we've qualified for Europe every single year.
Click to expand...

It's called a 10 year coefficient - but that description is a misnomer as it does not include the fact that within that coefficient calculation clubs get extra points for past titles and European cups, so for the likes of Liverpool and Real Madrid et Al they get an extra 40 points for their performances in 70s and 80s. Spurs get 3 extra points for our cup winners cup, 2 UEFA cups.

This shows how the points have been calculated.

UEFA 10-year Club Ranking 2019

UEFA European Cup Football - Results and Qualification
kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl

Reason why this coefficient has been (rightly) criticised is that these points for old European competitions are in perpetuity, so gives the likes of Liverpool Chelsea Real Madrid Barcelona et Al a very big ongoing financial advantage, irrespective of recent form

Take out both our and Liverpool's bonus points for old wins and Spurs would have s higher 10 year coefficient than Liverpool !
 
BangkokSpud said:
So averaging 8th in the 1980's which we factually did, that is your measure of a Top 4 side - need I even point out how stupid that makes you look?

So you were on the finance thread talking opinionated bollocks about mythical transfers - who cares what you think when the actual data is available?

Your unfounded opinions on a finance thread where the true facts are readily available if you just look for them? ... thanks but no thanks.

as I said before maybe best stay out of threads where you're so clearly out of your depth.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that someone with such extensive experience as you have in heading up major international companies would have learnt that common courtesy when dealing with others is a real plus in the business world.

In recent days I've seen you call anyone with the temerity to hold an opinion that doesn't coincide with yours as being cunts, thick, ignorant, stupid and so on and so forth.

Obviously your MBA didn't include a module on civility.

Something to ponder on in the massage parlour perhaps.
 
Who the fuck has long PMs with random forums members, odd as fuck that. If someone PMed me on here I would be thinking they were looking for a reach around.

:avbnaa:
 
Five said:
Who did?
Click to expand...
Club as a part of an email they sent to ST holders back in October with a stadium and financial update.

FINANCIAL UPDATE

​

The Club continues to operate on a sensible financial basis in order to take a long-term view for the benefit of current as well as future generations of Tottenham Hotspur fans.

The Club’s investment over recent years in facilities has resulted in total gross tangible assets at 30 June, 2018, in excess of £1bn - facilities which include the Training Centre, the new Players’ Lodge, Percy House, home of the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation, Lilywhite House Club offices, new retail warehouse, new Paxton House Ticket Office and now the new stadium along with the newly-opened Spurs Shop – the largest football club store in Europe - plus other property assets.

These investments have been financed by funds from the Club and bank finance, principally from Bank of America Merrill Lynch International, Goldman Sachs Bank USA and HSBC Bank plc (“Banking Partners”) who have provided a development facility of up to £637m. At 30 June, 2018, the Club had net debt of £366m.

This level of investment by the Club has been made possible by record revenues of £381m and profit from operations before football trading, depreciation, interest, tax and exceptional items of £163m for the year to 30 June, 2018. Trading for the current year will, however, be impacted by the additional costs of Wembley and the delay to the opening of the new stadium.

Working with our Banking Partners and our financial advisor, Rothschild & Co, we shall be converting this development facility, which currently expires in April 2022, into notes with a mixture of debt maturities.

The residual amount of gross debt to be converted or extinguished will depend on a number of factors including several commercial discussions.


In recent months we have secured an extended agreement with Nike up to 2033, one of the longest football club deals in Nike’s history. We have also announced a number of new brand partners including, amongst several others, Audi, IWC Schaffhausen, HPE and EA SPORTS.​

They'd already gone out of their way to provide a mid-year update which is unusual for them to warn that trading will be "impacted", and it took another six months to open the ground from then.
 
Wrote a bit to another thread but it should be mainly here I assume -

I think we can all agree that Levy is quite an astute businessman. He knows what he is doing.
If you take a look at the Football Money league figures, you'd see that as recently as 2015 our total revenue was 258 mil EUR.
Last season our broadcast revenue alone was 277 milEUR and total revenue 521 mil. During this period we have more than doubled our revenues and significant part in it has been down to our results.
During the same period where were our close competitors -Chelsea revenue was 420 mEUR; Woolwich 436 mEUR; Dortmund was ahead of us with 281 mEUR. Now we have surpassed all them based on last season figures.
Growth from 2015 to 2019 -
Tottenham - 263 million
Dortmund - 96 million
Chelsea - 93 million
Woolwich - 10 million

So our 3 close competitors grew their revenue by 199 mil COMBINED while we alone have added 263 million to the revenue.
We were in different ball-park than Woolwich back then, but within 4 years we have doubled our revenue, they have been standing still and we have surpassed them financially.

Now you can make an assumption that sensible businessman just shrugs his shoulders and accepts that "fuck it, we had it good but now we are going to see falling revenues and there is nothing we can do here"... OR alternative is that for the future growth to invest, and keep the success story going. You surely can assume that he is actually bad at business side of things and let's us fall down again. I don't think it's gonna happen.

P.S - while we are unlikely to replicate our CL run to final, there are at least 2 significant additional revenue factors for next year -
1) First full season in new stadium (larger amount of tickets sold including more VIP places making the impact proportionally bigger; and on top of that all the additional events that will influence the cashflow - NFL games, concerts etc)
2) Naming rights of the stadium still not in place.
3) EDIT - and there is 3rd, though small factor - our run to final last year increased our UEFA coefficent significantly, part of UCL price money will be divided by that coefficent. I don't have time to dig into fine details, but as rough estimation we could get additional 5 mil EUR from there. Additionally this year we earned 9 mil from group stage results (3 win x 2,7m + 1 draw 0,9m) - last year it was 7,2 mil (2 wins x 2,8 m + 2 draws x 0,9 mil) - another 1,8 mil gained. So we recoup already ~ 7 mil from those things. Small amounts add up.

Our broadcasting revenue with regular CL seasons was ~223 m EUR; with final 277 m EUR - so difference was ~55 mil EUR. This season we already are in playoffs, so this roughly 225 mil we should get anyway. And you know what? Those 2 positive factors absolutely can bump our revenue by around 55 mil EUR.

So, I would not say that optimism in our situation would be "unfounded". I think we are in quite strong position.
And I see a business case to significantly invest into our team.
 
Last edited:
We definitely need Woolwich to keep missing out on the champions league, kronke isn’t going to invest in them whilst they are stumping up nearly half the cash for their new stadium in LA. It will really hit them and benefit us in the short to medium term.

LOL at Man City and PSG being in that list though with their accounting processes. Apart from them and Chelsea everyone else in that list pretty much (in England anyway) lives off what they earn. I suspect it will take a couple of years for us to really see the benefit of the new stadium and if we can keep in the champions league places there is no reason why we can’t jump up that list. We just now need to match it in the transfer market and on the pitch. Easier said than done of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom