Spurs debt is for their stadium though and probably had a business plan around it which meant it doesn’t overly affect their “football” performance.
The debt increased £100m in their last set of accounts, so they’re not covering the interest payments at the moment.
On paper, the stadium means the value of the club has increased and would cover the expenditure/debt. We’ve had to cash in on Doug, Duran and Ramsey because the rules do not recognise their paper increase in value.
Not sure what “ the rules do not recognise their paper increase in value” means.
Are you trying to compare a stadium with footballers?
Pretty much. Clubs are forced to crystalize a good scouting/buying approach by selling players that have increased in value to balance the books.
Whereas, there's no penalty for building a stadium using debt, despite both approaches over-stretching a club beyond its natural income/expenditure position.
The new government body, mentioned above, has said debt will now be a consideration when controlling spending.
