Tottenham Hotspur - Financials

[John Thomas]

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.

Another morning, another BangkokSpud exposure.

 

[LeeMcl]

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.

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.

I’d refer to the push and run side, the double winners, the first European trophy winners from the U.K, the only non league club ever to win an FA Cup, two time UEFA Cup winners ( in a period that was even harder to win such things ) 8 times FA Cup winners.........

Key word there, Winners. Averaging out league finishes actually diminishes the history of the club, for what purpose ? To heap praise, which is not unmerited by the way, on ENIC.

what is delusional about viewing actual trophy wins and achievements before others in football as evidence of the actual status of THFC ?

The fall off to which I refer is the period between Alan Sugar turning up and circa 2005/6. That was turd for the majority of the time (in my view and I appreciate you don’t agree)

Spurs might have had an average finish of 10.1 in the 90’s but that does not tell the story of how utterly inept the majority of that period was. Strip away when Francis finished top 8 and then what’s the league average then, if it mirrors the late 70’s I would not be surprised.

If you want to argue that the 70’s is the worst period in our modern history, I’d point to the 71-74 period when finals, semi finals and actual trophies were fought for and won. Unlike the majority of the 90’s and into the 00’s.

anyways, we disagree and as far as I can tell that’s allowed.

 

[BangkokSpud]

I’d refer to the push and run side, the double winners, the first European trophy winners from the U.K, the only non league club ever to win an FA Cup, two time UEFA Cup winners ( in a period that was even harder to win such things ) 8 times FA Cup winners.........

Key word there, Winners. Averaging out league finishes actually diminishes the history of the club, for what purpose ? To heap praise, which is not unmerited by the way, on ENIC.

what is delusional about viewing actual trophy wins and achievements before others in football as evidence of the actual status of THFC ?

The fall off to which I refer is the period between Alan Sugar turning up and circa 2005/6. That was turd for the majority of the time (in my view and I appreciate you don’t agree)

Spurs might have had an average finish of 10.1 in the 90’s but that does not tell the story of how utterly inept the majority of that period was. Strip away when Francis finished top 8 and then what’s the league average then, if it mirrors the late 70’s I would not be surprised.

If you want to argue that the 70’s is the worst period in our modern history, I’d point to the 71-74 period when finals, semi finals and actual trophies were fought for and won. Unlike the majority of the 90’s and into the 00’s.

anyways, we disagree and as far as I can tell that’s allowed.

That's fair enough and as a fan who's seen each of those decades there are some massive stand out memories based on us WINNING things ... but strip out the odd cup run and we've haven't been a top four side since the late 50's early 60's ... yes we had our "Leicester" moments albeit in cups not the league ... but that rose-tinted view that we were once a consistent top three side on or off the pitch is simply not true.

I'm not knocking our history, far from it I was there for most of it from '66 onward, we've had some fantastic highs and terrible lows ... we've just never been consistently all that great, let's hope this season we can recover and keep the top four run going. and yes let's WIN something.

 

[spursmalc]

I’d refer to the push and run side, the double winners, the first European trophy winners from the U.K, the only non league club ever to win an FA Cup, two time UEFA Cup winners ( in a period that was even harder to win such things ) 8 times FA Cup winners.........

Key word there, Winners. Averaging out league finishes actually diminishes the history of the club, for what purpose ? To heap praise, which is not unmerited by the way, on ENIC.

what is delusional about viewing actual trophy wins and achievements before others in football as evidence of the actual status of THFC ?

The fall off to which I refer is the period between Alan Sugar turning up and circa 2005/6. That was turd for the majority of the time (in my view and I appreciate you don’t agree)

Spurs might have had an average finish of 10.1 in the 90’s but that does not tell the story of how utterly inept the majority of that period was. Strip away when Francis finished top 8 and then what’s the league average then, if it mirrors the late 70’s I would not be surprised.

If you want to argue that the 70’s is the worst period in our modern history, I’d point to the 71-74 period when finals, semi finals and actual trophies were fought for and won. Unlike the majority of the 90’s and into the 00’s.

anyways, we disagree and as far as I can tell that’s allowed.

Alan Sugar's reign was a disaster and we struggled and never looked good. He then hired the most despised Manager of the time being George Graham showing he had no idea how Spurs fans felt about Graham. Compared to that era, Levy is fantastic. He was right to build the new stadium to allow us to compete at the top. Having said that John Thomas and others have a point that he has been too conservative in spending. The thing missing is the trophies that were won in the 60's, 70's and 80's and since 1991 have been only 2 league cups. Despite Poch's obvious success I never felt he really cared about the domestic cups and now have more hope that we will start to bring home the silverware whether with Jose or his successor.
Balance sheets can hide a lot and last years accounts may not show much. However it will be the current season's accounts for the first full year that will be interesting. I expect that Levy will reduce his income from the club as he will no longer have the huge responsibility of delivering a new stadium.

 

[Spursidol]

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.

Just a thought - in the early 90's Spurs got involved with selling leisure wear and other stuff - before finding lots of problems such as stock accounting which meant these 'non football' revenue streams were loss making, almost sent the club into bankruptcy and Sugar ensured Spurs stopped doing them.

However I suspect these 'non footballing' activities will have been included in gross revenues for 92/3. Best to strip them out if you have access to the 92 accounts, which would mean our 'real' (or sustainable) revenues were a few million less than the figures you have.

 

[Park Lane Mark Twain]

Just a thought - in the early 90's Spurs got involved with selling leisure wear and other stuff - before finding lots of problems such as stock accounting which meant these 'non football' revenue streams were loss making, almost sent the club into bankruptcy and Sugar ensured Spurs stopped doing them.

However I suspect these 'non footballing' activities will have been included in gross revenues for 92/3. Best to strip them out if you have access to the 92 accounts, which would mean our 'real' (or sustainable) revenues were a few million less than the figures you have.

Also Aston Villa finished 2nd and accumulated £10m in revenue, we finished 8th (92/93season) and accumulated £16.5m. Something doesn't add up with all of it unless we made a bollock load in sales that season compared to other teams.

Edit:

Tottenham Hotspur - All transfers

This page shows all ever transfers of the Tottenham, including arrivals, departures and loans. It also displays the transfer fees.

www.transfermarkt.co.uk

Not sure if this figure will be linked to the revenue made in 92/93 of £16.5m or so but it looks like just shy of £10m was generated through the sale of players like Gascoigne and Stewart. Would this figure alter revenue amounts I wonder?

Any idea John Thomas , Spursidol , BangkokSpud , Ossie Wembley ?

 

[Ossie Wembley]

Just a thought - in the early 90's Spurs got involved with selling leisure wear and other stuff - before finding lots of problems such as stock accounting which meant these 'non football' revenue streams were loss making, almost sent the club into bankruptcy and Sugar ensured Spurs stopped doing them.

However I suspect these 'non footballing' activities will have been included in gross revenues for 92/3. Best to strip them out if you have access to the 92 accounts, which would mean our 'real' (or sustainable) revenues were a few million less than the figures you have.

Our turnover in 92 was £19,308,000 according to the accounts.

In 91 it was £18,173,000 - the large decline came in 90 so by 92 it wouldn’t have been a factor.

I’m not sure why people are looking to create a narrative to suggest we weren’t one of the largest clubs by turnover for that period.

Even at the decades close we had virtual parity with Liverpool.

Their turnover in 1999 was £45,265,000 whilst ours was £42,585,000.

The expansion of the Champions League to incorporate more teams and the global commercialisation of the league in the following decade is what really did for us.

 

[Spursidol]

A coupon rate including fees of 2.66% is incredibly good, would guess the uptake will be massively over subscribed to get a rate that low. All good news for our long term future ...

By comparison Woolwich's two bonds had effective interest rates of 5.14% and 5.97% ....

Do you know if the £637m bond document terms are publicly available - I'm interested in any terms which restrict our expenditure, even though the bonds repayment dates average 23 years away.

 

[BangkokSpud]

Private placement so unless you applied (and paid) for a prospectus you will have to trust an internet copy ... here's the financial overview from the club

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has completed a 637 million pound ($798.67 million) stadium refinancing package that included a bond issue to U.S. investors and a term loan, the company said in a statement.

The English football club said on Friday it has raised 525 million pounds from issue of long-term bonds to U.S. investors through a private placement, and another 112 million pounds from a loan from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who also managed the bond issue.

The refinancing package has an average maturity of 23 years and a weighted average coupon of 2.66%, the club said in a statement.

The company was originally targeting to raise 400 million pounds from the bond issue, a source told Reuters last month.

The bond was heavily oversubscribed and Spurs opted to increase the bond rather than take out supporting loans (up from 400m to 525m) payment terms are not disclosed but simple maths at 2.66% would indicate 25m a year for 23 years on the bond ... the Loan for 112m is probably short term and covered from cash income already allocated, but that's pure guesswork.

 

[Spursidol]

Private placement so unless you applied (and paid) for a prospectus you will have to trust an internet copy ... here's the financial overview from the club

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has completed a 637 million pound ($798.67 million) stadium refinancing package that included a bond issue to U.S. investors and a term loan, the company said in a statement.

The English football club said on Friday it has raised 525 million pounds from issue of long-term bonds to U.S. investors through a private placement, and another 112 million pounds from a loan from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who also managed the bond issue.

The refinancing package has an average maturity of 23 years and a weighted average coupon of 2.66%, the club said in a statement.

The company was originally targeting to raise 400 million pounds from the bond issue, a source told Reuters last month.

The bond was heavily oversubscribed and Spurs opted to increase the bond rather than take out supporting loans (up from 400m to 525m) payment terms are not disclosed but simple maths at 2.66% would indicate 25m a year for 23 years on the bond ... the Loan for 112m is probably short term and covered from cash income already allocated, but that's pure guesswork.

Thanks for this.

If we assume £25m for interest(but think it might be less) - that will be payable each year

But the repayment of capital will be when the debt matures - on average 23 years away. Would you expect there to be a clause requiring the company to put away the capital requirements in some sort of designated account so that they capital repayment is safeguarded for the bond holders - the capital repayment put aside might be say £40m pa.

Just trying to understand what financial constraints we have as we seem to be pretty conservative in our transfer dealings (not necessarily a bad thing) atm when last accounts showed £100m free cash generated and transfer fees for players are usually paid over the length of contract so Ndombele's fee last summer will be spread over 5 years etc..

Thoughts ?

 

[BangkokSpud]

Thanks for this.

If we assume £25m for interest(but think it might be less) - that will be payable each year

But the repayment of capital will be when the debt matures - on average 23 years away. Would you expect there to be a clause requiring the company to put away the capital requirements in some sort of designated account so that they capital repayment is safeguarded for the bond holders - the capital repayment put aside might be say £40m pa.

Just trying to understand what financial constraints we have as we seem to be pretty conservative in our transfer dealings (not necessarily a bad thing) atm when last accounts showed £100m free cash generated and transfer fees for players are usually paid over the length of contract so Ndombele's fee last summer will be spread over 5 years etc..

Thoughts ?

The 25m is both a capital and interest calculation ... £225m at 2.66% over 23 years would give a £275m return, that's roughly £25m a year, so that annual £25m is the total payment. THFC would account for that £25m a year and probably keep it in escrow or as cash on hand, tax implications would dictate the best method.

It's possible the £112m loan is short term say £40m a year for three years so that implies £65m debt payments 2020, 2021, 2022 and then just £25m per annum thereafter ... compare that to an increase in profits of over £100m and we are well ahead, don't forget we have sizeable cash reserves as well ...

Money is no longer our biggest issue, the issue is having too many players, we must move out six to get in three or four. If not then having those unwanted six players even on 80k a week sucks out 25m a year on assets we don't use ... that's what needs to be fixed, and where Poch/Levy failed last summer.

 

[Park Lane Mark Twain]

Anyone got access to TheAthletic at all?

 

[hiatus]

Anyone got access to TheAthletic at all?

Yes the Tottenham portion is a throw away line in the piece. Spurs went from no Europe to Europa consistently to CL contenders, basically.

Spurs seem to be the example all clubs use for how to progressively build up finances and results over a period of time.

 

[Park Lane Mark Twain]

Yes the Tottenham portion is a throw away line in the piece. Spurs went from no Europe to Europa consistently to CL contenders, basically.

Spurs seem to be the example all clubs use for how to progressively build up finances and results over a period of time.

So outsiders praise the work we have done yet some supporters see it as unacceptable? Interesting how it differs so much, thanks for sharing the info.

 

[VoiceOfThePoshSeats]

Yes the Tottenham portion is a throw away line in the piece. Spurs went from no Europe to Europa consistently to CL contenders, basically.

Spurs seem to be the example all clubs use for how to progressively build up finances and results over a period of time.

Yup, we are the standout team in the top 5 leagues of breaking into the elite. Maybe Napoli or Atletico could be mentioned too.

But read the levy thread and youd think we were mid table fodder.

 

[ArcspacE]

Another morning, another BangkokSpud exposure.

He has less credibility than Nixon's lawyers at this point in time

 

[ArcspacE]

are you lot breeding?

Pathetic comment

 

[BangkokSpud]

Pathetic comment

Good of you to be so self aware, truth is that applies to all your comments not just this one, there really is no need to admit it ... the reality is we all already know ....

 

[ArcspacE]

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 ...

So the Deloitte data is falsified or all 20 clubs are part of a massive fraud conspiracy - which one is it?

 

[ArcspacE]

we've haven't been a top four side since the late 50's early 60's

More lies

We had five Top 4 finishes in the 80s - including finishing 3rd three times.

Signing Ossie and Ricky from a World Cup winning side was the equivalent of signing Mbappe and Greizmann today. We were the top London team and certainly ahead of Chavs

Making us sound like we were the equivalent of Leicester those years is shameful and laughable