I don't pretend to understand any of this and I never have done, but taking your Forest example about the points deductions and selling key players, it raises a question in my head lol....if a mega rich owner can't spend his wealth on a club, unless it comes from football related commerical activites, how the hell did Spurs build a billion pound stadium AND still stay within budget on the pitch?
@brb mate I have a welching problem on the toon board .. I understand if you don't want to get involved but if you could find the facility to change his username for him that would be greatly appreciated.
Nope I'm not getting involved, sorry mate. In my view if people agree to a bet then they should honour it. I would, hence why I don't bet lol. If people don't like the consequences of betting, then they shouldn't bet, simples. Having said that I do have a personal view that I don't think people should have to honour a bet if it's pics of Jimmy Saville or if it is in contrary to their religion, but I don't make the rules so I'll just stfu.
We've had this discussion before. The bulk of the stadium debt repayments are £30m pa for 23 years, locked in at extremely low interest rates thanks to us having an incompetent govt at the time. We have an annual revenue of over half a billion pounds. Unlike Arsenal, who tied loans to increases in sponsorship deals (top of whose list was losing the stadium naming rights, something Levy is intriguingly holding back on for now), we tied our loans to increases in revenue (there's that word again) and put together a diverse portfolio of interests including NFL, boxing, concerts etc. This approach gave us access to much more generous terms with creditors. Whereas Arsenal's loan obligations pretty much required them to remain a huge club worthy of massive sponsorship until full repayment (which they struggled to do in Wenger's latter years and had to sell off key players to bridge the gap), our obligations are relatively detached from the footballing side of things: Even if Spurs get relegated next year and sponsorship plummets as a result, the stadium will remain a strong source of commercial income from projects that have nothing to do with football. So while for now we still cannot compete financially with clubs like City, United or Liverpool, the gap is shrinking rather than growing as the stadium starts to pay for itself.
When (if) he wants a new hobby, I hope he goes with the good wishes and heartfelt thanks from all the people of Leicestershire ... he'll certainly go with mine - because him and his old man have provided memories that no Leicester fan who witnessed them will or certainly should ever forget ... Since our founding in 1884 we'd never had any proper investment and, not surprisingly, our 'successes' have been on par with that ... until King Power - now I could also wax lyrical about the philanthropic impact King Power have had in Leicestershire... but I won't... but safe to say, footballing success is largely based on money spent and , in reality, always has been ... What I can safely say is that the club is in it's best financial state since its' founding - the club itself owns the stadium thanks to King Power gifting it - so if they do decide to bugger off, any new owners would get a club possibly with no debt and with considerable assets ... and life goes on ... as will the memories... There will always be football club casualties - but both our, and now Everton's, 'problems' came from unforeseen and perhaos unprecedented circumstances - our going into administration had nowt to do with overspending on the pitch - so unlike has been claimed, FFP was not brought in because of clubs like mine going into administration - had the TV deal not collapsed we would have had the funds to make the stage payments on the stadium ... unfortunately for all involved the deal did collapse - that couldn't have been predicted and earmarking future revenues for investment (which is what it was) is normal business practice ... we'd have gone into administration irrespective of FFP ... FFP really isn't needed - just legal agreement from owners that they must settle any net financial debt on exiting ownership ... and there are plenty of enforceable exit charges already in our legislature ...
You can write as many words as you like, as I see it, you didn't have a billion pounds, yet you buil;t a stadium nontheless, maybe Forest should have locked in repayments for the next 23 years lol. You immediately switched to pointing at Arsenal which is even funnier. The simple fact remains, you couldn't afford the stadium but still went ahead and built it, from money that was not from football, and while continuing the financial cost of putting a top six team out.. Yet Forest or something lol..
You're missing the point ... FFP is a farce ... who set the parameters? - how come the personal wealth of owners isn't factored in? - in normal business environs it's common - usually in the form of a 'parental guarantee' ... the way FFP is currently set up is to the distinct advantage of the Big 6 who have the biggest stadiums and biggest commercial income streams ... and guess what ... the richest clubs always win the most ... You strike me as the kind of wassock that would happily see Citeh stripped of trophies and those then handed to the next team down the table that did comply ... even if that was a team in mid-table (e.g. Spurs - open top bus already booked) ... but the reality is that Citeh didn't cheat on the pitch ... they were simply better at the game ... and that is all
Amen The beautiful game is in danger of having it's trophies decided by ****ing accountants ****ing over spreadsheets
Apart from maybe a handful of companies, literally no one on earth has a billion quid just lying around spare. What we did is totally normal for any investment. We approached banks, government and investors. We presented them with a project. We fronted a percentage of the costs ourselves and asked them if they would loan us the rest. They said: How will you pay us back? We answered: our global commercial revenue is already increasing year on year, and we will add to this by building a venue rather than a just a football ground. They said: we love the second idea, it's nice to finally meet someone thinking outside of the box. We are confident that your plan will come to fruition and we therefore trust you with our money even with extremely generous repayment terms. This is what equity and hedge funds do every day. They loan billions of pounds to people and companies. But they don't see it as a loan like me borrowing a fiver from you to buy a sandwich (I live in London stop judging). They see it as an investment. And the investment is paying off. The stadium is already generating close to £100m pa in additional revenue that didn't exist until it was built.
Would be interested to know the operating costs of the Stadium and which percentage of events that it hosts (outside of football), generate money for Spurs, or are simply used as loan repayments.
You still spent money which you didn't have and a level of money that potentially could bust any club, but it was still allowed. I've advised the lawyers at Forest to ask to the Prem for a 23 year repayment deal and we'll say no more about it.
