The Official Arsenal - 14 x FA Cup winners thread - Vol 4

[aeropilot]

cbmotorsport said:

aeropilot said:

LoonyTunes said:

We won't be hearing the sort of stuff you had to put up with for years after you got your new stadium. TV income, NFL etc have seen to that.

As much as it pains me to say it, you are correct.

Not only from the POV of the more recent bigger TV incomes, but from the fact that it was a convenient truth perpetuated by the board and Wenger that suited the business plan, on the basis that for years a majority of the fanbase were so deluded/gullible that they believed everything Wenger said and he could do know wrong.

Spuds stadium has cost around £1Bn, the Emirates was £390m so the TV deals don't really come into it, yes there's more money around, but Spuds have spent over twice as much. They will be in debt to the tune of around £400m repayable over 5 years. It's going to dent their disposable income, it's not rocket science. We'll see how much it affects them.

It will affect them............there's no doubt about that.

It's for how long and to what extent is the question.

Not for as long as us is my bet, for the reasons I've already stated.

[LoonyTunes]

jammy-git said:

LoonyTunes said:

cbmotorsport said:

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about them. Despite what they say, they're about to enter a period of austerity after their new stadium. I would anticipate a few lean years for them, and possibly some player sales to offset the cost of the stadium. They'll soon be back under their rock.

Yeah it certainly looks like 'austerity' what with Kane now on £200k to £300k a week depending on which report you believe and Poch just signing a new contract also on a mega salary. Other contracts are being renewed as I type this.

We won't be hearing the sort of stuff you had to put up with for years after you got your new stadium. TV income, NFL etc have seen to that.

Keep on believing that 'austerity' stuff if you want to though.

You do realise that all the other top six clubs have done that AS WELL as buying in new players?

With the new TV deal there was no way you couldn’t offer bumper new contracts and expect to keep your current squad together.

"You do realise" that that's the whole point - we can because 'austerity' isn't the big issue at Tottenham like it was at Arsenal 15 years ago.

We'll buy players too.

[London424]

cbmotorsport said:

aeropilot said:

LoonyTunes said:

We won't be hearing the sort of stuff you had to put up with for years after you got your new stadium. TV income, NFL etc have seen to that.

As much as it pains me to say it, you are correct.

Not only from the POV of the more recent bigger TV incomes, but from the fact that it was a convenient truth perpetuated by the board and Wenger that suited the business plan, on the basis that for years a majority of the fanbase were so deluded/gullible that they believed everything Wenger said and he could do know wrong.

Spuds stadium has cost around £1Bn, the Emirates was £390m so the TV deals don't really come into it, yes there's more money around, but Spuds have spent over twice as much. They will be in debt to the tune of around £400m repayable over 5 years. It's going to dent their disposable income, it's not rocket science. We'll see how much it affects them.

There's an awful lot wrong with that paragraph I'm not sure where to start.

[cbmotorsport]

London424 said:

cbmotorsport said:

aeropilot said:

LoonyTunes said:

We won't be hearing the sort of stuff you had to put up with for years after you got your new stadium. TV income, NFL etc have seen to that.

As much as it pains me to say it, you are correct.

Not only from the POV of the more recent bigger TV incomes, but from the fact that it was a convenient truth perpetuated by the board and Wenger that suited the business plan, on the basis that for years a majority of the fanbase were so deluded/gullible that they believed everything Wenger said and he could do know wrong.

Spuds stadium has cost around £1Bn, the Emirates was £390m so the TV deals don't really come into it, yes there's more money around, but Spuds have spent over twice as much. They will be in debt to the tune of around £400m repayable over 5 years. It's going to dent their disposable income, it's not rocket science. We'll see how much it affects them.

There's an awful lot wrong with that paragraph I'm not sure where to start.

Try your hardest. I'm interested.

[LoonyTunes]

cbmotorsport said:

London424 said:

cbmotorsport said:

aeropilot said:

LoonyTunes said:

We won't be hearing the sort of stuff you had to put up with for years after you got your new stadium. TV income, NFL etc have seen to that.

As much as it pains me to say it, you are correct.

Not only from the POV of the more recent bigger TV incomes, but from the fact that it was a convenient truth perpetuated by the board and Wenger that suited the business plan, on the basis that for years a majority of the fanbase were so deluded/gullible that they believed everything Wenger said and he could do know wrong.

Spuds stadium has cost around £1Bn, the Emirates was £390m so the TV deals don't really come into it, yes there's more money around, but Spuds have spent over twice as much. They will be in debt to the tune of around £400m repayable over 5 years. It's going to dent their disposable income, it's not rocket science. We'll see how much it affects them.

There's an awful lot wrong with that paragraph I'm not sure where to start.

Try your hardest. I'm interested.

The £1Bn, where did you get that? The Daily Fail by any chance? And what does that £1Bn include? How much has already been spent of that £1Bn and how much of the £400m loan facility has been drawn down? Are Tottenham currently a profitable club anyway? How do you square the 'austerity' claim with the increase in salaries (Kane now the 2nd highest paid player in the EPL with Pochettino in a similar position amongst managers)? Whats the stadium naming rights deal going to be? How much will the NFL contract bring in? How much will other events bring in?

Just a few questions that need answering before your statements can be taken as worth reading.

[cbmotorsport]

LoonyTunes said:

cbmotorsport said:

London424 said:

cbmotorsport said:

aeropilot said:

LoonyTunes said:

We won't be hearing the sort of stuff you had to put up with for years after you got your new stadium. TV income, NFL etc have seen to that.

As much as it pains me to say it, you are correct.

Not only from the POV of the more recent bigger TV incomes, but from the fact that it was a convenient truth perpetuated by the board and Wenger that suited the business plan, on the basis that for years a majority of the fanbase were so deluded/gullible that they believed everything Wenger said and he could do know wrong.

Spuds stadium has cost around £1Bn, the Emirates was £390m so the TV deals don't really come into it, yes there's more money around, but Spuds have spent over twice as much. They will be in debt to the tune of around £400m repayable over 5 years. It's going to dent their disposable income, it's not rocket science. We'll see how much it affects them.

There's an awful lot wrong with that paragraph I'm not sure where to start.

Try your hardest. I'm interested.

The £1Bn, where did you get that? The Daily Fail by any chance? And what does that £1Bn include? How much has already been spent of that £1Bn and how much of the £400m loan facility has been drawn down? Are Tottenham currently a profitable club anyway? How do you square the 'austerity' claim with the increase in salaries (Kane now the 2nd highest paid player in the EPL with Pochettino in a similar position amongst managers)? Whats the stadium naming rights deal going to be? How much will the NFL contract bring in? How much will other events bring in?

Just a few questions that need answering before your statements can be taken as worth reading.

To be honest bud, for some reason you're a Spurs fan on an Arsenal forum, so I doubt you'll ever find my statements worth reading. Anyway, I'll play along. You seem to be throwing up questions that you evidently think you have the answers to, as you seem very convinced that I'm wrong. Fill me in on the details, I'm interested.

[Ascayman]

Well for starters its not an arsenal forum

[LoonyTunes]

cbmotorsport said:

LoonyTunes said:

cbmotorsport said:

London424 said:

cbmotorsport said:

aeropilot said:

LoonyTunes said:

We won't be hearing the sort of stuff you had to put up with for years after you got your new stadium. TV income, NFL etc have seen to that.

As much as it pains me to say it, you are correct.

Not only from the POV of the more recent bigger TV incomes, but from the fact that it was a convenient truth perpetuated by the board and Wenger that suited the business plan, on the basis that for years a majority of the fanbase were so deluded/gullible that they believed everything Wenger said and he could do know wrong.

Spuds stadium has cost around £1Bn, the Emirates was £390m so the TV deals don't really come into it, yes there's more money around, but Spuds have spent over twice as much. They will be in debt to the tune of around £400m repayable over 5 years. It's going to dent their disposable income, it's not rocket science. We'll see how much it affects them.

There's an awful lot wrong with that paragraph I'm not sure where to start.

Try your hardest. I'm interested.

The £1Bn, where did you get that? The Daily Fail by any chance? And what does that £1Bn include? How much has already been spent of that £1Bn and how much of the £400m loan facility has been drawn down? Are Tottenham currently a profitable club anyway? How do you square the 'austerity' claim with the increase in salaries (Kane now the 2nd highest paid player in the EPL with Pochettino in a similar position amongst managers)? Whats the stadium naming rights deal going to be? How much will the NFL contract bring in? How much will other events bring in?

Just a few questions that need answering before your statements can be taken as worth reading.

To be honest bud, for some reason you're a Spurs fan on an Arsenal forum, so I doubt you'll ever find my statements worth reading. Anyway, I'll play along. You seem to be throwing up questions that you evidently think you have the answers to, as you seem very convinced that I'm wrong. Fill me in on the details, I'm interested.

Shock horror, PH supporter of one team crazily posts in other teams thread

You mean like 99% of the other posters in the football forum bud? There's been 6 non-Arsenal fans posted in this thread on the last 3 pages.

Anyway, you made the claim so lets have some justification. Start with where you got the £1Bn number because as far as I know the Daily Fail started that rumour - where did you get it from? Does it include all of the enabling works, take the buildings around WHL that Spurs have been buying up for the last 10 years are they part of it? How much net debt do Spurs have? I'll give you a clue it's actually a positive number. Arsenal have £47m by the way

[cbmotorsport]

Ascayman said:

Well for starters its not an arsenal forum

Ooohh...! You're too sharp for me.

Thread! ......is Thread better?

[LoonyTunes]

cbmotorsport said:

Ascayman said:

Well for starters its not an arsenal forum

Ooohh...! You're too sharp for me.

Thread! ......is Thread better?

Wrong again.

He meant the various teams threads aren't for fans of that team solely but rather for everyone to talk about that team be they Scouse, Manc, Geordie, Spud, Hammer etc

So when you say something about another team - even on here - you can expect fans of that team to hold you to account. This happens across the forum.

[Cheib]

Whilst Spurs stadium might have costs circa "twice as much" as The Emirates the inflation in football has seen the values of players and TV deals etc mean there's an awful lot more money washing around than Arsenal had. Yes they might have £400mil of debt but they could sell Kane and Ali and probably raise £250mil. If you think Arsenal sold the likes of Fabregas, Nasri, Adebayor and RVP all for around £25mil each so a total of £100mil you know who is in a better position. Arsneal had to do "below market" commercial deals with Emirates and Nike with large elements paid upfront to get the stadium funded. Spurs don't have to do that.

I'd love to think Spurs will be as hamstrung as Arsenal genuinely were (you only have to look at the accounts to see that was genuine)....they won't be.

Arsenal had to sell players over a number of seasons to break even. Not something Spurs will have to do by any stretch.

[cbmotorsport]

LoonyTunes said:

Shock horror, PH supporter of one team crazily posts in other teams thread

You mean like 99% of the other posters in the football forum bud? There's been 6 non-Arsenal fans posted in this thread on the last 3 pages.

Anyway, you made the claim so lets have some justification. Start with where you got the £1Bn number because as far as I know the Daily Fail started that rumour - where did you get it from? Does it include all of the enabling works, take the buildings around WHL that Spurs have been buying up for the last 10 years are they part of it? How much net debt do Spurs have? I'll give you a clue it's actually a positive number. Arsenal have £47m by the way

Unless you're one of these ITK types, that claim to have some sort of 'link' to the club and get inside information, I get my information from the same sources as you do, news reports. There are a number of news reports suggesting £1bn, and not just the DM. Spurs themselves have admitted £800m and that was back in March. So I doubt they're too wide of the mark.

How are you convinced that Spurs are not in debt? I assume you're going from last years accounts? Next years will be more insightful.

If there's an official document listing the cost breakdown, I'll take it all back...fair?

[cbmotorsport]

LoonyTunes said:

cbmotorsport said:

Ascayman said:

Well for starters its not an arsenal forum

Ooohh...! You're too sharp for me.

Thread! ......is Thread better?

Wrong again.

He meant the various teams threads aren't for fans of that team solely but rather for everyone to talk about that team be they Scouse, Manc, Geordie, Spud, Hammer etc

So when you say something about another team - even on here - you can expect fans of that team to hold you to account. This happens across the forum.

OK, ok, you win. I'm sure the thread starter had your vision in mind, when they started the thread and named it what they did.

Besides, your presence here is flattering...I'm all for it.

[LoonyTunes]

cbmotorsport said:

LoonyTunes said:

Shock horror, PH supporter of one team crazily posts in other teams thread

You mean like 99% of the other posters in the football forum bud? There's been 6 non-Arsenal fans posted in this thread on the last 3 pages.

Anyway, you made the claim so lets have some justification. Start with where you got the £1Bn number because as far as I know the Daily Fail started that rumour - where did you get it from? Does it include all of the enabling works, take the buildings around WHL that Spurs have been buying up for the last 10 years are they part of it? How much net debt do Spurs have? I'll give you a clue it's actually a positive number. Arsenal have £47m by the way

Unless you're one of these ITK types, that claim to have some sort of 'link' to the club and get inside information, I get my information from the same sources as you do, news reports. There are a number of news reports suggesting £1bn, and not just the DM. Spurs themselves have admitted £800m and that was back in March. So I doubt they're too wide of the mark.

How are you convinced that Spurs are not in debt? I assume you're going from last years accounts? Next years will be more insightful.

If there's an official document listing the cost breakdown, I'll take it all back...fair?

Wrong again.

That story started from an unsubstantiated claim by the Daily Mail and spread to other publications. Like most transfer gossip thats all it is - gossip. Show me a "news report" with a credible source that it's £1Bn.

Here's the DM's source as reported: "Levy has confided to sources close to the build"

There is no document with an analysis of costs publicly available - which why your claim is laughable at the moment. Why not say its £1.5Bn or £2Bn? But even if it were £1Bn so what? As has been pointed out by a fellow gooner above £1Bn aint what it was. It wont take Spurs long to get that off its back I can assure you with Levy at the helm.

As for £800m I say again how much of that was spent in previous years? Even Arsenal had to build some kind of industrial building as part of the Emirates deal - that likely wasn't part of the £350m you say the Emirates cost.

You need to get all your own ducks in a row before you start pointing your finger at other teams and laughing, chum.

Edited by LoonyTunes on Tuesday 17th July 17:22

[Cheib]

LoonyTunes said:

As for £800m I say again how much of that was spent in previous years? Even Arsenal had to build some kind of industrial building as part of the Emirates deal - that likely wasn't part of the £350m you say the Emirates cost.

You need to get all your own ducks in a row before you start pointing your finger at other teams and laughing, chum.

Edited by LoonyTunes on Tuesday 17th July 17:22

Link from Spurs website

https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news-archive-1/cl...

£400mil bank facility
£340 mil previously expended
£50mil Letter of Credit from ENIC
£25mil working capital facility

You can assume all that debt will be used as they wouldn't have gone to the trouble and expense of putting in place if they aren't going to use it. So we're at a minimum of £815mil. I am sure Spurs have spent more from operating cashflow in the last year over and above the £340mil.

It's pretty much irrelevant when it was spent.

Edited by Cheib on Wednesday 18th July 09:15

[cbmotorsport]

LoonyTunes said:

cbmotorsport said:

LoonyTunes said:

Shock horror, PH supporter of one team crazily posts in other teams thread

You mean like 99% of the other posters in the football forum bud? There's been 6 non-Arsenal fans posted in this thread on the last 3 pages.

Anyway, you made the claim so lets have some justification. Start with where you got the £1Bn number because as far as I know the Daily Fail started that rumour - where did you get it from? Does it include all of the enabling works, take the buildings around WHL that Spurs have been buying up for the last 10 years are they part of it? How much net debt do Spurs have? I'll give you a clue it's actually a positive number. Arsenal have £47m by the way

Unless you're one of these ITK types, that claim to have some sort of 'link' to the club and get inside information, I get my information from the same sources as you do, news reports. There are a number of news reports suggesting £1bn, and not just the DM. Spurs themselves have admitted £800m and that was back in March. So I doubt they're too wide of the mark.

How are you convinced that Spurs are not in debt? I assume you're going from last years accounts? Next years will be more insightful.

If there's an official document listing the cost breakdown, I'll take it all back...fair?

Wrong again.

That story started from an unsubstantiated claim by the Daily Mail and spread to other publications. Like most transfer gossip thats all it is - gossip. Show me a "news report" with a credible source that it's £1Bn.

Here's the DM's source as reported: "Levy has confided to sources close to the build"

There is no document with an analysis of costs publicly available - which why your claim is laughable at the moment. Why not say its £1.5Bn or £2Bn? But even if it were £1Bn so what? As has been pointed out by a fellow gooner above £1Bn aint what it was. It wont take Spurs long to get that off its back I can assure you with Levy at the helm.

As for £800m I say again how much of that was spent in previous years? Even Arsenal had to build some kind of industrial building as part of the Emirates deal - that likely wasn't part of the £350m you say the Emirates cost.

You need to get all your own ducks in a row before you start pointing your finger at other teams and laughing, chum.

Edited by LoonyTunes on Tuesday 17th July 17:22

The irony of your post is a bit lost on you. You go to great lengths to tell me I'm 'wrong again', but other than your assertion that the press is wrong, you're right, and it's all the Daily Mail's fault, you cannot provide me with any evidence to the contrary??

Based on this and 20 years experience of managing large construction projects, I'll continue to believe that Tottenham have spent £1Bn on their new stadium, and I'm sure you'll continue to argue to the contrary.

In your haste to be condescending, you seemed to swerve my question about debt, and how you know of the club finances for the current year?

[LoonyTunes]

Cheib said:

LoonyTunes said:

As for £800m I say again how much of that was spent in previous years? Even Arsenal had to build some kind of industrial building as part of the Emirates deal - that likely wasn't part of the £350m you say the Emirates cost.

You need to get all your own ducks in a row before you start pointing your finger at other teams and laughing, chum.

Edited by LoonyTunes on Tuesday 17th July 17:22

Link from Spurs website

https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news-archive-1/cl...

£400mil bank facility
£340 mil previously expended
£50mil Letter of Credit from ENIC
£25mil working capital facility

You can assume all that debt will be used as they wouldn't have gone to the trouble and expense of putting in place if they aren't going to use it. So we're at a minimum of £815mil. I am sure Spurs have spent more from operating cashflow in the last year over and above the £340mil.

It's irrelevant when it was spent.

Obvious points;

When it was spent is not irrelevant if you are trying to argue that it puts us in the same position Arsenal found themselves in.

Of the 340m, £240m was financed from within the club in previous years and has been accounted for. Some would argue that that's why Spurs didn't spend big in the last 10 years. Effectively we already taken a large part of the overall 'hit' for the stadium in years gone by. We turned a profit last year of over £50m - it was over £117m before exceptional items, player trading and depreciation according to the published accounts.

The £400m is a facility, of which only £100m has been drawn down. I have an overdraft facility but I don't use it all - or that often. More will have been used by now but we are also nearing completion.

Regardless, it's still not £1Bn.

It still won't impact anywhere near as much as Arsenal's stadium build did.

Before the TV deals that have catapulted us all into a financial wonderland we would have to have sold Gareth Bale 6 times over to help fund the stadium, today we are trebling salaries instead. We have also just built a state-of-the-art training centre for £30m.

NFL, increased match day income and other event usage must be factored in as must Stadium sponsorship. You can't compare the £350m Arsenal spent with the £800m Spurs spent and the relative impacts on the 2 clubs. We are in a whole new world now. £800m gets you 4 Neymars.

Levy has this covered.

[Glassman]

The Arsenal thread.

[LoonyTunes]

cbmotorsport said:

The irony of your post is a bit lost on you.

Sorry but it's your own internal logic thats failing.

You stated £1Bn with just a DM report to go on and that only quotes "sources".

There is no cost analysis available which ought to tell you that the DM is guessing.

I don't need to furnish proof I made no claims about this - You did so please find one and show me £1Bn in costs and then justify your argument that Spurs will suffer like Arsenal did.

I'll wait.

[LoonyTunes]

Glassman said:

The Arsenal thread.

Agreed - but then it was Gooners who brought up Spuds on it