ENIC

[Muttley]

That wasn't you argument, you stated that Levy was trying to do it on the cheap, but good that you now agree that it's flimflam.

40m wasn't overpaying, in a few years he'll be in the 80 - 100m bracket if he meets his potential. At that point we'd have zero chance of getting him. It's our best way of doing transfers, buying the best young players and developing them into top players that would normally be beyond our reach.
For Richy the only reason it has been wasted is down to his injuries. That can happen with any player.
Solanke, maybe over paid by about 10m, but we badly needed a striker and I'd be very confident that you'd be moaning that Levy is being cheap not paying the extra for a player that we badly need if we didn't get him.

You made a list of players that we got on the cheap that turned out to be great players. So it seems that you're not happy when we get good cheap buys and not happy when we splash the cash.

We've bought reasonably well in the last few years, getting some really talented young players. It just needs patience for them to develop alongside a little more strengthening in key areas, especially midfield and RW.

Spurs long term issue has been putting quantity over quality. We have ended up with proliferated squads and the cleanup operations have taken years as we can't shift players quick enough.

When I look at our squad right now, I see over 30 players that would want to be in the 1st team squad. When you think about it deeper, there will be about 16 or 17 that will rotate and only injuries brings in the others. Perhaps the domestic cups you can leverage some of the rest.

I'm OK with Spurs filling the pipe and continuing to speculate on these U21s. For the first team though, I really hope we stick to only 2 or 3 additions and make sure the same number of players have to depart in their place. I don't want to see any more windows where we buy 6-8 first team squad players. We've done that too often.

 

[DubSpur]

Spurs long term issue has been putting quantity over quality. We have ended up with proliferated squads and the cleanup operations have taken years as we can't shift players quick enough.

When I look at our squad right now, I see over 30 players that would want to be in the 1st team squad. When you think about it deeper, there will be about 16 or 17 that will rotate and only injuries brings in the others. Perhaps the domestic cups you can leverage some of the rest.

I'm OK with Spurs filling the pipe and continuing to speculate on these U21s. For the first team though, I really hope we stick to only 2 or 3 additions and make sure the same number of players have to depart in their place. I don't want to see any more windows where we buy 6-8 first team squad players. We've done that too often.

Agree that we've had an issue with moving players on. Even now we seem a bit bloated at CB, although a few of them will most likely go on loan. I don't know whether taking up the optional year on Davies was to get something in a transfer or he will take on some additional roles, but from a purely playing perspective I don't see the need for him.

We should be getting to the stage that it's 2-3 in and 2-3 out, plus a couple of the top prospects to develop.

 

[Muttley]

Agree that we've had an issue with moving players on. Even now we seem a bit bloated at CB, although a few of them will most likely go on loan. I don't know whether taking up the optional year on Davies was to get something in a transfer or he will take on some additional roles, but from a purely playing perspective I don't see the need for him.

We should be getting to the stage that it's 2-3 in and 2-3 out, plus a couple of the top prospects to develop.

I was wondering what the Davies contract situation would have looked like without Dragu's injury.

 

[braineclipse]

3rd highest net spend in last 5 years , very good we are spending. My argument would be it’s spent badly then. Gray 40m over paid , Richy and Solanke over paid. There’s 160m. Gray may come good but our strikers are bang average for 120 m worth.

If those three are the examples of us spending badly we're doing quite well on the signing front imo. List the successes and I think we're looking quite good.

Gray just way too early to say on value for money, but I really like him. Richy I agree, but that's mostly been a result of injuries. Solanke also a bit early, I like him, think he may have a more productive season in his second year.

 

[djp82]

If those three are the examples of us spending badly we're doing quite well on the signing front imo. List the successes and I think we're looking quite good.

Gray just way too early to say on value for money, but I really like him. Richy I agree, but that's mostly been a result of injuries. Solanke also a bit early, I like him, think he may have a more productive season in his second year.

With regards to Gray yes it is early and I have posted my thoughts around it.

Richy and Solanke we have over paid in my view. Neither of them are good enough for me. Especially at the 60 m price points. Looks like bad business.

Maybe Frank’s system style of play will suit Solanke better. Under Ange he was never in the box. He only had one decent season in terms of goals in prem. we will see.

Richy just needs to be sold. Can’t stay fit he’s been a poor buy .

 

[braineclipse]

Spurs long term issue has been putting quantity over quality. We have ended up with proliferated squads and the cleanup operations have taken years as we can't shift players quick enough.

When I look at our squad right now, I see over 30 players that would want to be in the 1st team squad. When you think about it deeper, there will be about 16 or 17 that will rotate and only injuries brings in the others. Perhaps the domestic cups you can leverage some of the rest.

I'm OK with Spurs filling the pipe and continuing to speculate on these U21s. For the first team though, I really hope we stick to only 2 or 3 additions and make sure the same number of players have to depart in their place. I don't want to see any more windows where we buy 6-8 first team squad players. We've done that too often.

For a couple of years now we've pretty much had to put quantity over quality to some extent at least. That's been the state of the squad. And with moving from no European football to EL football.

That being a result of poor recruitment in the past and a distinct lack of successful youth recruitment over time.

We're finally getting to the quality over quantity phase I think. 3 ready first team players this summer would be a good number imo, along with a few youngsters.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Not sure what you are saying?
Does levy scout and recommend players?
The ones we've spent larger fees on haven't worked out, so he should stick with the cheaper ones?

You think it's a coincidence his managers have never ever bought REALLY big? Not saying that's wrong per se, but when you make statements like your ambition is to win the League and the CL, people are going to look at your record in the transfer market and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Lilbaz]

You think it's a coincidence his managers have never ever bought REALLY big? Not saying that's wrong per se, but when you make statements like your ambition is to win the League and the CL, people are going to look at your record in the transfer market and draw their own conclusions.

These are the most expensive premier league signings. Which do you think we should have gone for at that price?

The 10 most expensive Premier League transfers of all time

Read More...

www.footballtransfers.com

 

[braineclipse]

You think it's a coincidence his managers have never ever bought REALLY big? Not saying that's wrong per se, but when you make statements like your ambition is to win the League and the CL, people are going to look at your record in the transfer market and draw their own conclusions.

The comparison with Liverpool to me seems relevant. Mostly younger, not super expensive signings, but with an overall plan and strategy that really worked for them.

What they did and it could be argued we haven't done is spend big on individuals when it's been seen as the right move for them.

Van Dijk, Szoboszlai, Nunez and now (having already reached the top twice) Wirtz.

Would Levy sanction that if the footballing people in charge thought it was the best strategy at that point?

Impossible to know, but other than Wirtz (again, after being really successful) it's not like those fees are that much different than what we paid for Ndombele - who we also gave massive wages to, Solanke and Richarlison.

Imo more about success in the signings made, a good overall cohesive strategy, successful youth development and player development in general rather than just spending REALLY big.

I like our current recruitment model. But would also want to see us really push the boat out for that one player if seen as the right one. Not a every season thing, but at the right time. Arguably the time hasn't been right for that for quite a while.

 

[DubSpur]

The comparison with Liverpool to me seems relevant. Mostly younger, not super expensive signings, but with an overall plan and strategy that really worked for them.

What they did and it could be argued we haven't done is spend big on individuals when it's been seen as the right move for them.

Van Dijk, Szoboszlai, Nunez and now (having already reached the top twice) Wirtz.

Would Levy sanction that if the footballing people in charge thought it was the best strategy at that point?

Impossible to know, but other than Wirtz (again, after being really successful) it's not like those fees are that much different than what we paid for Ndombele - who we also gave massive wages to, Solanke and Richarlison.

Imo more about success in the signings made, a good overall cohesive strategy, successful youth development and player development in general rather than just spending REALLY big.

I like our current recruitment model. But would also want to see us really push the boat out for that one player if seen as the right one. Not a every season thing, but at the right time. Arguably the time hasn't been right for that for quite a while.

You need to be near the top of the table to be able to attract a really top player. It should also be more or less the final piece of the jigsaw to really close the gap on the top teams, like Arsenal with Rice.

 

[Legohamster]

With regards to Gray yes it is early and I have posted my thoughts around it.

Richy and Solanke we have over paid in my view. Neither of them are good enough for me. Especially at the 60 m price points. Looks like bad business.

Maybe Frank’s system style of play will suit Solanke better. Under Ange he was never in the box. He only had one decent season in terms of goals in prem. we will see.

Richy just needs to be sold. Can’t stay fit he’s been a poor buy .

110 Million on Solanke and Richi is criminal - 2 non goal scoring forwards, one of which is hardly fit.

 

[braineclipse]

110 Million on Solanke and Richi is criminal - 2 non goal scoring forwards, one of which is hardly fit.

Bit harsh?

Richarlison started 30+ league games 4 out of 5 PL seasons before joining us, starting 28 in the last one. When fit and playing as a striker for us he's scored at a good rate.

Solanke has had one season in a struggling team where he imo overall played well, but underperfomed in regards to goals.

 

[braineclipse]

With regards to Gray yes it is early and I have posted my thoughts around it.

Richy and Solanke we have over paid in my view. Neither of them are good enough for me. Especially at the 60 m price points. Looks like bad business.

Maybe Frank’s system style of play will suit Solanke better. Under Ange he was never in the box. He only had one decent season in terms of goals in prem. we will see.

Richy just needs to be sold. Can’t stay fit he’s been a poor buy .

Still think Solanke should be given at least another season before evaluating if we overpaid or not. 60m for a PL proven, good perhaps not great striker seems to be around the market rate. Strikers are expensive. I like him though.

What I fully agree with is that how we spend the money is more important than how much we spent. A really poor window with significant signings can set us back for years, as it has in the past.

To some extent the more expensive signings are as much about avoiding the flops than getting the superstar. The consequences of those big flops are so big, for a club in our situation at least.

I struggle to see who we could realistically sign who would be a locked in world beater, superstar. In the absence of that perhaps better not to gamble and spread the money out a bit. Or go for a 50-60m "almost certainly is going to be good, but perhaps not fantastic" and try to develop the world beater.

 

[Lilbaz]

Still think Solanke should be given at least another season before evaluating if we overpaid or not. 60m for a PL proven, good perhaps not great striker seems to be around the market rate. Strikers are expensive. I like him though.

What I fully agree with is that how we spend the money is more important than how much we spent. A really poor window with significant signings can set us back for years, as it has in the past.

To some extent the more expensive signings are as much about avoiding the flops than getting the superstar. The consequences of those big flops are so big, for a club in our situation at least.

I struggle to see who we could realistically sign who would be a locked in world beater, superstar. In the absence of that perhaps better not to gamble and spread the money out a bit. Or go for a 50-60m "almost certainly is going to be good, but perhaps not fantastic" and try to develop the world beater.

The problem with a big money flop is you can't get rid. You are stuck with them. Maybe a loan or two till their contract runs down.
A punt that doesn't work out who is on low wages. Sell on. Amortisation means you probably won't make much of a loss.

 

[Raziel]

More regular CL participation boosts the value of the club. They don’t take money out, but they put relatively little in too, and that’s the issue. Self sustainability works for their strategy, but it doesn’t necessarily benefit us wholly as fans if we want to see the team win the league. They are trying to get as much profit out of their initial investment in the club as possible when they eventually sell it. Any money that goes in is a hit against that. I don’t think he wants CL on the cheap, I think he wants regular European football, with enough CL seasons thrown in, to make the case that Spurs justifies the value ENIC places on it. And this is likely why he cannot countenance volatility in the league. Anything that makes it look like we aren’t consistently one of the top 6 clubs is a hit on that story we tell. We need to be in the conversation when something like the Super League comes up. We need to do the Amazon stuff. We need to act like a multi billion dollar valuation as much as possible.

Where I think the interests of ENIC and the fans may converge is external investment. Which is why I find that so interesting. I wonder how it would work. Eg do they sell 20%? And how much of that 20% do they bank as profit, and how much do they invest in the team, or raise the wage structure? How much do they loosen the ‘self sustainable’ ethos with other partners on board? Do they sell more or less than 20%?

For a quick hypothetical I just did £3bn, 20% of which is 600m. Might not be the value, and they might not need to sell that much. But it would be really interesting to think about what we could do with say half of that money, especially if we have so much headroom for PSR rules.

A lot of that is a fundamentally wrong statement. ENIC (not Levy) does things on a self sustaining model which handicaps the club in ways, however.

- All profit belongs to the owners, and they have put 20+ years of profit (i.e. their own money) into the club, so when people make the "oh, ENIC paid 44M for Spurs, never invest their money in and want to sell for 3.5B" statement, ENIC has paid 44M +every year of profits they put back in +the cash injections (think it was 2). That might anger people but it's the truth (one day I'll not be lazy and do the math, but it will be in the hundreds of millions)
- ENIC/Levy has never been trying to flip the club, and while this stupid narrative has calmed in last few years, there is so much evidence that it was a poor assumption, 1/You don't wait 25 years to flip something, 2/The stadium is ultimate proof, think of it as a house flip, if you knew you were going to sell your house, you would do the bare minimum, not the best renovation the world has seen (you just don't get your money back). The training ground, the stadium, the area regeneration are completely over-invested in and a brick financial decision if your plan was to sell anytime soon
- The club has received bids or at least interest in being purchased before (all the way back to RA), as a business they had to review them (especially when public), they opted not to proceed with any.

The last part is more to the why now, why investors, what they do with money question (and yes, this part is my speculation)
- You have to separate ENIC & Levy, ENIC has been an absentee landlord who was quite happy to (under Lewis) just have Levy appreciate their asset. I suspect with Joe out of the picture, they may care even fudging less. For Levy it's personal (right or wrong, the guy has put his life into this), and he does not have the personal fortune to invest meaningfully into the club.
- The stories are Levy went multiple times in the Lewis era to ask for cash injections (at least 3 were reported on), he got the 150M a few years ago.
- My view (backed by some rumours) is the club is in a good place, we don't need external investors, should we make some decent decisions re managers/players, we could sit in 4th-7th for next 3-5 years, pay down the debt (like Arsenal did) and push on when the debt frees up even more cash. However it is clear we are now actively seeking external investors, some significant portion of that money would absolutely have to be earmarked for squad investment.

Last part as I said is my speculation, but I find it an interesting association that now is the moment Levy has decided to throw out his target of PL & CL winning .. make what you will, but to me it says that investment is probably closer than we think.

 

[Legohamster]

A lot of that is a fundamentally wrong statement. ENIC (not Levy) does things on a self sustaining model which handicaps the club in ways, however.

- All profit belongs to the owners, and they have put 20+ years of profit (i.e. their own money) into the club, so when people make the "oh, ENIC paid 44M for Spurs, never invest their money in and want to sell for 3.5B" statement, ENIC has paid 44M +every year of profits they put back in +the cash injections (think it was 2). That might anger people but it's the truth (one day I'll not be lazy and do the math, but it will be in the hundreds of millions)
- ENIC/Levy has never been trying to flip the club, and while this stupid narrative has calmed in last few years, there is so much evidence that it was a poor assumption, 1/You don't wait 25 years to flip something, 2/The stadium is ultimate proof, think of it as a house flip, if you knew you were going to sell your house, you would do the bare minimum, not the best renovation the world has seen (you just don't get your money back). The training ground, the stadium, the area regeneration are completely over-invested in and a brick financial decision if your plan was to sell anytime soon
- The club has received bids or at least interest in being purchased before (all the way back to RA), as a business they had to review them (especially when public), they opted not to proceed with any.

The last part is more to the why now, why investors, what they do with money question (and yes, this part is my speculation)
- You have to separate ENIC & Levy, ENIC has been an absentee landlord who was quite happy to (under Lewis) just have Levy appreciate their asset. I suspect with Joe out of the picture, they may care even fudging less. For Levy it's personal (right or wrong, the guy has put his life into this), and he does not have the personal fortune to invest meaningfully into the club.
- The stories are Levy went multiple times in the Lewis era to ask for cash injections (at least 3 were reported on), he got the 150M a few years ago.
- My view (backed by some rumours) is the club is in a good place, we don't need external investors, should we make some decent decisions re managers/players, we could sit in 4th-7th for next 3-5 years, pay down the debt (like Arsenal did) and push on when the debt frees up even more cash. However it is clear we are now actively seeking external investors, some significant portion of that money would absolutely have to be earmarked for squad investment.

Last part as I said is my speculation, but I find it an interesting association that now is the moment Levy has decided to throw out his target of PL & CL winning .. make what you will, but to me it says that investment is probably closer than we think.

Levy gets a lot of unwarranted stick in my view

 

[BrainOfLevy]

A lot of that is a fundamentally wrong statement. ENIC (not Levy) does things on a self sustaining model which handicaps the club in ways, however.

- All profit belongs to the owners, and they have put 20+ years of profit (i.e. their own money) into the club, so when people make the "oh, ENIC paid 44M for Spurs, never invest their money in and want to sell for 3.5B" statement, ENIC has paid 44M +every year of profits they put back in +the cash injections (think it was 2). That might anger people but it's the truth (one day I'll not be lazy and do the math, but it will be in the hundreds of millions)
- ENIC/Levy has never been trying to flip the club, and while this stupid narrative has calmed in last few years, there is so much evidence that it was a poor assumption, 1/You don't wait 25 years to flip something, 2/The stadium is ultimate proof, think of it as a house flip, if you knew you were going to sell your house, you would do the bare minimum, not the best renovation the world has seen (you just don't get your money back). The training ground, the stadium, the area regeneration are completely over-invested in and a brick financial decision if your plan was to sell anytime soon
- The club has received bids or at least interest in being purchased before (all the way back to RA), as a business they had to review them (especially when public), they opted not to proceed with any.

The last part is more to the why now, why investors, what they do with money question (and yes, this part is my speculation)
- You have to separate ENIC & Levy, ENIC has been an absentee landlord who was quite happy to (under Lewis) just have Levy appreciate their asset. I suspect with Joe out of the picture, they may care even fudging less. For Levy it's personal (right or wrong, the guy has put his life into this), and he does not have the personal fortune to invest meaningfully into the club.
- The stories are Levy went multiple times in the Lewis era to ask for cash injections (at least 3 were reported on), he got the 150M a few years ago.
- My view (backed by some rumours) is the club is in a good place, we don't need external investors, should we make some decent decisions re managers/players, we could sit in 4th-7th for next 3-5 years, pay down the debt (like Arsenal did) and push on when the debt frees up even more cash. However it is clear we are now actively seeking external investors, some significant portion of that money would absolutely have to be earmarked for squad investment.

Last part as I said is my speculation, but I find it an interesting association that now is the moment Levy has decided to throw out his target of PL & CL winning .. make what you will, but to me it says that investment is probably closer than we think.

Fair point on the fact that they have reinvested profits. That is true. They could have taken that. I don’t think it moves the needle like typical owner investment does, but it is true they could have taken it.

I’m not really sure why you think they own Spurs if at some point you think they won’t sell it though? Do you think this was just a punt Lewis let Levy take? And now Levy has just made this labour of love into this massive thing?

I’m also not following why you wouldn’t build a stadium and a training ground if you didn’t want to sell at the highest possible price down the line? In my head, that’s exactly what I would do! It’s maximising the potential of the asset.

I’m also not sure why you wouldn’t wait 25 years, if the potential value of the club could keep growing at a significant rate, boosted by things like the stadium and training round, boosted by global media rights, new streaming deals, branding, and whatever else? Every investor has their own horizon, and if there was still more juice to squeeze I’m not sure why they wouldn’t?

With that in mind I’m not sure why them rejecting bids means they don’t want to sell? I think they want to get the absolute maximum, and when there is still more room to grow the valuation, and they can benefit from that, then they will.

What am I missing here? What is the goal of an Investment Corporation if not to realise a profit on their investment?

 

[Lilbaz]

Fair point on the fact that they have reinvested profits. That is true. They could have taken that. I don’t think it moves the needle like typical owner investment does, but it is true they could have taken it.

I’m not really sure why you think they own Spurs if at some point you think they won’t sell it though? Do you think this was just a punt Lewis let Levy take? And now Levy has just made this labour of love into this massive thing?

I’m also not following why you wouldn’t build a stadium and a training ground if you didn’t want to sell at the highest possible price down the line? In my head, that’s exactly what I would do! It’s maximising the potential of the asset.

I’m also not sure why you wouldn’t wait 25 years, if the potential value of the club could keep growing at a significant rate, boosted by things like the stadium and training round, boosted by global media rights, new streaming deals, branding, and whatever else? Every investor has their own horizon, and if there was still more juice to squeeze I’m not sure why they wouldn’t?

With that in mind I’m not sure why them rejecting bids means they don’t want to sell? I think they want to get the absolute maximum, and when there is still more room to grow the valuation, and they can benefit from that, then they will.

What am I missing here? What is the goal of an Investment Corporation if not to realise a profit on their investment?

Levy said himself the club is always for sale (interview with garth crooks). The price has to be right though.

 

[Raziel]

Fair point on the fact that they have reinvested profits. That is true. They could have taken that. I don’t think it moves the needle like typical owner investment does, but it is true they could have taken it.

I’m not really sure why you think they own Spurs if at some point you think they won’t sell it though? Do you think this was just a punt Lewis let Levy take? And now Levy has just made this labour of love into this massive thing?

I’m also not following why you wouldn’t build a stadium and a training ground if you didn’t want to sell at the highest possible price down the line? In my head, that’s exactly what I would do! It’s maximising the potential of the asset.

I’m also not sure why you wouldn’t wait 25 years, if the potential value of the club could keep growing at a significant rate, boosted by things like the stadium and training round, boosted by global media rights, new streaming deals, branding, and whatever else? Every investor has their own horizon, and if there was still more juice to squeeze I’m not sure why they wouldn’t?

With that in mind I’m not sure why them rejecting bids means they don’t want to sell? I think they want to get the absolute maximum, and when there is still more room to grow the valuation, and they can benefit from that, then they will.

What am I missing here? What is the goal of an Investment Corporation if not to realise a profit on their investment?

They could/may sell, at some point the offer will be right, that however is different from their objective was to sell (flip, doing it on cheap narrative), what that original time horizon was and is, unknown. And to put into context, ENIC have held on to Spurs longer than any other club in the PL by a pretty big margin (next oldest owners are City, 7 years after), so it doesn't seem owner hold on to clubs for 25+ years.

You would build a stadium and a training round, you wouldn't build a billion dollar stadium with all the best functionality (decision to have no obstructed view, decision to use glass on roof, decision to pre-wire for media, biggest screens in Europe), there are literally hundreds of decisions made that would/will cut into eventual profit that just wasn't necessary. For context Chelsea sold a club that had sketchy ground rights and a brick stadium for >$4B (total), if (as the accusation always is), the only objective was to maximize profits, what Levy did, does not make sense (you are absolutely not maximizing if you overspend on improvements/upgrades)

 

[Raziel]

Levy said himself the club is always for sale (interview with garth crooks). The price has to be right though.

IIRC (if it's same interview), he said it was the duty of the board to evaluate any offers and determine if it was right/appropriate for club/shareholders.

Think people are confusing want to, plan to, or possibly. I'm not interested in selling my car/house right now, but if someone offered the right price, I would. Yes if someone offered ENIC 6B for Spurs, it's sold.