Club watch

[PowerSpurs]

but RCL, you don't know the reasons behind the club doing this.....

Look China spread the disease and are financially benefitting from it

Google aren't paying their taxes!

Seriously though, it's so disappointing to hear people defending this decision, at the very least even if you are "taking advantage" of the government scheme, at least top up the wages of your workers

Who has defended the decision?

 

["Thanks for that Brian"]

There is no doubt that the decision was wrong. One of my points is that no club can rely on selling players, because every other club will have no money either...

Like with all markets, there will be a realignment of what is a realistic price in a troubled market but City, Chelsea, PSG, etc. will be spending. THey'll be looking for value but when they buy, the whole thing kicks into life again (for better or worse).

If we put Kane, Sonny, Lo Celso and a couple of others on the market, there'd be takers.

Plus, we're now one of only 4 clubs that have gone down this route. Two of the others are in danger of relegation and the other's run by Mike Ashley. That's not company that we should be in.

 

["Thanks for that Brian"]

Also, we own huge tracts of land in Tottenham...we could sell some of that...

Taking the state's shilling should have been the last option, not the first.

 

["Thanks for that Brian"]

Don't be so down on yourself over this (there are plenty of other reasons for
us to do that to you ) .

Tis not that difficult to do basic reading/calcs on accounting reports.

I had to do it to a basic level once upon a time in an earlier life. Now that I don't have to read them, I tend to glaze over at the sight of accounts. My lack of desire to do it is considerable and growing and day by day, not just restricted to accounts..

 

[BobbyD]

Who has defended the decision?

the people trying to explain it away with whataboutery. You are trying to make this situation grey by saying Levy could be done over, the club will fold if you receive zero in 6 months time.

Theres no two ways about it, this is about as morally wrong decision as you can get.

You even justify that it's not even the taxpayers money.

theres not much more i can say with how disappointing this stance is

 

[PowerSpurs]

Also, we own huge tracts of land in Tottenham...we could sell some of that...

Taking the state's shilling should have been the last option, not the first.

Since the value of the land is already included in the net assets, selling it makes no difference to our solvency unless we get a higher than book price which seems unlikely in the current situation.
We are very likely better advised than most other clubs and I suspect we have taken the words I quote above, namely our Directors' obligations to "take every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company’s creditors" very seriously. Taken at face value, if the revised business plan currently shows the club being insolvent within a year because of no income, and there is Government help available, it would be hard to get a lawyer to advise you not to take it.

 

[KingHotspur]

the people trying to explain it away with whataboutery. You are trying to make this situation grey by saying Levy could be done over, the club will fold if you receive zero in 6 months time.

Theres no two ways about it, this is about as morally wrong decision as you can get.

You even justify that it's not even the taxpayers money.

theres not much more i can say with how disappointing this stance is

Some people will defend the club for the sake of defending the club, they will come up with all sorts of excuses for Spurs but deep down they know that the club has behaved disgustingly over this.

 

[PowerSpurs]

the people trying to explain it away with whataboutery. You are trying to make this situation grey by saying Levy could be done over, the club will fold if you receive zero in 6 months time.

Theres no two ways about it, this is about as morally wrong decision as you can get.

You even justify that it's not even the taxpayers money.

theres not much more i can say with how disappointing this stance is

I completely agree the decision is morally wrong. But morals don't come in to company law unfortunately. I am just trying to understand why the Club took such a strange decision. And it definitely isn't taxpayers money. Why do you facepalm that?

 

[remembercolinlee]

The workings I posted show that the club can only just afford to cover their cost base over 6 months with no income. I actually suspect it is worse than that because with no season ticket income and the money we spent on January transfers I suspect our current cash balance is lower than in the last accounts.
There is absolutely no doubt that the Board need to have a plan to deal with this a long time before they actually start missing payments or they would be guilty of wrongful trading. I think they have other options than the one they have chosen but I don't have all the information necessary to be sure.
The fact that we are amongst the richest clubs doesn't mean we are immune to loss of our entire revenue stream. Very few businesses of any sort could survive losing 6 months of revenue without cutting costs.
That's why the Government scheme exists. I don't see how a company director could claim that he had taken all steps to protect creditors unless he had taken advantage of it.
What is needed is for the main source of costs that is players wages to be substantially reduced so the club remains solvent for longer and can therefore pay everyone else.
By the way I don't think the 'taxpayer' is funding anything. The money for the bailout is effectively just being printed which in the long run will mean it is being paid for out of wealth.

The club CAN afford to ensure that NO staff are losing 20% of their salary.
It would cost £1.7m to do this for 6 months....or just £300, 000 per month.

It is a completely disgraceful decision and it shames all of us associated with the club imho.

Edit...I ain't accusing anyone of supporting the decision but feel increasing angry at the club...apologies if what I write comes across as a dig...genuinely isn't.

 

[PowerSpurs]

The club CAN afford to ensure that NO staff are losing 20% of their salary.
It would cost £1.7m to do this for 6 months....or just £300, 000 per month.

It is a completely disgraceful decision and it shames all of us associated with the club imho.

On your first point I agree that the decision is wrong....I am more looking to understand why the Directors took it.
On your second point I don't think any of us should feel shame about the actions of the club. Each of us might well decide whether or not we should continue to support the club financially or otherwise based on their decisions on how they use our money. Which is why I am trying to understand why they did this.

 

[BobbyD]

I completely agree the decision is morally wrong. But morals don't come in to company law unfortunately. I am just trying to understand why the Club took such a strange decision. And it definitely isn't taxpayers money. Why do you facepalm that?

How is it not the taxpayers money. It's coming from the government, the government incomes is from taxes from the people. Regardless of whether that money is being printed by the bank of England, it needs to be paid back by the government at some point.

 

[bigsmithy9]

Forgive my ignorance but...if Daniel gave up his bonus as a charity,wouldn't he be compensated by the tax people?

 

[PowerSpurs]

How is it not the taxpayers money. It's coming from the government, the government incomes is from taxes from the people. Regardless of whether that money is being printed by the bank of England, it needs to be paid back by the government at some point.

That isn't how government finances work. There is a magic money tree via quantitative easing but using it gives uncertain long term effects. To the extent that taxes need to be raised to recover the money paid out, you have no idea on who will be paying them. Hopefully it will be a wealth tax and a windfall tax on football clubs so that no-one gets undeserved benefits. The scheme was designed by the Government to help businesses through a crisis. How can it be immoral not to use it?

 

[BobbyD]

Forgive my ignorance but...if Daniel gave up his bonus as a charity,wouldn't he be compensated by the tax people?

he wouldn't be compensated, but he would pay slightly less taxes.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Forgive my ignorance but...if Daniel gave up his bonus as a charity,wouldn't he be compensated by the tax people?

Not if it has already been paid.

 

[BobbyD]

That isn't how government finances work. There is a magic money tree via quantitative easing but using it gives uncertain long term effects. To the extent that taxes need to be raised to recover the money paid out, you have no idea on who will be paying them. Hopefully it will be a wealth tax and a windfall tax on football clubs so that no-one gets undeserved benefits. The scheme was designed by the Government to help businesses through a crisis. How can it be immoral not to use it?

either way, that money could be used by the government on other things. Not paying out to football clubs who if they have 6 months of no income whilst paying their directors and players millions of quid. The tax payer loses out overall

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

either way, that money could be used by the government on other things. Not paying out to football clubs who if they have 6 months of no income whilst paying their directors and players millions of quid. The tax payer loses out overall

Perhaps the government should've considered this when they set up the scheme?
Unfortunately I expect that it was part of their thinking, though more for their mates' businesses, rather than football clubs.

 

[bigsmithy9]

Seems the normal working man was born to be screwed!

 

[PowerSpurs]

either way, that money could be used by the government on other things. Not paying out to football clubs who if they have 6 months of no income whilst paying their directors and players millions of quid. The tax payer loses out overall

Well that brings us back to the moral argument. That clearly requires players and directors salaries to be cut first. I think that is the ethical and moral thing to do. The trouble with that is the PFA are right that reducing the players's salaries by 30% effectively takes nearly half of that out of the government's coffers by reducing tax take. So the 'moral' thing to do actually costs the Government more in the short term than claiming the furlough money!
This stuff is more tricky than it looks which is why hasty judgements are always bad.

 

[Spurlock]

Our club is full of mini Levy’s who make excuse after excuse to save a penny...not even interested on the impact it has on the quality of our team, our reputation as a club in the community...football was meant to be for the community after all.

That’s what happens when you let a certain philosophy seep into the infrastructure of your club for the last 20 years

RIP THFC

**** off out of here ENIC/Levy