• 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

Grays_1890 said:
I think the distribution of wealth is a good idea as long as the lower leagues are also policed in their spending. Historically its probably been the lower leagues that have had the worse record for sailing close to wind and going out of business, plenty of AFC Phoenix clubs knocking about because of it
Click to expand...

The fan led review said the regulator should oversee financial regulation. So i'm guessing the rules would be harmonised for the whole pyramid. What they are would probably be negotiated with the prem, efl and fa. Likely to be in line to an extent with uefas.
 
Finney Is Back said:
My guess (and it is of course only a guess) is that ENIC do not see themselves still owning THFC at maturity of the bonds taken out to pay for construction of the stadium so will leave that as the problem of next set of owners.

As I said when the accounts were published the 'other expenses' concerned me. Of course the accounts aren't detailed enough for us to see exactly what those expenses are. However if they do relate directly to the stadium being open (as one might infer considering the main difference between that year and the year before) then the 'profit' on the stadium is considerably less then any of us had forecast, let alone hoped for. Of course it may be that those 'other' expenses relate to (e.g.) developing real estate in which case we're likely to benefit on that spend at some point in the future (although I don't think I noticed us capitalising any significant costs this year, though didn't have a really detailed look). I suspect we won't really know about those 'other' costs until a year or so's time when the next set of accounts are published and we see whether they have come down again or remained reasonably constant.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks. So why do you think Levy still has us operating well below the FFP limits? Just to pocket the profit for shareholders?
 
elltrev said:
Interesting, thanks. So why do you think Levy still has us operating well below the FFP limits? Just to pocket the profit for shareholders?
Click to expand...

Please don't open that stupid pandora's box. 22 years of financial data show the club does not "pocket" profit, and profit is gained for shareholders via asset appreciation.

Levy is simply quite risk adverse, the thing most fans don't get is the nature of football is your income is highly unpredictable, CL or no CL, deep cup runs can create huge swings (£100M+) in the potential in year revenue, hence it's easy in hindsight to claim x could have been spent when we do achieve CL (last season was by what, 1 point? you want to bet a huge financial decision on that?)
 
elltrev said:
I was specifically asking Finney Is Back, not saying that that’s my opinion (which it isn’t).
Click to expand...
I think it is because his number one aim (and, if not his, then certainly the majority shareholder Joe Lewis' aim) is for THFC to make as much money as possible in terms of their own capital invested versus asset value appreciation, as opposed to THFC being as successful as possible in terms of silverware.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I think it is because his number one aim (and, if not his, then certainly the majority shareholder Joe Lewis' aim) is for THFC to make as much money as possible in terms of their own capital invested versus asset value appreciation, as opposed to THFC being as successful as possible in terms of silverware.
Click to expand...

It appears to me that the first option can be achieved by good financial management whereas the second will always be based on many factors you cant control.
 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bold-plan-to-protect-long-term-future-of-english-football

Mentions a new licence but is a bit vague.

For the first time, a new independent regulator for the men’s elite game will be established in law to oversee the financial sustainability of the game and put fans back at the heart of how football is run.

The regulator will implement a new licensing system from the top flight down to the National League, requiring clubs to demonstrate sound financial business models and good corporate governance as part of an application process before being allowed to compete.
 
Lilbaz said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bold-plan-to-protect-long-term-future-of-english-football

Mentions a new licence but is a bit vague.

For the first time, a new independent regulator for the men’s elite game will be established in law to oversee the financial sustainability of the game and put fans back at the heart of how football is run.

The regulator will implement a new licensing system from the top flight down to the National League, requiring clubs to demonstrate sound financial business models and good corporate governance as part of an application process before being allowed to compete.
Click to expand...

Hope it works, but it will provide lots of work for lawyers and accountants to make it work and to find ways around it.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I think it is because his number one aim (and, if not his, then certainly the majority shareholder Joe Lewis' aim) is for THFC to make as much money as possible in terms of their own capital invested versus asset value appreciation, as opposed to THFC being as successful as possible in terms of silverware.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you recognise we’re operating below the FFP limit because of the various stadium costs, but would like the owners to inject some of their own cash to allow us to operate closer to the FFP limit?
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
It appears to me that the first option can be achieved by good financial management whereas the second will always be based on many factors you cant control.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the clubs of the field assets have improved inline with the facilities the fans and players now have and with that we make more money and spend more money. As I said a while back, this is why I am happy to give Enic the benefit of the doubt as that is exactly what their mission statement was. Self sustainable growth, thats exactly whats it been. Enic has had its faults, manager choices, poor DOF choices, Poor player recruitment but the one thing that they can't be blamed for is NOT being a sugar daddy ownership
 
Ok so the proposals the efl have put on the table for a more fair tv distribution. Basically they want to increase their share from 17% to 25% but scrap the parachute payments. This would likely mean prem clubs losing 10% each of their current share. So we'd lose around £12.5m a year. If agreed.

If we are to make it more fair i think tv money from uefa competitions should also be split. Otherwise it just enhances the gap from those in the cl to those that aren't.
 
Lilbaz said:
Ok so the proposals the efl have put on the table for a more fair tv distribution. Basically they want to increase their share from 17% to 25% but scrap the parachute payments. This would likely mean prem clubs losing 10% each of their current share. So we'd lose around £12.5m a year. If agreed.

If we are to make it more fair i think tv money from uefa competitions should also be split. Otherwise it just enhances the gap from those in the cl to those that aren't.
Click to expand...

I think thats a decent idea as it hits more clubs than those that manage to make the promised land of the PL and then get parachute payments.
 
Lilbaz said:
Ok so the proposals the efl have put on the table for a more fair tv distribution. Basically they want to increase their share from 17% to 25% but scrap the parachute payments. This would likely mean prem clubs losing 10% each of their current share. So we'd lose around £12.5m a year. If agreed.

If we are to make it more fair i think tv money from uefa competitions should also be split. Otherwise it just enhances the gap from those in the cl to those that aren't.
Click to expand...

I would agree about European money, but can understand why clubs would be against it as they would see this as a reward for their success. Being in European competitions enhances any clubs profile and boost revenue in other areas. We along with other clubs suffered badly when the "Sky 4" continually qualified and their revenue kept them far ahead of the pack.
 
Grays_1890 said:
I remember when the old West Brom Chairman was asked why he kept Megson when they were relegated and he chirped that he was happy going up and down to get the extra money and then when they had enough make a real effort to stay up. Rewarding failure
Click to expand...

The only problem is getting the smaller clubs in the prem to go for it. When it comes in it could be any of 13 clubs getting relegated and missing out on the payments. But the white paper has said, you sort it or we will. Pity simon jordan isn't on talksport today, would like to hear his take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back