Spurs borrow 175,000,000 from BOE

Any large company that was profitable before the crisis can access the scheme and Spurs had made good profits for the last three years. They cannot use it for transfers but it isnt refinancing existing debt but its plugging a £200m hole in their cashflow.

t is not heartening that Spurs can receive a £175m BoE cheap loan with their owner registered to a tax haven in the Bahamas.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Spurs and the stadium company are two different companies though, this is what is puzzling me. £175 million seems a huge amount of money to plug a profits gap.
Click to expand...

Agree but that’s how much revenue they say they have lost. Like I say it can’t be used to refinance existing debt and I suspect their stadium loan will be a fixed rate with heavy penalties to break.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
Agree but that’s how much revenue they say they have lost. Like I say it can’t be used to refinance existing debt and I suspect their stadium loan will be a fixed rate with heavy penalties to break.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I imagine due to it being the stadium company, they can get round the not able to buy players part since indirectly this money is going to be used to buy players. 🙄
 
Chris_Boro said:
Makes sense. I imagine due to it being the stadium company, they can get round the not able to buy players part since indirectly this money is going to be used to buy players. 🙄
Click to expand...

Im not so sure Chris. Think about how much their wage bill is. It sounds obscene but thats where we are with top level football these days.
 
In fact have just looked it up. Spurs pay an average wage of £4m to each of their squad. Average. So for players alone and before any back room staff and other employees the annual salary bill for Spurs must be £100m. Their total wage bill is about the amount of that loan!! Easily.
 
But the loan was given to the stadium company. So player overheads shouldnt be a factor.

Screenshot_20200605-112757_Google.jpg

This is what is confusing as potentially this money could be indirectly used to maintain a transfer budget and they said that the money wont be used on transfers.

I get that it would make sense for Spurs to get a cheap loan if available, but they should not be able to use a bailout to help on the pitch.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see if they do buy any players.
 
Chris_Boro said:
But the loan was given to the stadium company. So player overheads shouldnt be a factor.

View attachment 3712

This is what is confusing as potentially this money could be indirectly used to maintain a transfer budget and they said that the money wont be used on transfers.

I get that it would make sense for Spurs to get a cheap loan if available, but they should not be able to use a bailout to help on the pitch.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see if they do buy any players.
Click to expand...

I think it is confusing because it is easy to assume "Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Limited" is a property holding company or was created just to develop the stadium. Looking at the filed audited accounts it is in fact an operating company too where event monies and operational activities and revenue including gate receipts is channeled. It doesn't receive the broadcasting monies as that goes to the other company but they are grouped anyway. Think they have made great play of the fact that the new stadium has generated jobs and development in schools and the community and "In the midst of all of this the club has stepped up to play its part in supported the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic – the new stadium is currently being used as a COVID-19 Testing site, a food distribution hub, and temporary home to a maternity outpatient unit from the local hospital"

As I said I am not sure it is right but there you go. They do employ a lot of staff and they say they can repay it over 4 years basing their profits over the last three
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top