Spurs

[catcherintherye]

I doubt if Jose is going to stick about for too long if there is no money there, i am sure they will spend some unless they sell Kane to top up the pot maybe?

They have to pay back the £200m by next April. It's really quite a desperate move. It looks like a bridging loan to see them through until they can start to sell players. I doubt they sign people to be honest.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

This is a fair point. I got a bit of stick a while back for suggesting Spurs were problematic, but it seems to be the case.

This is an awful PR move. It will be very unpopular and probably impact upon longer term sponsorships and partnerships. However I think it shows the desperation of teams kicking in. That was also my point with furlough as well, that actually teams must be desperate to be considering it in March.

I'll be honest, all of the top 6 are in serious trouble (in different ways). Complete loss of income while high wage expenditure remains. It's a terrible combination. If the CL/EL can't be completed, that could be a real turning point. I think the £200m sounds about right too. United and Liverpool will be even higher as a loss, with a much higher wage bill. We will be seeing losses of hundreds of millions next season, and thats assuming there is some football next year, no 2nd spike, some return to fans in grounds etc.

Spurs are fortunate to get that loan. It will be interesting to see if there is a political kick back against it. If you're borrowing from the market currently, I'd imagine you're probably getting 15-20% pay back due (but do probably get the flexibility of paying back the capital over a longer period than a year).

The PL I suspect is going to get a lot more even. I'd say the 3 top 6 sides owned by Americans, given everything that is going on there (unemployment, a nutjob in charge, racial civil war, massive death rates etc) are going to be hit even more as part of a perfect storm of their businesses over the pond plummeting and the cash cows they had in the PL suddenly not delivering.

Watch this space really.

I would love FFP to be relaxed because of the top 6 in trouble - would give us a big chance to spend and try bridge the gap.

 

[catcherintherye]

I would love FFP to be relaxed because of the top 6 in trouble - would give us a big chance to spend and try bridge the gap.

There is a lot of potential for that.

 

[The binman chronicles]

They have to pay back the £200m by next April. It's really quite a desperate move. It looks like a bridging loan to see them through until they can start to sell players. I doubt they sign people to be honest.

Depends, it could be they have found a way to pay a peppercorn rate on fair chunk of money. A penny saved is a penny earned.

 

[catcherintherye]

Depends, it could be they have found a way to pay a peppercorn rate on fair chunk of money. A penny saved is a penny earned.

I'm not sure what that is mate.

 

[The binman chronicles]

If Covid is costing us £200mn there must be some other teams really hurting.

The teams that earn a lot of money per match are obviously going to feel it more than clubs that don't generate that sort of income. Combined with this being the worst time possible to have this bigger stadium not generating anything while the loans are at their maximum levels and the cancellation of the Joshua fight, the NFL games and the rugby league match just off the top of my head means Spurs are possibly going to be the worst effected club in the league.

 

[The binman chronicles]

I'm not sure what that is mate.

In a nutshell they might not be that hard up, they have just found a way to slash their interest bill by what £10 million(?) for this year. If you had the chance to take advantage of a scheme like that you might as well!

 

[49ers]

Yep. All of them. No exceptions.

Chelsea are about to splash out over £100m+ on 2 players so not all will be affected.
Man City will just increase output from another oil well aka more sponsorship from a bogus outlet.
The interesting one will be the Glazers. They've taken a massive hit from their mall owning business, will they use Man Utd's finances to cover their losses or not.

 

[H.H.]

What will be very interesting is if any players come in at all for Spurs. It will look horrendous if you take public funds and spend millions on a player. Not saying it won't happen, but it will look?

I'm a big Spurs critic but getting a loan is not taking public funds. Many companies a 100 times bigger than Spurs have done so and if the facility is there, use it.
Over the last two years (maybe 3?) Spurs have been the payed a lot more tax than all other teams, where as most who don't make a profit have contributed Zilch in capital Gains and I'm sure the taxman would rather Spurs to be able to continue to pay tax in the future than not pay any?

I doubt if Jose is going to stick about for too long if there is no money there, i am sure they will spend some unless they sell Kane to top up the pot maybe?

Money to Spend (can't find the Laugh Out Louds, but there would have been many of them ;-).
Jose Boremeanio would have been told at the start that he wasn't going to be getting anything like the transfer money he is used to and now with financial problems for almost every team in the world, he's now probably only gonna be able to have a small net to spend.
I think the Spurs job was he's last chance of still managing at a high level and If he don't like the it is, I will happily help him to move all he's belongings and drive him home.
Sell Kane. I can't see it now this season but maybe he will move in a year and then finally play for a club more deserving of he's ability?

This is a fair point. I got a bit of stick a while back for suggesting Spurs were problematic, but it seems to be the case.

This is an awful PR move. It will be very unpopular and probably impact upon longer term sponsorships and partnerships. However I think it shows the desperation of teams kicking in. That was also my point with furlough as well, that actually teams must be desperate to be considering it in March.

I'll be honest, all of the top 6 are in serious trouble (in different ways). Complete loss of income while high wage expenditure remains. It's a terrible combination. If the CL/EL can't be completed, that could be a real turning point. I think the £200m sounds about right too. United and Liverpool will be even higher as a loss, with a much higher wage bill. We will be seeing losses of hundreds of millions next season, and thats assuming there is some football next year, no 2nd spike, some return to fans in grounds etc.

Spurs are fortunate to get that loan. It will be interesting to see if there is a political kick back against it. If you're borrowing from the market currently, I'd imagine you're probably getting 15-20% pay back due (but do probably get the flexibility of paying back the capital over a longer period than a year).

The PL I suspect is going to get a lot more even. I'd say the 3 top 6 sides owned by Americans, given everything that is going on there (unemployment, a nutjob in charge, racial civil war, massive death rates etc) are going to be hit even more as part of a perfect storm of their businesses over the pond plummeting and the cash cows they had in the PL suddenly not delivering.

Watch this space really.

IMO, It's really not a poor P.R. move.
A 0.5% loan from the Bank of England, will be payed back with interest to the bank over however many months. It won't run into that many millions but it will still interest earned by the bank.
As I said, were lucky to have such a great credit rating to be able to get it.
If you think it's a bad move, have a quick Google at the companies who have also done the same. There is some giants in there.

P.S. Don't worry, about only 1 in 10 of my posts are sticking up for the club so I will be back to my miserable/I hate the world self soon (but on this topic, I felt critisism of the £175 million loan was a bit unfair ;-).

 

[H.H.]

They have to pay back the £200m by next April. It's really quite a desperate move. It looks like a bridging loan to see them through until they can start to sell players. I doubt they sign people to be honest.

£175 million + interest at 0.5%.
It's been a while since I earned those types of numbers so I'm no long able to work out the interest on the loan (and I'm not sure it's as long as a12 month loan?)

 

[H.H.]

The teams that earn a lot of money per match are obviously going to feel it more than clubs that don't generate that sort of income. Combined with this being the worst time possible to have this bigger stadium not generating anything while the loans are at their maximum levels and the cancellation of the Joshua fight, the NFL games and the rugby league match just off the top of my head means Spurs are possibly going to be the worst effected club in the league.
[/QUOTE)

I said Spurs could be one of the worst hit when the virus first hit and I also repeated this when many of you were saying that it's Liverpool who are the team who are losing X amounts of millions per week.

99.9% of clubs around the world are going to be hard hit but hopefully, once this horrible has finally been eradicated, fans will come back to football in good numbers (although I did also say at the start that I doubt they will.) Hopefully I'm wrong but I doubt very much I will be one of them?

 

[catcherintherye]

In a nutshell they might not be that hard up, they have just found a way to slash their interest bill by what £10 million(?) for this year. If you had the chance to take advantage of a scheme like that you might as well!

Yes got you now, thanks for clarifying it was me being a bit dumb.

Yes it's a good offer for Spurs. The interest is great. The only downside really is the repayment options are quite fast and stringent, but if they intend to make a lot of sales this summer and are able to repay it all they probably save themselves £30m in interest.

 

[catcherintherye]

£175 million + interest at 0.5%.
It's been a while since I earned those types of numbers so I'm no long able to work out the interest on the loan (and I'm not sure it's as long as a12 month loan?)

It's about £1m mate. My point more broadly is the loans are quite stringent when it comes to the repayment, and if missed at present the government are suggesting aggressively pursuing those in debt. So in Spurs have a plan to repay back £200m by next April, then it should be ok. What that involves we dont know, but I'm sure we can have some idea.

 

[catcherintherye]

I'm a big Spurs critic but getting a loan is not taking public funds. Many companies a 100 times bigger than Spurs have done so and if the facility is there, use it.
Over the last two years (maybe 3?) Spurs have been the payed a lot more tax than all other teams, where as most who don't make a profit have contributed Zilch in capital Gains and I'm sure the taxman would rather Spurs to be able to continue to pay tax in the future than not pay any?

IMO, It's really not a poor P.R. move.
A 0.5% loan from the Bank of England, will be payed back with interest to the bank over however many months. It won't run into that many millions but it will still interest earned by the bank.
As I said, were lucky to have such a great credit rating to be able to get it.
If you think it's a bad move, have a quick Google at the companies who have also done the same. There is some giants in there.

P.S. Don't worry, about only 1 in 10 of my posts are sticking up for the club so I will be back to my miserable/I hate the world self soon (but on this topic, I felt critisism of the £175 million loan was a bit unfair ;-).

No I appreciate you, and most of the Spurs lads on here are very reflexive regarding Spurs.

The issue with football to me is that it pays astronomical wages to it's staff, and in the good times whenever any suggestion of legislating that came in it was essentially derided by a defence of the market. Now when the market fails the sames sector that used it as a shield to deflect from the corporate social responsibility and sensible forward planning now goes with the begging bowl back to the state. It's wider than Tottenham but it does stick in the throat.

I appreciate that Spurs will in theory pay the money back, but you do have a question of liquidity here. As a tax payer I do wonder if there is more that can be done with that £200m? We will soon see-I am sure public sector workers and services see more cuts having had 10+ years of having wages held down. It's a small figure really but the principle rankles. The point might be, Spurs have assets that can cover the liquidity problems and can sell them. That would seem a fairer way to handle the situation and allow liquidity to be diverted in other areas.

As for the 2nd point, it may not seem that way to you, or me but in the wider discussion it will look awful. If a company is claiming hundreds of millions from the government, but is also to pay millions to break employees contracts at a time where lots of people will be losing their jobs- it's clearly going to be quite detrimental. That doesn't mean it's wrong in the abstract, and from a narrow business decision it may make sense (and the liquidity involved is worth more than the potential longer term damage). To me this is like the furlough scheme all over again.

 

[H.H.]

It's not worth me replying yet again with all my thoughts but will reply to a couple of your new points.
Spurs, like many other companies, have many 100's of employee's, (maybe other a thousand?)
An anology; If the product any company supplies starts becoming of bad quality, (clothing not so good,) the customers will stop buying the product (ie, supporters stay away) and that will mean that people will lose their jobs cos they wont be needed cos there is less demand for the product.
Mainly I agree with a lot of your posts but you do keep exaggerating your point here.
You have gone from "Lending £200 million" and then make a quote about
"A Company lending "£100's of millions" in a topic about Spurs to expand your point.

Again, the loan is £175 million and you yourself said the interest repayment is
"£1 million" and then you claim that they have to pay back £200 million.
That will be £176 million