The -76,978k is depreciation of physical assets, mainly on the stadium. -127,106k is amortisation of current players. The increase in assets is due to revaluing the stadium after the increase in the number of events.
I am channeling some Sugga Daddy FC supporter entitlement, and demand Levy hires someone who has worked for the "vampire squid" .
First thank you for explaining this to me as I do not have the will or the necessary know how to go through the aggregated numbers and the definitions. So the excluding the actual losses from stadium and non football depreciations, the club is pretty much break even (down some years up some years).
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that the cash generated by the stadium is all being invested in the squad.
Just trying to understand the facts. Going through yours and kings post i think we can now agree that spurs arent the most profitable as they are spending it on players but at the same time they arent making losses every year on players + wages as you have stated.
I didn't say any such thing. I said the club was making losses year on year. That's true. The losses are actually quite big though. ENIC could chose to run with lower losses though by investing less in the team...but they choose to invest the maximum possible.
You stated losses year on year which is technically true. However when you actually take out the non footballing side of it (depreciation of stadium etc) then its a loss, profit, loss, profit, profit for the past 5 years but roughly flat on average. You even agreed here
Swiss Ramble is obviously a clueless amateur. How can anyone possibly have the paragon of "business of own account" clubs operating at 175% of the losses of Spurs ... ??
Hmm It isn't actually correct to take out the stadium depreciation from the 'footballing' side while leaving in all the revenue that the stadium earns. All the numbers in the Spurs accounts relate to football really. I just interpreted your comment as an interesting fact about how the numbers balanced. Spurs make a loss on the football business which isn't actually covered by the extra net income from additional events at the stadium. This is only to be expected given that we are investing in the squad and not paying the loans back or using the cash for something else.
I would agree if at the same time we were to include the appreciation of stuff like the additional increase in value of assets due to appreciation or expansion as surely that also seems to be paid for out of the club?
That would be double counting because the revaluation of the stadium just reflects it's increased potential to create bigger cashflows in the future. If we continue to spend them on the team then they won't create actual profit.
Don’t know if you intend to but you make it sound like the stadium alone makes money. The reason the stadium has any income at all is because of the football team. So spending any extra income on the team is the bare minimum that should be done anyway. That’s not something to praise anyone for.
This all started because @Spurlock posted that ENIC were just running an entertainment business and didn't care about the team. I was merely pointing out that if that was true they wouldn't need to spend so much money on the team and run the club at a loss. I agree it's exactly what they ought to be doing but it's what many people claim isn't happening.
