6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jacko93]

Wikipedia suggests that revised and final stadium plans only got planning permission in December 2015

Unfortunately, had we of got planning permission for a 5-a-side pitch on BMD, then everything else following it was a revision, we'd have been able to put all of it to PRS. As it happens, we didn't.

The fact that Tottenham had something in their name on the site, any subsequent revision makes no odds, their PP was granted before PRS was in.

 

[Iana]

FRS is a long term accounting standard

I am going to say this through gritted teeth .

Spurs we’re so far under any PSR threshold they probably didn’t need to worry too much but I am far from sure that it has ever been put in the public domain if Spurs were or weren’t claiming an allowance pre planning for P&S purposes

There is a comment in the written reasons that sort of suggest that there may well be a different convention when the development centres around an improving or redevelopment on an existing site. I have no idea if that’s correct but Spurs actually did redevelop on the old footprint

I don’t doubt Spurs good financial position but this is about a consistent principle applied to this aspect of PSR permissible deductions.
I think Spurs development goes way beyond their old WHL footprint and is a completely new stadium not just a stand extension. If Everton had decided to redevelop Goodison and expand it would appear any pre-planning costs would be permissible for PSR calculations but a brand new stadium bringing massive benefits to the club,community and city is not allowed.
If they were able to deduct pre-planning costs then other clubs should be able to as well.

 

[Moomin]

Unfortunately, had we of got planning permission for a 5-a-side pitch on BMD, then everything else following it was a revision, we'd have been able to put all of it to PRS. As it happens, we didn't.

The fact that Tottenham had something in their name on the site, any subsequent revision makes no odds, their PP was granted before PRS was in.

Didn't a building that was blocking the CPO get burnt down?? Or have I dreamt that

 

[marnie]

The PL formula put forward by Masters was 6 points for breaching PSR and then 1 point for every £5m over the £105m. So we would have got 6+1+1+1=9.

If they had accepted both the Stadium interest + transfer levy as permissible PSR exclusions then it would have been 6+1+7.

Yer Nan wears Umbro socks to the ASDA.

 

[greener]

Didn't a building that was blocking the CPO get burnt down?? Or have I dreamt that

Yep. Very, very dodgy.

 

[degsy]

Taking a step back from this. The last 24 hours has been a huge own goal for the PL.
The noise about our 10 points had died down, barely anything in the media and even on this thread it was getting like the ale house off topic and even gwladysknight returned home like a rancid pigeon back to the tin mine to play super fan with other fellow mutants.

The last 24 hours though have added fuel to the fire and reignited not just our arguments but the arguments from six or seven other clubs plus certain media outlets and journos are starting to wise up which indirectly can only be a positive thing for us as the subject is back on the table. The question is now, how does the club leverage this to put pressure on the PL using Masters disaster of a performance in front of the select committee.

FAB have done a great job in calling out the inconsistencies today, but it’s going to take much more to twist the hand of a corrupt organisation on the defensive heavily lobbied for the interests of the RS and United followed by the other four

In the words of Henry Cooper...its not biased - but you have to knock them out to get a draw

 

[WestStandLower]

On this point, if the breach is an ongoing legacy issue, the commission has to dock us 10 points a second time, if not it undermines the legitimacy of the original commissions decision.

It’s why all eyes are now on the appeal. If that heavily weighs in our favour, how can the second commission be more sever for the same offence.

Like the Matrix this.

Not sure that’s right at all.

Theres absolutely no doubt that the 10 point deduction is draconian but let’s assume it sticks , Which I don’t think it will.

First we don’t know what the 22/23 numbers are but again the written reasons suggest that the losses for will be greater than 21/22 but by how much is the question and then how that translates to the P&S Calculation

Just by my back of a fag packet calculation and bearing in mind stadium costs wont be as big an issue then the numbers have to be at least in line with the £111million loss in 18/19.

Irrespective surely mitigation would be around the double jeopardy not so much not determining the charge or not but the fact that fact that 19/20. & 20/21 averaged and 21/22 but then again who knows !

 

[kenada_blue]

I don’t know I just like arguing the toss!

Seriously, Tipp Blue’s earlier post alludes to the notion that between PSR being introduced in 2013 and planning permission being granted to Spurs in 2016 their pre-planning costs were deducted from PSR calculations.

If that is the case then it has to apply for all clubs which Old Gwladys seems to think should only apply because Spurs had no PSR issues at the time.

In regards to the Spurs stadium build...they borrowed £600mill+ (which doubled because the cost grew - sounds familiar). They have £800+mill of debt. The money they borrowed they repay over 23 years at £30mill a year.

They also got a £175m loan from the Bank of England due to the loss of expected revenue streams as matches and scheduled events such as concerts at the stadium had to be cancelled due to COVID.

Our new stadium is costing around the same...we have the same yearly loan repayments...debt is less (?)...

So what's the difference?

 

[WestStandLower]

I don’t doubt Spurs good financial position but this is about a consistent principle applied to this aspect of PSR permissible deductions.
I think Spurs development goes way beyond their old WHL footprint and is a completely new stadium not just a stand extension. If Everton had decided to redevelop Goodison and expand it would appear any pre-planning costs would be permissible for PSR calculations but a brand new stadium bringing massive benefits to the club,community and city is not allowed.
If they were able to deduct pre-planning costs then other clubs should be able to as well.

As I said I am far from sure the comment from the written reason is as written or an old example of we know what they mean .

Everton themselves pointed out an anomaly and it’s possible even probable that Spurs were able to claim allowances for both FFP & PS purposes but do we know even if submissions were even being made for P&S prior to Spurs gaining PP?

 

[edge]

Spurs fans hate Levy and Lewis for not spending on players but they have run that club really well compared to what we have done these last 8 years.

Who hasn't?

 

[WestStandLower]

In regards to the Spurs stadium build...they borrowed £600mill+ (which doubled because the cost grew - sounds familiar). They have £800+mill of debt. The money they borrowed they repay over 23 years at £30mill a year.

They also got a £175m loan from the Bank of England due to the loss of expected revenue streams as matches and scheduled events such as concerts at the stadium had to be cancelled due to COVID.

Our new stadium is costing around the same...we have the same yearly loan repayments...debt is less (?)...

So what's the difference?

Daniel Levy is the difference but those rates weren’t achieved during the build phase it was only upon completion

 

[Jim Kirk]

In regards to the Spurs stadium build...they borrowed £600mill+ (which doubled because the cost grew - sounds familiar). They have £800+mill of debt. The money they borrowed they repay over 23 years at £30mill a year.

They also got a £175m loan from the Bank of England due to the loss of expected revenue streams as matches and scheduled events such as concerts at the stadium had to be cancelled due to COVID.

Our new stadium is costing around the same...we have the same yearly loan repayments...debt is less (?)...

So what's the difference?

The difference is Spurs have £600m of revenue, Everton have £200m of revenue. They can afford much bigger repayments.

 

[Moomin]

In regards to the Spurs stadium build...they borrowed £600mill+ (which doubled because the cost grew - sounds familiar). They have £800+mill of debt. The money they borrowed they repay over 23 years at £30mill a year.

They also got a £175m loan from the Bank of England due to the loss of expected revenue streams as matches and scheduled events such as concerts at the stadium had to be cancelled due to COVID.

Our new stadium is costing around the same...we have the same yearly loan repayments...debt is less (?)...

So what's the difference?

I doubt our yearly payments will be the same as Spurs. They will have a fixed interest rate in the region of 2%

Can only guess what rates we will be getting off MSP , Rights Media and 777 but it will be in double figures for the interest.

Spurs have about a 50% wages to turnover ratio. Last 2 set of accounts for us was 88% and 95%

We are a clown show compared to them.

 

[matty1878]

I am past worrying. They change the rules when they like, apply the rules how they like and are a shambles of a 'governing body.'
'Rules' and VAR have also destroyed the game and Moshiri has destroyed the club. He will now try to continue a sale to other cowboys.
The pity is that Dyche has brought some respect back to the team but all for nought I think.

it’s not for nought if he can continue it

 

[matty1878]

The difference is Spurs have £600m of revenue, Everton have £200m of revenue. They can afford much bigger repayments.

spurs + run properly
everton run like a milk shop