• 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

johnola said:
Thanks all for your input on this it does bother me and perhaps it should not.

I’d be comfortable if our revenues soon reach their maximum potential and are on a scale that makes that huge investment worthwhile.

All I see is competitors with better income and yet without those liabilities.
Click to expand...
The only competitors with better incomes are Utd and Liverpool (because of their worldwide following) and City (dodgy sponsorship deals). We've being reducing the gap in recent years and we will have the biggest boost to income over the last year with the return of supporters. There will be more sponsorship coming online too that will boost the income further.

You really are worrying over nothing.
 
johnola said:
Thanks all for your input on this it does bother me and perhaps it should not.

I’d be comfortable if our revenues soon reach their maximum potential and are on a scale that makes that huge investment worthwhile.

All I see is competitors with better income and yet without those liabilities.
Click to expand...
Rome wasn't built in a day.....etc

We are within the final act now...this is when we should begin to reap and enjoy the benefits. The hard yards are done. Enjoy.
 
Raziel said:
I'd build a little on what @Lilbaz and @SpurMeUp said

1. Timing is good on a few of the pitch pieces, we have a front line that can win any competition, a manager that can win any competition and we are back in CL
2. Chelsea's sale has changed the market, i.e. two odd years ago, it was believed ENIC valued the club at £2.5B but there was no precedent (like owning a house in any area no one had bought in decades), Chelsea still has to build (and gain permission) a new stadium, yet they sold for >£3B (plus £2B in other commitments)
3. Our income is supporting it, to @glorygloryeze question of why didn't they do this earlier, the short answer is -> there is no longer any unknown. All Infrastructure spend is done and all debt restructured into low interest long term, Stadium has run at full capacity for a season for the first time plus non football events (NFL, Rugby, Boxing, Concerts), new sponsorships as well. Add in as mentioned new co-efficient model in CL rewards us in long term as well.
4. Simply a good investment

The last more speculative statement (will annoy some people) is Levy succeed at convincing them on 3rd attempt. It's been reported that once with Jose and once last summer (potentially when first trying to attract Conte) Levy went to Bahamas to try to get exactly this outcome, 3rd time lucky?
Click to expand...
No 3 is massive and largely misunderstood and underappreciated as a factor in the chairman's risk profile along the timeline.
 
johnola said:
Thanks all for your input on this it does bother me and perhaps it should not.

I’d be comfortable if our revenues soon reach their maximum potential and are on a scale that makes that huge investment worthwhile.

All I see is competitors with better income and yet without those liabilities.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean but really I wouldn’t worry. Even Levy’s biggest critics can’t accuse him up putting the club in danger. In fact he’s often accused of being too conservative.

On a more general point, debt makes the world go round in big business. Particularly with real estate. Hotels, shopping centres, office buildings - you’d be surprised at how little is fully paid off.

The rich very rarely put their own money at risk on that scale. They just borrow, service the debt, build the business and make money off it. When it’s time for their exit strategy, they sell, pocket the profits and move on.

They tend to see debt as a weapon to be used, not to be feared. Very different from us common folks!
 
Lilbaz said:
Our capital expenditure on the training ground and stadium has been £1.4bn since 2010.

View attachment 14178

Our gross debt is £854m.


View attachment 14179

We've already paid for £600m. Almost half of it. In 10 years, without the extra revenue of the stadium. Without the new nbc tv deal. Without the cinch and getir deals. We have another 30 years to pay the rest. We are fine.
Click to expand...
That £854 includes the further long term bond placement to repay the government loan, (I think we were on £658 ish before) so without COVID we'd be even rosier.
 
The other reason for the cash injection now is the upcoming 5 sub rule, which means that teams need 3 more match ready players across the pitch to remain competitive.
 
johnola said:
Thanks all for your input on this it does bother me and perhaps it should not.

I’d be comfortable if our revenues soon reach their maximum potential and are on a scale that makes that huge investment worthwhile.

All I see is competitors with better income and yet without those liabilities.
Click to expand...

I am with you - Enic has a strategy that is sound and long term - perhaps thats where the difference is.

To recap:
- Debt is manageable (even favourable under today's inflationary conditions)
- Debt has allowed us enlarge capacity for revenue - higher crowd attendance and better image has positive impact on sponsorships
- Covid delayed effect of football (gate) and non-football (events) revenue potential

I think end of 2022-23 is going to be pivotal for us:
- champions league money
- significantly increased gate fees
- significantly increased non-football revenue (lifting of travel bans, proven success across various pilots during Covid)

Which then snowballs into even higher sponsorship potential.

So maybe we can revisit this thread again to see if you're feeling more optimistic :)

I'm a realist so the skeptic part of me has a few questions:
- 150m isn't really a lot - if you think that we lacked investments in three windows previoulsy, and if you include this one, its about 40m per window that sounds like regular upkeep. And i see that Chelsea has 200m to invest, on top of a pretty good squad already. could Enic have invested more since FFP headroom is there.
- how profitable will the non-football revenue be, how much more investments are required e.g. cinemas and hotels, will they continue to be a drag on investments in the footballing side and how much of that will be used for football (non football revenue ideas are endless....)
- why did boehly buy chelsea when he clearly could have met what Enic was asking and get the stadium and all that favourable long term debt....

But we are making solid progress as a club so generally i am feeling good for the long term. Not so confident in the immediate as levy has a way of tripping up (e.g. not investing with Poch and riding the crest of the CL, playing DOF with Hitchen, pulling the Mourinho before a cup final) so I won't be surprised if we start doing the spurs' 3 steps forwards 2 steps back cha-cha again.
 
metalgear said:
I am with you - Enic has a strategy that is sound and long term - perhaps thats where the difference is.

To recap:
- Debt is manageable (even favourable under today's inflationary conditions)
- Debt has allowed us enlarge capacity for revenue - higher crowd attendance and better image has positive impact on sponsorships
- Covid delayed effect of football (gate) and non-football (events) revenue potential

I think end of 2022-23 is going to be pivotal for us:
- champions league money
- significantly increased gate fees
- significantly increased non-football revenue (lifting of travel bans, proven success across various pilots during Covid)

Which then snowballs into even higher sponsorship potential.

So maybe we can revisit this thread again to see if you're feeling more optimistic :)

I'm a realist so the skeptic part of me has a few questions:
- 150m isn't really a lot - if you think that we lacked investments in three windows previoulsy, and if you include this one, its about 40m per window that sounds like regular upkeep. And i see that Chelsea has 200m to invest, on top of a pretty good squad already. could Enic have invested more since FFP headroom is there.
- how profitable will the non-football revenue be, how much more investments are required e.g. cinemas and hotels, will they continue to be a drag on investments in the footballing side and how much of that will be used for football (non football revenue ideas are endless....)
- why did boehly buy chelsea when he clearly could have met what Enic was asking and get the stadium and all that favourable long term debt....

But we are making solid progress as a club so generally i am feeling good for the long term. Not so confident in the immediate as levy has a way of tripping up (e.g. not investing with Poch and riding the crest of the CL, playing DOF with Hitchen, pulling the Mourinho before a cup final) so I won't be surprised if we start doing the spurs' 3 steps forwards 2 steps back cha-cha again.
Click to expand...


Very good post throughout. Only point to pick up is "- 150m isn't really a lot"

I think that's enough to get us back where we need to be. Allows for 2 * Bastoni price tag players, 2 * Spence price range and then augmented by 3 * frees which, allowing for sales, is net spend of sub £100m I think

The remainder of the £150m I suspect will be held back for future windows or other things
 
AdamB said:
Very good post throughout. Only point to pick up is "- 150m isn't really a lot"

I think that's enough to get us back where we need to be. Allows for 2 * Bastoni price tag players, 2 * Spence price range and then augmented by 3 * frees which, allowing for sales, is net spend of sub £100m I think

The remainder of the £150m I suspect will be held back for future windows or other things
Click to expand...

Has to be spent by the end of the year. They could use itto pay off some transfer debt though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back