Topic: Spurs: fucking useless

[CraigDS]

yes, why not?

Because those seats need to be paid for by someone, and that someone will be the fans inside the stadium. We'd be paying off the stadium for decades.

Were building to 58,500 ish by spending about £150m. It's a ridiculous thought that it would be worth spending £300-350m more for a few thousand more.

[Hank Scorpio]

^^^

Will be interesting to see if the big capital investments by football clubs eventually cripple them over the next decade or so.  By cripple, I actually mean make them less competitive as they are not able to invest effectively in the playing squad i.e. Arsenal 2004-2013ish.

It may mean that FSG are delivering exactly what they/we want for £200m or £250m less than required.

[CraigDS]

^^^

Will be interesting to see if the big capital investments by football clubs eventually cripple them over the next decade or so.  By cripple, I actually mean make them less competitive as they are not able to invest effectively in the playing squad i.e. Arsenal 2004-2013ish.

It may mean that FSG are delivering exactly what they/we want for £200m or £250m less than required.

It's already been having an effect on them I think.

This season they've a more or less even net spend and Levy has said they need to sell some now before buying. If they stick with that it'll be the 5th season in a row they've (approx) not had a positive net spend.

[Mamadou]

Because those seats need to be paid for by someone, and that someone will be the fans inside the stadium. We'd be paying off the stadium for decades.

Were building to 58,500 ish by spending about £150m. It's a ridiculous thought that it would be worth spending £300-350m more for a few thousand more.

if we think that we're a big club (second biggest in the country), then we should act like one

[CraigDS]

if we think that we're a big club (second biggest in the country), then we should act like one

Excellent.

So you'll be happy with the club covering what, £25-30m a year interest payments for the next decade or two, whilst also bumping up ticket price massively, to cover the added £300m+ to build about 2,500 seats.

Thank fuck you weren't in charge of making that call, as you'd of crippled us.

[Mamadou]

i wonder how Arsenal and Manutd did it, and how Spurs and West Ham are going to do it

[CraigDS]

i wonder how Arsenal and Manutd did it, and how Spurs and West Ham are going to do it

United never spent £400-500m on a brand new stadium, they increased OT over decades in phases.

Arsenal bumped prices up to a ridiculous level (bringing in nearly the same as the 15k OT per game), benefited from a huge property deal at their old ground, and curbed their spending for years to help cover the payments.

West Ham have effectively been given their new ground, paying only £15m to its £300m+ conversion costs, and paying about £2m a year rent. They have also sold their current ground for upwards of £70m.

[Red_Irishman]

United never spent £400-500m on a brand new stadium, they increased OT over decades in phases.

Arsenal bumped prices up to a ridiculous level (bringing in nearly the same as the 15k OT per game), benefited from a huge property deal at their old ground, and curbed their spending for years to help cover the payments.

West Ham have effectively been given their new ground, paying only £15m to its £300m+ conversion costs, and paying about £2m a year rent. They have also sold their current ground for upwards of £70m.

We should still do it though, of course... Because NEW STADIUM!

[DutchRed]

Excellent.

So you'll be happy with the club covering what, £25-30m a year interest payments for the next decade or two, whilst also bumping up ticket price massively, to cover the added £300m+ to build about 2,500 seats.

Thank fuck you weren't in charge of making that call, as you'd of crippled us.

Arsenal thought they'd be stuck repaying their debt for about forever, but then TV money went apeshit and it turned out fine. I remember reading Carragher's biography in 2008 when he complained about how Liverpool could only buy a 20m player every other summer whereas Chelsea and Man Utd had the opportunity to buy two of those players every year. Seven years on, money has once again gone through the roof: we buy players for those sums regularly now. Had Hicks and Gilette indeed delivered their stadium, I therefore don't think we'd have been crippled.

[CraigDS]

Arsenal thought they'd be stuck repaying their debt for about forever, but then TV money went apeshit and it turned out fine.

That's not what happened at all.

Their housing deal brought in a massive amount of profit, something we couldn't do. They manage to bring in over £100m a season from ticketing (close to what United do) due to London prices, something we couldn't do. They had years of low spending, something we don't want to do.

They still have debt of over £235m, and pay £20m a year in interest payments.

[ashleyrose-66]

You are forgetting that Spurs' stadium currently holds about 35,000 people.  That's 10,000 people less than we currently do.

So whilst it is not economically viable for Liverpool to pay £350-£400m for an extra 13,000 seats, Spurs will be paying that amount to add an extra 26,000 seats.  Plus they are factoring in the ability to utilise the stadium for other events, such as NFL and concerts etc.

If you factor in a decent naming rights deal and huge corporate opportunities (which White Hart Lane has very little of) then it makes sense for them to build a new stadium.

[CraigDS]

You are forgetting that Spurs' stadium currently holds about 35,000 people.  That's 10,000 people less than we currently do.

So whilst it is not economically viable for Liverpool to pay £350-£400m for an extra 13,000 seats, Spurs will be paying that amount to add an extra 26,000 seats.  Plus they are factoring in the ability to utilise the stadium for other events, such as NFL and concerts etc.

If you factor in a decent naming rights deal and huge corporate opportunities (which White Hart Lane has very little of) then it makes sense for them to build a new stadium.

It certainly makes it make more sense for them, definitely. As does the fact they're in London and few other options in close proximity.

Makes absolutely no sense at all for us to do it though, and we're going to be in a much better position in a few years than Spurs (stadium income wise) without a shadow of a doubt.

[RedHopper]

Oh god. Arsenal's property deal brought in a relatively small amount of money because they completed the apartments and put them on the market in the middle of the economic crisis. Secondly that money was never intended to help pay for the stadium because Their loan doesn't allow early repayment. Thirdly, their stadium had only a large positive impact on the money they could spend, because their repayments are £20 million a year, but the stadium gave them an increase in £60 million. Arsenal aren't suddenly spending money because their stadium is paid back. Nothing has changed with the arsenal stadium, and they will be paying back the same amount of money for another 10 years at least.

There's so much ill informed nonsense talked about the arsenal stadium, largely because it is being used by Arsenal fans to try and mask the fact that Wenger suddenly started to look like yesterdays man with the arrival of mourinho, rafa and carlos quierroz at man utd. Also it's financial impact is turned on its head because arsenal fans don't want to accept that wenger would sooner put their huge profits in the bank, rather than spend it properly on signing new players.

[cdav]

It certainly makes it make more sense for them, definitely. As does the fact they're in London and few other options in close proximity.

Makes absolutely no sense at all for us to do it though, and we're going to be in a much better position in a few years than Spurs (stadium income wise) without a shadow of a doubt.

I've been wondering about the situation with corporate and premium seats in London, in a few years we could all suddenly have Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea with 60k+ seat stadiums and West Ham with a 54k seater all chasing the same corporate tickets, that has surely got to have an impact on pricing? The number of people able to fund for a season a £600 per person per match seat is surely going to be split over a greater number of clubs and put pressure on the prices?

[CraigDS]

Oh god. Arsenal's property deal brought in a relatively small amount of money because they completed the apartments and put them on the market in the middle of the economic crisis.

2007 - £9m
2008 - £0
2009 - £7.8m
2010 - £15.2m
2011 - £12.6m
2012 - £2.5m
2013 - £5.1m
2014 - £900k

£53.1m (operating profit) isn't too shabby. That's just from the headline figures, think there have been other lucrative property/land deals for the areas around Highbury/Emirates (potentially up to £40m from two deals from what I've read, although half of that may be included in the above figures, I haven't looked into it deep enough).

Secondly that money was never intended to help pay for the stadium because Their loan doesn't allow early repayment.

That's bizarre logic. Any additional revenue coming in to help pay the debt repayments (even at the agreed rates) allows for less to be taken away from the football spend.

Thirdly, their stadium had only a large positive impact on the money they could spend, because their repayments are £20 million a year, but the stadium gave them an increase in £60 million. Arsenal aren't suddenly spending money because their stadium is paid back. Nothing has changed with the arsenal stadium, and they will be paying back the same amount of money for another 10 years at least.

Whilst very true with regards to cost vs revenue increases (Arsenal benefit from being able to nearly bring in with 60k what United can with 75k), it's not particularly true regarding the debt and repayments staying the same.

They had massive bank debt (£138m) even after taking out the two types of bonds in 2007. They repaid this debt thanks to their frugal spending in the transfer market, and with it the yearly debt repayments dropped to the level they are now, which they'll happily pay until about 2030.

There's so much ill informed nonsense talked about the arsenal stadium, largely because it is being used by Arsenal fans to try and mask the fact that Wenger suddenly started to look like yesterdays man with the arrival of mourinho, rafa and carlos quierroz at man utd. Also it's financial impact is turned on its head because arsenal fans don't want to accept that wenger would sooner put their huge profits in the bank, rather than spend it properly on signing new players.

It's certainly not nonsense that it had a massive effect on their ability to spend. They had more ability than they actually did in the market, that's for sure (the cash balances show this) but that is definitely more in the more recent 4 or so years. Before that debt levels were huge.

[RedHopper]

2007 - £9m
2008 - £0
2009 - £7.8m
2010 - £15.2m
2011 - £12.6m
2012 - £2.5m
2013 - £5.1m
2014 - £900k

£53.1m (operating profit) isn't too shabby. That's just from the headline figures, think there have been other lucrative property/land deals for the areas around Highbury/Emirates (potentially up to £40m from two deals from what I've read, although half of that may be included in the above figures, I haven't looked into it deep enough).


That's bizarre logic. Any additional revenue coming in to help pay the debt repayments (even at the agreed rates) allows for less to be taken away from the football spend.


Whilst very true with regards to cost vs revenue increases (Arsenal benefit from being able to nearly bring in with 60k what United can with 75k), it's not particularly true regarding the debt and repayments staying the same.

They had massive bank debt (£138m) even after taking out the two types of bonds in 2007. They repaid this debt thanks to their frugal spending in the transfer market, and with it the yearly debt repayments dropped to the level they are now, which they'll happily pay until about 2030.


It's certainly not nonsense that it had a massive effect on their ability to spend. They had more ability than they actually did in the market, that's for sure (the cash balances show this) but that is definitely more in the more recent 4 or so years. Before that debt levels were huge.

it would be interesting to see what £53.1 million operating profit translates into in actual money. It's also a fraction of what they hoped to raise. People keep saying that it was supposed to help pay back for their stadium, but that's not true. Its essential purpose was to either increase the value of the club for sale, or be divided among the shareholders, because it actually couldn't be used to pay off the stadium debt. The 138 million debt figure you are talking  about is a loan to cover the property business, and had no impact on the team.

it's important once again to stress that apart from a brief spell in their first season, building the emirates has at no point had a negative effect on arsenal's ability to spend on players. Ever since arsenal have moved into the stadium they have generated enormous amounts of cash, it's just that they prefer to put the money into the bank rather than spend it on players. between 2007 and 2014, for every pound they spent on debt repayments and players, they put a pound in the bank. It certainly increased the value of the club when the time came to sell to kroenke. That's a decision that arsenal made.

I'll just stress it again, the Emirates turned arsenal into one of the richest clubs in the world. Wenger just chose to not spend the money and pretended to be bravely battling against poverty and to be fighting with one hand tied behind his back because he wasn't able to adapt to the new wave of managers, or fight against the sugar daddy clubs.

[zanwalk]

I am glad that Spurs are starting from scratch with the stadium, as it allows much more freedom with design (retractable pitch for instance), and the whole area is being upgraded in conjunction with the council, something that is badly needed. As to funding it, one thing that Daniel Levy is good at is the financial side of things, so I am sure that he has got that side of things mapped out.

The retractable pitch also opens up the possibility of many other uses for the stadium without messing up the pitch, so will help with funding.

[Xxavi]

Spurs looked like they turned the corner when they sold Bale for a world record fee and re-invested that back into the squad. Wow, they have been really quite as of late. Pocettino in charge may be a positive change but they seem as far away from the 4th spot trophy as ever.

[rafathegaffa83]

I still wonder if a lot of their transfer plans over the last few years were predicated on the idea of them being gifted the Olympic stadium. They've bought a few defenders this summer and purged their midfield of numbers, but they surprisingly haven't added a forward given Adebayor and Soldado could be off. Puts a hell of a lot of pressure on Kane to stay fit and score

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

I think a chunk of those players who came in over the last few years, some with the Bale money, have left - Stambouli gone today, Capoue has gone, Paulinho sold and Soldado will probably move on.

You could say Erikssen was a success, maybe Chirchires and Chadli if they get a run in the side this season but overall, he has made some poor signings. I'm not convinced Lamela will come good either.

Big summer for them, especially as after the Euros next summer, Kane might have bigger suitors after him.

[Chris~]

Who's behind their transfer business this window? Levy, Baldini, the Southampton guy, a mix?

[rafathegaffa83]

Chadli and Eriksen were vital for them last year. Both scored ten plus in the league from midfield. 42 (72.4%)of Spurs' league goals last season were scored by Kane, Chadli or Eriksen: a highly unsustainable amount. The next highest scorer was Danny Rose with three. Given they have EL commitments, I'm surprised they haven't gone after another forward early in a congested market. I'm also surprised they haven't been linked with Charlie Austin, who would be a superb signing for any club in the current overheated market. They' ve signed a lot of defenders over the past two years (Yedlin, Dier, Davies and Fazio last year; plus Wimmer, Alderweireld and Trippier) but no forwards since Soldado. It wouldn't surprise me if they use a reserve side in the EL , as they could get overly stretched. Surely they have to be signing at least two forwards by the end of August? Unless they need to wait until Soldado and Adebayor exit first.

[rafathegaffa83]

They are linked with Berahino now in The Telegraph, although a £10m opening bid really is laughable. Also supposedly had a bid for Schalke's Leroy Sane rejected and are interested in a few other Bundesliga players (Sven Bender, Christoph Kramer, Timo Werner). Still looks like they'll be dumping Chirches, Lennon, Adebayor and Soldado.

[ashleyrose-66]

Twitter (yes, I know!!) was rife last night that they may send Lamela out on loan, with Porto seemingly the destination.

Can't really see that happening to be honest, as they don't have the numbers in their squad anymore, especially with Europa League football to deal with, and also there is no-one really there to take his place - unless Poch has decided that Townsend or Lennon still has a role to play!

[Aceldama]

Twitter (yes, I know!!) was rife last night that they may send Lamela out on loan, with Porto seemingly the destination.

Can't really see that happening to be honest, as they don't have the numbers in their squad anymore, especially with Europa League football to deal with, and also there is no-one really there to take his place - unless Poch has decided that Townsend or Lennon still has a role to play!

Alex Pritchard is the obvious name as a ready made replacement, did very well out on loan last season and Pochettino has already said he'll be kept around this year. One in one out and it's exactly the same number of wingers/AMs they had around for last seasons campaign.

No club is going to be wanting to keep around a big money flop like Lamela just to make up the numbers in their squad. Getting rid of him might free up enough wages to upgrade one of Townsend or Lennon before the end of the window.

[Phil M]

They are linked with Berahino now

Would be a good move for them and the player I think.

[BeautifulGame91]

Levy and his ridiculous bids .Last season they made 10mil for Schnidelein pissing off Southampton and now 10 mil for Berahino

[CraigDS]

They are linked with Berahino now in The Telegraph, although a £10m opening bid really is laughable.

Their bid for Ings, supposedly for no other reason than to piss us off, could really come back to bite them in the arse for that deal.

[BER]

Mamadou has to be a 12 year old.

[ashleyrose-66]

Adebayor is at Aston Villa's training ground apparently...

   
 

[TepidT2O]

Key season this.... If they don't make a good start, then the manager will (again) pay the price with his job...

A funny club spurs are

[HighSix]

^ Not sure about that as 5th in his first season has to be seen as good. Looks to be pretty settled & being allowed to change the squad round this window. With the new stadium to be funded makes sense for a period of stability. Still need a striker but the likes of Alderweireld, Wimmer & Trippier are some low key but solid signings. Building a good young core.

[Inpeace]

It's already been having an effect on them I think.

This season they've a more or less even net spend and Levy has said they need to sell some now before buying. If they stick with that it'll be the 5th season in a row they've (approx) not had a positive net spend.

Been negative spend over past 5 years. We tend to buy late in order to stop richer neighbours stealing the march if we get a good deal

[rafathegaffa83]

Would be a good move for them and the player I think.

Possibly, although I would think Austin might be a cheaper more reasonable target for them. Unless, they want Kane and Berahino to form a little and large partnership.

[killer-heels]

Twitter (yes, I know!!) was rife last night that they may send Lamela out on loan, with Porto seemingly the destination.

Can't really see that happening to be honest, as they don't have the numbers in their squad anymore, especially with Europa League football to deal with, and also there is no-one really there to take his place - unless Poch has decided that Townsend or Lennon still has a role to play!

Lamela, like Paulinho, is an example of a foreign player coming over and not having the stomach for the fight. Spurs need to get rid as quick as possible.

[richiedouglas]

Key season this.... If they don't make a good start, then the manager will (again) pay the price with his job...

A funny club spurs are

On the aplt it seems as though they have a very reasonable start. If they dont pick up a lot of early points theyll struggle.

[elpistolero7]

Key season this.... If they don't make a good start, then the manager will (again) pay the price with his job...

A funny club spurs are

Well they've been better in the league 4 times of the last 5. Rodgers, I'd say is under far, far more pressure than Pochettino to get his shit together.

[TepidT2O]

Well they've been better in the league 4 times of the last 5. Rodgers, I'd say is under far, far more pressure than Pochettino to get his shit together.

Yeah, but if we look at Spurs history, Levy gets rid of managers so quickly it's silly.  They get one season, then, if they aren't looking at top four they come under immense pressure as they know they will get fired...

It's a self fulfilling prophecy.....

[thelinnen]

This has been reposted on Facebook, haven't seen it since it was taken down haha.

https://www.facebook.com/www.JOE.co.uk/videos/514962308667840/

Top four is their everything.

[RedSince86]

This has been reposted on Facebook, haven't seen it since it was taken down haha.

https://www.facebook.com/www.JOE.co.uk/videos/514962308667840/

Top four is their everything.

Shocking.