Football & Coronavirus [READ MOD NOTE IN FIRST POST - updated 06-05-20]

ArmaniJeanss

Speak Now wrote: »

Lack of CL football? They've been in it for 4 consecutive seasons! All the rest impacting for sure.

Next season presumably.
They could reasonably have budgeted for a 50% (even 60%) chance of being in next seasons CL which is worth a chunk of change on the balance sheet.
With that percentage chance now down to about 3% it's a big hit.

Speak Now

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Next season presumably.
They could reasonably have budgeted for a 50% (even 60%) chance of being in next seasons CL which is worth a chunk of change on the balance sheet.
With that percentage chance now down to about 3% it's a big hit.

Season isn't over yet, assuming the City ban is upheld they are 4 pts of Champions league with 9 games left. Not a forlorn hope with Kane back!

The NFL loss definitely hitting them, I'd imagine it was very lucrative.

Mitch Connor

will be interesting to see the optics if Spurs make signings this summer. Securing a low cost loan from the Govt. and then spunking millions on new players? Would be a very bad look - though you can argue, that its no more than a business taking a business decision to avail of a government scheme to help protect business. Similar arguments made when Spurs and Liverpool (amongst others) used the furlough scheme.

It will be similar with United, though its not been spokem about much as of yet - where United have deferred VAT payments to next year, but are very likely to at least try make some big moves this summer.

citytillidie

Mitch Connor wrote: »

will be interesting to see the optics if Spurs make signings this summer. Securing a low cost loan from the Govt. and then spunking millions on new players? Would be a very bad look - though you can argue, that its no more than a business taking a business decision to avail of a government scheme to help protect business. Similar arguments made when Spurs and Liverpool (amongst others) used the furlough scheme.

It will be similar with United, though its not been spokem about much as of yet - where United have deferred VAT payments to next year, but are very likely to at least try make some big moves this summer.

Liverpool did not use the furlough scheme after backlash from fans.

~Rebel~

Mitch Connor wrote: »

will be interesting to see the optics if Spurs make signings this summer. Securing a low cost loan from the Govt. and then spunking millions on new players? Would be a very bad look - though you can argue, that its no more than a business taking a business decision to avail of a government scheme to help protect business. Similar arguments made when Spurs and Liverpool (amongst others) used the furlough scheme.

It will be similar with United, though its not been spokem about much as of yet - where United have deferred VAT payments to next year, but are very likely to at least try make some big moves this summer.

It’s an interesting one alright, and if Spurs do make big signings, they likely will face a bit of abuse... but at the same time, we’ve seen many times that fans are very forgiving of their own clubs (to a fault, like Liverpool with Suarez, City with Abu Dhabi, Newcastle with the prospective Saudi takeover), so I’m not sure it would make any meaningful difference to their own support. So all in all, I wouldn’t be surprised if they used some of this money to further strengthen.

citytillidie wrote: »

Liverpool did not use the furlough scheme after backlash from fans.

Neither did Spurs... I think his point is these same issues were raised when they first moved to take advantage of the scheme.

8-10

Mick McGraw wrote: »

I thought Daniel Levy was supposed to be a financial genius

In fairness a 0.5% interest loan doesn't sound too shabby!

noodler

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I’ve a feeling if we start seeing more young English players in the last 10 mins of matches, it might be something we see stick around.

Think its absolutely fine if they can only have three stops.

Mitch Connor

citytillidie wrote: »

Liverpool did not use the furlough scheme after backlash from fans.

They used it *until* the fan backlash. So my point remains, and your correction irrelevant.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Mitch Connor wrote: »

will be interesting to see the optics if Spurs make signings this summer. Securing a low cost loan from the Govt. and then spunking millions on new players? Would be a very bad look - though you can argue, that its no more than a business taking a business decision to avail of a government scheme to help protect business. Similar arguments made when Spurs and Liverpool (amongst others) used the furlough scheme.

It will be similar with United, though its not been spokem about much as of yet - where United have deferred VAT payments to next year, but are very likely to at least try make some big moves this summer.

The difference here is that nobody is getting any free money, the furlough scheme which had money created specifically for this issue was never to be repaid and so came directly out of the government coffers. Getting a loan and paying all of it back is nothing like that, it is coming from a commercial bank but is backed by the government so if it is not repaid the banks would not suffer, I would only see an issue if they did not pay back but no way that a club/company like Spurs would and I can see no reason that people would complain about them getting the loan.

noodler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

will be interesting to see the optics if Spurs make signings this summer. Securing a low cost loan from the Govt. and then spunking millions on new players? Would be a very bad look - though you can argue, that its no more than a business taking a business decision to avail of a government scheme to help protect business. Similar arguments made when Spurs and Liverpool (amongst others) used the furlough scheme.

It will be similar with United, though its not been spokem about much as of yet - where United have deferred VAT payments to next year, but are very likely to at least try make some big moves this summer.

Doesn't take long before we're back to the same oul ****e.

wadacrack

Hook it to my veins

https://twitter.com/FutbolBible/status/1268600486644666374

Fr Tod Umptious

wadacrack wrote: »

Hook it to my veins

https://twitter.com/FutbolBible/status/1268600486644666374

Anyone hoping for decent games begin FTA will be disappointed.

Mitch Connor

noodler wrote: »

Doesn't take long before we're back to the same oul ****e.

What the f are you whinging about?

Who will give Spurs abuse if they spend big?

Mitch Connor

6 wrote: »

Who will give Spurs abuse if they spend big?

People, press, government ministers.

Taking advntage of a government backed loan scheme to stop businesses going under, and then spending millions on expensive new players.

People may argue its using a low cost government backed loan to fund player purchases.

It may not be correct, but you don't think it'll be said? The press and government love using football as a punching bag.

Any big buys are going to be questioned in the post pandemic World. If United sign Sancho for 100million the press will have a go.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

People, press, government ministers.

Taking advntage of a government backed loan scheme to stop businesses going under, and then spending millions on expensive new players.

People may argue its using a low cost government backed loan to fund player purchases.

It may not be correct, but you don't think it'll be said? The press and government love using football as a punching bag.

Any big buys are going to be questioned in the post pandemic World. If United sign Sancho for 100million the press will have a go.

So what? So what if it's said ?

Government ministers? Yep, they have a good rep at the moment


Anyway, Spurs won't spend big imo. They rarely do, and they'll be down huge matchday revenue in their new stadium.

Mitch Connor

6 wrote: »

So what? So what if it's said ?

Government ministers? Yep, they have a good rep at the moment


Anyway, Spurs won't spend big imo. They rarely do, and they'll be down huge matchday revenue in their new stadium.

Then why did you bother asking in the first place?

noodler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Then why did you bother asking in the first place?

Why do you keep making up perceived criticisms of other clubs?

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Then why did you bother asking in the first place?

To see who you were referring to, and I'm questioning it.

I don't think press and government ministers questioning signings will make the slightest difference to a clubs strategy. The lack of revenue will be the biggest obstacle, not what people think.

Mitch Connor

6 wrote: »

To see who you were referring to, and I'm questioning it.

I don't think press and government ministers questioning signings will make the slightest difference to a clubs strategy. The lack of revenue will be the biggest obstacle, not what people think.

Obviously.

Which is why I said: will be interesting to see the optics if Spurs make signings this summer

I didn't say spurs will have to base their squad decisions on this. I simply wondered what the optics will be.

Just as their were optic issues with spurs and Liverpool using the furlough scheme.

eigrod

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Obviously.

Which is why I said: will be interesting to see the optics if Spurs make signings this summer

I didn't say spurs will have to base their squad decisions on this. I simply wondered what the optics will be.

Just as their were optic issues with spurs and Liverpool using the furlough scheme.

This type of thing happens regularly enough, does it not?. West Ham and the London stadium, Mayor of Liverpool arranging a Council loan at preferential rates to part fund Everton’s new stadium (albeit not progressed with....yet). Liverpool got Council funding for new Main Stand at Anfield I think. I’m sure there are other examples that I’m not aware of.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Obviously.

Which is why I said: will be interesting to see the optics if Spurs make signings this summer

I didn't say spurs will have to base their squad decisions on this. I simply wondered what the optics will be.

Just as their were optic issues with spurs and Liverpool using the furlough scheme.

There's a big difference on the optics of using the furlough scheme, and the optics of spending money (their own presumably) on players. I don't think it'll be a big issue.

DM_7

noodler wrote: »

Doesn't take long before we're back to the same oul ****e.

Mod Note: Indeed. Next time you think a post is in bad faith please report it. Responses like yours lead to reactions and the thread getting derailed.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

What the f are you whinging about?

Mod Note: Better to report than respond and let mods act.

noodler wrote: »

Why do you keep making up perceived criticisms of other clubs?

Mod Note: This has nothing to do with the thread topic, move on from this.

Mitch Connor

6 wrote: »

There's a big difference on the optics of using the furlough scheme, and the optics of spending money (their own presumably) on players. I don't think it'll be a big issue.

Fair enough. A reasoned response.

ShamoBuc

I'm actually looking forward to hearing the coaches and players during a game. My German isn't great, but they can clearly be heard shouting away and it should be interesting to see who the real vocal ones are on different teams.

jayo26

ShamoBuc wrote: »

I'm actually looking forward to hearing the coaches and players during a game. My German isn't great, but they can clearly be heard shouting away and it should be interesting to see who the real vocal ones are on different teams.

Kinda off topic but Mick Mccarthy was someone that always seemed to be crazy loud on touchline no matter who he was managing you always hear him.

Players are going to have to be conscious of it as im sure alot of stuff gets said every game that they wouldn't like to stand by publicly.

ShamoBuc

Very true, the level of cursing too. Watched the Porto game last night and you could clearly hear a few Porto people cursing, commentator apologised about it.

Speaking of Spurs


Tottenham borrow £175m to cover costs incurred due to pandemic

Tottenham have borrowed £175m from the Bank of England to help ease some of the financial pressure placed on the club due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Premier League club are set to lose out on £200m of revenue up to June 2021 because of the pandemic, with no matches at their new stadium and a host of other sporting and non-sporting live events lined up for this year now cancelled.

They are eligible for a COVID Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF), repayable with a 0.5 per cent interest rate.

Chairman Daniel Levy said: "We have always run this club on a self-sustaining commercial basis.

"I said as early as March 18 that, in all my 20 years at the club, there have been many hurdles along the way but none of this magnitude - the COVID-19 pandemic has shown itself to be the most serious of them all.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11675/12000522/coronavirus-tottenham-borrow-175m-to-cover-costs-incurred-due-to-pandemic

ShamoBuc

Bad time to just finish building a brand new state of the art ground. Cash reserves surely are low anyway and a pretty big loan that will need paying back as well as ongoing wages etc. From a financial perspective they are really going to feel the pain.

Mitch Connor

6 wrote: »

Speaking of Spurs


Tottenham borrow £175m to cover costs incurred due to pandemic



https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11675/12000522/coronavirus-tottenham-borrow-175m-to-cover-costs-incurred-due-to-pandemic

Speaking of spurs? That's the exact thing I was talking about.

y0ssar1an22

6 wrote: »

Speaking of Spurs


Tottenham borrow £175m to cover costs incurred due to pandemic



https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11675/12000522/coronavirus-tottenham-borrow-175m-to-cover-costs-incurred-due-to-pandemic

cant see how they lose £200 of revenue for the 6 months of this year. thats €222m, annualised is €444m. last year they made €428m, while getting to the CL final.

they're as good as gone from the CL this season. how much were the NFL and concerts worth?

Think its more to do with having higher debts to service.

are you sure that interest figure is correct? .5% is only 875,000 from a loan of 175,000,000. thats as good as free money! deposit rates would be higher.

Collie D

jayo26 wrote: »

Players are going to have to be conscious of it as im sure alot of stuff gets said every game that they wouldn't like to stand by publicly.

Might negate this stupid habit that’s crept in of putting their hands over their mouths when talking

y0ssar1an22

Collie D wrote: »

Might negate this stupid habit that’s crept in of putting their hands over their mouths when talking

they need to do that cos the ***** in the media will get lip readers

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Speaking of spurs? That's the exact thing I was talking about.

Had you linked the figures? Apologies if you did.

Hadn't seen the figures until I read that story, and it surprised me.

Mitch Connor

Collie D wrote: »

Might negate this stupid habit that’s crept in of putting their hands over their mouths when talking

Surely it would make it more prevalent?

An element of social distancing to it along with making it harder to pick up what they are saying, the reason for it in the first place.

Mitch Connor

6 wrote: »

Had you linked the figures? Apologies if you did.

Hadn't seen the figures until I read that story, and it surprised me.

Does it change your opinion on it at all? Having seen the size a d terms of the loan?

Collie D

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

they need to do that cos the ***** in the media will get lip readers

I get that but still doesn’t make sense to me. They’re standing over a dead ball discussing what to do. By the time anyone could be bothered translating it the free kick is done and dusted.

bangkok

ShamoBuc wrote: »

I'm actually looking forward to hearing the coaches and players during a game. My German isn't great, but they can clearly be heard shouting away and it should be interesting to see who the real vocal ones are on different teams.

most players are vocal on the pitch when they play from the very top level all the way down to sunday league, you have to be. there wont be many Peter Schmeichel type lads screaming in games i would guess

Collie D

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Surely it would make it more prevalent?

An element of social distancing to it along with making it harder to pick up what they are saying, the reason for it in the first place.

You’re probably right actually. My main point is that it annoys me more than it should.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Does it change your opinion on it at all? Having seen the size a d terms of the loan?

No. If they decide to spend that money on players that's their business. It's money they have to pay back. It's not a handout.

y0ssar1an22

Collie D wrote: »

I get that but still doesn’t make sense to me. They’re standing over a dead ball discussing what to do. By the time anyone could be bothered translating it the free kick is done and dusted.

i was more thinking when they're talking after a game and there's a camera in their face.

deadball stuff, they're prob saying; i'm taking this, you've missed your last 5!

y0ssar1an22

6 wrote: »

No. If they decide to spend that money on players that's their business. It's money they have to pay back. It's not a handout.

it really is a handout, when you make more in interest than you have to pay back in interest.

.5% seems ludicrous to me. maybe if there is an economist here, they could explain that.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

it really is a handout, when you make more in interest than you have to pay back in interest.

.5% seems ludicrous to me. maybe if there is an economist here, they could explain that.

Seems fairly shrewd tbh. Low interest loan. A handout would be free money, no? They'll need to pay it all back.

Didn't they do something quite smart with their stadium finances too?

bangkok

6 wrote: »

Seems fairly shrewd tbh. Low interest loan. A handout would be free money, no? They'll need to pay it all back.

Didn't they do something quite smart with their stadium finances too?

they have a bakery and a micro brewery in the stadium... make some money from that alone

y0ssar1an22

6 wrote: »

Seems fairly shrewd tbh. Low interest loan. A handout would be free money, no? They'll need to pay it all back.

Didn't they do something quite smart with their stadium finances too?

if you get a loan for 100 and pay interest @ 1%, you pay back is 101.

if you use that 100 and put it on deposit at 2% you make 2, so total you make is 102.

you make 1.

its free money in the sense it doesn't cost you anything. the opposite in fact. you make money.

*those rates are simplified, but the deposit rates are currently higher.

not sure about the stadium finances

ETA: why doesn't every team do this?

Mitch Connor

Why aren't United taking a 400m loan on this and paying off the debt, so now it's 400m at a much lower interest rate, and it works still be debt so factor in on tax returns.

ArmaniJeanss

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

ETA: why doesn't every team do this?

Apparently only Spurs and MUFC would qualify for these terms. I guess because they are PLCs with a high valuation.

y0ssar1an22

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Why aren't United taking a 400m loan on this and paying off the debt, so now it's 400m at a much lower interest rate, and it works still be debt so factor in on tax returns.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Apparently only Spurs and MUFC would qualify for these terms. I guess because they are PLCs with a high valuation.

i asked that in general a few posts back. this is what spurs have:

They are eligible for a COVID Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF), repayable with a 0.5 per cent interest rate.

publicly traded companies are not allowed, rules out utd. spurs not on the stock market. their owner is based in the Bahamas! not sure how they didnt take that into account!

"The facility is open to firms that can demonstrate they were in sound financial health prior to the shock, allowing us to look through temporary impacts on firms’ balance sheets and cash flows from the shock itself."

cant see how spurs qualify based on the above criteria. Liverpool (as well as many other clubs) could as well. maybe just a great time for spurs, given their debt was high with the new stadium.

but still, sound financial footing prior? yeah, they should have been regardless of the stadium. think that is based upon not qualifying for the CL next season plus getting knocked out early this season.

DM_7

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Why aren't United taking a 400m loan on this and paying off the debt, so now it's at a much lower interest rate, and it works still be debt so factor in on tax returns.

The loan facility/scheme is a short term loan and to help with working capital. It is likely many businesses will have to raise new loans later to repay the short term loan.

In spurs case they have to repay it next year or the year after:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/04/tottenham-take-175m-bank-of-england-loan-to-ease-coronavirus-impact#maincontent

The club fear that they may lose more than £200m of revenue in the period from the start of lockdown to June 2021, including broadcast rebates, and they have sought help from the government’s Covid corporate financing facility lending scheme, which has provided them with the unsecured loan. It is repayable in full next April at a rate of 0.5%, which is low in commercial terms, although Spurs could redraw it for another year.

jayo26

Collie D wrote: »

Might negate this stupid habit that’s crept in of putting their hands over their mouths when talking

Yep totally agree I hate this and can never understand whata so confidential that they have to do it.