Tottenham Hotspur - Financials

  • There is only one thing weirder than posting on internet forums... lurking on internet forums!
    Registration only takes a minute and removes most of the adverts. You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Register to remove

According to these figures despite all of the money in football at the moment, 8 Premier League teams reported losses & only 6 made profits of over £30m. I honestly cannot see the frivolous spending we have seen in recent years continuing its trajectory in all honesty.

It's amazing to think that 40% of the elite Leagues teams all report losses. There's some really reckless panicking going on, these clubs need to find a better model for longevity and fast
 

Register to remove

Not sure if this is the right thread, but probably better than the Transfer thread where it will be lost.

Think it might be opportune to remind people of these rules about Premier League wages.

A few years back the premier league introduced rules that a club can't increase their wage bill by more than £7m a season unless any other increase comes from an increase in Match Day or Commercial Income (not PL TV Money or PL prize money), or by "an averaged 3 year trading profit"

There is an additional separate measure where the club, instead of £7m a season. can have a £33m increase on the last 6 years, with any extra increase coming from Match Day or Commercial income or that 3 year trading profit.

This years results show a good increase in commercial revenues, and there is more to come over the next few years from catering at NWHL, NFL football, music gigs, boxing, e sports etc (not shirt deal as that is now fixed until 2023 or whatever), so Spurs can easily loosen the wages cap for the next few years - but we might start to flatline on commercial revenues in say 5 or 10 years so DL needs to do it whilst commercial revenues are rising.

Worth commenting that Woolwich are currently in the position where most of their long term commercial deals are no longer increasing so they are stuck with their current cap and cannot increase it - so only way out for them may be to sell some of their high earners such as Ozil and re-use the wages elsewhere. But they are in a mess and that is why I suspect DL will be wary of getting stuck in that situation and steadily increase wages whilst its easy for him to do so, And we were £100m in wages beneath Woolwich and other top 4 clubs so need to do so anyway.

So - great news to be a Spurs player willing to work hard and embrace Spurs (and Poch), or to be joining the club now !
 
According to these figures despite all of the money in football at the moment, 8 Premier League teams reported losses & only 6 made profits of over £30m. I honestly cannot see the frivolous spending we have seen in recent years continuing its trajectory in all honesty.

It's amazing to think that 40% of the elite Leagues teams all report losses. There's some really reckless panicking going on, these clubs need to find a better model for longevity and fast
Clubs are gambling on continuing TV increases and potential earnings getting into Europe. Most from 8th down are doing so now because they've overextended themselves to the point that a few seasons in the championship will spell financial ruin - basically sat at the blackjack table chasing losses now. Instead of investing the TV windfall in infrastructure to solidify their standing, the vast majority are doing what the transfer junkies want us to do and blow every spare £ on players - an investment that doesn't just depreciate but evaporates.

This is where the European Super League will come from - not from an arrogant breakaway, but from a business decision of necessity. When the TV bubble deflates, not bursts but just a market correction, these clubs buried under debt from spending tomorrow's riches will cry out for rescue and the Glazers, Levy, Kroenke, et al will think, "Nah, mate, you fucking shit the bed - I won't clean it up." and presto...the big clubs walk out on a bankrupt and crumbling FA.
 
Clubs are gambling on continuing TV increases and potential earnings getting into Europe. Most from 8th down are doing so now because they've overextended themselves to the point that a few seasons in the championship will spell financial ruin - basically sat at the blackjack table chasing losses now. Instead of investing the TV windfall in infrastructure to solidify their standing, the vast majority are doing what the transfer junkies want us to do and blow every spare £ on players - an investment that doesn't just depreciate but evaporates.

This is where the European Super League will come from - not from an arrogant breakaway, but from a business decision of necessity. When the TV bubble deflates, not bursts but just a market correction, these clubs buried under debt from spending tomorrow's riches will cry out for rescue and the Glazers, Levy, Kroenke, et al will think, "Nah, mate, you fucking shit the bed - I won't clean it up." and presto...the big clubs walk out on a bankrupt and crumbling FA.
Worldwide still not hit peak imo its why bigger clubs stopped it being equal split
 
Worldwide still not hit peak imo its why bigger clubs stopped it being equal split
We'll see. I simply can't see it continuing to increase - it's a losing investment for broadcast platforms at the current rates which is why you're seeing major rights holders "lose" the rights to competitors who are paying over what all models forecast as profitable. In the US, Turner doubled what FOX had previously paid for CL rights when there's silly no way the value of the audience has doubled and FOX was losing money on the contract anyway. NBC, I've heard rumor, is losing money on their increased Premier League deal which makes sense considering ESPN didn't even bother submitting a bid as Disney overlord accountants had already sussed it as overvalued.

Where's the value in broadcasting football matches? There's very little advertising to be sold, certainly not enough to recoup the prices of these contracts. Most of it seems to be speculative investment on being able to bring in subscribers (increasingly difficult in a steal everything on the internet free-stream world) and being able to suck that audience into companion programming that can be more efficiently monetized.

Televised football is Bitcoin. I'm not saying it's going to crash and be worthless, but the market will correct, significantly, in the coming years. There's simply not the value in the product.
 
I’m not a financial man by any means but if I’m reading those numbers right, I do not see us shelling out the 150 million everyone is bandying about this summer.

I’m actually quite concerned. Unless the debt on the stadium is spread out to something like 20 million a season (including intrest). Which I can’t see us doing because it would mean my 1 year old son turning 20 before we are even close to being rid of it (plus why would the lenders agree). Then I can’t see us realistically competing with transfers and wages in the foreseeable future.

I hope someone quotes me and proves me wrong because I could use a stiff drink after going through that twitter thread. I naively thought that we would start to compete this summer.
 
I’m not a financial man by any means but if I’m reading those numbers right, I do not see us shelling out the 150 million everyone is bandying about this summer.

I’m actually quite concerned. Unless the debt on the stadium is spread out to something like 20 million a season (including intrest). Which I can’t see us doing because it would mean my 1 year old son turning 20 before we are even close to being rid of it (plus why would the lenders agree). Then I can’t see us realistically competing with transfers and wages in the foreseeable future.

I hope someone quotes me and proves me wrong because I could use a stiff drink after going through that twitter thread. I naively thought that we would start to compete this summer.
If the debt was being repaid on a monthly basis (like a mortgage is), my semi educated guess is we'd need to repay something like £45m pa over 20 years to repay both capital and interest.

DL is on record as saying that at least part of the debt may be repackaged as a series of bonds with varying maturity dates. So for example £400m of the debt might be repackaged as 4 x £100m bonds with repayment dates (say) of 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045, so at each repayment date there is a repayment of £100m with only the interest to pay between now and the repayment date (and if interest is say 4% on each of the bonds it means paying £16m pa interest over the next decade) - in effect that gives us far more cash flow over the next decade as we are not paying off any capital , only interest.

By the looks of things our income will be £100m pa better off on match day revenues versus WHL and probably £50m better off than at Wembley plus a difficult to guess at increase in commercial income - but lets say £25m extra in 2020, £50m more than now in 2021 etc.

So whether we repay the stadium on a 'mortgage' like deal or a 'bond' deal we should have more free cash than before by lets say £70m - and of course our current level of profitability (lets assume/guess that is £120m for the current year after taking account of lower attendances at Wembley etc) , but of course the profitability will be decreased by extra wages being paid out (remember our wages bill is £100m pa less than Woolwich), so might get to generating £100m pa or so cash - and we might spend that kind of money for a year or two on new players, But I think there will be other things to spend money on too, so whilst we might have a couple of years of big spends on new players to ensure we stay competing for top PL places and CL, I don't expect us to be spending £100m a year on new players in 5 years time.

And this TW anything over £50m to £100m on new players, I would seriously doubt. Love to be wrong, but I just don't see it
 
Where's the value in broadcasting football matches?
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
I’m not sure how much money Sky are actually losing though. Someone who watches football on streams isn’t automatically going to pay for a subscription if those streams were unavailable, but I agree with your points in general.
 

Register to remove

Top Bottom