ENIC

[Bishop]

For the wages my understanding is that we pay some of the best bonuses in the league which are obviously variable. I assume the figures being quoted are for fixed salaries - we could easily spend another 30-50% paying out bonuses depending on performance which won't be taken into account. Yes same for other clubs but they might only pay 5-10%.

The bonus thing is so overstated. Most clubs pay via bonuses and there's actually no proof either way that we do pay bigger bonuses. Again I recall an interview with Rose where he stated the bonuses in his contract were basically unachievable. So maybe Levy can claim he has the big bonus structure but if you're never going to actually meet the requirements then kind of so what.

I don't disagree, but the chart isn't a good perspective (which was my point), because I'd argue it says the opposite, the most successful teams (including Madrid & City) are closer to us than the "spenders"

This is back to the nuance point

- Is our wages/turnover low? yes
- Do we have room to spend more? maybe, revenue/profit does not automatically equal cash in hand
- Do we underpay our existing squad? not sure, most of our squad is now <22 and by nature on lower wages, we do have some of the senior players on >150k/week

Ok, so what are we arguing?
- That we need to offer better wages to attract top level players to improve the squad?

Don't disagree, but
- We have done that, we paid Ndombele 200K/wk four years ago
- How far does that take us, i.e. how many players per season does that really apply to, and how many of those players really will choose us vs. insert bigger club here if wages are equal?

My point is, spend to me is a bit of a red herring, can/could/should we spend more? yes, absolutely

Is that why we are in the bottom end of the table and can't find a win? no, not fudging related, 1 LB in summer would not have been the difference

I think for those of use that argue that our wages ratio is too low the argument wouldn't so much be about an Ndombele who while widely touted was still an unproven but an exciting talent. Where our wages hesitancy has hindered us in the past is with more established players who simply have a higher wage floor than we were prepared to meet or are unwilling to join a team like Spurs without the incentive of said big wage boost.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

The bonus thing is so overstated. Most clubs pay via bonuses and there's actually no proof either way that we do pay bigger bonuses. Again I recall an interview with Rose where he stated the bonuses in his contract were basically unachievable. So maybe Levy can claim he has the big bonus structure but if you're never going to actually meet the requirements then kind of so what.

I think for those of use that argue that our wages ratio is too low the argument wouldn't so much be about an Ndombele who while widely touted was still an unproven but an exciting talent. Where our wages hesitancy has hindered us in the past is with more established players who simply have a higher wage floor than we were prepared to meet or are unwilling to join a team like Spurs without the incentive of said big wage boost.

I think we pay wages based on output
Other clubs pay based on status
United are paying De Ligt £200k and he has been brick for some time. We’re paying Micky probably a third of that
United are paying mount £250k and we ain’t paying anyone that
Zirkee £100k… rumoured. Dunno what we pay our strikers but Solanke may be in that and is country mile better

the reason I picked those 3 players is because they are all relatively new signings and our comparable players are better and costing a more sensible salary

 

[RigorMortis]

I think we pay wages based on output
Other clubs pay based on status
United are paying De Ligt £200k and he has been brick for some time. We’re paying Micky probably a third of that
United are paying mount £250k and we ain’t paying anyone that
Zirkee £100k… rumoured. Dunno what we pay our strikers but Solanke may be in that and is country mile better

the reason I picked those 3 players is because they are all relatively new signings and our comparable players are better and costing a more sensible salary

The likelihood however is we continue on our current trajectory, Mickey will likely leave for bigger and better things and on higher wages

 

[Gazza]

quick question - does the wages here include staff of thfc who are also working on events, nfl, go kart etc. ?

View attachment 18668

We are top of the league ! Result.

 

[Bishop]

I think we pay wages based on output
Other clubs pay based on status
United are paying De Ligt £200k and he has been brick for some time. We’re paying Micky probably a third of that
United are paying mount £250k and we ain’t paying anyone that
Zirkee £100k… rumoured. Dunno what we pay our strikers but Solanke may be in that and is country mile better

the reason I picked those 3 players is because they are all relatively new signings and our comparable players are better and costing a more sensible salary

United are a particularly bad example, I recall that Liverpool supposedly pay with very heavily incentivised contracts as well. I honestly don't think it's uncommon, City are similar. United are more of an outlier, but thats probably in part a legacy thing but also because they tried to sign higher profile players whilst having a less attractive offer.

 

[metalgear]

The likelihood however is we continue on our current trajectory, Mickey will likely leave for bigger and better things and on higher wages

I really expect Madrid to come in for him with a big bid soon and is to lose more players like that until we start winning things

 

[RigorMortis]

I really expect Madrid to come in for him with a big bid soon and is to lose more players like that until we start winning things

It’s the way it works under ENIC , our progress is that instead of being picked off by Man United we have moved on to Real Madrid.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

United are a particularly bad example, I recall that Liverpool supposedly pay with very heavily incentivised contracts as well. I honestly don't think it's uncommon, City are similar. United are more of an outlier, but thats probably in part a legacy thing but also because they tried to sign higher profile players whilst having a less attractive offer.

Every club incentivises
Its normal for players or get bonuses and then are included in all clubs salaries unless they are paid off the books

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I really expect Madrid to come in for him with a big bid soon and is to lose more players like that until we start winning things

Great though
He cost us £45m so we double our money and buy someone else
It’s the way to grow as a club
I’d rather be Dortmund than stubborn and arrogant
Much better model

 

[DeanoAustin]

There's a player acquisition cake, wages and transfer fees.

But apparently we are 3rd highest in transfer net spend in the last 5 years?

So we are doing the fees but not the wages now? Before we weren't doing the fees or the wages...so a step forward.

Plus currently it's looking like we are at a lower point of a wage cycle given who has left.

Whether we have the money to increase wages or if that has to come from the fee slice who knows.

Finally this might be some kind of PSR tactical play (just throwing that one in there)

I can't ever see PSR being a game changer for us. The rich clubs always seem to find a way around it. It is having an impact - you can see by where, say, Man Utd are but City are struggling and have gone out and spunked £150m on 5 players while Chelsea are selling hotels to themselves to get around the rules.

We do have the cash by the way IMO. Last year's accounts show that.

I don't disagree, but the chart isn't a good perspective (which was my point), because I'd argue it says the opposite, the most successful teams (including Madrid & City) are closer to us than the "spenders"

This is back to the nuance point

- Is our wages/turnover low? yes
- Do we have room to spend more? maybe, revenue/profit does not automatically equal cash in hand
- Do we underpay our existing squad? not sure, most of our squad is now <22 and by nature on lower wages, we do have some of the senior players on >150k/week

Ok, so what are we arguing?
- That we need to offer better wages to attract top level players to improve the squad?

Don't disagree, but
- We have done that, we paid Ndombele 200K/wk four years ago
- How far does that take us, i.e. how many players per season does that really apply to, and how many of those players really will choose us vs. insert bigger club here if wages are equal?

My point is, spend to me is a bit of a red herring, can/could/should we spend more? yes, absolutely

Is that why we are in the bottom end of the table and can't find a win? no, not fudging related, 1 LB in summer would not have been the difference

Your points are valid. We probably aren't underpaying our squad by much given the age profile. Ndombele was massive spend and an absolute flop. And Villa's wage to turnover ratio is reckless IMO at 96%. Even Chelsea and Saudi Sportswashing Machine are veering in that direction.

And the wages issue isn't why we are where we are. I said at the weekend. ENIC are the reason we don't challenge seriously for trophies. Ange is the reason we are 15th.

But ENIC have always been accused of putting money/business before success on the pitch. Of showing no ambition - just because you fail with Ndombele doesn't mean you don't try again. On this, the ENIC out phalanx have a very good point IMO.

 

[DubSpur]

I can't ever see PSR being a game changer for us. The rich clubs always seem to find a way around it. It is having an impact - you can see by where, say, Man Utd are but City are struggling and have gone out and spunked £150m on 5 players while Chelsea are selling hotels to themselves to get around the rules.

City haven't issues with PSR though. Look at their last few transfer windows and their net spend has been low. They have plenty of room to spend on players.

 

[braineclipse]

The likelihood however is we continue on our current trajectory, Mickey will likely leave for bigger and better things and on higher wages

We'll always be at a risk of losing our very best to the biggest clubs unless really successful (and even then there's a risk of that).

What this strategy has allowed us in the past is quite frequent new contracts, increase wages and extend the contract at the same time. Allows for good negotiation conditions at the very least, but also keeping players longer.

To me buying a lot of players that can end up being much more valuable (as players for us, not to be sold) than their initial fee is a key part of any potential success as long as we're not money doped. If we don't succeed at that we won't succeed imo.

And those players typically have lower wages than those already fully developed and proved. That allows us to spend more on transfers.

 

[DeanoAustin]

City haven't issues with PSR though. Look at their last few transfer windows and their net spend has been low. They have plenty of room to spend on players.

Yeah course they have because their revenue is apparently the highest in the league. Their commercial revenue has grown massively since the new owners came in which suggests to me that the numbers aren't real even allowing for the amount of bandwagon jumpers they'll have attracted. Their revenue is about 100m ahead of United. Call me cynical but I can't see that having happened by legitimate means which is my point - the likes of City and Chelsea will always find a way around PSR rules.

 

[Bullet]

This is a great graphic, if it shows up

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884858692291441072

 

[Bullet]

And the response

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884860748943491175

 

[Bullet]

@Batspur is keen to say money is being syphoned off mysteriously into Tavistock somehow, so that graphic may help explain

 

[markysimmo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884889752182145032

 

[DubSpur]

@Batspur is keen to say money is being syphoned off mysteriously into Tavistock somehow, so that graphic may help explain

Nah, all that graphic shows is how Levy and Lewis are syphoning off money from 14 companies instead of one, even bigger crooks than anyone thought.

 

[DubSpur]

Yeah course they have because their revenue is apparently the highest in the league. Their commercial revenue has grown massively since the new owners came in which suggests to me that the numbers aren't real even allowing for the amount of bandwagon jumpers they'll have attracted. Their revenue is about 100m ahead of United. Call me cynical but I can't see that having happened by legitimate means which is my point - the likes of City and Chelsea will always find a way around PSR rules.

Their revenue is obviously very dodgy, that's why they have 115 charges hanging over them, but at the moment for PSR they are comfortable. Chelsea will only be able to pull that stunt with selling a hotel once, it's not like they are like Hilton with a line of hotels that they can sell.
The ones that aren't comfortable, like Utd are having to sell to buy. It's why Villa won't be able to sustain where they are, no business can run with wages being at 96% of revenue over a sustained period.

 

[johnola]

Nah, all that graphic shows is how Levy and Lewis are syphoning off money from 14 companies instead of one, even bigger crooks than anyone thought.

Everything in the U.K. is incorporated. Even the justice systems and public services.

This does not look particularly complex for a big organisation with diversified income streams.

Anyone who can find evidence they have acquired and siphoned off land (what evidence is there?)needs to offset land they have acquired for the Northumberland Park Development which will provide revenue for the club.

We don’t necessarily have a problem with Daniel owning a decent percentage of the club but then paying himself millions to run the entire business without prioritising footballing success is what we object to.

What happens to the club when Lewis or Levy dies is an interesting idea. Will one of the other trust beneficiaries step straight into the dead man’s shoes or what? I guess this continuity is private but it is relevant to ongoing stability. Never heard this discussed either.