ENIC

[ricky2tricky4city]

It's bollox. Argentina or he should be covering the cost.

Uncle Joe's got jets? So shouldn't be difficult. JL do it at cost

Wasn't he coming back from Miami as well...so geographically easy.

 

[glasgowspur]

It's bollox. Argentina or he should be covering the cost.

I don't understand this, if you have the money, and players certainly do, why would you not use a private plane.
Companies would more than likely be willing to offer them deals for advertising it as well.
The likes of Netjets sponsor loads of sports people.

 

[SirPercyHotspur]

No problem with us supplying a private plane but would have made more sense to excuse Cuti from the forum as it was so close to the internationals and have Madders in his place as one of the team leadership group, bet you couldn't have stopped him from talking.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

I think someone has sold them on some other models. It would not be easy to show the correlation between the process of investment into a football operation, the success on the field and the global growth in that order. They would have had it explained to them in some case studies of our biggest rivals here and other clubs overseas. I bet Pool topped that list in terms of what John Henry and FSG have achieved. I doubt they've dug too deeply into the uglier side like the Randy Lerner experience.

So yes, I do reckon that they believe more wins makes them richer billionaires. That's the mentality,

I’d love to unpack this new model thing more, as I agree that they may have decided to look at the club differently by rethinking how investment can lead to success. There has definitely been more talk of how actually winning things boosts the valuation of clubs more in this day than maybe it did.

My question is…how does being associated with more of a winner build the value? It sounds like a dumb question, but what I’m getting at is that I can see why for a sportswashing operation, being seen to have brought success would benefit them reputationally, and would therefore make a club a more valuable asset they’d be less likely to sell. But with ENIC and Spurs? I assume they, or rather Levy, built every single fundamental of the business as strong as it could be, and then now they’re looking at success being the next lever to pull.

I’m still a bit unsure on how they’re going to get us there, with 100m here and there. Unless the 100m is enough of a boost per year or two because the fundamentals of the business are so strong, that it gives us the additional wiggle room to compete for the best players.

Personally I don’t buy for one second that they suddenly bleed Spurs. I think it’s all about extracting maximum possible value, and they feel that Levy’s approach was only going to get the club so far, and that he has reached his ceiling.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

.

Personally I don’t buy for one second that they suddenly bleed Spurs. I think it’s all about extracting maximum possible value, and they feel that Levy’s approach was only going to get the club so far, and that he has reached his ceiling.

Levy's approach was their approach?

So by the same token, if Levy stayed, this would have been his new approach.?

Imo after the Frank cycle we'll be sold.

(Unless the economy collapses...which isn't exactly a long shot)