• 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

SpurMeUp said:
Aren't you just making the point that most were - that oil subsidised clubs mop up. What you seem to miss is that us joining their ranks won't deliver us success so seamlessly, unless we can outgun the Arabs. The difference is: I see the dopped clubs as the problem whereas you see them as our solution.

I don't wish to pizz on your strawberries anymore. Keep doing what you're doing. Fight the good fight. I look forward to seeing the results and us conquering all.
Click to expand...

No. That every subsidized club mops up, and almost every club that has ever risen to success in England did so off cash injections from their wealthy owners.

Thanks for the well wishes, mate. Let's hope that we get there one day, free of these deadweights. :)
 
DubaiSpur said:
Same as Chelsea mate. Owner financing, or our owners selling a chunk of the club and investing the proceeds into the team.


At this point you're just screeching and ranting at a scarecrow, so I'll excuse myself.

I'm not measuring inflation, nor claiming what a pound in 1960 is worth today. You're doing that - going off on some weird tangent on the Bank of England instead of recognizing the argument being made on percentage of income being spent on transfers, which is the only way to measure and compare that sort of thing across time.

But, do as you wish mate.
Click to expand...
It’s borrowing
Not owner financing
They are Borrowing more and more
 
DubaiSpur said:
No. That every subsidized club mops up, and almost every club that has ever risen to success in England did so off cash injections from their wealthy owners.

Thanks for the well wishes, mate. Let's hope that we get there one day, free of these deadweights. :)
Click to expand...

Liverppol had won the league 5 times before the 50s. It's not like they were some no name team. Man utd under fergie and arsenal under wenger were not subsidised. Neither were everton, villa, notts forest when they were winning trophies.

As for every club that is subsidised mops up? Look at everton now. Plenty of subsidised clubs have gone into financial difficulties and dropped down the leagues. Sunderland, portsmouth... It's why clubs voted to bring in ffp in the first place and are voting to bring in even tougher regulations.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Err...what? Eric Sawyer invested all that cash into them because their manager convinced him to. That manager being a certain Bill Shankly.

That investment immediately got them out of Division 2 as champions in the first year, and then made them champions of the top flight one year after promotion, followed by winning the FA Cup the year after that.
Click to expand...
Invested in 59 won the first division in 64...just the 5 years to get there.
Who in the modern day is waiting 5 years...lucky if it's 5 minutes.
 
DubaiSpur said:
I'm not measuring inflation, nor claiming what a pound in 1960 is worth today. You're doing that - going off on some weird tangent on the Bank of England instead of recognizing the argument being made on percentage of income being spent on transfers, which is the only way to measure and compare that sort of thing across time.
Click to expand...
You started off with the article that clearly stated it was using football inflation to fudge the figures.

I told you to use the other method....your new gold standard:D
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
You measure inflation however you wish to. While the rest of the world does it another way. It is a snapshot of how you try to take anything and twist it into an anti-Levy narrative. He has made lots of mistakes. But according to you, he's hapless, deserves no credit, and listening to you I can not work out why we weren't relegated long ago. How did such a useless CEO get it so right? :D

Trying to claim that £230,000 in 1960 is really worth £1.4b now is just another expression of your anti-enic OCD. That is like saying £1 in 1960 is worth £6087 now! :D Which is obviously nonsense. You seriously claim that £1 in 1960 should be worth £6k now? When the Bank of England says £1 in 1960 is equivalent to £19 now. All rational thinking has left you on this subject. Levy lives in your head rent free.
Click to expand...
I think you are (probably deliberately) missing @DubaiSpur 's point. He is saying that football teams spending huge sums of money comparitive to their income has been a thing for a long while. It isn't just recently that the likes of Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea have 'bought' trophies. It has happened since the 1960s (and even before). Owners who wanted to win put in their own wealth to help ensure it. You trying to talk about inflation here is clearly a poor argument, as by your £1 being worth £19 now measure, Liverpool's revenue now would be £2.3million per season. When in fact Liverpool's revenue is between 20 and 30 times that amount. Surely you have to concede that looking at 'football' inflation is far more relevant than inflation in general?
 
Finney Is Back said:
I think you are (probably deliberately) missing @DubaiSpur 's point. He is saying that football teams spending huge sums of money comparitive to their income has been a thing for a long while. It isn't just recently that the likes of Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea have 'bought' trophies. It has happened since the 1960s (and even before). Owners who wanted to win put in their own wealth to help ensure it. You trying to talk about inflation here is clearly a poor argument, as by your £1 being worth £19 now measure, Liverpool's revenue now would be £2.3million per season. When in fact Liverpool's revenue is between 20 and 30 times that amount. Surely you have to concede that looking at 'football' inflation is far more relevant than inflation in general?
Click to expand...

He also said they were in the 2nd division when they spent the money which equalled 50% of turnover. Going by that metric the average championship clubs turnover is £20m. So by that inflation liverpool would have spent £10m on players.

Enic put in £100m last summer.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I think you are (probably deliberately) missing @DubaiSpur 's point. He is saying that football teams spending huge sums of money comparitive to their income has been a thing for a long while. It isn't just recently that the likes of Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea have 'bought' trophies. It has happened since the 1960s (and even before). Owners who wanted to win put in their own wealth to help ensure it. You trying to talk about inflation here is clearly a poor argument, as by your £1 being worth £19 now measure, Liverpool's revenue now would be £2.3million per season. When in fact Liverpool's revenue is between 20 and 30 times that amount. Surely you have to concede that looking at 'football' inflation is far more relevant than inflation in general?
Click to expand...

It seems as though you are missing the point tbh. If our friend from Dubai was saying that, there would be no debate. Of course club owner have invested money into clubs for a long time. No arguement there.

The point you are missing is Ambromovich and the oil-subsidised clubs took things to another level. DubaiSpurs, maybe yourself too, were adminant the level of external funding of football was not new, and if you took inflation into account, liverpool spent similar sums in 1960. Which is not true. Stating they invested the equilivant of £1.4b today is factitious. In todays money it is nothing like that figure.

You are using transfer price inflation and football biz growth to confuse the value of an investment over time. If there is any "conceeding" to do it is probably on your side tbh. In a debat on the level of investment into teams now verses 1960, all you need to measure is the value of investment and inflation. Back then UK-based owners could invest the equilivant of a few million pounds today, and massively accelerate the side. Now, oil-based owners have taken things to another level. To be clear we weren't dicussing the inflation of transfer fees, we were discussing subsidy and external funding of football clubs.

As with any sport, such sums skew fair competition, so there are more and more controls to try to maintain some semblence of fairness. Maybe you can conceed that Levy has done well putting Spurs the club on a sure-footing to compete if club revenue is used to peg transfer or wage spending.

The other point, was whether you think subsidising football was the solution or the problem. To DubaiSpurs, and maybe yourself too, subsidising Spurs is what you are calling for - the solution. When others believe that this just leads to an arms race - who can pour in the most money. And there are already a number of massively wealth concerns, with deeper pockets, ahead of us. So why would we follow this model? Shouldn't we back Levy's approach and call for greater controls on player wage and transfer subsidisy by owners?
 
Last edited:
New Thfc hotel. Hopefully it doesn't impact football investments and spending.
04ec49431814ab6b6f5fe75308a7fe0f.jpg


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
metalgear said:
New Thfc hotel. Hopefully it doesn't impact football investments and spending.
04ec49431814ab6b6f5fe75308a7fe0f.jpg


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

It will have been budgeted in. We've already been spending on it.

Like the stadium it will pay for itself once built and give us a return greater than the investment. Our spending on players now is more than if we hadn't built the stadium.
 
Lilbaz said:
It was a part of the original planning permission for the stadium. Why is it a problem now?
Click to expand...

the problem is that people don’t understand about making money or having multiple sources of income away from your core income which ultimately makes an organisation or individual wealthier, levy does. So he is the villain to some. Mainly because he won’t spaff all his or spurs’ cash on flash brick that suffers great deprecation and ultimately makes the club poorer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back