I don't think you are right. The stadium generates cash immediately as far as I can see. The debt is 400m and The interest is only about 15m per annum. The remainder of the 850m was paid from the club's own resources.
not sure that 450m remainder has actually been paid though right? The original plan was that the upgrade would cost around 400m (i'm presuming this was why you have borrowed that much). It's then grown and spiralled out of control (for whatever reasons) and the club are determined to finance that other 400m themselves but unless you had some massive cash reserves that Levy didn't want to spend, that needs to come from somewhere.
I didn't explain it accurately. The latest info says that 350m had been spent prior to this year of which 250m came from the club's resources (which would include capital injections from ENIC) and 100m was borrowed. The remaining 350m due to be spent was to be funded by a new loan facility of 400m (300m net of the old borrowing) and 50m from ENIC. The actual costs are undisclosed but it wouldn't be surprising if a project like this was 10% above budget. The 850m or 1b quoted include different things: the former includes other developments on the Spurs site and the latter non Spurs spend in the local area. Things can go wrong obviously but the central outcome is for the stadium to be a benefit not a millstone.
Presumably the £250m that the club self funded including any directors loans will be clearly shown in the accounts then?
by the way, i don't disagree the stadium in a long term is a good thing and it will pay itself off. However as with building an investment, it's a long term gain at the cost of the short term. You will need to pay off the existing debt + interest and you will need to find that extra money from somewhere (see tobes DLA on whats put in). This will jeopardise any transfers in the short term as well as wage increases than if you didn't have the stadium unless ENIC decide to fund this.
The playing side and the stadium side ought to be considered completely separately as two seperate opportunities. They only impact each other if there is a shortage of cash which there shouldn't be in this case. They do have some correlated risks though. Not qualifying for the CL harms both of them for example.
I'm not sure how they should be considered as separate opportunities as ultimate the cash used on the stadium isn't being used on the playing side. Both the playing side and the stadium side use the same resource pool. Now there might be enough money to keep the squad and improve on it with transfers, but ultimately, you'd have been able to do even more (if the club had wanted to) if that stadium was not invested in. It might be the case, that levy had never intended to spend that money in the playing side in which case there is no opportunity lost....
What I'm saying is that the optimal amounts of money to invest in the players and the stadium are seperately calculable. I doubt there is a shortage of cash so one shouldn't affect the other.
But there has been a shortage of cash over the last three years. Where you should have gone the extra mile and expanded your squad your board had decided to rake it in for their own personal interests by refusing players wage rises but doubling their own. Owning a team will never be a viable business and you in my opinion will always be bridesmaids.
Just untrue. Nearly every player has had big rises. Levy has a performance related bonus he fully deserves. We have invested in the squad just not wasted money on dross like Morata
Walker left, Rose is leaving, Toby is leaving & Dembele. If these players all were paid the going rate they wouldn’t have left or be leaving.
But the going rate depends on the Club. If you are Man United you can afford millions on Pogba because you get all the money back in a few months on shirt sales. We don't. It's not really a shortage of cash. It's that the returns on spending it are still different from the others in the top six.
Spurs net spend in the last 5 years has been virtually zip. Personally I don’t see how they could suddenly dramatically increase their player spending at the same time as paying down the stadium debt in the timeframe being suggested.
That’s a fallacy though. United make nothing from increasing shirt sales as they’ve effectively sold the rights for an upfront annual fee. That’s largely standard in the industry.
