Daniel Levy - Chairman

[SteveAWOL]

Here are the numbers from the season before ENIC took over:

1. Man Utd - £117m
2. Chelsea - £76.6m.
3. Arsenal - £61.3m
4. Leeds - £51.7m
5. Tottenham - £48m
6. Liverpool - £46.4m
6. Saudi Sportswashing Machine - £45.1m

Here are the 2021 numbers:

1. Man Utd - £509m
2. Liverpool - £489.9m
3. Emirates Marketing Project - £481.6m
4. Chelsea - 411.9m
5. Tottenham £390.9m

So yes Emirates Marketing Project have suddenly appeared out of nowhere but to counter that Leeds imploded.

As I said. 5th when they took over and 5th now (perhaps even dropping to 6th with us likely having no European football next year depending on which clubs do make it).

Of course that just looks at turnover and not debt. Our debt levels now are scarily high and leave us little room to manoeuvre.

Something else quite interesting is that prior to Enic taking over at Spurs we were already one of the most profitable clubs in England:

This from the Deloitte football finances report in 2002:

"The top ten operating profits all came from Premiership clubs. Manchester United (£34 million) again topped the table with profits double those of Saudi Sportswashing Machine (£15 million) in second place. Indeed over the ten years of the Premiership, Manchester United’s cumulative operating profits of £229 million are over three times greater than their nearest rival - Tottenham Hotspur (£74 million)."

So in the decade before Enic we were already the second most profitable club in the country. We've basically gone from where we were to where we were in 20 years, only winning less trophies than we did in each of the 20 year periods that came before.

FWIW here’s the first Deloitte Money League figures, for the 1997/98 season:

1. Manchester United, England - £87.9m
2. Real Madrid, Spain - £72.2m
3. Bayern Munich, Germany - £65.2m
4. Juventus, Italy - £55.3m
5. Saudi Sportswashing Machine, England - £49.2m
6. Barcelona, Spain - £48.57m
7. AC Milan, Italy - £48.55m
8. Internazionale, Italy - £48.2m
9. Chelsea, England - £47.5m
10. Liverpool, England - £45.5m
11. Borussia Dortmund, Germany - £41.5m
12. Lazio, Italy - £41.1m
13. Arsenal, England - £40.4m
14. AC Parma, Italy - £33.4m
15. Paris Saint Germain, France - £32.9m
16. Glasgow Rangers, Scotland - £32.5m
17. Aston Villa, England - £31.8m
18. Tottenham Hotspur, England - £31.2m
19. AS Roma, Italy - $30.7m
20. Leeds United, England - £28.3m

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/543805.stm

 

[DubSpur]

Here are the numbers from the season before ENIC took over:

1. Man Utd - £117m
2. Chelsea - £76.6m.
3. Arsenal - £61.3m
4. Leeds - £51.7m
5. Tottenham - £48m
6. Liverpool - £46.4m
6. Saudi Sportswashing Machine - £45.1m

Here are the 2021 numbers:

1. Man Utd - £509m
2. Liverpool - £489.9m
3. Emirates Marketing Project - £481.6m
4. Chelsea - 411.9m
5. Tottenham £390.9m

So yes Emirates Marketing Project have suddenly appeared out of nowhere but to counter that Leeds imploded.

As I said. 5th when they took over and 5th now (perhaps even dropping to 6th with us likely having no European football next year depending on which clubs do make it).

Of course that just looks at turnover and not debt. Our debt levels now are scarily high and leave us little room to manoeuvre.

Something else quite interesting is that prior to Enic taking over at Spurs we were already one of the most profitable clubs in England:

This from the Deloitte football finances report in 2002:

"The top ten operating profits all came from Premiership clubs. Manchester United (£34 million) again topped the table with profits double those of Saudi Sportswashing Machine (£15 million) in second place. Indeed over the ten years of the Premiership, Manchester United’s cumulative operating profits of £229 million are over three times greater than their nearest rival - Tottenham Hotspur (£74 million)."

So in the decade before Enic we were already the second most profitable club in the country. We've basically gone from where we were to where we were in 20 years, only winning less trophies than we did in each of the 20 year periods that came before.

I don't know where you're getting the 2021 figures from, the season isn't even over.
From Deloitte for 2020, the latest figures available (in euro):

1. Manchester United 711.5
2. Emirates Marketing Project 610.6
3. Liverpool 604.7
4. Tottenham Hotspur 521.1
5. Chelsea 513.1
6. Arsenal 445.6

So 4th now and we've closed the gap with the opening of the stadium. We'll most likely drop back a bit due to Covid as we've now got the biggest matchday income, which is missing for the last year but bounce back with crowds coming back.

 

[DubSpur]

Sherwood was given an 18 month contract and named as manager, not caretaker like Pleat.

Let's just stick with the facts and go from start to finish for all non caretaker managers...

Hoddle - miss
Santini - miss
Jol - hit
Ramos - miss
Redknapp - hit
AVB - miss
Sherwood - neutral
Pochettino - hit
Mourinho - miss

3 out of 9 hits and 5 misses. Looks a bit scattergun to me?

Hoddle was used to get rid of Graham and buy some goodwill with the fans.
Including Santini is a stretch, 13 games. Pleat warrants an inclusion more than Santini.

 

[billyiddo]

I don't know where you're getting the 2021 figures from, the season isn't even over.
From Deloitte for 2020, the latest figures available (in euro):

1. Manchester United 711.5
2. Emirates Marketing Project 610.6
3. Liverpool 604.7
4. Tottenham Hotspur 521.1
5. Chelsea 513.1
6. Arsenal 445.6

So 4th now and we've closed the gap with the opening of the stadium. We'll most likely drop back a bit due to Covid as we've now got the biggest matchday income, which is missing for the last year but bounce back with crowds coming back.

If you compare the increase in revenue between those figures and the ones posted earlier ...

United - 87.9 to 711
Liverpool - 45 to 604
Arsenal 40.4 to 445

Spurs 31 to 521

Seems to me our growth as a percentage increase off the field has been bigger than the 3 historical biggest clubs in the country despite them having a considerable head start on us and every advantage to increase that lead.

If you chuck Leeds, Villa & Saudi Sportswashing Machine in to the equation, who were on that initial European money league list also, it paints us in an even better picture.

Edit : Chelsea 47 to 503

There you have it, over that time period we grew at a better rate than any other club, presumably bar City and we all know legitimacy of their books atm.

 

[Mikey10]

If you compare the increase in revenue between those figures and the ones posted earlier ...

United - 87.9 to 711
Liverpool - 45 to 604
Arsenal 40.4 to 445

Spurs 31 to 521

Seems to me our growth as a percentage increase off the field has been bigger than the 3 historical biggest clubs in the country despite them having a considerable head start on us.

And if you chuck Leeds, Villa & Saudi Sportswashing Machine in to the equation, who were on that initial European money league list also, it paints us in an even better picture.

Edit : Chelsea 47 to 503

There you have it, over that time period we grew at a better rate than any other club, presumably bar City

Those figures make you wonder why we don’t make sensible financial decisions with the playing staff, like paying up Danny Rose’s contract months ago. Instead we have a toxic presence still hanging around the place.

 

[billyiddo]

Those figures make you wonder why we don’t make sensible financial decisions with the playing staff, like paying up Danny Rose’s contract months ago. Instead we have a toxic presence still hanging around the place.

I know it's not really the point you were getting at but wasn't there a story recently about Rose working with the youngsters and being a good presence in that capacity?

To your main point, it is strange when you see the numbers that show how well we have grown and try to weigh that up with all the little things we see day to day that stand out as bad decisions

 

[Finney Is Back]

If you're looking to be as critical as possible rather than being fair, sure. But like i said Sherwood was a caretaker in all but name, fwiw he already had that length of contract in place in his previous role and the job title was changed - he wasn't given an 18 month contract as manager.

No use harking back to pre Arnesen days either, they're not relevant to where we are now as a club.

I think most would agree Arnesen to present day is what Levy & ENIC are all about - most of that time we were a relative financial minnow to the sides we were trying to dislodge and were then building/planning for a stadium at the same time and yet despite that we progressed over the long term, on and off the field.

You think Sherwood kept the same contract for his role as manager as he had for heading up the development squads?.... Seriously?!?

 

[Finney Is Back]

I don't know where you're getting the 2021 figures from, the season isn't even over.
From Deloitte for 2020, the latest figures available (in euro):

1. Manchester United 711.5
2. Emirates Marketing Project 610.6
3. Liverpool 604.7
4. Tottenham Hotspur 521.1
5. Chelsea 513.1
6. Arsenal 445.6

So 4th now and we've closed the gap with the opening of the stadium. We'll most likely drop back a bit due to Covid as we've now got the biggest matchday income, which is missing for the last year but bounce back with crowds coming back.

From here: https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pag...cles/deloitte-football-money-league-2021.html

 

[billyiddo]

You think Sherwood kept the same contract for his role as manager as he had for heading up the development squads?.... Seriously?!?

I think he had a contract that ran till the end of the following season in his previous role and then that carried over when he became "manager"

 

[Finney Is Back]

If you're looking to be as critical as possible rather than being fair, sure. But like i said Sherwood was a caretaker in all but name, fwiw he already had that length of contract in place in his previous role and the job title was changed - he wasn't given an 18 month contract as manager.

No use harking back to pre Arnesen days either, they're not relevant to where we are now as a club.

I think most would agree Arnesen to present day is what Levy & ENIC are all about - most of that time we were a relative financial minnow to the sides we were trying to dislodge and were then building/planning for a stadium at the same time and yet despite that we progressed over the long term, on and off the field.

So basically what you'd like to do is remove ENICs first two appointments as they skew your stats somewhat?

As I posted above, we were the 5th biggest club in England by turnover when ENIC took over, not financial minnows at all.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I think he had a contract that ran till the end of the following season in his previous role and then that carried over when he became "manager"

Oh dear..... you REALLY think that he went from his previous role to the top job at Spurs without new terms?

 

[Finney Is Back]

Hoddle was used to get rid of Graham and buy some goodwill with the fans.
Including Santini is a stretch, 13 games. Pleat warrants an inclusion more than Santini.

Any more of the misses you want to get rid of on a technicality? Should we also remove Pochettino from the hits column seeing as ENIC actually wanted Val Gaal?

 

[billyiddo]

So basically what you'd like to do is remove ENICs first two appointments as they skew your stats somewhat?

As I posted above, we were the 5th biggest club in England by turnover when ENIC took over, not financial minnows at all.

I think I've explained why i think they hold little relevance, if you want to think it's because it does my argument no favours then crack on.

Again, football landscape was different back then and we missed the Sky TV & CL gravy train and we've been playing catch up ever since. When Jol was manager our finances were closer to the teams at the bottom of the league than they were to Arsenal in 4th - you present the data to show what you want it to and ignore the context

 

[billyiddo]

Oh dear..... you REALLY think that he went from his previous role to the top job at Spurs without new terms?

Did i say that? No, i said his contract length carried across.

You can pretend he wasn't a caretaker all you want but it only shows your bias on the subject.

 

[Finney Is Back]

If you compare the increase in revenue between those figures and the ones posted earlier ...

United - 87.9 to 711
Liverpool - 45 to 604
Arsenal 40.4 to 445

Spurs 31 to 521

Seems to me our growth as a percentage increase off the field has been bigger than the 3 historical biggest clubs in the country despite them having a considerable head start on us and every advantage to increase that lead.

If you chuck Leeds, Villa & Saudi Sportswashing Machine in to the equation, who were on that initial European money league list also, it paints us in an even better picture.

Edit : Chelsea 47 to 503

There you have it, over that time period we grew at a better rate than any other club, presumably bar City and we all know legitimacy of their books atm.

Why are you using figures from 97/98 instead of the figures I posted for when ENIC actually took over?

 

[Finney Is Back]

Did i say that? No, i said his contract length carried across.

You can pretend he wasn't a caretaker all you want but it only shows your bias on the subject.

So you agree that he signed a new contract? An 18 month contract as manager of Tottenham Hotspur football club?

Sherwood absolutely was NOT a caretaker manager. Take a look at the difference in announcements for when Sherwood took over and Pleat took over.

I'm sorry mate but you are wrong.

(by the way Sherwood doesn't skew your stats too much anyway.... he did better than half of the appointments that ENIC have made so far).

 

[billyiddo]

So you agree that he signed a new contract? An 18 month contract as manager of Tottenham Hotspur football club?

Sherwood absolutely was NOT a caretaker manager. Take a look at the difference in announcements for when Sherwood took over and Pleat took over.

I'm sorry mate but you are wrong.

(by the way Sherwood doesn't skew your stats too much anyway.... he did better than half of the appointments that ENIC have made so far).

I have no interest in further discussing that particular point tbh Sherwood was a caretaker in all but name afaic

 

[billyiddo]

Why are you using figures from 97/98 instead of the figures I posted for when ENIC actually took over?

Dunno, saw someone respond to your post and assumed it was a correction.

Readjusted using the Deloitte numbers from 99/00 (Levy took over in 2000)


Manchester United 127 to 711
Chelsea 76 to 513
Arsenal 62 to 445
Leeds United 57 to ???
Tottenham Hotspur 48 to 521
Liverpool 46 to 604
Saudi Sportswashing Machine 45 to ???

Seems to me then we've improved at a better rate than Arsenal, Man United and Chelsea, most likely Leeds and Saudi Sportswashing Machine too but i don't have their current numbers to hand. Liverpool grown better off the pitch than us and City of course.

Factor in the same circumstances as my previous post and it shows good growth off the field in relation to the best clubs in the league and not just something that was destined to happen regardless. Funny how 2 of those clubs at a similar level to us when Levy took over went through multiple relegations in the time since

 

[Baleforce]

Dunno, saw someone respond to your post and assumed it was a correction.

Readjusted using the Deloitte numbers from 99/00 (Levy took over in 2000)


Manchester United 127 to 711
Chelsea 76 to 513
Arsenal 62 to 445
Leeds United 57 to ???
Tottenham Hotspur 48 to 521
Liverpool 46 to 604
Saudi Sportswashing Machine 45 to ???

Seems to me then we've improved at a better rate than Arsenal, Man United and Chelsea, most likely Leeds and Saudi Sportswashing Machine too but i don't have their current numbers to hand. Liverpool grown better off the pitch than us.

I expect the differences grew a little bit to start with too, we didn't turn the ship around overnight.

 

[Baleforce]

I'd be surprised if Sherwood got anything more than the job title change and a free gilet.

I also think Levy used it as an opportunity to get rid of him a year earlier than expected, no chance he was considered a permanent appointment.