Spurs Announce Loss

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...of-4.3m-after-missing-out-on-Champions-League


Tottenham announce loss of £4.3m after missing out on Champions League


The Premier League club had made a profit of £700,000 in the previous year, which covered the period when they were competing in the 2010-11 UEFA Champions League.
Total club revenue for the 2011-12 financial year was £144m - 12 per cent lower than the year before - while Spurs said "profit from operations" dropped to £23m from £38m.

Revenues continued to increase on the commercial front, but merchandising fell by four per cent largely due to the lack of Champions League football, which they also failed to secure this season.

Spurs say they are on course to comply with UEFA's financial fair play rules, and this season moved into a new training centre in Enfield which they hope will help them by nurturing home-grown talent.

The club say they have also completed their first step towards building a new stadium adjacent to White Hart Lane which will increase revenue due to greater capacity.

Chairman Daniel Levy said in a statement: "We are ever ambitious for the club, driving all areas of the business and our focus continues to be the delivery of an increased capacity stadium.

"There is much work to be done refining the detailed design and resolving the final development issues.

"We intend to deliver this to the same high standards of the new training centre and to reward our incredibly loyal supporters with a world-class stadium and one that will have made a crucial contribution to the regeneration of a priority borough in London."

 

I never know what to make of our figures.
They always seem to be somewhat misleading and a bit propaganda-y.

 

Does this loss include paying off Messrs Redknapp, Bond and Jordan do you know ?? Because all 3 were paid up in full.

 

The wasted money on the Olympic Stadium bid must now be kicking in.

 

Just done some cursory analysis (on the other side) , using the Sky info + the 2011 financial report.
No propaganda. Looks like a very hard fought battle to keep the loss to just 4.3m .
Where the money was spent : cannot say until the 2012 accounts are up on the Net.

 

"Because all 3 were paid up in full."

Arry I doubt got half of his, given he took the QPR job within 6 months of
Levy getting rid.

 

This size of loss for the size of turnover involved is almost irrelevant, but of course it's handy to have, tax wise.

Not that I'm suggesting anything untoward.

 

The Olympic bid was done in part to put pressure on Haringey Council that we were genuinely serious about leaving the area. The redevelopment of White Hart Lane could not happen without financial backing from the council (hence the continual plug about the regeneration of the area) so I wouldn't call it a total waste of money.

I'm sure a combination of the new training centre (huge investment), outlay on the new stadium so far, lack of champions league football this season and the pay off of the 3 mentioned above all contributed to that loss.

 

the dates are important here...this was before the summer sales of Corluka (£6m); Nico K (£6m); VDV (£9m) & Modric (£33m).

Redknapp and co had been sacked by then so those payments were probably included.

So much for the theory that Harry Redknapp would bankrupt us!

 

"This size of loss for the size of turnover involved is almost irrelevant, but of course it's handy to have, tax wise."

You're only allowed to offset so many yrs losses against tax.
THFC have probably used up their allowance by now.

 

Ah! but they made a profit last time.

 

As tallied up (on the other side) , the Arry reign only cost 10m net in transfer costs.

 

"Ah! but they made a profit last time."

Based on my own company, you can only offset losses over a given number of yrs
against profits previously made.

 

Much as I read it, Spurf (including the Tax implications....) - the differential is minimal, especially as the previous years were boosted by CL revenues and some significant transfer transactions excluded.
All in all, not a bad state of affairs.

 

Not an expert on this RDBD but profits and losses are of course carried forward, are you talking of continuous losses OR simply the ability to carry these losses forward?

 

No sugar daddy to bankroll you, but with the threat of FFP looming and no leeches to suck away your profits for their own ends- like buying your club.

Sometimes it's good to be middle of the road, ticking along nicely and getting by.

 

"Not an expert on this RDBD but profits and losses are of course carried forward, are you talking of continuous losses OR simply the ability to carry these losses forward?"

Based on my company, I think it relates to the amount of CT the taxman takes.
So if say for 3 yrs the books go P1, L1, P2, I think the amount of CT you pay on P2 is lessened
because tis "offset" against L1. I never pay much attention to the details (as for my company the
losses are in the hundreds when they occurred - so I just hear "blah blah loss blah blah I've offset that
against previous years blah blah" from the company accountant ) .

 

I know what you mean RDBD I didn't take a great interest in my company figures either until that is I received an unexpected £25.000 tax demand a year after I wound my co. up. Be warned, take more of an interest

 

Spurf :

I don't pay attention to those things that involve trivial profits/losses.
When my company is dissolved, there will be nothing to pay the taxman beyond
liabilities for the final tax yr.

 

I can assure you with 100% certainty, all 3 were paid up in full at the time of their dismissal. Clive Allen wasn't because his contract had expired.