ENIC

[Raziel]

how many of those clubs have increased in value to the same level we have though? only those were already established "big English clubs"

nobody is paying 3bn for villa for west ham for example

staying in the league has been hard, even for clubs as big as city and Saudi Sportswashing Machine, you exclude the behemoth that is United, the money and chemically doped clubs, and everyone else is a million miles behind us, with the exception of arsenal, who had the benefit of right place right time CL money in the early years, before ENIC took over

the evidence is there, ENIC have been exceptional business owners, by any considered metric

and yeah, there is a massive caveat about our success in the 60's, and more importantly the massive underachievement with what, at the time, was the greatest collection of footballers the game had ever seen

Our peers at the time

- Mike Ashley bought Saudi Sportswashing Machine for £133M in 2007 (a club that was head of Spurs when ENIC bought us), got them relegated twice, finally selling in 2022 for £305M
- Lerner bought Villa in 2006 for £63M for 57%, got them relegated after 29 years in top flight, he sold his share out to Xia in 2016 for £76M, Xia in return sold to NSWE for £39M (+57M eventually for ground)
- Leeds (who were in top 5 consistently when ENIC purchased Spurs), sold in 2005 for £10M (50%), sold again in 2014 to GFH capital (100% eventually for £44M), sold again to Cellino for £31M (75%), sold again for £45M in 2017

And in that time, not only did those clubs fail miserably against Spurs in terms of financial success, all 3 were relegated and today Villa & Leeds earn ~£300M/yr less than Spurs. And while ENIC hasn't succeed in trophies, 16 runs to Europe and 5 of those CL in context of what those clubs have achieved?

Could paint a similar picture for Everton (valued at £175M in 2016), losses of >£400M in last 4 years

Spurs? <£50M -> >£3.5B in that timeline. The idea that Spurs isn't one of the business success stories in football is beyond delusion. People are also missing out pre Chelsea sale there was very little precedent for selling up at a massive profit

 

[Grays_1890]

Our peers at the time

- Mike Ashley bought Saudi Sportswashing Machine for £133M in 2007 (a club that was head of Spurs when ENIC bought us), got them relegated twice, finally selling in 2022 for £305M
- Lerner bought Villa in 2006 for £63M for 57%, got them relegated after 29 years in top flight, he sold his share out to Xia in 2016 for £76M, Xia in return sold to NSWE for £39M (+57M eventually for ground)
- Leeds (who were in top 5 consistently when ENIC purchased Spurs), sold in 2005 for £10M (50%), sold again in 2014 to GFH capital (100% eventually for £44M), sold again to Cellino for £31M (75%), sold again for £45M in 2017

And in that time, not only did those clubs fail miserably against Spurs in terms of financial success, all 3 were relegated and today Villa & Leeds earn ~£300M/yr less than Spurs. And while ENIC hasn't succeed in trophies, 16 runs to Europe and 5 of those CL in context of what those clubs have achieved?

Could paint a similar picture for Everton (valued at £175M in 2016), losses of >£400M in last 4 years

Spurs? <£50M -> >£3.5B in that timeline. The idea that Spurs isn't one of the business success stories in football is beyond delusion. People are also missing out pre Chelsea sale there was very little precedent for selling up at a massive profit

I also think people delude themselves with the "money over Success" whilst demanding better paid and better player without having the honesty to admit that without the increase in revenue and business success off the pitch we would not be able to increase the spend (which we do BTW). Even then its tapered with lies like "they take money out" etc

Like someone said earlier people would be served better by just admitting that they have done a good job to progress the club but they would rather like a sugar daddy or financially doped club, some do on here and its at least a more factual based and balanced arguement.

 

[Raziel]

I also think people delude themselves with the "money over Success" whilst demanding better paid and better player without having the honesty to admit that without the increase in revenue and business success off the pitch we would not be able to increase the spend (which we do BTW). Even then its tapered with lies like "they take money out" etc

Like someone said earlier people would be served better by just admitting that they have done a good job to progress the club but they would rather like a sugar daddy or financially doped club, some do on here and its at least a more factual based and balanced arguement.

Exactly all the arguments could come down to

- ENIC has done a great job safeguarding the club financially during several crisis eras, putting the infrastructure in place, making the club a global brand in the current times
- ENIC's self sustaining model is not competitive when money laudering, sportswashing and state club ownership is rampant
- To push to the next level, we need someone from that money laudering/sportswashing group to buy us.

Said it before, people seem to need to justify that perspective by imagining ENIC/Levy are the "worst owners ever" and from a business perspective did nothing special (despite no relevant peer comparisons) and that investing in the calibre of stadium/training ground we have was obvious and any idiot would have done that (again, despite no peer comparisons and even worse, United, Liverpool & Chelsea being way behind). It's tiresome at this point

 

[Grays_1890]

Exactly all the arguments could come down to

- ENIC has done a great job safeguarding the club financially during several crisis eras, putting the infrastructure in place, making the club a global brand in the current times
- ENIC's self sustaining model is not competitive when money laudering, sportswashing and state club ownership is rampant
- To push to the next level, we need someone from that money laudering/sportswashing group to buy us.

Said it before, people seem to need to justify that perspective by imagining ENIC/Levy are the "worst owners ever" and from a business perspective did nothing special (despite no relevant peer comparisons) and that investing in the calibre of stadium/training ground we have was obvious and any idiot would have done that (again, despite no peer comparisons and even worse, United, Liverpool & Chelsea being way behind). It's tiresome at this point

Also when you look at it with real honesty, yes we make mistakes, we make ALOT of mistakes but so does every other club out there, the difference being that some have the huge excess financials from sugar daddy owners to cover the mistakes, the other 80% of the league we operate at much better. Fact in case, Chelsea will be lauded for their spending and no one will really highlight their mistakes because the main driver for fans is spend and thats fine but lets at least be honest about mistakes.

Ironically I read alot about Arsenal and their current success, for the record I don't subscribe to the idea others are rolling over, but Arsenal are being used by some as a example of why our board are so poor and they have backed their manager etc and yes they have, but lets not pretend they have not had many a lean year and made many mistakes to get where they are, because they have.

Mistakes are part and parcel of the game, thats not expunging Enics faults because they should be accountable for them, but its a lie to suggest others don't make them and that money, in many cases injected against the rules of the game, cover many a track when it comes to them

 

[Raziel]

Also when you look at it with real honesty, yes we make mistakes, we make ALOT of mistakes but so does every other club out there, the difference being that some have the huge excess financials from sugar daddy owners to cover the mistakes, the other 80% of the league we operate at much better. Fact in case, Chelsea will be lauded for their spending and no one will really highlight their mistakes because the main driver for fans is spend and thats fine but lets at least be honest about mistakes.

Ironically I read alot about Arsenal and their current success, for the record I don't subscribe to the idea others are rolling over, but Arsenal are being used by some as a example of why our board are so poor and they have backed their manager etc and yes they have, but lets not pretend they have not had many a lean year and made many mistakes to get where they are, because they have.

Mistakes are part and parcel of the game, thats not expunging Enics faults because they should be accountable for them, but its a lie to suggest others don't make them and that money, in many cases injected against the rules of the game, cover many a track when it comes to them

To your point

Chelsea spent £280M in players for Tuchel, gave him two months then spent £13M to fire him, spent £21M to acquire Potter, spent £330M in players, fired him ~7 months later at a potential cost of >£50M. That's in the range of £700M for being (currently) outside the top 10 ..
Arsenal went from competing for everything, being in the CL 20 years in a row, from earning >£200M/yr more than us to spending 6 years below us, being out of europe completely, finishing in positions we haven't for 14 years, but one good season run says they are much better run than us.

We have hit our ceiling in the current model, it's exponentially harder to improve from here and outside of real rule changes on spend, this is likely the best we can do (consistent Europe, occasional CL and shot a cup). It's this or someone buys (and we avoid a United type leveraged buyout)

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I don't have a problem with the ENIC ownership, they can stay as owners but I do feel Levy would benefit from a change of scenery, never likely to happen.

Would like us to go back to our transfer strategy of the late 2009 period. Signing young promising players. Actually to go against the grain I think we have spent to much money and it is why our signings have been so awful(recent upturn admittedly)

Also feel we could be self sustainable and don't need to spend more then we earn through sales or stadium revenue.

Selling Kane 80m and Son 30m would enable us to buy Ferguson and that Danish kid playing in Italy.

Getting rid of Moura free, Ndombele 30m Lo Celso 10m, Winks 5m, Gil 20m. Would give us 65m if we were to sell Hoilberg and give Sarr a proper run out about 100m on midfield reinforcements.

You could do similar in defence. Where we have lost money is not properly promoting youth players to squad filler positions. Meaning we have to buy in rubbish to pad out the squad. That and holding onto rubbish for to long, like Sanchez and it has to be said though I like him, Sessegnon.

 

[Raziel]

I don't have a problem with the ENIC ownership, they can stay as owners but I do feel Levy would benefit from a change of scenery, never likely to happen.

Would like us to go back to our transfer strategy of the late 2009 period. Signing young promising players. Actually to go against the grain I think we have spent to much money and it is why our signings have been so awful(recent upturn admittedly)

Also feel we could be self sustainable and don't need to spend more then we earn through sales or stadium revenue.

Selling Kane 80m and Son 30m would enable us to buy Ferguson and that Danish kid playing in Italy.

Getting rid of Moura free, Ndombele 30m Lo Celso 10m, Winks 5m, Gil 20m. Would give us 65m if we were to sell Hoilberg and give Sarr a proper run out about 100m on midfield reinforcements.

You could do similar in defence. Where we have lost money is not properly promoting youth players to squad filler positions. Meaning we have to buy in rubbish to pad out the squad. That and holding onto rubbish for to long, like Sanchez and it has to be said though I like him, Sessegnon.

Competing against teams that spend £700M in a season or who regularly buy players around the £100M mark leaves very little room for error.

Our problem is our most expensive signings typically haven't worked out, Ndombele, Lo Celso, Sanchez, Soldado, Sissoko, Reguilon & Bergwijn are all in our top 10 .. fudge that's depressing .. Romero, Richi & Porro are the other 3

 

[Grays_1890]

I don't have a problem with the ENIC ownership, they can stay as owners but I do feel Levy would benefit from a change of scenery, never likely to happen.

Would like us to go back to our transfer strategy of the late 2009 period. Signing young promising players. Actually to go against the grain I think we have spent to much money and it is why our signings have been so awful(recent upturn admittedly)

Also feel we could be self sustainable and don't need to spend more then we earn through sales or stadium revenue.

Selling Kane 80m and Son 30m would enable us to buy Ferguson and that Danish kid playing in Italy.

Getting rid of Moura free, Ndombele 30m Lo Celso 10m, Winks 5m, Gil 20m. Would give us 65m if we were to sell Hoilberg and give Sarr a proper run out about 100m on midfield reinforcements.

You could do similar in defence. Where we have lost money is not properly promoting youth players to squad filler positions. Meaning we have to buy in rubbish to pad out the squad. That and holding onto rubbish for to long, like Sanchez and it has to be said though I like him, Sessegnon.

Yeh for me this summer is key for him in terms of my confidence, its a real opportunity to clear the decks, i fully expect those players you mentioned to go (not Son who I think will stay) but Kane who will be a HUGE loss and those deadwood going along with a new manager marks a real new dawn across the board and its one, especially with Kane likely going IMO that he has to get right. That's on and off the pitch

With the moving on of those who we don't want and their wages you have to be looking at a significant war chest, we spent 200m this season all told so you have to be looking at more and then some if Kane goes.

Will be a BIG summer for me

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk

 

[Raziel]

Yeh for me this summer is key for him in terms of my confidence, its a real opportunity to clear the decks, i fully expect those players you mentioned to go (not Son who I think will stay) but Kane who will be a HUGE loss and those deadwood going along with a new manager marks a real new dawn across the board and its one, especially with Kane likely going IMO that he has to get right. That's on and off the pitch

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk

I don't see us selling Kane unless we completely fleece United

What I'd like to see is
- Ndombele, Winks, Lo Celso, Rodon, Reguilon, Sanchez, Dier, Tanganga, Sessegnon all gone (probably add Lloris & Perisic to that list)
- Kane, Son, Davies, PEH as the senior players for next 3 or so games
- Romero, Porro, Bissouma, Bentancur, Sarr, Skipp, Deki, Richi as core of team going forward for next 5+ years
- Udogie & Gil evaluated
- GK, 3 CB's, a creative CM, LWB

That would be 10-12 out, 12-14 stay, 6 in.

 

[Grays_1890]

I don't see us selling Kane unless we completely fleece United

What I'd like to see is
- Ndombele, Winks, Lo Celso, Rodon, Reguilon, Sanchez, Dier, Tanganga, Sessegnon all gone (probably add Lloris & Perisic to that list)
- Kane, Son, Davies, PEH as the senior players for next 3 or so games
- Romero, Porro, Bissouma, Bentancur, Sarr, Skipp, Deki, Richi as core of team going forward for next 5+ years
- Udogie & Gil evaluated
- GK, 3 CB's, a creative CM, LWB

That would be 10-12 out, 12-14 stay, 6 in.

Now the records gone I think he cashes in, as do we

Going to be a huge summer regardless IMO

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk

 

[Mikey10]

Now the records gone I think he cashes in, as do we

I’m not so sure. Given the circumstances (another manager gone/DoF situation in limbo) I think Levy will hold on to Kane to give an impression of stability. I also think that some of the managers we will be interested in will want assurances on Kane staying.

Imo the only way he goes is if United offer stupid money (£100 million +).

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Now the records gone I think he cashes in, as do we

Going to be a huge summer regardless IMO

Sent from my SM-A127F using Fapatalk

All depends on who will pay the money

 

[Lemonade Money]

I’m not so sure. Given the circumstances (another manager gone/DoF situation in limbo) I think Levy will hold on to Kane to give an impression of stability. I also think that some of the managers we will be interested in will want assurances on Kane staying.

Imo the only way he goes is if United offer stupid money (£100 million +).

If United offer silly money and we can get Ferguson or Osimhen, it's a no brainer. Would like Kane to stay his whole career, but if he doesn't sign...

 

[alekaras]

Let's hope Jim Ratcliffe, some consortium of Americans or some sheikh rescues us soon, mate. This grinding quarter-century of crushed hopes is coming to an end, one way or another - I just hope it's soon.

If the new rules are what they're cranked up to be and have teeth, we won't need money doping to be more competitive than we are now, because the playing field will be leveled even more. What we'll need is to increase our revenue and that is done by some of the deals that people deride Levy about: F1 cart, concerts, NFL, etc.

 

[alekaras]

Sort of agree with you in that I think Levy will try to cling on like a barnacle.

But these rich types don't tend to like not having control over their assets, and I doubt someone like, say, Jim Ratcliffe, who built a giant petrochemical empire worth tens of billions, would consent to his club being run by some bloke whose only experience outside of Spurs was his Mr.Byrite discount clothing store.

Levy has done absolutely nothing to warrant the confidence of an owner richer than him that he's the one to lead us to success.

That's not how it will work, though, is it. It doesn't matter what Levy did pre-Spurs. What matters is that he transformed Spurs into the 9th richest club in the world and is continually seeking revenue streams that are not dependent on CL qualification or team performance. From a business perspective Ratcliffe surely realizes there are few better in the business than Levy. And I am sure he also realizes that from a football operations perspective there are many better than Levy. So Levy will not be going anywhere, if he wishes to stay. Rather, he will focus on the revenue generation and be complemented by an extremely capable football operations person. And, at the end of the day, he will be evaluated not by how many trophies the team wins, but how much he is able to grow the club's value. Because Ratcliffe will be looking to maximize his investment and, if that means that is done at the expense of trophies, then so be it. Although these two are intertwined, so I think you will see both trophies and increase in club's value. What I do think, however, is that this would have happened anyway, with or without a takeover.

 

[alekaras]

Sure, we weren't the biggest. But we were, as I recall, 4th on the list of most trophies won, heading into the dawn of the PL era.

We had a bad decade in the 1990s, but still won two trophies at the start and end of it. We've won less under ENIC than we did while nearly going bankrupt and hovering around mid-table under Scholar and Sugar - over a longer timeframe, too.

We were the record holders of the FA Cup once. Not anymore. We were the only club in London to have won European trophies of note once. Not anymore. There's an awful lot we traded for the steady eddie ENIC approach.

Those were different times, mate. The playing field was much more level. The PL and the Bosman rule changed all that and the teams that were ahead at the time had a huge head start. We've been playing catch-up and, to make things even harder, Abramovich and the Emiratis showed up. You really can't compare the two eras.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

All the other PL clubs purchased in that time - which ones? Nearly every club that was in the PL then, that is in the PL now, is worth a lot more now than it was then. United, for example, is worth more now than it was in their heyday a decade+ ago. Villa is worth more now than it was when they were chasing Europe under Lerner - try bidding 62m for them now (what Lerner bought them for), see where that gets you. And so on.

In the interval, the owners that have spent a chunk of change generally did so to try and get their teams competing for things quickly - that extra bit beyond just existing as a net neutral line on the club accounts, as owners. That is a lot harder.



Sure it does - said so above. Why do you ask?

I think we get the rising tide floats all boats concept

The infrastructure is (was) built to put a floor underneath us. By all data points it's done that.

Perhaps we are not yo yo enough for you?

 

[alekaras]

'If football had continued as normal' is the key assumption here. If football had continued as it were in 2001, ENIC's 20-year plan might have worked out.

But Abramovich coming in in 2003 immediately outmoded that, just two years into their ownership. Chelsea 'took our spot'. And then City coming in in 2008 blew ENIC's model out of the water. FSG in 2011 pulled the rug from under ENIC by poaching our backroom staff and football model. And then a rush of wealthy owners entering the league ruined ENIC's ability to parlay CL qualification into transfer heft, because these owners could just say no to any CL funded bids we made for their players.

I don't disagree that, had everything worked out with on changes for 20 years, ENIC would probably have been in a different place, as would we.

But they were utterly outmoded and outcompeted basically immediately. And we have been burdened with owners from 2001, in the year 2023 - in scale, in ambition, in business savvy, ENIC have been left adrift by the arrival of owners who dwarf them in all of these.

We need to cut them loose if we want to compete again, mate. Everything else is just rearranging the seats on a bus - might make it look prettier, but the routine doesn't change.

So give me another example of a team that was taken over by an organization as we were by ENIC and was able to buck the developments that took place. Without money doping. One example will do.

 

[alekaras]

I’m not so sure. Given the circumstances (another manager gone/DoF situation in limbo) I think Levy will hold on to Kane to give an impression of stability. I also think that some of the managers we will be interested in will want assurances on Kane staying.

Imo the only way he goes is if United offer stupid money (£100 million +).

Kane goes, if he doesn't sign a new contract, because Kane is not looking at what money United is offering to determine whether he will sign a new contract. If he doesn't want to sign a new contract, we would be wise to sell him, even if it's not for silly money. The only way we would keep him and let him run his contract down would be if we felt that next season is going to be one where we can properly challenge for the title or the CL and Kane is an integral part of that. But we're nowhere near that, so my guess is, if not new contract, he's gone in the summer. Would be the sensible thing to do from a business standpoint and also from a rebuild standpoint.

 

[Lilbaz]

I’m not so sure. Given the circumstances (another manager gone/DoF situation in limbo) I think Levy will hold on to Kane to give an impression of stability. I also think that some of the managers we will be interested in will want assurances on Kane staying.

Imo the only way he goes is if United offer stupid money (£100 million +).

It's not just stability. How much is cl worth? £60-100m? Are we more likely to get that with kane or without?

So how much does levy think he is worth for next season? Even if we lose him for free the next summer.

He's on £200k a week. Up to £300k with bonuses (a lot cl or scoring). So anyone getting him will have to pay a good transfer fee. Then big wages.

Can't see him leaving the prem. Not with shearers record on the line.

So who is going to pay what levy would want? For a 30 year old.