Bringing Poch back without cleaning out a lot of players seems fairly illogical. Then again, firing a guy, paying him out to fire him, then having to pay his next club to allow him to come back, likely having to pay him a higher salary than before you fired him, is also pretty illogical, but here we are.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Right, but Poch had clearly lost the room. Does an 18 month spell away fix that when many of the same players are still there?
Oh yeah, I definitely agree with that. I would imagine that on hearing he could be coming back that at least a few guys are going to be looking at ways out? It's definitely questionable.
Do you think that Levy uses this managerial appointment as a way to keep Kane (or try to entice him to stick around)? I think that is a possibility, and while it's disastrous in some ways to let a player have that much influence, it could work in the shorter term. I guess the other angle is you bring someone in, promise to back them and sell Kane (along with some others) and give them some cash to rebuild things.
Levy being in the mix makes that entire idea reckless and probably stupid, but on paper I could see it making sense.
Do you think that Levy uses this managerial appointment as a way to keep Kane (or try to entice him to stick around)?
This is the only thing that really makes sense to me, and I agree that it's a poor strategy long-term. That said, you'd have to imagine Son and Dele would both be pretty happy with this news.
Right, but Poch had clearly lost the room. Does an 18 month spell away fix that when many of the same players are still there?
I do think burnout was a large part of why he lost the team, the article on the athletic that came out after his firing had people saying if they had won the cl final he would have likely quit and taken a break away from the game, and after they lost he didn't even fly back with the team.
I hope if it happens there's a much clearer breakdown of responsibilities between himself, and Steve Hitchen along with the whole technical scouting department on identifying targets
Plus that there is an agreement he gets backed in the window, and is allowed to sell off a bunch of players even if it's at less than levy thinks he should get.
The one benefit is that most of the players that did come in the last few windows were ones he wants, lo celso, ndombele, sessegnon, and bergwjin specifically, who should be part of the core going forward.
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
Oh yeah, I definitely agree with that. I would imagine that on hearing he could be coming back that at least a few guys are going to be looking at ways out? It's definitely questionable.
Do you think that Levy uses this managerial appointment as a way to keep Kane (or try to entice him to stick around)? I think that is a possibility, and while it's disastrous in some ways to let a player have that much influence, it could work in the shorter term. I guess the other angle is you bring someone in, promise to back them and sell Kane (along with some others) and give them some cash to rebuild things.
Levy being in the mix makes that entire idea reckless and probably stupid, but on paper I could see it making sense.
I don't think levy cares about that with kane really, maybe poch makes it smoother for kane if he doesn't want to stay but does
But it's either going to come down to city meeting his valuation or he's waiting till next summer
This summer is basically the last one where levy has leverage, if he won't sign a new contract he would need to be sold next summer no matter what.
So if I were levy I would just say to harry, if you want to leave here is the number I value you at, have your agent tell whatever clubs you want to go to that this is the number and if they pay it by July 21st or whatever, you can leave, after that date we don't have enough time to spend the funds and buy our own replacements so that's that.
Dortmund set the perfect mold for how to handle something like this with Sancho last summer. Here's our price, here's the sell by date, don't bother coming to us if both aren't met.
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
I'm just wondering how much their debt is going to play into things.
Of all the teams to be affected by Covid they've probably been hit the hardest.
Their 5 or 10 year financial plan regarding starting to pay that off has been hit hard twice by lost revenue which was a significant part of their plan. Not only from matchday revenue but also from their NFL agreement.
Not to forget that not only were they knocked back by Covid, they also lost most of a season's revenue prior to that with the stadium being completed wayyy behind schedule.
Thing I don't get is why hasn't he sold the naming rights to the stadium yet?
I'm not sure how interested you are in this, but you've brought up the debt at Spurs at least a couple times in the past few days, so here we go. First and foremost, there are plenty of things we can laugh at Levy for, but fiscally he's been excellent. I don't even say that as a Spurs supporter...it's hard to argue that he could have been more prudent and capable on the financial front.
So, the debt can be sort of a confusing issue. You have gross debt, and you have net debt. Then to get a little more cloudy yet, you have total debt. At Spurs, the total debt reported for 2020/21 was about 831m pounds. That's a lot of money! Some clubs get a loan from their owners (usually interest free), but that's not the case with Spurs.
Spurs had a lot of cash through the year, and they reported this as $226m pounds, which gives you that net debt figure of $605m pounds. Still a lot of money! Spurs also have some transfer debt because they bought players while that stadium was being built, so here you obviously take the incomings and subtract the outgoings, which is a net of 114m pounds for Spurs. That sounds like a lot...until you see clubs like Barcelona or Atletico. UEFA makes clubs report another figure here, which is a slightly different definition of debt and takes into account everything including the transfer fees, and all the obvious debts. Here Spurs get to about 970m pounds, which comes to a net of about 719m pounds with cash and receivables factored in.
If you're still with me, this is why it's not a factor for Spurs (or English clubs as compared to Barcelona in particular, or Atletico). The average maturity of that debt is about 23 years, and financed at a super low rate. Levy got a loan from the Bank of England, for example, and their borrowing costs are only 14m pounds a year. Debt level is a factor, absolutely, but debt servicing is critical and Spurs really shouldn't have any issues there.
There's another English club that has piled on the debt though. United increased their debt by about 33% this past year. They already had a lot of debt (because the Glazers used the leveraged-buyout). They have financed things with high yield bonds (which are junk bonds), bought largely by hedge funds at over 8%/year. The maturity for their debt is also far off though, and like I said, it's how the English clubs can have significant debts, but not have it impact them as much as the European clubs. I think that United are paying about 20m pounds a year to service those debts.
And finally, in case you're curious here are the similar United figures for things above. They reported debt of 526m pounds in the gross category and had 52m pounds cash, for a net debt of 474m. That figure, btw, is largely or entirely the leverage buy-out. So while the THFC balance sheet has a liability for say $1bn for the stadium, they also have an asset for say $1bn. Anyway, I digress, United also has no loans from the owner.
United has less transfer debt than Spurs (about 91m pounds), and when you look at the UEFA calculation for debt, the total for United is about 565m pounds. It's actually Tottenham first, United second by that particular definition. Like I say, the reason it doesn't cripple these clubs is term; United has a mere 6m pounds of short-term debt and 520m pounds in long term debt.
Finally, when you add up literally everything and get to one giant number that shows all of the debts you get to a figure for Spurs of basically 1.5b pounds in debt. It's basically 1bn pounds for United.
tl/dr; Spurs are fine, United also has gobs of debt, but Spurs have a new stadium to show for it. Th concerning clubs are Barcelona and other European clubs.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
I'm just wondering how much their debt is going to play into things.
Of all the teams to be affected by Covid they've probably been hit the hardest.
Their 5 or 10 year financial plan regarding starting to pay that off has been hit hard twice by lost revenue which was a significant part of their plan. Not only from matchday revenue but also from their NFL agreement.
Not to forget that not only were they knocked back by Covid, they also lost most of a season's revenue prior to that with the stadium being completed wayyy behind schedule.
Thing I don't get is why hasn't he sold the naming rights to the stadium yet?
Covid came at a bad time but they are also in the best position going forward starting in the fall most likely.
The stadium is a huge draw in London and Europe, dont think a lot of north American fans get how different the stadia in europe are compared to what is built across the atlantic
Spurs stadium is no different than any recent nfl stadium, but the reason why so many of the wow factor reviews came out, from journalists especially, were because it's just not what they are used too.
So it is a destination stadium for not only the nfl but also concerts and other sports. Basically anything that used wembley in the past is now likely going to use the new stadium. The 2nd field surface also allows them to not have to limit events because theres no risk of damaging the main field.
Slava did a great job explaining the debt, how it's not an issue.
The naming thing has had a few rumors and it's probably a combination of a few things
Some journalists say Levy wanted to keep the clubs name on the field for the first year or two of the nfl agreement to raise awareness
After the super league was first announced theres some belief levy wanted to wait for that to go forward since the price would theoretically go up
Theres lots of smoke amazon may end up being the buyer when it happens
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
This is the only thing that really makes sense to me, and I agree that it's a poor strategy long-term. That said, you'd have to imagine Son and Dele would both be pretty happy with this news.
I don't think levy cares about that with kane really, maybe poch makes it smoother for kane if he doesn't want to stay but does
But it's either going to come down to city meeting his valuation or he's waiting till next summer
This summer is basically the last one where levy has leverage, if he won't sign a new contract he would need to be sold next summer no matter what.
So if I were levy I would just say to harry, if you want to leave here is the number I value you at, have your agent tell whatever clubs you want to go to that this is the number and if they pay it by July 21st or whatever, you can leave, after that date we don't have enough time to spend the funds and buy our own replacements so that's that.
Dortmund set the perfect mold for how to handle something like this with Sancho last summer. Here's our price, here's the sell by date, don't bother coming to us if both aren't met.
Hard to use Sancho, as an example when BVB admitted they played their hand wrong.
Ronaldo, to Real. Handshake agreement, for one more year, and only if Perez paid handsomely. Perhaps similar to Bale to Madrid? Don’t remember.
Covid came at a bad time but they are also in the best position going forward starting in the fall most likely.
The stadium is a huge draw in London and Europe, dont think a lot of north American fans get how different the stadia in europe are compared to what is built across the atlantic
Spurs stadium is no different than any recent nfl stadium, but the reason why so many of the wow factor reviews came out, from journalists especially, were because it's just not what they are used too.
So it is a destination stadium for not only the nfl but also concerts and other sports. Basically anything that used wembley in the past is now likely going to use the new stadium. The 2nd field surface also allows them to not have to limit events because theres no risk of damaging the main field.
Slava did a great job explaining the debt, how it's not an issue.
The naming thing has had a few rumors and it's probably a combination of a few things
Some journalists say Levy wanted to keep the clubs name on the field for the first year or two of the nfl agreement to raise awareness
After the super league was first announced theres some belief levy wanted to wait for that to go forward since the price would theoretically go up
Theres lots of smoke amazon may end up being the buyer when it happens
As the rest of England catches up to Old Trafford in size, it’s time for those glazier c*nts, to invest in the old stadium. Needs an update badly.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cam_wmh For This Useful Post:
Hard to use Sancho, as an example when BVB admitted they played their hand wrong.
Ronaldo, to Real. Handshake agreement, for one more year, and only if Perez paid handsomely. Perhaps similar to Bale to Madrid? Don’t remember.
Have dortmund? Maybe I missed it, I thought they kept it close to the vest, had the contract 1 year extension triggered no one knew about and were happy
Bale to madrid was an agreement ya, he signed the new deal the year prior to strengthen their selling power but levy told him he would sell him next summer if he wanted to go and got a world record fee
Modric too, after that stuff about Chelsea came levy told him wait 1 more year and they agreed
The Following User Says Thank You to d_phaneuf For This Useful Post:
Have the Glazers ever put money into the club? With the leveraged buy-out and the payments they have made to themselves, I thought they had taken more money out of the team then put in
Have the Glazers ever put money into the club? With the leveraged buy-out and the payments they have made to themselves, I thought they had taken more money out of the team then put in
Quote:
Originally Posted by devo22
nope. They've cost the club $1.5 billion in debt, interest rates and dividends though, so ... yay.
Okay. I'm not entirely sure where this disdain is coming from?
When you're dealing with a club like United, you dont have to put money into it.
The Club, as a business, generates its own revenue. It doesnt need to draw from ownership, it is a self-sustaining entity.
If ownership is drawing off funds that are to the detriment of the club, thats a different story, but Man United finished 2nd. So I'm not certain that story holds up.
I think a more accurate question would be:
"Have the Glazers approved and financed expenditures by Manchester United in purchasing players and improving the team."
And the answer to that is unequivocally 'Yes.'
Regardless of their own draws.
However the people in charge of this task were largely incompetent and as such the purchases were largely inefficient.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Okay. I'm not entirely sure where this disdain is coming from?
When you're dealing with a club like United, you dont have to put money into it.
The Club, as a business, generates its own revenue. It doesnt need to draw from ownership, it is a self-sustaining entity.
If ownership is drawing off funds that are to the detriment of the club, thats a different story, but Man United finished 2nd. So I'm not certain that story holds up.
I think a more accurate question would be:
"Have the Glazers approved and financed expenditures by Manchester United in purchasing players and improving the team."
And the answer to that is unequivocally 'Yes.'
Regardless of their own draws.
However the people in charge of this task were largely incompetent and as such the purchases were largely inefficient.
Not disdain, but the idea of the Glazers putting money into a new stadium - even stadium improvements is likely an uphill battle. If there is any extra money on the table, the Glazers' are certainly holding their hands out
Okay. I'm not entirely sure where this disdain is coming from?
you quote my post and then ask this question?
United was financially healthy when the Glazers took over. No debt, no nothing. They put the club into massive debt over night, made it pay massive interest rates and also took out millions of dividends every year for them and their gazillion kids, grandkids and whatnot. All the while the stadium, which used to be something to be very proud of, was allowed to rot. The roof is leaking, there's a rodent problem and it's just an all around run down place. It's embarrassing to no end.
it's easy to miss the point. You could easily look at the transfer expenditure and say "why are they so angry? That's not so bad". But it's got absolutely nothing to do with transfers. It's about sinking a club into massive debt, leeching your way to millions of dividends while neglecting to keep up facilities. And as for transfers, the failures there go back to the Glazers as well. They have failed to put a proper structure in place ... like how about actually putting people in charge who know football? Instead they had people like Woodward running the show.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to devo22 For This Useful Post:
I appreciate the character of OT's tight seating, but the concourse is an antique in terms of amenities. I haven't been since 2013, but they haven't done anything since 2005.
Brentford are up 2-0 on Swansea at the half of the promotional playoff. If this holds, Brentford would become the 50th different to play in the Premier League.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
