• 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

Harry Kane MBE

Lilbaz said:
Enic took over in 2001. Liverpool got to the quater finals of the cl that year, having won the uefa cup, league cup and fa cup the year before. No way did we have a higher turnover that year.

Edit just checked our turnover up to june 2001 was £48.4m.
Click to expand...
1999-2000 season (the season before ENIC took over):

The rich list

Position Club Turnover (£m)

1 Manchester Utd 117.0
2 Real Madrid 103.7
3 Bayern Munich 91.6
4 AC Milan 89.7
5 Juventus 88.4
6 Lazio 79.4
7 Chelsea 76.7
8 Barcelona 75.2
9 Internazionale 68.9
10 Roma 64.1
11 Arsenal 61.3
12 Borussia D'mund 59.5
13 Leeds United 57.1
14 Fiorentina 54.2
15 Rangers 51.7
16 Marseille 49.9
17 Tottenham 48.0
18 Parma 47.5
19 Liverpool 46.4
20 Saudi Sportswashing Machine 45.1
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2001/nov/30/newsstory.sport4
 
Finney Is Back said:
1999-2000 season (the season before ENIC took over):

The rich list

Position Club Turnover (£m)

1 Manchester Utd 117.0
2 Real Madrid 103.7
3 Bayern Munich 91.6
4 AC Milan 89.7
5 Juventus 88.4
6 Lazio 79.4
7 Chelsea 76.7
8 Barcelona 75.2
9 Internazionale 68.9
10 Roma 64.1
11 Arsenal 61.3
12 Borussia D'mund 59.5
13 Leeds United 57.1
14 Fiorentina 54.2
15 Rangers 51.7
16 Marseille 49.9
17 Tottenham 48.0
18 Parma 47.5
19 Liverpool 46.4
20 Saudi Sportswashing Machine 45.1
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2001/nov/30/newsstory.sport4
Click to expand...

The season they took over then liverpool did the treble and got in the cl. Not sure what enic could do about that.
 
Lilbaz said:
The season they took over then liverpool did the treble and got in the cl. Not sure what enic could do about that.
Click to expand...
I wasn't digging out ENIC here or debating what we could've done about Liverpool or anyone else. I was just pointing out to Raziel that prior to ENIC coming to Spurs Liverpool were not earning 2 to 3 times our revenue as he had stated.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I wasn't digging out ENIC here or debating what we could've done about Liverpool or anyone else. I was just pointing out to Raziel that prior to ENIC coming to Spurs Liverpool were not earning 2 to 3 times our revenue as he had stated.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Iirc we did spend more than liverpool under sugar. Just very badly.
 
Lilbaz said:
Fair enough. Iirc we did spend more than liverpool under sugar. Just very badly.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I think Sugar actually had the ambition but didn't have the right people around him to provide good advice (or perhaps didn't want to take advice from people around him). Him selling out when he did also shows that he didn't really have any idea of how big football could become as an entertainment business.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Yep we will
Just checked
City have sold £60m so far
Still amazed the money they get in COVID times for youth players
They think their getting £20m for a kind who has been on loan in Spain and also decent money for Patrick Robert’s after his loans :confused::confused:
Click to expand...

They probably get those fees because it wouldn’t surprise me if they give 50% of it back through some kind of back hander
 
BrainOfLevy said:
Echoing the takes here that it is incredible that the Kane’s are losing a PR war with Levy. GHod knows over the summer I was very against Levy and understood if Kane left. But the way they have handled it since has left a very sour taste and has got me back supporting Levy again! Amazing.

There were stories in the press during the Euros saying Kane might not return to training on time, so he and his brother are insulting our intelligence there. Same with trying to set his own price in the Neville interview. Same with this Telegraph piece - it’s all just so bad. He’s trying to drive the price down for City, and trying to paint Spurs as the bad guys for holding him to a contract and expecting market value.

And this is what I don’t get…just how bad they are at understanding strategy, and leverage. I think the Telegraph piece is partly Kane realising that the move might not happen, so his insistence that he will still try as hard as he can if selected is in part trying to build bridges. But I don’t think it was ever possible to both leave with your rep with the fans intact, and get the move you want if you go down this route.

Proper understanding of leverage would have had him understand he had none of it, that Levy wouldn’t give a toss about all the PR games, and that we would see right through any talk of gentlemen’s agreements as the horsebrick they are. If Kane really wanted to leave with a good reputation with the fans, he shouldn’t have done the Neville interview, he shouldn’t have done the Telegraph, and he shouldn’t have been the only English Euros finalist to fail to suit up on opening day. Because the price is the price. He can’t now say he hopes the fans understand after everything he has sanctioned. It isn’t possible. He had a choice, and he chose to try and trash us, to make sure we get less money, to sell a top player to a competitor. If he had held the same stance behind closed doors, nothing would have changed in terms of his leverage, because he had none, but if an acceptable bid came from City he would have left with most fans blessings after years of great service. He’s fudged it.

Personally, I hope he stays this year and leaves next summer. 2 years left means he will have some leverage. He may be 29, but that will be his fault for signing a 6 year contract. I would expect him to give 100% when he plays this year and I wouldn’t be concerned about team spirit, I think if anything the spirit will be helped by the squad knowing they play for a club that had the balls to stand up to a top club to keep a top player. If the fans want him gone this month, it means City win. We shouldn’t play into their hands.

City only want to appear like they are frugal because they know if they are seen to spend frivolously because they do have the money then the price goes up for every player. Again, we shouldn’t play their game. I just cannot believe how stupid the Kane’s have been, and how they didn’t understand the lack of leverage they had in this whole situation. Absolute amateur hour.
Click to expand...

Echo these thoughts 100%
I would absolutely keep him another 12 months. And I would be instructing Paratici to plan for life after Kane next summer.
Barring some sort of remarkable reconciliation, which I just can't see happening, I would ship him out next year. The ideal scenario being we win something/finish top 4 and he's suddenly desperate to stay. Instead we decide its time to part ways and he ends up somewhere other than Emirates Marketing Project, forced out and having to live with his decisions in the summer of 2021.
 
Personally, I now want Kane out of my club, but even if they offer £150m I would not sell him until we have brought in our key signings
 
Finney Is Back said:
Indeed. I think Sugar actually had the ambition but didn't have the right people around him to provide good advice (or perhaps didn't want to take advice from people around him). Him selling out when he did also shows that he didn't really have any idea of how big football could become as an entertainment business.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone did any the time in his defence
But arguably he may have not been able to take us where we have gone… or possibly he could have
Wonder if it’s something he regrets
 
NaijaSpurs said:
Personally, I now want Kane out of my club, but even if they offer £150m I would not sell him until we have brought in our key signings
Click to expand...

I dont want him out, but £150m is decent cash if we spend it well. Setting aside other money which we have and just spending the Kane money, we could be looking at something like:

----------------------Lloris--------------------

---Tanganga---Romero---Torres---Regulion

-----------PEH----Skipp----Dele

--------Martinez--Vlahovic---Son
 
The big loser in all this is City:

- if they sign Kane for £150m then it shows that with patience, you can take them to the cleaners
- if they dont sign Kane, then they dont have a CF and they will be blamed by their fans for not signing Kane if they dont win trophies
 
I know it's just teletext BS but there's a rumour going around that Lloris and Kane had a fight at Hotspur Way over all this nonsense.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I wasn't digging out ENIC here or debating what we could've done about Liverpool or anyone else. I was just pointing out to Raziel that prior to ENIC coming to Spurs Liverpool were not earning 2 to 3 times our revenue as he had stated.
Click to expand...

Here is my quote "Liverpool have been above us and earned 2X-3X our revenue per year for the better part of 3 decades" i.e. pre ENIC and during ENIC

You managed to pick the only year that I can find that Pool earned less than us, I'm going assume something weird happened that year and it's one off (and you didn't pick it purely for that reason

The year before Liverpool earned more than us and were in the top 10 richest clubs in the world (Deloitte money league)
For the following twenty years Liverpool have been in the top 10 every year, we have been in it only 3 times (so 20-3 in top richest clubs)
In 2001-2 they had already tripled their revenue from 97-98 (it would take us until 2006 to reach their 2002 numbers)

Are we really having an argument that Pool has been a bigger revenue generator than Spurs? am I missing something, Liverpool football club has been a huge club a lot longer than PL/ENIC era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back