1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Thanks, scara
    Dismiss Notice

Northumberland Development Project - new year, new stadium

Discussion in 'Spurs News & Views' started by Jordinho, 12 Feb 2013.

  1. r-u-s-x

    r-u-s-x Tim Sherwood

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    3,158
    Likes Received:
    1,560
    Seems very understanding of him not to do it over the ticket allocation then, maybe he doesn't know they always back down.
     
  2. scaramanga

    scaramanga Gary Stevens Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    20,526
    Likes Received:
    8,984
    There's no demonstrable loss, it's pretty clear.
     
  3. r-u-s-x

    r-u-s-x Tim Sherwood

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    3,158
    Likes Received:
    1,560
    But the police will buckle every time you threaten them, no loss needed just need to threaten
     
  4. Finney Is Back

    Finney Is Back Chris Armstrong

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    5,245
    Likes Received:
    3,570
    I think it is pretty obvious where our money is going at the moment mate. The stadium. Last year we received income of £380 odd million we generated profits on ordinary operations of £160 odd million. Yet we moved from having a net cash surplus of £15 million to a net debt of £366 million. The previous year we had revenues of £306 million, profits on ordinary operations of £118 million and moved from a cash surplus of £48m million to £15 million.

    Over the two years up to June 2018, we have moved from having £48 million cash to £366 million debt. That is despite making very large profits over those two years.

    The total amount of funds available to the club from the conglomerate of banks is: £637 million. Of course that number will have some contingency built into it for a lot of worst case scenarios, but it is a large number. It isn't as simple as saying "We could just borrow some more and it won't make much of a difference to the repayments". The more we borrow, the riskier the loan and the more penalising the interest terms are.

    The fact that we have clearly been diverting all of our profits into the stadium build as opposed to just borrowing more either indicates that we simply cannot secure more credit or that the repayment terms if we do borrow more would be too prohibitive.

    By the way the difference in our financing costs now and the likely cost post the stadium being ready are nowhere near as large as those between a bridging loan and a mortgage. Our financing costs are actually currently very low, mainly because the terms on them are so short and interest rates are very low at the moment. IMO we are unlikely to gain significantly better financial terms as we look to restructure the debt, due to the fact that I expect us to restructure the debt (or at least a majority of it) over a far longer term.

    As things stand the club have a couple of unknown variables. How much more money do we need to spend to get the new stadium operational and when will we have it operational. Until those two items are no longer variables and become absolutely known I don't think the club can risk diverting any additional cash flow into anything other than the stadium (or perhaps better still just holding some in reserve), nor can they risk taking on even more debt.

    Note that I do fully expect things to start to ease once we are in the new stadium (or even as soon as we have a guaranteed, signed off date). However the 6+ month delay will have had a considerable impact on our cash flow and that may take another season or so of relative frugalness to sort out.
     
  5. SpurMeUp

    SpurMeUp Pedro Mendes

    Joined:
    5 Feb 2012
    Messages:
    9,178
    Likes Received:
    2,863
    ...and as with the goons, a tonne of revenue is tied up in the future flats that will release x million back into the club once they are built.
     
  6. Bedfordspurs

    Bedfordspurs Steffen Freund

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    14,251
    Likes Received:
    7,455
    Agree with most of this other than the comment about the rates for longer term debt. The current debt is secured against what? A part finished stadium or possibly personal guarantees from someone very rich

    The long term debt will be giantess against an appreciating asset in the stadium so rated my be keener than people think

    I do agree we won’t be spending money on transfers unless the dela is very favourable finance wise, until we know the true cost of the ground

    Because of the model we have built it under we are always in arrears on the out turned cost data
     
  7. Bedfordspurs

    Bedfordspurs Steffen Freund

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    14,251
    Likes Received:
    7,455
    Thought they had built and sold them?
     
  8. milo

    milo Tony Galvin Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    27,298
    Likes Received:
    14,321
    I doubt that you would stand much of a chance, ultimately, it is a decision made by the local authority but on advice from the emergency services. There is a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court but that is unlikely to meet the timescales we would be looking at. Any claim for damages that didn't follow a successful appeal to the Mags Courts is unlikely to be successful. I cannot see an appeal being successful because avoiding opening the stadium with a high risk event is eminently sensible and the police advice would be correct.
     
  9. scaramanga

    scaramanga Gary Stevens Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    20,526
    Likes Received:
    8,984
    The police are paid by the taxpayer and the club to police football matches - all matches over a certain capacity IIRC.

    If their inability to do that costs us money, the liability is theirs.
     
  10. milo

    milo Tony Galvin Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    27,298
    Likes Received:
    14,321
    I don't think that is true and I don't think that a damages claim would stand a chance. A company has no right to an entertainments licence and a local authority has a responsibility to ensure that public safety is considered. A high risk event, where the emergency services are not familiar with the venue and procedures have not been fully tested and bedded in is asking for problems.
     
    nayenezgani likes this.
  11. scaramanga

    scaramanga Gary Stevens Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    20,526
    Likes Received:
    8,984
    I'm fairly sure the license required to host events was given at planning. The only sign off required now is the suitability of the stadium itself.
     
  12. nayimfromthehalfwayline

    nayimfromthehalfwayline Christian Ziege

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    10,743
    Likes Received:
    5,375
    Location:
    lobbing seaman from 50 yards
    I appreciate the post mate. As I said, Im well aware of how much I dont know - I dont claim to be an expert and I certainly wouldnt patronise you with lectures on your personal finances ;)

    No offence intended in cutting your post short - but this is essentially the nub for me.

    I think with the stadium complete/near complete and our financial situation set to change - we basically cant write off the prospect of new signings "because stadium".

    I dont doubt we have been pouring as much into it as we can up to now, the more we plough in the less we borrow - makes sense.

    This is the end game though isnt it? Things are set to ease and start to pay dividends. Financing will be re worked, sponsorship will be found etc.

    Now you might be right, this is the dark before the dawn and we just dont have money = but it might equally be we are that near the finish line we have some wiggle room.

    Ive long held the view there is money there/available (credit perhaps) if we find the right deal. The squad/OS players issue has been more a deal breaker.
     
  13. P.D.

    P.D. Jonathan Woodgate

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    449
    Location:
    London
    I'd be very surprised if we couldn't access funds if required to sign 1 or 2 new players for say £30m each, it's more Levy has likely decided not to risk it and borrow more.
     
  14. Daisuk

    Daisuk Steve Carr

    Joined:
    19 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    7,512
    Likes Received:
    5,015
    Location:
    Oslo
    Looks like they're doing some sort of work in and around the corner flag, doesn't it? :p

    [​IMG]
     
    Robbo, Hotshot-Tottenham and mjc23 like this.
  15. milo

    milo Tony Galvin Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    27,298
    Likes Received:
    14,321
    I thought that getting a licence was conditional on the test events. Either way, a phased opening taking into account public safey, is obviously a consideration.
     
  16. MKSpur

    MKSpur Neil Sullivan

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    1,916
    Location:
    Greenwich
    I think it is possible we could get the money from somewhere but historically we’ve have always been super prudent under Levy, even if we as fans may have believed for footballing reasons the investment in players could have paid for itself. I think the only time we’d ever buy outside of budget would be for the threat of relegation, not for a title or top 4 push.

    If we did buy in this window, it would be due to a combination of freeing up funds from sales or a gesture of support to Poch. If the latter I feel this has tangible benefits to the club beyond the ability of the player signed and increased deals for Eriksen and Toby would also have tangible benefits as one is unlikely to be replaced for the cost of his release cause and the other is a unique player who’s long term value would be protected.
     
  17. scaramanga

    scaramanga Gary Stevens Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    20,526
    Likes Received:
    8,984
    My understanding too - so we have approval to hold events in that location, the test events prove the stadium is capable and finalises the license. Unless there's another stage that has yet to be identified or explained to me, once we have that license we should be going ahead with any events covered by the initial planning consent.
     
  18. milo

    milo Tony Galvin Staff Member

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    27,298
    Likes Received:
    14,321
    The event licence and planning are different processes. As we have seen at Wembley, it is an ongoing process and the local authority can change the conditions on which it is granted.
     
  19. r-u-s-x

    r-u-s-x Tim Sherwood

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    3,158
    Likes Received:
    1,560
    its in the certificate terms that the LA can close (withdraw) at any time- there is also a section on the SAG.

    https://sgsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Safety-Certification-Guidance.pdf

    "If the chief officer of police believes that police officers need to attend a particular event, but the management of the sports ground disagrees, the local authority must consider whether the absence of police would adversely affect safety at the ground. It should consider any mitigating measures offered by the ground management. It is for the certificate holder to satisfy the local authority that the event can proceed safely without the police being present. If the local authority is not satisfied, it could close part or all of the sports ground or reduce its permitted capacity to a level that it considers reasonably safe for the event concerned. The options available to the local authority are described in section 7 below."

    and I would be very surprised if it didn't have recommendations from the Saftey Advisory Group within the certificate.


    However, the licence does not restrict the local authority from including whatever conditions in the safety certificate it considers necessary or expedient to secure the reasonable safety at the ground. The local authority could close or limit the capacity of a sports ground for safety reasons, notwithstanding that the area in question had been licensed by the SGSA
     
    milo likes this.
  20. scaramanga

    scaramanga Gary Stevens Staff Member

    Joined:
    13 Jan 2012
    Messages:
    20,526
    Likes Received:
    8,984
    Thanks. That seems to answer my initial question and suggest there is an existing legal measure they can use, rather than simply "we don't want it to happen"

    I guess the next question is that if we and the LA want the game to happen (and I can seeplenty of £-shaped reasons why they would), then it goes ahead, right?
     

Share This Page