• 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

DubaiSpur said:
As compared to charging the highest prices in the league and never winning anything at all? Sure. It's a step up at least compared to the grim state we're currently in.



What in CFT's communications indicate they're looking for a 'benevolent buyer'? I think they're well aware Levy/Lewis will sell to the *highest* bidder, not the most benevolent. If they've said otherwise, think I missed it mate.

It just so happens that the highest bidder needs a lot of money to buy us, and thus is less likely to be another pound shop Mr. Byrite-type operation like ENIC. Beyond that, they could be anyone - sheikhs, Americans, American sheikhs, who knows.

But typically if you're buying a club for billions of dollars in the modern day, you're not looking to make a profit, you're looking for something else. Geopolitical leverage, or bragging rights, or just wish fulfillment. All of those need the team to be doing well.
Click to expand...
I meant benevolent in terms of the approach of new owners to the fans. Maybe magnanimous would have been a better word. New owners doesn’t mean restoration of concession pricing or cheaper tickets. Sure fans might be happy if we start winning things but increased ticket prices and fewer concessions still means current fans may be priced out.
But maybe that’s the trade off?
 
DeanoAustin said:
They will. But I’m betting Salah earns more than most of the Liverpool players. He gets an increase other players will knock on the door to get a similar type of increase (not necessarily a similar salary). They “give him what he wants” because he threatens to leave and agents and players will do the same thing if they are valuable to Liverpool in the same way as, say, Allison, VVD, Trent, Szoboszlai, Gakpo etc.

You can’t just “give players what they want” especially with PSR.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work like that. Whatever wage Salah gets at Liverpool or elsewhere will what that club perceives his worth to be.

If Liverpool decide to give Salah £500k a week, that doesn't mean that other players will automatically want more money.

Of course Liverpool can't just "give players what they want". However, Liverpool paying Salah £500k or £600k or £1m a week, or deciding not to pay him that and let him leave on a bosman will have nothing to do with them doing/not doing so having a bearing on what their existing players will demand. Salah is probably one of the best 3 players in the World right now. Liverpool do not have any other players anywhere close.
 
Finney Is Back said:
It doesn't work like that. Whatever wage Salah gets at Liverpool or elsewhere will what that club perceives his worth to be.

If Liverpool decide to give Salah £500k a week, that doesn't mean that other players will automatically want more money.

Of course Liverpool can't just "give players what they want". However, Liverpool paying Salah £500k or £600k or £1m a week, or deciding not to pay him that and let him leave on a bosman will have nothing to do with them doing/not doing so having a bearing on what their existing players will demand. Salah is probably one of the best 3 players in the World right now. Liverpool do not have any other players anywhere close.
Click to expand...

It does work like that. Transfer fees and wages have gone up over the years due to it. It is in part a clubs ability to pay, but only a part as most clubs make a loss.
 
Finney Is Back said:
It doesn't work like that. Whatever wage Salah gets at Liverpool or elsewhere will what that club perceives his worth to be.

If Liverpool decide to give Salah £500k a week, that doesn't mean that other players will automatically want more money.

Of course Liverpool can't just "give players what they want". However, Liverpool paying Salah £500k or £600k or £1m a week, or deciding not to pay him that and let him leave on a bosman will have nothing to do with them doing/not doing so having a bearing on what their existing players will demand. Salah is probably one of the best 3 players in the World right now. Liverpool do not have any other players anywhere close.
Click to expand...
VVD is world class. One of the best in the world. Alisson is one of the top keepers in the world. If you think these boys and others won’t be looking for more money, particularly towards the end of their contract, if Salah gets what he wants, you’re not being realistic. If they weren’t, they need new agents.

And while players have a market value, clubs can artificially inflate wages by making bad decisions on this stuff. You need only look at Man Utd as evidence of this.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I meant benevolent in terms of the approach of new owners to the fans. Maybe magnanimous would have been a better word. New owners doesn’t mean restoration of concession pricing or cheaper tickets. Sure fans might be happy if we start winning things but increased ticket prices and fewer concessions still means current fans may be priced out.
But maybe that’s the trade off?
Click to expand...
Right, thanks for clarifying mate.

I agree it's quixotic to expect that new owners will do too much about the club essentially having rid itself of its lower-income supporters over the last 20 years. Even if they were Qatari sheikhs (for instance) who don't need the money, the extra revenue our prices generate translates directly to more FFP wiggle room for them to play with.

This is one of the reasons I dislike the present FFP model - it essentially made squeezing the blood out of the fans one of the core ways to compete, and Sheikh or no Sheikh, that isn't changing. Even City are charging through the nose now, though they're still tame by our standards.

Football was stolen from the working class decades ago. I mourn that fact. Now it's just a case of picking your poison. And personally, I'd rather owners that helped translate the high prices Spurs charge, into the occasional trophy and moment of glory - as opposed to mostly sweet fudge all, for 25 grinding years.
 
Grays_1890 said:
People honestly think there is a chance that fans can fight back against modern football?
https://twitter.com/x/status/1896998063035797764
Click to expand...
The thing is most of the financial benefits go to players, agents and managers. Any increase in incomes head that way.

Owners are only in it for the 'hoped for' capital gain on exit. UNLESS you treat it like the Glazers and strategically extract everything you can (and most clubs you can't treat like United) and all that has shown is even the best positioned club can become a brick show.

Hence any top level club has a small pool of potential owners/investors as you are probably looking for someone who isn't too bothered about the numbers
 
How have fans been ousted?

Every PL ground is still full every week (mostly), there have never been more games on TV, more engagement with the fanbase in the media or availability of merchandise.
 
Just be careful what you wish for. Lots of clubs have had new owners and are worse off. We will find it hard to get an owner better than we have currently. City and Chelsea are the biggest successes with new owners but that hasn’t exactly been legit now has it and Chelsea are in a mess with their new one. Villa might look good now but they will fall off, Saudi Sportswashing Machine had their moment for 1 season and starting to look mediocre again.
 
Yiddo said:
Just be careful what you wish for. Lots of clubs have had new owners and are worse off. We will find it hard to get an owner better than we have currently. City and Chelsea are the biggest successes with new owners but that hasn’t exactly been legit now has it and Chelsea are in a mess with their new one. Villa might look good now but they will fall off, Saudi Sportswashing Machine had their moment for 1 season and starting to look mediocre again.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is a nonsense argument. Clubs have bought players that have been a disappointment, doesn't mean you shouldn't buy players.
I don't think levy is a bad owner. But i don't think we'll ever win the league or cl with enic as owners. That's what i want. An owner that comes in and makes us the best club in the world.
No i don't want another glazer that will mortgage the club. Nobody does.
We won't get a choice though and i won't be calling levy out. But wanting enic to be our owners forever? No thanks.
 
Lilbaz said:
Sorry but this is a nonsense argument. Clubs have bought players that have been a disappointment, doesn't mean you shouldn't buy players.
I don't think levy is a bad owner. But i don't think we'll ever win the league or cl with enic as owners. That's what i want. An owner that comes in and makes us the best club in the world.
No i don't want another glazer that will mortgage the club. Nobody does.
We won't get a choice though and i won't be calling levy out. But wanting enic to be our owners forever? No thanks.
Click to expand...

where is the value in the achievement if we just paid for it?
 
SpiderSpurs said:
Email from the ticket office, ST renewals update on the Saturday after we play AZ at home.

Interesting to see if there'll be an increase.
Click to expand...
A few clubs have frozen prices
After the clusterfudge of a season that we have had surely they have to join the others and freeze them
Doubt it though, I'm going for 3%
 
markysimmo said:
A few clubs have frozen prices
After the clusterfudge of a season that we have had surely they have to join the others and freeze them
Doubt it though, I'm going for 3%
Click to expand...
Spurs would be stupid to completely freeze it again. IIRC they froze it for a few years when the stadium opened and then had to try to catch up with a big hike which caused big protests.

Everyone would accept something small each year like 1% or 2%.
For example 2% each year for 3 years would be a "more than 6% increase" which nobody could quibble with.
 
Bullet said:
Spurs would be stupid to completely freeze it again. IIRC they froze it for a few years when the stadium opened and then had to try to catch up with a big hike which caused big protests.

Everyone would accept something small each year like 1% or 2%.
For example 2% each year for 3 years would be a "more than 6% increase" which nobody could quibble with.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the justification would be, I'd bet everything from a diddle eyed Joe to a damned if I know there is nothing in the T&C's of a season ticket related to team performance.

If a poor season means a cheaper ticket next time, should we pay a bonus to the club if the team overachieves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back