• 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

SirPercyHotspur said:
Seems to me when owners of other clubs inject cash into clubs by equity injection they get praised for ambition, when ENIC do it so many are suspicious, " what are they up to ?"
So far Lewis family have kept their word no sale and injection of cash,

This was the statement released by Charrington early September, note the words "and to be issued" in the statemant.

The Board of Tottenham Hotspur Limited (“Tottenham Hotspur”, the “Club” or the “Company”) is aware of recent media speculation and confirms that its majority shareholder, ENIC Sports & Developments Holdings Ltd (“ENIC”), has received, and unequivocally rejected, separate preliminary expressions of interest in relation to proposals to acquire the entire issued, and to be issued, share capital of ENIC from (i) PCP International Finance Limited (“PCP”); and (ii) a consortium of investors led by Dr. Roger Kennedy and Wing-Fai Ng through Firehawk Holdings Limited (the “Consortium”). As a consequence of ENIC’s majority ownership interest in Tottenham Hotspur, were any offer made to acquire ENIC and complete, a mandatory offer would be required under Rule 9 of the Code to acquire the shares of Tottenham Hotspur not already held by ENIC.

The Board of the Club and ENIC confirm that Tottenham Hotspur is not for sale and ENIC has no intention to accept any such offer to acquire its interest in the Club.
Click to expand...

Think it's natural for there to be an air of skepticism around it given the circumstances/history.

I'm not drawing any conclusions on their intent atm - just need to see how it plays out
 
SirPercyHotspur said:
Seems to me when owners of other clubs inject cash into clubs by equity injection they get praised for ambition, when ENIC do it so many are suspicious, " what are they up to ?"
So far Lewis family have kept their word no sale and injection of cash,

This was the statement released by Charrington early September, note the words "and to be issued" in the statemant.

The Board of Tottenham Hotspur Limited (“Tottenham Hotspur”, the “Club” or the “Company”) is aware of recent media speculation and confirms that its majority shareholder, ENIC Sports & Developments Holdings Ltd (“ENIC”), has received, and unequivocally rejected, separate preliminary expressions of interest in relation to proposals to acquire the entire issued, and to be issued, share capital of ENIC from (i) PCP International Finance Limited (“PCP”); and (ii) a consortium of investors led by Dr. Roger Kennedy and Wing-Fai Ng through Firehawk Holdings Limited (the “Consortium”). As a consequence of ENIC’s majority ownership interest in Tottenham Hotspur, were any offer made to acquire ENIC and complete, a mandatory offer would be required under Rule 9 of the Code to acquire the shares of Tottenham Hotspur not already held by ENIC.

The Board of the Club and ENIC confirm that Tottenham Hotspur is not for sale and ENIC has no intention to accept any such offer to acquire its interest in the Club.
Click to expand...

When other clubs do it it’s cheating.

Not sure how it’s not us trying to cheat as well.

This money wasn’t earned by the club.

Where is the integrity if we just start spending outside money, where does it stop
 
Bullet said:
Thank you for talking sense. There is a lot of tosh being thrown around, regarding this £100m.

It is a very good sign for Spurs. The owners have put their money in, and indicated it is the first of many such injections.

Perhaps they realise that getting into the CL is vital for Spurs AND vital for pushing down our rivals.
Therefore they are willing to fund that.
Note also IF IF IF they wanted to throw in £0.5bn or £1bn or whatever, there would be no point throwing that all in right away, they can just feed it in bit by bit as needed. IF IF IF.
Click to expand...

It’s a very bad sign imo.

It completely undermines what we have been trying to do for the last 25 years.
 
Baleforce said:
It’s a very bad sign imo.

It completely undermines what we have been trying to do for the last 25 years.
Click to expand...
I wanted us to do it the right way.
Then Cheatski got £2.5bn or whatever off Abramovich, then another £2bn or whatever off Boehly, then they sold their own hotels to themselves, next they will sell the air inside Stamford Bridge to themselves, so it is impossible to compete.
 
Bullet said:
I wanted us to do it the right way.
Then Cheatski got £2.5bn or whatever off Abramovich, then another £2bn or whatever off Boehly, then they sold their own hotels to themselves, next they will sell the air inside Stamford Bridge to themselves, so it is impossible to compete.
Click to expand...
And yet they are no better off than ourselves.
 
Bullet said:
I wanted us to do it the right way.
Then Cheatski got £2.5bn or whatever off Abramovich, then another £2bn or whatever off Boehly, then they sold their own hotels to themselves, next they will sell the air inside Stamford Bridge to themselves, so it is impossible to compete.
Click to expand...

If we can't do it the right way, no point doing it at all, would be worthless, every title Chelsea have won since Roman arrived has an asterisks against it, none of it really counts.

I need the moral superiority.

Winning what others have won isn't good enough, we need to win it better.

If it's not perfect it doesn't count.
 
Baleforce said:
It’s a very bad sign imo.

It completely undermines what we have been trying to do for the last 25 years.
Click to expand...

If they had paid the £1.5bn the stadium and training ground cost. Would you consider it cheating?

I understand where you are coming from and agree to a certain extent. Football clubs should be self sustainable and not rely on owners money to stay afloat. We are far from that though.
 
Lilbaz said:
If they had paid the £1.5bn the stadium and training ground cost. Would you consider it cheating?

I understand where you are coming from and agree to a certain extent. Football clubs should be self sustainable and not rely on owners money to stay afloat. We are far from that though.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would.

Also, there is a difference between staying afloat and winning stuff.

I’d rather we never win anything than buy it.

Life’s a journey, not a destination.
 
Baleforce said:
Yes, I would.

Also, there is a difference between staying afloat and winning stuff.

I’d rather we never win anything than buy it.

Life’s a journey, not a destination.
Click to expand...

By staying afloat i mean you are spending so much that if anything happened to your owner you would be in financial crisis.

As for the other. If i bought a business say a pub and wanted to renovate or add an extension, using my own money wouldn't be cheating or upsetting the market. It's why stadium expansions and training ground expenses are not counted towards ffp/psr rules.
 
On the money issue are cash injections or owner loans acceptable, let's take Brighton as an example they haven't bought a trophy but without the loans from Tony Bloom they wouldn't be competing in the Premier League , I think they still owe him in excess of £300 million. Brighton's matchday income is a measly £27.9 million , if clubs had to survive on what they take at the turnstiles most PL clubs would fold.
 
SirPercyHotspur said:
On the money issue are cash injections or owner loans acceptable, let's take Brighton as an example they haven't bought a trophy but without the loans from Tony Bloom they wouldn't be competing in the Premier League , I think they still owe him in excess of £300 million. Brighton's matchday income is a measly £27.9 million , if clubs had to survive on what they take at the turnstiles most PL clubs would fold.
Click to expand...
The clubs survive on TV revenue
That’s the driver for them to keep that going
 
SirPercyHotspur said:
On the money issue are cash injections or owner loans acceptable, let's take Brighton as an example they haven't bought a trophy but without the loans from Tony Bloom they wouldn't be competing in the Premier League , I think they still owe him in excess of £300 million. Brighton's matchday income is a measly £27.9 million , if clubs had to survive on what they take at the turnstiles most PL clubs would fold.
Click to expand...
The Lizard is lucky as he's found another investor in Chelsea to keep things ticking along :)
 
billyiddo said:
Think it's natural for there to be an air of skepticism around it given the circumstances/history.

I'm not drawing any conclusions on their intent atm - just need to see how it plays out
Click to expand...
As with players and managers....ALL deserve to be afforded some time.
Alas, Hot takes and opinions are the order of the day (it gets the conversation going lol).

This, on the face of it, appears a step in the right direction.
It's probably to oil the wheels of cash flow, as we continue our transition from one model to another. (ie youth and academy)....it's just filling in the lack of income from sales, So we can keep active and support the manager.
 
SirPercyHotspur said:
Chelsea can't keep on subsidising Brighton, Chelsea have to reduce costs to comply with UEFA rules on squad costs and they have nothing left to sell. :)
Click to expand...

... apart from another 30 odd youngsters they signed and will magically sell on for profit despite not getting close to the first team lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back