• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

It was, which is why I don’t crow about it.

I climbed onto this high horse many years ago, I’m just struggling to find a technical excuse, as to why this is different, from that which I’ve used to define the achievements of others as invalid.

Out of interest, which clubs achievements (within, say, the last 20 years) do you class as valid?
 
It was, which is why I don’t crow about it.

I climbed onto this high horse many years ago, I’m just struggling to find a technical excuse, as to why this is different, from that which I’ve used to define the achievements of others as invalid.

Because it is well within the spending limits. Owners are allowed to invest in their clubs. It's only an issue if the club is spending more than they have coming in. Which makes the club unsustainable without owner investment. Chelsea, city, villa and everton have all spent more than they can afford on players and wages. City and chelsea both failed ffp, both punished by uefa, city still under investigation by the pl. Villa and everton have tried to use some very dubious technicalities to get around their breaches of the premier league sustainability rules. Which have led to leeds and burnley making complaints.
 
Because it is well within the spending limits. Owners are allowed to invest in their clubs. It's only an issue if the club is spending more than they have coming in. Which makes the club unsustainable without owner investment. Chelsea, city, villa and everton have all spent more than they can afford on players and wages. City and chelsea both failed ffp, both punished by uefa, city still under investigation by the pl. Villa and everton have tried to use some very dubious technicalities to get around their breaches of the premier league sustainability rules. Which have led to leeds and burnley making complaints.

thats pretty good
 
Also we haven't artificially inflated our sponsorship deals in order to get around ffp. As city, psg and everton have done. Although with usminov being sanctioned everton has lost those deals.

like it

still feel I’d be open to accusations of hypocrisy if I jump on this train though
 
like it

still feel I’d be open to accusations of hypocrisy if I jump on this train though

Liverpool owners invested as did kronke. Nobody had any issue with it. We've made enough profit the last decade with huge investment in the stadium and training ground. If you want to look at it in znother way. This is just 5-6 years of loan repayments paid off.
 
So what convinced joe to change his mind and 20 years of habit?

I’m guessing no attractive third parties materialised coupled with this method increasing their holding in the club. Isn’t this the method Finney was suggesting for ages?

Also the report says ENIC own 85% but I thought they had nearly 100%. Who has the other 15%?
Probably has a lot to do with the stadium starting to generate money. With a stable and increasing cash flow in, makes it more viable to put cash back into the team.
Reasonable well explained in this clip.
 
This is a business decision. We're back in the Champion's League and we need to sustain that. City and Pool are different class at the moment. Chelsea have new owners who will potentially spend. Arsenal remain a threat. Saudi Sportswashing Machine will have what ever it takes to spend. West Ham may have big investment on the horizon. Plus the likes of Villa and Everton have been prepared to spend big (not succesfully thus far). We need to strike while the iron's hot and that's what we've done. Invest in what we've built thus far and we have massive potential. If we don't we'll slip down the League both in real terms and asset value.

Look at the Training Ground, look at the Stadium and look at the managers we've had in the last couple of years (OK Nuno was a stop-gap :rolleyes:). Levy doesn't do sh!te, everything is the best available.

Personally I'm excited by events over the past week.

And one of the best things about Conte has been, he takes the spotlight off Levy:cool: (Up until this little announcement ;))
 
Then instead think of it like this…. By building the new stadium our owners took their own wealth from £1b to £2b, while spending about £1.2b of the clubs money. They have therefore put in 15% of that wealth increase.
OK put that it way it doesn't sound like much.
Penny pinching Enic. Levy out[emoji57]

Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
This is a business decision. We're back in the Champion's League and we need to sustain that. City and Pool are different class at the moment. Chelsea have new owners who will potentially spend. Arsenal remain a threat. Saudi Sportswashing Machine will have what ever it takes to spend. West Ham may have big investment on the horizon. Plus the likes of Villa and Everton have been prepared to spend big (not succesfully thus far). We need to strike while the iron's hot and that's what we've done. Invest in what we've built thus far and we have massive potential. If we don't we'll slip down the League both in real terms and asset value.

Look at the Training Ground, look at the Stadium and look at the managers we've had in the last couple of years (OK Nuno was a stop-gap :rolleyes:). Levy doesn't do sh!te, everything is the best available.

Personally I'm excited by events over the past week.

And one of the best things about Conte has been, he takes the spotlight off Levy:cool: (Up until this little announcement ;))
Agree. It's getting more competitive. And it's not like charity, they have increased their equity so there is an opportunity for getting more back when (not if) they sell the club in whole or part.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
Back