Cheers Squid, I forgive you for stealing the limelight from me on this thread.
Bales
it's a fact .............I had areally good laugh at them yesterday
Squid
For me it's De Gea - his facial hair cracks me up every time!
Squid.I mean the old top four that had us all bored to tears..you no.
.I mean the old top four that had us all bored to tears.
===========
I preferred the old top four
D'J
Mate we all know the United ,City and Spurs will be there but I fancy you guys to knock Chelsea out of the 4
Squid "- God I hate City and their awful fans ......
Money is Money NOT class
How can you get any satisfaction from winning games when you know some rich uncle bought it for you ???"
Well mate 3 things mate!,
1 - I have been watching City since 73 so I have seen my share of cr@p
2 - Considering the money Tottenham have spent in the last 5 years, you comment is hypocritical to the point of embarrassment.
3 – My post stated I hope you qualify for the top 4, and was intended to debate (like football fans do) what I thought was a difficult run of fixtures for Tottenham. Now if this constitutes me being “awful” and having no “class”, you are truly a tool
Total rubbish
Any money we have spent we have earned either in player sales or for being a well run club
You're a wum end of ...admit it and buxxer off
When you oligarchs took over Andy Jaccobs pn the radio said
"Thank god for that , City will take over from my Chelsea as the most hated team in England "
He ws right
"2 - Considering the money Tottenham have spent in the last 5 years"
As best we can work out from the accounts of THFC from 2001-2010, the new owners have increased the NET debt on the club, over the *10* years, to ... wait for it ... 60 million. ***
*** Working on the assumption that ENIC PLC wiped out the 18 million of debt listed at the end of 2000, and cancelling that by the 24m debt increase incurred by converting a certain share class that (apparently) has always existed in the PLC (under "FRS" regulations) into debt on the balance sheet.
Of course, if ENIC did not pay off the previous debt burden prior to takeover, and the "apparently" is actually fact ...
Wasnt that 60m due to buying propertyand stadium expenses????
fair enough squid, I was wrong. You will get 27/27 points.
End of debate............
Ah dont you like the truth then
squid :
These are the "facts" as I read them ...
1. I THINK that ENIC paid off the net debt. The "5 year review" on the net debt was a bit unclear to me, and based on wording in later years (the net debt in some annual reports only seemed to sum up to a "year zero" of 2001) .
2. The conversion of share class (that I assume had to be service/honoured by some future date) to debt, happened as stated and increased the net debt by 24m. From what I could see, these shares were incumbent and inherited (they were not issued or created during the ENIC ownership to that date)
3. A recent debt increase of 15m (for real estate purchase) was done via a share rights offer. I assume (not confirmed) that ENIC purchased said shares.
And again, if assumptions for 1 and 3 is not true, and 2 is, it makes for a figure too painful for some to behold ...
Dont know the ins and outs , just under the impression that we had a small debt which was stadium related .....
To the Man Pity follower that foolishly scribbled the original article:
I look forward to seeing you proved wrong.
Money might buy success however it doesn't buy you class, style, tradition or friends.
Lottery winners - the new noveau rich.
squid :
The worst case is that ENIC have effectively have paid + must find 60m in total to cover the debt over the decade by their own activities.
So 60m NET expenditure in 10 yrs re the PL placings over that time (mediocrity to top 5 for 4 of the past 6 yrs) is very sound financial management indeed.
Leave the wishful thinking of <Citeh> s where it belongs.
One game at a time is all that needs to be done when it comes to Spurs and the PL.
That run of games is a tough one, agreed, but we are well capable of winning our home games and getting something away Everton, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea.
There is no reason why we cannot average 2 points a game during that period.
Also, you need to put those fixtures in context. They are preceded by Norwich(a) Swansea (a) WBA (h) Wolves (h) and followed by our run in of Swansea (h) Sunderland (a) Norwich (h) Bolton (a) QPR (a) Blackburn (h) Villa (a) Fulham (h) .
We could quite conceivably gain 30 points from those 12 games, so even a 10-12 point take from our tough run of nine games would still represent 2 points a game which will be plenty to keep Spurs on track.
For a run-in that set of fixtures is not bad at all!
Sign in if you want to comment
Just seen your fixtures
Page 2 of 2
posted on 6/11/11
Cheers Squid, I forgive you for stealing the limelight from me on this thread.
posted on 6/11/11
Bales
it's a fact .............I had areally good laugh at them yesterday
posted on 6/11/11
Squid
For me it's De Gea - his facial hair cracks me up every time!
posted on 6/11/11
Squid.I mean the old top four that had us all bored to tears..you no.
posted on 6/11/11
.I mean the old top four that had us all bored to tears.
===========
I preferred the old top four
posted on 6/11/11
D'J
Mate we all know the United ,City and Spurs will be there but I fancy you guys to knock Chelsea out of the 4
posted on 6/11/11
Squid "- God I hate City and their awful fans ......
Money is Money NOT class
How can you get any satisfaction from winning games when you know some rich uncle bought it for you ???"
Well mate 3 things mate!,
1 - I have been watching City since 73 so I have seen my share of cr@p
2 - Considering the money Tottenham have spent in the last 5 years, you comment is hypocritical to the point of embarrassment.
3 – My post stated I hope you qualify for the top 4, and was intended to debate (like football fans do) what I thought was a difficult run of fixtures for Tottenham. Now if this constitutes me being “awful” and having no “class”, you are truly a tool
posted on 6/11/11
Total rubbish
Any money we have spent we have earned either in player sales or for being a well run club
You're a wum end of ...admit it and buxxer off
posted on 6/11/11
When you oligarchs took over Andy Jaccobs pn the radio said
"Thank god for that , City will take over from my Chelsea as the most hated team in England "
He ws right
posted on 6/11/11
"2 - Considering the money Tottenham have spent in the last 5 years"
As best we can work out from the accounts of THFC from 2001-2010, the new owners have increased the NET debt on the club, over the *10* years, to ... wait for it ... 60 million. ***
*** Working on the assumption that ENIC PLC wiped out the 18 million of debt listed at the end of 2000, and cancelling that by the 24m debt increase incurred by converting a certain share class that (apparently) has always existed in the PLC (under "FRS" regulations) into debt on the balance sheet.
Of course, if ENIC did not pay off the previous debt burden prior to takeover, and the "apparently" is actually fact ...
posted on 6/11/11
Wasnt that 60m due to buying propertyand stadium expenses????
posted on 6/11/11
fair enough squid, I was wrong. You will get 27/27 points.
End of debate............
posted on 6/11/11
Ah dont you like the truth then
posted on 6/11/11
squid :
These are the "facts" as I read them ...
1. I THINK that ENIC paid off the net debt. The "5 year review" on the net debt was a bit unclear to me, and based on wording in later years (the net debt in some annual reports only seemed to sum up to a "year zero" of 2001) .
2. The conversion of share class (that I assume had to be service/honoured by some future date) to debt, happened as stated and increased the net debt by 24m. From what I could see, these shares were incumbent and inherited (they were not issued or created during the ENIC ownership to that date)
3. A recent debt increase of 15m (for real estate purchase) was done via a share rights offer. I assume (not confirmed) that ENIC purchased said shares.
And again, if assumptions for 1 and 3 is not true, and 2 is, it makes for a figure too painful for some to behold ...
posted on 6/11/11
Dont know the ins and outs , just under the impression that we had a small debt which was stadium related .....
posted on 6/11/11
To the Man Pity follower that foolishly scribbled the original article:
I look forward to seeing you proved wrong.
posted on 6/11/11
Money might buy success however it doesn't buy you class, style, tradition or friends.
Lottery winners - the new noveau rich.
posted on 6/11/11
squid :
The worst case is that ENIC have effectively have paid + must find 60m in total to cover the debt over the decade by their own activities.
So 60m NET expenditure in 10 yrs re the PL placings over that time (mediocrity to top 5 for 4 of the past 6 yrs) is very sound financial management indeed.
posted on 6/11/11
Leave the wishful thinking of <Citeh> s where it belongs.
One game at a time is all that needs to be done when it comes to Spurs and the PL.
posted on 7/11/11
That run of games is a tough one, agreed, but we are well capable of winning our home games and getting something away Everton, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea.
There is no reason why we cannot average 2 points a game during that period.
Also, you need to put those fixtures in context. They are preceded by Norwich(a) Swansea (a) WBA (h) Wolves (h) and followed by our run in of Swansea (h) Sunderland (a) Norwich (h) Bolton (a) QPR (a) Blackburn (h) Villa (a) Fulham (h) .
We could quite conceivably gain 30 points from those 12 games, so even a 10-12 point take from our tough run of nine games would still represent 2 points a game which will be plenty to keep Spurs on track.
For a run-in that set of fixtures is not bad at all!
Page 2 of 2