Short of centre backs imo. Yes players can play there if needed to but not at a high level. Also LB seems to be an issue. Gray and Soence aren’t LB and Ange doesn’t rate Reguilon at all so the club should have got in a LB in the summer. Plenty of numbers in midfield but again not the right players, the club badly needs a no6 style player.
Levy said the covenant was on EBITD. Which is essentially profit with depreciation, tax and interest added back.
If we didn't have the loans we wouldn't have the new stadium which would mean our transfer spending would be much more limited by PSR directly. I imagine we could have negotiated a less restrictive covenant by paying a higher interest rate but that wouldn't necessarily help depending on the trade off.
Lyall Thomas mentioned we looked at a couple of LCBs who are capable of playing LB, namely David Hancko and Olivier Boscagli, but the focus moved to a forward given Deki and Son are running on fumes while Odobert is out until at least March That also suggests we've been scouring the Eredivisie, as Hancko and Boscagli play for Feyenoord and PSV respectively - and both are 27 years old
Yes, I left the A out because Amortisation is the word usually used to describe the way transfer fees are charged to the profit and loss account and they clearly are not excluded from the calculation. Other Amortisation is though.
We could never possibly know for sure. Though it may have forced us to have been more meticulous in the market. It would’ve forced us to develop some of the youth we’ve lost for peanuts over the years. It would’ve prevented us wasting ridiculous amounts on the likes of Ndombele, Lo Celso, Richarlison, Johnson etc. We would’ve had a proper football stadium with a great atmosphere too, instead of a soulless bowl that’s slowly weaning out loyal fans due to costs. How’s the extra £600m worked out for us in your eyes?
Not so well so far, but there was zero chance of improving with WHL. The stadium is not a soulless bowl, if anything the noise levels are louder than WHL. And if you think the prices would be cheaper at WHL with 100,000 people vying for seats you're in cloud cuckoo land.
What do you think it does ?? Simple experiment : Tell us (based on the most recent accounts) , what total transfer/wage expenditure the covenant allows in the following year, for both schemes. < show your workings >
Zero chance is nonsense. The noise level of 60,000 boos are certainly louder. And you’ll get a one off moment in derby games where there’s some atmosphere but considering Ange’s knack of losing the majority of them that atmosphere soon dissipates. WHL’s atmosphere was far more consistent. We had better atmospheres playing farmers in Europa in that than we do playing some of the big six at THS. There was never 100,000 on the waiting list at WHL so the prices wouldn’t have jumped as much as they have done since moving.
Seriously...you think the correct economic pricing for a stadium with 37,000 seats is lower than for one with 62,000 seats and the same demand? And if the atmosphere is so much better as you claim that would put demand higher for WHL. You have to pay money to be on the waiting list so it massively underestimates demand. We sold out Wembley easily for most matches there.
Of course we sold out a lot at Wembley, there’s a novelty factor when playing at certain stadiums along with the fact we came off the back off finishing 2nd the season before at WHL. The same novelty applies now at THS but eventually that will die off. That’s actually been evident already with the fact people in the 40-50ks on the waiting list have been getting offered season tickets because those lower down keep passing up on them. My friend’s Dad got his season ticket a year ago and was 28,000 in the waiting list.
A few posts ago you said my 100,000 demand was wrong but now there are at least 50,000 on the waiting list to add to the 40,000 who already have season tickets.
Except I didn't, I said we wouldn’t have had 100,000 on the waiting list at WHL. The waiting list grew massively at the THS because there’s a novelty factor to it.
Personally I think the new ground is amazing and better than the old WHL in pretty much every way. For a start it’s opened the gate for a lot more people to be able to attend and I can’t see that it has affected the atmosphere any differently. I’ve no idea on my numbers but just 20,000 I’d say in the south stand is a lot better than 10,000 or however many in the park lane and shelf at WHL. Like every ground up and down the country, when things are going well the atmosphere will be a lot different to when it’s not. Then you’ve got the actual experience of being at the stadium with everything it has to offer within it. WHL was a great old stadium but to compete nowadays you need more money and to get more money we had to move. Have we spent the extra money well, not always but we wouldn’t even have had it to throw away at the old ground.
Spurs were competing more at WHL than they are now. Not saying it’s even to do with the new stadium but the new stadium hasn’t helped on the pitch results at all.
