comment by JimmyGreaves (U21183)
posted 2 minutes ago
You're looking at potentially £30m a season for the naming rights. It will probably buy one decent player like Drag. It's not the be all and end all, but it is guaranteed income for potentially 10-20 years depending on the length of the naming rights deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or if we are savy and do our homework I'm sure and extra £30m could be used to snaffle up any real decent freebies or near end of contract players. The £30m would allow us to pay and compete with others with better wages which has meant we have lost our on players before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't need an extra £30m to sign someone on a free. Our wages to turnover ratio is always one of the best and very good for PSR. Levy will always keep this as one of the best in the league because to him it is like a trophy.
In terms of paying better wages, if we are bringing in over half a billy on a regular basis that will start to increase too. Just need to cut the fat from the squad.
comment by JimmyGreaves (U21183)
posted 18 minutes ago
You're looking at potentially £30m a season for the naming rights. It will probably buy one decent player like Drag. It's not the be all and end all, but it is guaranteed income for potentially 10-20 years depending on the length of the naming rights deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or if we are savy and do our homework I'm sure and extra £30m could be used to snaffle up any real decent freebies or near end of contract players. The £30m would allow us to pay and compete with others with better wages which has meant we have lost our on players before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you take the amortisation of £30m a year that's a player worth £150m (£30m a year for 5 years)
If you factor in say £8m a year wages (£160k a week) and an £100m transfer fee, that equates to £28m annual costs which if we had a sponsorship bringing in £30m every year would allow for this sort of Rice-sized transfer every season with a neutral impact on the finances.
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
In regards to the new investment Levy is talking about, I'm surprised he has spoken about it publicly. He likes to to keep his cards close to his chest so I reckon he might have already struck a deal and preparing us for the news.
Probably not what Levy OUTERs wanted but very similar to the Jim Radcliffe deal at United. 25% or so BUT Levy will still have a final say on football matters unlike the Glazers. Instead they will be offered a dividend from the naming rights deal whilst the value of the club increases year on year giving them a decent return in the long run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel that to a degree Levy might feel like his work is almost done at Spurs although he still wants to retain oversight and overall control. He has transformed the club off the pitch, including our finances, and there is not much more he can do. Looking for a potential exit strategy for a bit further in the future will be eased by new investment.
Our AIA deal ends in 3 years and maybe some large full take over from a company that brings in their own comprehensive sponsorship of stadium and shirt is a possibility at that point.
We also have the new TV deal kicking in in 2025/26 and that's worth another +£30m a year from domestic and no doubt overseas TV rights will also grow.
There is definitely more value to be added to the club and Levy will choose the optimum time to sell up completely.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JimmyGreaves (U21183)
posted 18 minutes ago
You're looking at potentially £30m a season for the naming rights. It will probably buy one decent player like Drag. It's not the be all and end all, but it is guaranteed income for potentially 10-20 years depending on the length of the naming rights deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or if we are savy and do our homework I'm sure and extra £30m could be used to snaffle up any real decent freebies or near end of contract players. The £30m would allow us to pay and compete with others with better wages which has meant we have lost our on players before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you take the amortisation of £30m a year that's a player worth £150m (£30m a year for 5 years)
If you factor in say £8m a year wages (£160k a week) and an £100m transfer fee, that equates to £28m annual costs which if we had a sponsorship bringing in £30m every year would allow for this sort of Rice-sized transfer every season with a neutral impact on the finances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry, bit misleading. It would not allow such a deal every season, but every 5 years.
And yet if it continues Spurs will never get any points deductions
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
In regards to the new investment Levy is talking about, I'm surprised he has spoken about it publicly. He likes to to keep his cards close to his chest so I reckon he might have already struck a deal and preparing us for the news.
Probably not what Levy OUTERs wanted but very similar to the Jim Radcliffe deal at United. 25% or so BUT Levy will still have a final say on football matters unlike the Glazers. Instead they will be offered a dividend from the naming rights deal whilst the value of the club increases year on year giving them a decent return in the long run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel that to a degree Levy might feel like his work is almost done at Spurs although he still wants to retain oversight and overall control. He has transformed the club off the pitch, including our finances, and there is not much more he can do. Looking for a potential exit strategy for a bit further in the future will be eased by new investment.
Our AIA deal ends in 3 years and maybe some large full take over from a company that brings in their own comprehensive sponsorship of stadium and shirt is a possibility at that point.
We also have the new TV deal kicking in in 2025/26 and that's worth another +£30m a year from domestic and no doubt overseas TV rights will also grow.
There is definitely more value to be added to the club and Levy will choose the optimum time to sell up completely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think Levy will be done until the hotel, cinema, housing and outdoor pursuit are all complete. He probably wants new investment to fund the build of these projects? Maybe ENIC are not prepared to fund this with Joe being out of the picture? Still no clarification around who is the head of the family trust who owns ENIC but that's another matter.
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted 5 minutes ago
And yet if it continues Spurs will never get any points deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn right but rest assured and this could be you in the future...
https://twitter.com/LukeRumble94/status/1772749528715678098?t=MM6gWGNqxO1yYSWP3yNmKA&s=19
Did you know that:
* in the last 7 years Spurs have spent 230% of player sale income on new players!
* that's approx £790m spent v £345m come in!
* in 2023 we spent a record £224m on players!
* in the last 4 years we've spent £584m on players and only got £228 back, a net spend of £356m or £89m per year!
* in 2013 our record signing was £17m. In the last 2 years we've spent the following: £20m, £25m, £25m, £34.5m, £40m, £40m, £47.5m, £50m, £60m!
damn that’s a yacht that Levy can’t order anymore 🤣
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 2 minutes ago
damn that’s a yacht that Levy can’t order anymore 🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
even more pertinent we are getting cheap players now
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
Headline figures:
Revenue up £105m to £550m
Matchday revenue £117m (up £11m)
Operating Profit before player trading up £20m to £60m
Amortisation up £47m from £80m to £127m
Staff Costs up from £210m to £251m
Operating expenses up from £121m to £160m
Profit on disposal down from £19m to £15m
Sacking Conte & staff £5.11m
Spurs figures are always slightly distorted by the large depreciation cost which covers plant property and equipment, contributing about £70m each year. Much of this would not be included for FFP/PSR purposes and it is a function of having such a valuable stadium, deemed to be worth £1.5bn
The highest paid Director received £3,581,000 (up from £3.265m) and an accrued bonus of £3m paid over the year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating profit is £138m, for 2022 it was £112m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so it should be...you sold out to the NFL & all the pop queens
RE naming rights, I actually came across one of the boxes used by Spurs to pitch to potential companies back in 2018 I think. Its quite hilarious - it includes a book showing what the stadium could look like with the company’s name and colours as well as the benefits of the stadium being in london, nfl etc etc. it also has a tablet showing a video of the same stuff.
The worst bit is the company’s branding was all red, so in all the mockups inside the stadium it’s completely red. It just shows to me that they don’t have a clue about what the fans want
comment by BISS Bash BOSSED (U8366)
posted 13 hours, 39 minutes ago
RE naming rights, I actually came across one of the boxes used by Spurs to pitch to potential companies back in 2018 I think. Its quite hilarious - it includes a book showing what the stadium could look like with the company’s name and colours as well as the benefits of the stadium being in london, nfl etc etc. it also has a tablet showing a video of the same stuff.
The worst bit is the company’s branding was all red, so in all the mockups inside the stadium it’s completely red. It just shows to me that they don’t have a clue about what the fans want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I agree, another way to look at is that sponsors aren't restricted to Spurs colours and can have their own brand/colours showing particularly during other events such as concerts and NFL.
comment by Bake 'em away toys (U7303)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by BISS Bash BOSSED (U8366)
posted 13 hours, 39 minutes ago
RE naming rights, I actually came across one of the boxes used by Spurs to pitch to potential companies back in 2018 I think. Its quite hilarious - it includes a book showing what the stadium could look like with the company’s name and colours as well as the benefits of the stadium being in london, nfl etc etc. it also has a tablet showing a video of the same stuff.
The worst bit is the company’s branding was all red, so in all the mockups inside the stadium it’s completely red. It just shows to me that they don’t have a clue about what the fans want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I agree, another way to look at is that sponsors aren't restricted to Spurs colours and can have their own brand/colours showing particularly during other events such as concerts and NFL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fans need to get over the colour thing, Arsenal have had White shirts, Man United have had blue shirts. I’m not saying we should have a red shirt but a bit of red on a shirt I.e. the sponsor and the ground having red seats for an NFL game - who gives a faaaack, it’s a colour.
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club... (U18109)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Bake 'em away toys (U7303)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by BISS Bash BOSSED (U8366)
posted 13 hours, 39 minutes ago
RE naming rights, I actually came across one of the boxes used by Spurs to pitch to potential companies back in 2018 I think. Its quite hilarious - it includes a book showing what the stadium could look like with the company’s name and colours as well as the benefits of the stadium being in london, nfl etc etc. it also has a tablet showing a video of the same stuff.
The worst bit is the company’s branding was all red, so in all the mockups inside the stadium it’s completely red. It just shows to me that they don’t have a clue about what the fans want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I agree, another way to look at is that sponsors aren't restricted to Spurs colours and can have their own brand/colours showing particularly during other events such as concerts and NFL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fans need to get over the colour thing, Arsenal have had White shirts, Man United have had blue shirts. I’m not saying we should have a red shirt but a bit of red on a shirt I.e. the sponsor and the ground having red seats for an NFL game - who gives a faaaack, it’s a colour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ban everything red, ban red clothes on staff, have nothing red around the stadium and certainly no red seats. The only exception would be a small sponsors logo like we have now and temporary red lighting for NFL / concerts etc that can be quickly turned off.
Can someone with a bit more nous on this subject explain to me why we're looking for investors? If the ultimate goal is to remain sustainable then what on earth is new investment being sought for? How much of it can actually be used? I find it really odd.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 6 hours, 39 minutes ago
Can someone with a bit more nous on this subject explain to me why we're looking for investors? If the ultimate goal is to remain sustainable then what on earth is new investment being sought for? How much of it can actually be used? I find it really odd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs are worth a fortune (£2-3bn) and have hugely valuable assets but many of these have been achieved through funding. Bit like you owning an expensive property on a mortgage.
You cannot realise the value of your house BUT if someone said to you, I will give you 25% of the value of the house in cash now, you can keep living there, pay me a return and i get to share its increased future value then you have effectively given away a bit of your home but now have a chunk of money in your pocket.
With Spurs, instead of giving all that money to Levy, it might well be used to pay down some of the debt. That frees up cash flow that can be used on other stuff like players.
It may also be used to get some of the nearby property developments off the ground.
Levy said "to capitalise on our long-term potential, to continue to invest in the teams and undertake future capital projects, the club requires a significant increase in its equity base"
Equity is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities (debts) and having a small equity base limits how much you can invest. Getting in investment, to potentially reduce those liabilities increases the equity base allows for more aggressive investment and growth.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 day ago
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
Headline figures:
Revenue up £105m to £550m
Matchday revenue £117m (up £11m)
Operating Profit before player trading up £20m to £60m
Amortisation up £47m from £80m to £127m
Staff Costs up from £210m to £251m
Operating expenses up from £121m to £160m
Profit on disposal down from £19m to £15m
Sacking Conte & staff £5.11m
Spurs figures are always slightly distorted by the large depreciation cost which covers plant property and equipment, contributing about £70m each year. Much of this would not be included for FFP/PSR purposes and it is a function of having such a valuable stadium, deemed to be worth £1.5bn
The highest paid Director received £3,581,000 (up from £3.265m) and an accrued bonus of £3m paid over the year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating profit is £138m, for 2022 it was £112m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so it should be...you sold out to the NFL & all the pop queens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If by selling out you mean Spurs had the foresight to make their new stadium genuinely multi-use generating 10s of millions of extra revenue, then yes we sold out and is one reason why we are London's highest earning club and not in FFP trouble like Chelsea
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 day ago
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
Headline figures:
Revenue up £105m to £550m
Matchday revenue £117m (up £11m)
Operating Profit before player trading up £20m to £60m
Amortisation up £47m from £80m to £127m
Staff Costs up from £210m to £251m
Operating expenses up from £121m to £160m
Profit on disposal down from £19m to £15m
Sacking Conte & staff £5.11m
Spurs figures are always slightly distorted by the large depreciation cost which covers plant property and equipment, contributing about £70m each year. Much of this would not be included for FFP/PSR purposes and it is a function of having such a valuable stadium, deemed to be worth £1.5bn
The highest paid Director received £3,581,000 (up from £3.265m) and an accrued bonus of £3m paid over the year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating profit is £138m, for 2022 it was £112m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so it should be...you sold out to the NFL & all the pop queens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If by selling out you mean Spurs had the foresight to make their new stadium genuinely multi-use generating 10s of millions of extra revenue, then yes we sold out and is one reason why we are London's highest earning club and not in FFP trouble like Chelsea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point Devon
Sign in if you want to comment
Spurs make a loss of £86m
Page 2 of 2
posted on 3/4/24
comment by JimmyGreaves (U21183)
posted 2 minutes ago
You're looking at potentially £30m a season for the naming rights. It will probably buy one decent player like Drag. It's not the be all and end all, but it is guaranteed income for potentially 10-20 years depending on the length of the naming rights deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or if we are savy and do our homework I'm sure and extra £30m could be used to snaffle up any real decent freebies or near end of contract players. The £30m would allow us to pay and compete with others with better wages which has meant we have lost our on players before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't need an extra £30m to sign someone on a free. Our wages to turnover ratio is always one of the best and very good for PSR. Levy will always keep this as one of the best in the league because to him it is like a trophy.
In terms of paying better wages, if we are bringing in over half a billy on a regular basis that will start to increase too. Just need to cut the fat from the squad.
posted on 3/4/24
comment by JimmyGreaves (U21183)
posted 18 minutes ago
You're looking at potentially £30m a season for the naming rights. It will probably buy one decent player like Drag. It's not the be all and end all, but it is guaranteed income for potentially 10-20 years depending on the length of the naming rights deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or if we are savy and do our homework I'm sure and extra £30m could be used to snaffle up any real decent freebies or near end of contract players. The £30m would allow us to pay and compete with others with better wages which has meant we have lost our on players before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you take the amortisation of £30m a year that's a player worth £150m (£30m a year for 5 years)
If you factor in say £8m a year wages (£160k a week) and an £100m transfer fee, that equates to £28m annual costs which if we had a sponsorship bringing in £30m every year would allow for this sort of Rice-sized transfer every season with a neutral impact on the finances.
posted on 3/4/24
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
In regards to the new investment Levy is talking about, I'm surprised he has spoken about it publicly. He likes to to keep his cards close to his chest so I reckon he might have already struck a deal and preparing us for the news.
Probably not what Levy OUTERs wanted but very similar to the Jim Radcliffe deal at United. 25% or so BUT Levy will still have a final say on football matters unlike the Glazers. Instead they will be offered a dividend from the naming rights deal whilst the value of the club increases year on year giving them a decent return in the long run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel that to a degree Levy might feel like his work is almost done at Spurs although he still wants to retain oversight and overall control. He has transformed the club off the pitch, including our finances, and there is not much more he can do. Looking for a potential exit strategy for a bit further in the future will be eased by new investment.
Our AIA deal ends in 3 years and maybe some large full take over from a company that brings in their own comprehensive sponsorship of stadium and shirt is a possibility at that point.
We also have the new TV deal kicking in in 2025/26 and that's worth another +£30m a year from domestic and no doubt overseas TV rights will also grow.
There is definitely more value to be added to the club and Levy will choose the optimum time to sell up completely.
posted on 3/4/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JimmyGreaves (U21183)
posted 18 minutes ago
You're looking at potentially £30m a season for the naming rights. It will probably buy one decent player like Drag. It's not the be all and end all, but it is guaranteed income for potentially 10-20 years depending on the length of the naming rights deal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or if we are savy and do our homework I'm sure and extra £30m could be used to snaffle up any real decent freebies or near end of contract players. The £30m would allow us to pay and compete with others with better wages which has meant we have lost our on players before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you take the amortisation of £30m a year that's a player worth £150m (£30m a year for 5 years)
If you factor in say £8m a year wages (£160k a week) and an £100m transfer fee, that equates to £28m annual costs which if we had a sponsorship bringing in £30m every year would allow for this sort of Rice-sized transfer every season with a neutral impact on the finances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry, bit misleading. It would not allow such a deal every season, but every 5 years.
posted on 3/4/24
And yet if it continues Spurs will never get any points deductions
posted on 3/4/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
In regards to the new investment Levy is talking about, I'm surprised he has spoken about it publicly. He likes to to keep his cards close to his chest so I reckon he might have already struck a deal and preparing us for the news.
Probably not what Levy OUTERs wanted but very similar to the Jim Radcliffe deal at United. 25% or so BUT Levy will still have a final say on football matters unlike the Glazers. Instead they will be offered a dividend from the naming rights deal whilst the value of the club increases year on year giving them a decent return in the long run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel that to a degree Levy might feel like his work is almost done at Spurs although he still wants to retain oversight and overall control. He has transformed the club off the pitch, including our finances, and there is not much more he can do. Looking for a potential exit strategy for a bit further in the future will be eased by new investment.
Our AIA deal ends in 3 years and maybe some large full take over from a company that brings in their own comprehensive sponsorship of stadium and shirt is a possibility at that point.
We also have the new TV deal kicking in in 2025/26 and that's worth another +£30m a year from domestic and no doubt overseas TV rights will also grow.
There is definitely more value to be added to the club and Levy will choose the optimum time to sell up completely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think Levy will be done until the hotel, cinema, housing and outdoor pursuit are all complete. He probably wants new investment to fund the build of these projects? Maybe ENIC are not prepared to fund this with Joe being out of the picture? Still no clarification around who is the head of the family trust who owns ENIC but that's another matter.
posted on 3/4/24
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted 5 minutes ago
And yet if it continues Spurs will never get any points deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn right but rest assured and this could be you in the future...
https://twitter.com/LukeRumble94/status/1772749528715678098?t=MM6gWGNqxO1yYSWP3yNmKA&s=19
posted on 3/4/24
Did you know that:
* in the last 7 years Spurs have spent 230% of player sale income on new players!
* that's approx £790m spent v £345m come in!
* in 2023 we spent a record £224m on players!
* in the last 4 years we've spent £584m on players and only got £228 back, a net spend of £356m or £89m per year!
* in 2013 our record signing was £17m. In the last 2 years we've spent the following: £20m, £25m, £25m, £34.5m, £40m, £40m, £47.5m, £50m, £60m!
posted on 3/4/24
damn that’s a yacht that Levy can’t order anymore 🤣
posted on 3/4/24
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 2 minutes ago
damn that’s a yacht that Levy can’t order anymore 🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
even more pertinent we are getting cheap players now
posted on 3/4/24
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
Headline figures:
Revenue up £105m to £550m
Matchday revenue £117m (up £11m)
Operating Profit before player trading up £20m to £60m
Amortisation up £47m from £80m to £127m
Staff Costs up from £210m to £251m
Operating expenses up from £121m to £160m
Profit on disposal down from £19m to £15m
Sacking Conte & staff £5.11m
Spurs figures are always slightly distorted by the large depreciation cost which covers plant property and equipment, contributing about £70m each year. Much of this would not be included for FFP/PSR purposes and it is a function of having such a valuable stadium, deemed to be worth £1.5bn
The highest paid Director received £3,581,000 (up from £3.265m) and an accrued bonus of £3m paid over the year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating profit is £138m, for 2022 it was £112m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so it should be...you sold out to the NFL & all the pop queens
posted on 3/4/24
RE naming rights, I actually came across one of the boxes used by Spurs to pitch to potential companies back in 2018 I think. Its quite hilarious - it includes a book showing what the stadium could look like with the company’s name and colours as well as the benefits of the stadium being in london, nfl etc etc. it also has a tablet showing a video of the same stuff.
The worst bit is the company’s branding was all red, so in all the mockups inside the stadium it’s completely red. It just shows to me that they don’t have a clue about what the fans want
posted on 4/4/24
comment by BISS Bash BOSSED (U8366)
posted 13 hours, 39 minutes ago
RE naming rights, I actually came across one of the boxes used by Spurs to pitch to potential companies back in 2018 I think. Its quite hilarious - it includes a book showing what the stadium could look like with the company’s name and colours as well as the benefits of the stadium being in london, nfl etc etc. it also has a tablet showing a video of the same stuff.
The worst bit is the company’s branding was all red, so in all the mockups inside the stadium it’s completely red. It just shows to me that they don’t have a clue about what the fans want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I agree, another way to look at is that sponsors aren't restricted to Spurs colours and can have their own brand/colours showing particularly during other events such as concerts and NFL.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Bake 'em away toys (U7303)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by BISS Bash BOSSED (U8366)
posted 13 hours, 39 minutes ago
RE naming rights, I actually came across one of the boxes used by Spurs to pitch to potential companies back in 2018 I think. Its quite hilarious - it includes a book showing what the stadium could look like with the company’s name and colours as well as the benefits of the stadium being in london, nfl etc etc. it also has a tablet showing a video of the same stuff.
The worst bit is the company’s branding was all red, so in all the mockups inside the stadium it’s completely red. It just shows to me that they don’t have a clue about what the fans want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I agree, another way to look at is that sponsors aren't restricted to Spurs colours and can have their own brand/colours showing particularly during other events such as concerts and NFL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fans need to get over the colour thing, Arsenal have had White shirts, Man United have had blue shirts. I’m not saying we should have a red shirt but a bit of red on a shirt I.e. the sponsor and the ground having red seats for an NFL game - who gives a faaaack, it’s a colour.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club... (U18109)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Bake 'em away toys (U7303)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by BISS Bash BOSSED (U8366)
posted 13 hours, 39 minutes ago
RE naming rights, I actually came across one of the boxes used by Spurs to pitch to potential companies back in 2018 I think. Its quite hilarious - it includes a book showing what the stadium could look like with the company’s name and colours as well as the benefits of the stadium being in london, nfl etc etc. it also has a tablet showing a video of the same stuff.
The worst bit is the company’s branding was all red, so in all the mockups inside the stadium it’s completely red. It just shows to me that they don’t have a clue about what the fans want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I agree, another way to look at is that sponsors aren't restricted to Spurs colours and can have their own brand/colours showing particularly during other events such as concerts and NFL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fans need to get over the colour thing, Arsenal have had White shirts, Man United have had blue shirts. I’m not saying we should have a red shirt but a bit of red on a shirt I.e. the sponsor and the ground having red seats for an NFL game - who gives a faaaack, it’s a colour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ban everything red, ban red clothes on staff, have nothing red around the stadium and certainly no red seats. The only exception would be a small sponsors logo like we have now and temporary red lighting for NFL / concerts etc that can be quickly turned off.
posted on 4/4/24
Can someone with a bit more nous on this subject explain to me why we're looking for investors? If the ultimate goal is to remain sustainable then what on earth is new investment being sought for? How much of it can actually be used? I find it really odd.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 6 hours, 39 minutes ago
Can someone with a bit more nous on this subject explain to me why we're looking for investors? If the ultimate goal is to remain sustainable then what on earth is new investment being sought for? How much of it can actually be used? I find it really odd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs are worth a fortune (£2-3bn) and have hugely valuable assets but many of these have been achieved through funding. Bit like you owning an expensive property on a mortgage.
You cannot realise the value of your house BUT if someone said to you, I will give you 25% of the value of the house in cash now, you can keep living there, pay me a return and i get to share its increased future value then you have effectively given away a bit of your home but now have a chunk of money in your pocket.
With Spurs, instead of giving all that money to Levy, it might well be used to pay down some of the debt. That frees up cash flow that can be used on other stuff like players.
It may also be used to get some of the nearby property developments off the ground.
Levy said "to capitalise on our long-term potential, to continue to invest in the teams and undertake future capital projects, the club requires a significant increase in its equity base"
Equity is Total Assets minus Total Liabilities (debts) and having a small equity base limits how much you can invest. Getting in investment, to potentially reduce those liabilities increases the equity base allows for more aggressive investment and growth.
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 day ago
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
Headline figures:
Revenue up £105m to £550m
Matchday revenue £117m (up £11m)
Operating Profit before player trading up £20m to £60m
Amortisation up £47m from £80m to £127m
Staff Costs up from £210m to £251m
Operating expenses up from £121m to £160m
Profit on disposal down from £19m to £15m
Sacking Conte & staff £5.11m
Spurs figures are always slightly distorted by the large depreciation cost which covers plant property and equipment, contributing about £70m each year. Much of this would not be included for FFP/PSR purposes and it is a function of having such a valuable stadium, deemed to be worth £1.5bn
The highest paid Director received £3,581,000 (up from £3.265m) and an accrued bonus of £3m paid over the year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating profit is £138m, for 2022 it was £112m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so it should be...you sold out to the NFL & all the pop queens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If by selling out you mean Spurs had the foresight to make their new stadium genuinely multi-use generating 10s of millions of extra revenue, then yes we sold out and is one reason why we are London's highest earning club and not in FFP trouble like Chelsea
posted on 4/4/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 day ago
comment by Luka Brasi 🔫 The Sons of Ange 'If we l... (U22178)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
Headline figures:
Revenue up £105m to £550m
Matchday revenue £117m (up £11m)
Operating Profit before player trading up £20m to £60m
Amortisation up £47m from £80m to £127m
Staff Costs up from £210m to £251m
Operating expenses up from £121m to £160m
Profit on disposal down from £19m to £15m
Sacking Conte & staff £5.11m
Spurs figures are always slightly distorted by the large depreciation cost which covers plant property and equipment, contributing about £70m each year. Much of this would not be included for FFP/PSR purposes and it is a function of having such a valuable stadium, deemed to be worth £1.5bn
The highest paid Director received £3,581,000 (up from £3.265m) and an accrued bonus of £3m paid over the year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating profit is £138m, for 2022 it was £112m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so it should be...you sold out to the NFL & all the pop queens
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If by selling out you mean Spurs had the foresight to make their new stadium genuinely multi-use generating 10s of millions of extra revenue, then yes we sold out and is one reason why we are London's highest earning club and not in FFP trouble like Chelsea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point Devon
Page 2 of 2