Tottenham Hotspur - Financials

[BangkokSpud]

hes talkin about 92. And is correct mate. We were v close to the top.

You have figures from 1992 that differ from the published accounts? in 1992 we were 16th in the league, in terms of income we were behind Leeds, Man Utd, Woolwich, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Forest in percentage terms we earned 40% less than Liverpool, how is that "we were close at the top"

To put some perspective on that gap they were able spend 9m on transfers priot to the launch of the EPL, we spent 4.5m ... the gap has always been there since they dominated the late 70's and the 80's to pretend otherwise is just kidding yourself.

Or do you know something that the rest of us don't?

 

[VoiceOfThePoshSeats]

You have figures from 1992 that differ from the published accounts? in 1992 we were 16th in the league, in terms of income we were behind Leeds, Utd, Woolwich, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Forest in relative terms we earned 40% lest than Liverpool, how is that "we were close at the top"

What do you know that the rest of us don't?

Maybe it was 94 then.

Cant remember. Was a list of clubs all around the 45m turnover mark.

 

[Ossie Wembley]

What absolute bollocks .... we we virtually on par with Liverpool ... Liverpool have had over 1.5 billion more income than us since the formation of the Premier League. Even back in the 90's their turnover was 50% more than ours ... by 2008 they had broken through 200m we didn't manage that until 2013

In 1997/8 the first time Deloitte did a survey Liverpool were ranked 10th on 45m we were just in the top twenty on 31m (behind Villa, Rangers, and level with Leeds) we were only 8th in the UK.

Liverpool have been in the top ten rich list every year bar one since it started back in 1997/8 ... we've managed that just once, and that was yesterday.

But hey - you go with "at the start of the PL we we virtually on par with Liverpool" whatever fantasy makes you happy.

The Premier League didn’t start in 1997 it stated in 1992.

You’ve only used 1997 because that’s all Wikipedia gave you.

As I stated our revenue was virtually on a par with each other in 1992 which then began to widen throughout the decade.

But if that is bollocks then please give me the figures which state that.

 

[BangkokSpud]

The Premier League didn’t start in 1997 it stated in 1992.

You’ve only used 1997 because that’s all Wikipedia gave you.

As I stated our revenue was virtually on a par with each other in 1992 which then began to widen throughout the decade.

But if that is bollocks then please give me the figures which state that.

You can only use 97 for direct comparisons because that's when Deloitte started doing the financial report ... to go back to 1992 (which I did) you have to troll through company accounts .... see above ... we were behind a whole host of clubs and 40% behind Liverpool ... it's not rocket science in those days gate receipts mattered and they had a much bigger ground, 45,362 compared to or 36,284 ... and they were in Europe

If you still think you're correct for '92 or '94 then show me the numbers ...

 

[Ossie Wembley]

You can only use 97 because that's when Deloitte started doing the financial report ... to go back to 1992 (which I did) you have to troll through company accounts .... see above

Then why don’t you tell me what our turnover was and what Liverpool’s was?

If you are going to bullshit then at least try to make it believable rather than try to claim that clubs like Villa had greater revenues than us.

 

[BangkokSpud]

Then why don’t you tell me what our turnover was and what Liverpool’s was?

If you are going to bullshit then at least try to make it believable rather than try to claim that clubs like Villa had greater revenues than us.

You were the poster who made the claim that we were "one(sic) the most dominant financial clubs in the ‘90s" when challenged with data from Deloitte showing we were in fact only 8th in the UK in their first survey 1997/98, you then switch to 1992 and now 1994 ... so who's making stuff up?

Liverpool and Spurs accountants? Deloitte? or The Hood ....

If you think you're right show us your numbers ... I've already told you where my data comes from ...

 

[Ossie Wembley]

You were the idiot who made up the utter nonsense that we were "one the most dominant financial clubs in the ‘90s" when challenged with data from Deloitte showing we were in fact only 8th in the UK in their first survey 1997/98, you then switch to 1992 (still wrong) and now 1994 ... so who's making stuff up?

Liverpool and Spurs accountants? Deloitte? or The Hood ....

If you think you're right show us your numbers ... I've already told you where my data comes from ...

From the Deloitte Annual review of finances in 1998.

They have a tendency to be off back then so it’s always good to check company house.

Why don’t to toddle off and check our revenue from 92 and theirs ( which is precisely the comparison I stated before you waded in) and then despite our position we still remained one of the most financially dominant clubs for most of the decade.

As Rafa would say ‘facts’ not the fiction that you keep on trying to present.

 

[VoiceOfThePoshSeats]

You can only use 97 for direct comparisons because that's when Deloitte started doing the financial report ... to go back to 1992 (which I did) you have to troll through company accounts .... see above ... we were behind a whole host of clubs and 40% behind Liverpool ... it's not rocket science in those days gate receipts mattered and they had a much bigger ground, 45,362 compared to or 36,284 ... and they were in Europe

If you still think you're correct for '92 or '94 then show me the numbers ...

hes right,I can vouch for that. the gap had widened by late 90s.

 

[VoiceOfThePoshSeats]

From the Deloitte Annual review of finances in 1998.

They have a tendency to be off back then so it’s always good to check company house.

Why don’t to toddle off and check our revenue from 92 and theirs ( which is precisely the comparison I stated before you waded in) and then despite our position we still remained one of the most financially dominant clubs for most of the decade.

As Rafa would say ‘facts’ not the fiction that you keep on trying to present.

lol at boro,

those were the days when the local businessman could buy you the league

 

[Park Lane Mark Twain]

From the Deloitte Annual review of finances in 1998.

They have a tendency to be off back then so it’s always good to check company house.

Why don’t to toddle off and check our revenue from 92 and theirs ( which is precisely the comparison I stated before you waded in) and then despite our position we still remained one of the most financially dominant clubs for most of the decade.

As Rafa would say ‘facts’ not the fiction that you keep on trying to present.

So 1997 was the last time we had a better revenue than Woolwich and even then it was only c£700,000 we pipped them by. 22 years to overtake them in revenue streams that's both excellent based on today's numbers and highlights the gulf that occurred thereafter. It just goes to show how vital Wenger was to them for all of those years and how much we've had to catch up on both Woolwich and Liverpool since then.

It also shows the decline of so many other teams that really weren't that far behind us back in the 90s. It's important to look up but just as important to look down. The financial gap between us and Liverpool in 97 is pretty much the same as the gap between us and teams like Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and Blackburn Rovers etc. The difference between what we made and what Newcastle made was roughly the same difference as we had compared to teams like Sunderland and Coventry and look where we are compared to those two teams at present. Interesting to see thanks for sharing.

 

[BangkokSpud]

From the Deloitte Annual review of finances in 1998.

They have a tendency to be off back then so it’s always good to check company house.

Why don’t to toddle off and check our revenue from 92 and theirs ( which is precisely the comparison I stated before you waded in) and then despite our position we still remained one of the most financially dominant clubs for most of the decade.

As Rafa would say ‘facts’ not the fiction that you keep on trying to present.

Sorry mate good work and all that but you're just plain wrong .. we were not a financial powerhouse of the 90's that's just fake memories and false data ... we were already behind in 1992 and even further behind by 2000. Deloitte in the 1998 review you reference point out that the data prior to 1998 was very unreliable as all clubs used different accounting methods .... hence the reason they started their now industry standard in-depth analysis.

You have referenced Deloitte so you must know that to be true ... here's the first set of accurate comparative data compiled by Deloitte in 1997/98 the first time a major firm used it's expertise to draw accurate comparisons. If you thing being 18th in Europe and 8th in the UK makes us a 1990's financial powerhouse then that's on you. FYI if we were so good financially why did Sugar sell 29.9% for just 22m in 2000?

World rich list
Figures compiled by Deloitte and Touche, based on turnover for the 1997/98 season

1. Manchester United, England - £87.9m
2. Real Madrid, Spain - £72.2m
3. Bayern Munich, Germany - £65.2m
4. Juventus, Italy - £55.3m
5. Newcastle United, England - £49.2m
6. Barcelona, Spain - £48.57m
7. AC Milan, Italy - £48.55m
8. Internazionale, Italy - £48.2m
9. Chelsea, England - £47.5m
10. Liverpool, England - £45.5m
11. Borussia Dortmund, Germany - £41.5m
12. Lazio, Italy - £41.1m
13. Woolwich, England - £40.4m
14. AC Parma, Italy - £33.4m
15. Paris Saint Germain, France - £32.9m
16. Glasgow Rangers, Scotland - £32.5m
17. Aston Villa, England - £31.8m
18. Tottenham Hotspur, England - £31.2m
19. AS Roma, Italy - $30.7m
20. Leeds United, England - £28.3m

UK rich list
Figures compiled by Deloitte and Touche, based on turnover for the 1997/98 season

1. Manchester United £87.9m
2. Newcastle United £49.2m
3. Chelsea £47.5m
4. Liverpool £45.5m
5. Woolwich £40.4m
6. Rangers £32.5m
7. Aston Villa £31.8m
8. Tottenham Hotspur £31.2m
9. Leeds United £28.3m
10. Celtic £27.8m
11. West Ham United £24m
12. Everton £22.7m
13. Derby County £20m
14. Wimbledon £19.8m
15. Blackburn Rovers £19.4m
16. Leicester City £19.2m
17. Sunderland £18.8m
18. Middlesbrough £18.7m
19. Coventry City £17.4m
20. Sheffield Wednesday £16.3m

 

[Park Lane Mark Twain]

Sorry mate good work and all that but you're just plain wrong .. we were not a financial powerhouse of the 90's that's just fake memories and false data ... we were already behind in 1992 and even further behind by 2000. Deloitte in the 1998 review you reference point out that the data prior to 1998 was very unreliable as all clubs used different accounting methods .... hence the reason they started their now industry standard in-depth analysis.

You have referenced Deloitte so you must know that to be true ... here's the first set of accurate comparative data compiled by Deloitte in 1997/98 the first time a major firm used it's expertise to draw accurate comparisons. If you thing being 18th in Europe and 8th in the UK makes us a 1990's financial powerhouse then that's on you. FYI if we were so good financially why did Sugar sell 29.9% for just 22m in 2000?

World rich list
Figures compiled by Deloitte and Touche, based on turnover for the 1997/98 season

1. Manchester United, England - £87.9m
2. Real Madrid, Spain - £72.2m
3. Bayern Munich, Germany - £65.2m
4. Juventus, Italy - £55.3m
5. Newcastle United, England - £49.2m
6. Barcelona, Spain - £48.57m
7. AC Milan, Italy - £48.55m
8. Internazionale, Italy - £48.2m
9. Chelsea, England - £47.5m
10. Liverpool, England - £45.5m
11. Borussia Dortmund, Germany - £41.5m
12. Lazio, Italy - £41.1m
13. Woolwich, England - £40.4m
14. AC Parma, Italy - £33.4m
15. Paris Saint Germain, France - £32.9m
16. Glasgow Rangers, Scotland - £32.5m
17. Aston Villa, England - £31.8m
18. Tottenham Hotspur, England - £31.2m
19. AS Roma, Italy - $30.7m
20. Leeds United, England - £28.3m

UK rich list
Figures compiled by Deloitte and Touche, based on turnover for the 1997/98 season

1. Manchester United £87.9m
2. Newcastle United £49.2m
3. Chelsea £47.5m
4. Liverpool £45.5m
5. Woolwich £40.4m
6. Rangers £32.5m
7. Aston Villa £31.8m
8. Tottenham Hotspur £31.2m
9. Leeds United £28.3m
10. Celtic £27.8m
11. West Ham United £24m
12. Everton £22.7m
13. Derby County £20m
14. Wimbledon £19.8m
15. Blackburn Rovers £19.4m
16. Leicester City £19.2m
17. Sunderland £18.8m
18. Middlesbrough £18.7m
19. Coventry City £17.4m
20. Sheffield Wednesday £16.3m

Wow a £9m difference between us and Woolwich yet only an £11m & £12m difference between us and Derby/ Wimbledon. Astonishing how football clubs in this country and across Europe have altered so drastically.

Some say we have underperformed, tell that to the Derby and Wimbledon fans who had a very similar financial gap between as and the, as the guys we are now well and truly punching with.

 

[BangkokSpud]

Wow a £9m difference between us and Woolwich yet only an £11m & £12m difference between us and Derby/ Wimbledon. Astonishing how football clubs in this country and across Europe have altered so drastically.

Some say we have underperformed, tell that to the Derby and Wimbledon fans who had a very similar financial gap between as and the, as the guys we are now well and truly punching with.

and West Ham were so close just 7m behind now that's over 200m ... such a shame

 

[Park Lane Mark Twain]

and West Ham were so close just 7m behind now that's over 200m ... such a shame

And Aston Villa, above is at the time now show an overall operating loss of -£265m on their Companies House accounts and have had to sell off Villa Park to ease the FFP burden their 'ambition' led to. The grass isn't always greener regardless of what some will have you believe. There's more failures on that 1997 list than there are current day successes when reviewing them collectively.

 

[Kopspur]

Fuck me another boring cunt slagging Levy ......

Absolutely baffles me how anyone supporting our club can't see where we've come from 10 years ago to now and what the future will bring. That's down to Levy, the guy should be hailed as a messiah for what he's done for the club.

Only a moron can't see that Levy has played a masterstroke with the clubs finances to ensure the debt won't cripple the club and future earnings will bring the keys to success. Fuck short termism, so what if we might have won a league cup or even UEFA in the last 5 years if we'd spunked another £200 million. We'd have paid for it over the next 5 or 10 years having less funds going forward. Who's to say that £200 million would have been spent wisely, Poch hardly pulled up trees with his signings.

Seriously go learn simple economics and try understand how the seeds have been sown for years and years of success through investment you daft cunt.

funny how you start your response in a way that confirms YOU as the utter cunt, don’t worry I found the ignore button before the body of your rant

 

[Ossie Wembley]

Sorry mate good work and all that but you're just plain wrong .. we were not a financial powerhouse of the 90's that's just fake memories and false data ... we were already behind in 1992 and even further behind by 2000. Deloitte in the 1998 review you reference point out that the data prior to 1998 was very unreliable as all clubs used different accounting methods .... hence the reason they started their now industry standard in-depth analysis.

You have referenced Deloitte so you must know that to be true ... here's the first set of accurate comparative data compiled by Deloitte in 1997/98 the first time a major firm used it's expertise to draw accurate comparisons. If you thing being 18th in Europe and 8th in the UK makes us a 1990's financial powerhouse then that's on you. FYI if we were so good financially why did Sugar sell 29.9% for just 22m in 2000?

World rich list
Figures compiled by Deloitte and Touche, based on turnover for the 1997/98 season

1. Manchester United, England - £87.9m
2. Real Madrid, Spain - £72.2m
3. Bayern Munich, Germany - £65.2m
4. Juventus, Italy - £55.3m
5. Newcastle United, England - £49.2m
6. Barcelona, Spain - £48.57m
7. AC Milan, Italy - £48.55m
8. Internazionale, Italy - £48.2m
9. Chelsea, England - £47.5m
10. Liverpool, England - £45.5m
11. Borussia Dortmund, Germany - £41.5m
12. Lazio, Italy - £41.1m
13. Woolwich, England - £40.4m
14. AC Parma, Italy - £33.4m
15. Paris Saint Germain, France - £32.9m
16. Glasgow Rangers, Scotland - £32.5m
17. Aston Villa, England - £31.8m
18. Tottenham Hotspur, England - £31.2m
19. AS Roma, Italy - $30.7m
20. Leeds United, England - £28.3m

UK rich list
Figures compiled by Deloitte and Touche, based on turnover for the 1997/98 season

1. Manchester United £87.9m
2. Newcastle United £49.2m
3. Chelsea £47.5m
4. Liverpool £45.5m
5. Woolwich £40.4m
6. Rangers £32.5m
7. Aston Villa £31.8m
8. Tottenham Hotspur £31.2m
9. Leeds United £28.3m
10. Celtic £27.8m
11. West Ham United £24m
12. Everton £22.7m
13. Derby County £20m
14. Wimbledon £19.8m
15. Blackburn Rovers £19.4m
16. Leicester City £19.2m
17. Sunderland £18.8m
18. Middlesbrough £18.7m
19. Coventry City £17.4m
20. Sheffield Wednesday £16.3m

So the clubs were sending false data to company’s house were they?

You are a very weird individual because this is all public record - you even stated this before and yet then try to claim this is now false.

We are on there, Liverpool are, Woolwich are etc so I suggest anyone interested to have a look rather some fantasist.

 

[LeeMcl]

In fairness we bought 2 50m+ players last summer that were wanted by other big clubs. We paid kane 300k a week to re sign. Signed Alderweireld to 150k a week. Signed Mourinho (greates manager of last 15 years) for 15m a year.

Can you not see the difference?

In old WHL these players would have moved on like Berbs, Modders etc...

Weve only lost Eriksen so far, and that was because he fancied another culture. Not because a bigger club came in.

You just have to deal with the fact that we are at the beginning of a new cycle. That doesnt mean the money isnt there to re build.

Lo Celso is a loan and NDombele, while he might cost 50m in the end is extremely poor value thus far. Add in Jack Clark & the window last summer, for a team rebuilding, is pathetic.

Roll back 12 months it’s even worse, and the team needed a rebuild then.

The “we paid” Kane this and Toby that is perhaps fair, but then we don’t know. Those are newspaper figures and never ever trust flat figures, especially from the newspapers.

Perhaps if the salaries were consistent and high, then there would not have been various contract disputes and players running down towards a free transfer. It all needs to be considered.

The issue with Tottenham is that it is never transparent what is happening, maybe no club is, but it leaves us as fans saying “yeah but, yeah but”

The only certainty is the factual results and for over a year now they have been unacceptable. How do Tottenham improve results ? - better players....etc.

The whole new cycle stuff does not give any excuse for the absolute turd that has been thrown out as performances, the addition of 2/3 quality players each year should in theory result in a balanced and progressive squad. But that is certainly not how Tottenham have been run for a number of years now.

Anyways, another day and have a good one ahead.

 

[LeeMcl]

A few posts above it’s stated how Levy should be hailed as a messiah for what he has achieved in the past 10 years.

I could not disagree more.

Levy deserves respect & High Praise and we are fortunate that he, and his team, had a vision that is progressing the club. However, that’s his job and not a biblical achievement.

Tottenham is just under 140 years old. For around 120 years ENIC and Daniel Levy we’re not part of the history or fabric of the club. And as Levy has said himself, he is a custodian at this time. The point of bringing history into this debate is that Tottenham were big before ENIC and are in fact, bigger than ENIC, not the other way around.

Where the club has come from in the past 10 years only exposes how far it had fallen in the previous 10 years, but historically this club has been much bigger in the past than it is now, and hopefully the future will bring that previous level back, but it’s not there yet.

In short, there is work to do yet before we can be praising so high.

 

[BangkokSpud]

So the clubs were sending false data to company’s house were they?

You are a very weird individual because this is all public record - you even stated this before and yet then try to claim this is now false.

We are on there, Liverpool are, Woolwich are etc so I suggest anyone interested to have a look rather some fantasist.

As I said if you think 8th in the UK is a powerhouse that's on you ... will you be happy with 8th place in the EPL? No idea why you want to make false claims, sure we all want Spurs to be the biggest and best but we're not delusional enough to think that we've been a dominant force on or off the field in any decade in history .... wish we had been but let's keep it real.

 

[BangkokSpud]

A few posts above it’s stated how Levy should be hailed as a messiah for what he has achieved in the past 10 years.

I could not disagree more.

Levy deserves respect & High Praise and we are fortunate that he, and his team, had a vision that is progressing the club. However, that’s his job and not a biblical achievement.

Tottenham is just under 140 years old. For around 120 years ENIC and Daniel Levy we’re not part of the history or fabric of the club. And as Levy has said himself, he is a custodian at this time. The point of bringing history into this debate is that Tottenham were big before ENIC and are in fact, bigger than ENIC, not the other way around.

Where the club has come from in the past 10 years only exposes how far it had fallen in the previous 10 years, but historically this club has been much bigger in the past than it is now, and hopefully the future will bring that previous level back, but it’s not there yet.

In short, there is work to do yet before we can be praising so high.

Another 'fan' with totally deluded memories ... are you lot breeding? I love this club as much or more than the next guy but I don't pretend we we're something we're not ... that's still to come.

Where the club has come from in the past 10 years only exposes how far it had fallen in the previous 10 years but historically this club has been much bigger in the past

Fallen from where? when were we much bigger?

In the 60's we averaged 4.3 in the League
In the 70's we averaged 10.3 in the League (got relegated, that was a fun season in Div 2)
In the 80's we averaged 7.6 in the League
In the 90's we averaged 10.1 in the League
In the 00's we averaged 9.3 in the League
In the 10's we averaged 4.1 in the League

Where was this massive fall you speak off ... or are you another fantasist for the 'good old days' that in reality never actually existed.

In the real world the last decade was the most successful in the League in our history ... you wouldn't know that from the 'fans' on here .... let's hope the 20's are even better.