Spurs new investment

[Bishop]

This is what DubaiSpurs doesn’t really understand. If an entity is in it to make money, we could do a lot lot worst than Levy; one of the most knowledgeable CEOs in the business.

Also @DubaiSpur who do you think is driving this investment that you are so pleased about? Might it be the person and company you love to hate. Can you admit that you’re pleased with DL and ENICs actions here?

I think you misunderstand @DubaiSpur and others of similar mindsets issues. We don't want an entity in control whose whole purpose is to make money and to increase the value of their holding while in the process minimising their own risk and maximising their return.

In an ideal world I don't want an owner who desires profit from Spurs, someone who was just happy breaking even on costs would be great. Someone who was willing to invest money directly into improving the footballing squad would be even better, but I'd definitely settle for even just a bold daring owner, who doesn't view Spurs as means of increasing their net worth.

That mindset has proven to be incompatible with the issue of actually winning, because when profit is your main concern it has deterred us from making some bolder decisions that could have led to success on the pitch rather than on the footsie 500.

 

[Lilbaz]

I think you misunderstand @DubaiSpur and others of similar mindsets issues. We don't want an entity in control whose whole purpose is to make money and to increase the value of their holding while in the process minimising their own risk and maximising their return.

In an ideal world I don't want an owner who desires profit from Spurs, someone who was just happy breaking even on costs would be great. Someone who was willing to invest money directly into improving the footballing squad would be even better, but I'd definitely settle for even just a bold daring owner, who doesn't view Spurs as means of increasing their net worth.

That mindset has proven to be incompatible with the issue of actually winning, because when profit is your main concern it has deterred us from making some bolder decisions that could have led to success on the pitch rather than on the footsie 500.

Uefa have new financial stabilty rules. The prem are bringing in new squad cost controls. So owner can't invest in players anymore.

Everton are on the verge of going into administration due to their owner investing in players. City face 115 charges and chelseas charges are yet to be determined. Forest have had a points deduction.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think you misunderstand @DubaiSpur and others of similar mindsets issues. We don't want an entity in control whose whole purpose is to make money and to increase the value of their holding while in the process minimising their own risk and maximising their return.

In an ideal world I don't want an owner who desires profit from Spurs, someone who was just happy breaking even on costs would be great. Someone who was willing to invest money directly into improving the footballing squad would be even better, but I'd definitely settle for even just a bold daring owner, who doesn't view Spurs as means of increasing their net worth.

That mindset has proven to be incompatible with the issue of actually winning, because when profit is your main concern it has deterred us from making some bolder decisions that could have led to success on the pitch rather than on the footsie 500.

Enic don’t pay dividends and take profit as you know, i am sure.

I am totally aware of what you and others are after: an oil state who bank rolls the club.

Not only is that unlikely, hopefully regulation is making that far more difficult, and the onus on club generated profits is more crucial. An area where Levy has done well, massively increasing our turnover from the stadium.

@DubaiSpur seems odd to “heavily disagree” that Levy is one of the most knowledgeable football chairman. He’s been involved in the detail of running and growing a club for over two decades and even before Spurs with Rangers etc.

Truth is, relative to our peers when Levy took charge (Villa, Everton) we’re actually far ahead of them, with them and others (pool, united, chelsea) trying to catch up and emulate Enics stadium development. But as we know it is probably a 10 year undertaking, once all the detail is included from financing to build complications etc. Look at the mess Everton are in. Yet Dubai Spurs thinks he would have done a better job than Levy.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Uefa have new financial stabilty rules. The prem are bringing in new squad cost controls. So owner can't invest in players anymore.

Everton are on the verge of going into administration due to their owner investing in players. City face 115 charges and chelseas charges are yet to be determined. Forest have had a points deduction.

Hmmmmm...... Not convinced Everton are on the verge of administration due to their owner investing in players? As far as I can see they are on the verge of administration due to taking far too much debt.

Time will tell what happens to Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea. I suspect both will get a slap on the wrist comparable with the slap on the wrist that Nottingham Forest got.

Worth noting that, at present, we have never got to the squad cost control point, let alone gone beyond it by the allowed amount.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Enic don’t pay dividends and take profit as you know, i am sure.

I am totally aware of what you and others are after: an oil state who bank rolls the club.

Not only is that unlikely, hopefully regulation is making that far more difficult, and the onus on club generated profits is more crucial. An area where Levy has done well, massively increasing our turnover from the stadium.

@DubaiSpur seems odd to “heavily disagree” that Levy is one of the most knowledgeable football chairman. He’s been involved in the detail of running and growing a club for over two decades and even before Spurs with Rangers etc.

Truth is, relative to our peers when Levy took charge (Villa, Everton) we’re actually far ahead of them, with them and others (pool, united, chelsea) trying to catch up and emulate Enics stadium development. But as we know it is probably a 10 year undertaking, once all the detail is included from financing to build complications etc. Look at the mess Everton are in. Yet Dubai Spurs thinks he would have done a better job than Levy.

Creating more wealth for yourself isn't just about taking profit as dividends. Many owners of businesses (which THFC is definitely primarily run as) will choose not to pay a dividend if the asset value is increasing (as it has done very well for ENIC).

To make a sweeping generalisation that people who would be happy to see the back of ENIC want to see an oil state isn't really fair. You don't know what all of those people want. What I have always wanted are owners who are happy to invest some of their increased asset value back into the club. At present our owners have turned their own investment of a total of around £150m-200m into circa £2b to £3b of asset value, while loading about £1b of debt onto the club in the process.

 

[Roland Beurre]

I think some folks are confusing the Fortune 500 with the FTSE 100 (or 250 or 350).

Not that anyone gives a stuff

 

[Finney Is Back]

I think some folks are confusing the Fortune 500 with the FTSE 100 (or 250 or 350).

Not that anyone gives a stuff

I suppose the pertinent question is whether companies in any of those would appoint Daniel Levy as CEO?

 

[SpurMeUp]

Creating more wealth for yourself isn't just about taking profit as dividends. Many owners of businesses (which THFC is definitely primarily run as) will choose not to pay a dividend if the asset value is increasing (as it has done very well for ENIC).

To make a sweeping generalisation that people who would be happy to see the back of ENIC want to see an oil state isn't really fair. You don't know what all of those people want. What I have always wanted are owners who are happy to invest some of their increased asset value back into the club. At present our owners have turned their own investment of a total of around £150m-200m into circa £2b to £3b of asset value, while loading about £1b of debt onto the club in the process.

Believe me I am fully aware. I have a number of businesses. Some I take no dividends from.

I was responding to a post where he said he wants an owner who doesn’t take profit out. Which Enic haven’t.

All very well writing: reinvest asset value. But in hard cash terms, unless you have other businesses making hundreds of millions how else are you going to add cash, other than selling shares? DL is wealthy but not to the tune of hundreds of millions of liquid cash and Joe Lewis isn’t the club owner. Even if he was still, would Levy agree to his shareholding being diluted away by Lewis? That said he’s clearly looking to let go of equity now and generate cash, and all credit to him. No doubt the haters will find reason to portray incompetence never the less.

 

[Lilbaz]

Hmmmmm...... Not convinced Everton are on the verge of administration due to their owner investing in players? As far as I can see they are on the verge of administration due to taking far too much debt.

Time will tell what happens to Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea. I suspect both will get a slap on the wrist comparable with the slap on the wrist that Nottingham Forest got.

Worth noting that, at present, we have never got to the squad cost control point, let alone gone beyond it by the allowed amount.

When your wages get to 95% of turnover, not including amortisation. It's unsustainable. Especially when the club has debt.

 

[Lilbaz]

If everton didn't overspend on players, why did they get deducted points?

Stadium has nothing to do with psr as the commission report stated (no matter what everton fans will have you believe).

 

[Bedfordspurs]

If everton didn't overspend on players, why did they get deducted points?

Stadium has nothing to do with psr as the commission report stated (no matter what everton fans will have you believe).

The first time was capital depreciation of the money spent on the until development and planning… without planning you can’t capitalise that
But it was a high amount poorly accounted for
But in essence if they hadn’t spent poorly the issue wouldn’t have occurred anyway

 

[Lilbaz]

The first time was capital depreciation of the money spent on the until development and planning… without planning you can’t capitalise that
But it was a high amount poorly accounted for
But in essence if they hadn’t spent poorly the issue wouldn’t have occurred anyway

No read the report. Everton tried to say it was partly due to interest on a loan they had for the stadium. The interest came to £2m. All the loans for the stadium came fro mishiri and were interest free. The loan with interest was used to pay players wages.

Infrastucture costs or depreciation have nothing to do with psr. The report says it quite clearly.

 

[Bishop]

Believe me I am fully aware. I have a number of businesses. Some I take no dividends from.

I was responding to a post where he said he wants an owner who doesn’t take profit out. Which Enic haven’t.

All very well writing: reinvest asset value. But in hard cash terms, unless you have other businesses making hundreds of millions how else are you going to add cash, other than selling shares? DL is wealthy but not to the tune of hundreds of millions of liquid cash and Joe Lewis isn’t the club owner. Even if he was still, would Levy agree to his shareholding being diluted away by Lewis? That said he’s clearly looking to let go of equity now and generate cash, and all credit to him. No doubt the haters will find reason to portray incompetence never the less.

First of all you don't actually know what I want despite reading my post, you deemed that I want an oil tycoon when no that isn't what I want nor did I say that. Also no where in my post did I claim ENIC siphoned profits or even take a dividend. This is the problem with the discussion with the overtly pro ENIC crowd, you don't actually read what people who have a different view actually say and instead tell them what you think they are saying because that suits your agenda.

I clearly said I'm happy with an owner who breaks even. I don't respect the way Chelsea or Emirates Marketing Project have won things so no that isn't the model I want to follow but the model I want to follow is the one Liverpool, Arsenal, Dortmund, Sevilla, Leipzig etc, etc use and it's a model that is perfectly to us.

What I don't like is the overly cautious approach we take that ultimately leads to nothing. I want boldness from my chairman and football oversee not caution meekness.

 

[Lilbaz]

First of all you don't actually know what I want despite reading my post, you deemed that I want an oil tycoon when no that isn't what I want nor did I say that. Also no where in my post did I claim ENIC siphoned profits or even take a dividend. This is the problem with the discussion with the overtly pro ENIC crowd, you don't actually read what people who have a different view actually say and instead tell them what you think they are saying because that suits your agenda.

I clearly said I'm happy with an owner who breaks even. I don't respect the way Chelsea or Emirates Marketing Project have won things so no that isn't the model I want to follow but the model I want to follow is the one Liverpool, Arsenal, Dortmund, Sevilla, Leipzig etc, etc use and it's a model that is perfectly to us.

What I don't like is the overly cautious approach we take that ultimately leads to nothing. I want boldness from my chairman and football oversee not caution meekness.

For what it's worth i agree with you on having a less risk averse owner. We should have gone for guimaraes etc... levys problem is he wants to get the best possible deal.

That is why i'd like new owners.

 

[alekaras]

Creating more wealth for yourself isn't just about taking profit as dividends. Many owners of businesses (which THFC is definitely primarily run as) will choose not to pay a dividend if the asset value is increasing (as it has done very well for ENIC).

To make a sweeping generalisation that people who would be happy to see the back of ENIC want to see an oil state isn't really fair. You don't know what all of those people want. What I have always wanted are owners who are happy to invest some of their increased asset value back into the club. At present our owners have turned their own investment of a total of around £150m-200m into circa £2b to £3b of asset value, while loading about £1b of debt onto the club in the process.

You can't just throw around a £1 billion debt figure without putting it in context. The £1 billion in debt is tied to the stadium. An asset that generates a steady and increasing revenue stream that services said debt and more than pays for itself. That's a far cry from debt incurred by other clubs from player purchases and salaries, which contribute absolutely nothing, unless a particular player is sold for a profit (and even then, the net net on the totality of player purchases and sales is usually negative).

Also, asking owners to invest more of their increased asset value into a club would require them to take loans against said asset value, in order to do so. And I am guessing this investment will go towards players. Not only would this potentially run afoul of PSR/FFP regulations, we all know that investing in players is a very risky proposition. So why would any sane owner do this? If they were to invest, it should go towards things that increase our revenue stream, which in turn will allow us to be even more competitive in the player market. If things go tits up, at least we still have the revenue stream to rebuild.

 

[alekaras]

I think you misunderstand @DubaiSpur and others of similar mindsets issues. We don't want an entity in control whose whole purpose is to make money and to increase the value of their holding while in the process minimising their own risk and maximising their return.

In an ideal world I don't want an owner who desires profit from Spurs, someone who was just happy breaking even on costs would be great. Someone who was willing to invest money directly into improving the footballing squad would be even better, but I'd definitely settle for even just a bold daring owner, who doesn't view Spurs as means of increasing their net worth.

That mindset has proven to be incompatible with the issue of actually winning, because when profit is your main concern it has deterred us from making some bolder decisions that could have led to success on the pitch rather than on the footsie 500.

The mindset is not incompatible with the issue of actually winning. Once you get Spurs to where they are now, the only way to increase the club's value in any significant fashion is to also be successful on the pitch. That is what will boost brand awareness more than anything and increase the value way beyond the avenues the club has been and is currently pursuing. Television revenue and commercial revenue all shoot up significantly.

As an example (the numbers I am using are for illustration only), if Spurs are now worth £3 billion and continue along the same level of performances, they'll be worth £4 billion in 10 years. If they win 3 league titles, a couple of CLs, and are always contenders for both, they'll probably be worth £5-6 billion. So why wouldn't the owners want success on the pitch?

 

[Bishop]

The mindset is not incompatible with the issue of actually winning. Once you get Spurs to where they are now, the only way to increase the club's value in any significant fashion is to also be successful on the pitch. That is what will boost brand awareness more than anything and increase the value way beyond the avenues the club has been and is currently pursuing. Television revenue and commercial revenue all shoot up significantly.

As an example (the numbers I am using are for illustration only), if Spurs are now worth £3 billion and continue along the same level of performances, they'll be worth £4 billion in 10 years. If they win 3 league titles, a couple of CLs, and are always contenders for both, they'll probably be worth £5-6 billion. So why wouldn't the owners want success on the pitch?

We are worth 3 billion without even doing much on the pitch and with minimal risk. Taking it to the next level requires boldness and some out of the box thinking that yes does incur some risk. The evidence so far shows that when push comes to shove, they would rather not take that risk because well it's just really worth it to them.

Edit: I honestly do not think ENIC are truly bothered if we win or not. It would nice if we did but it's clearly not the be all and end all. Increasing the bottom line is more important, hence the preference from CL qualification over everything else. Even the sacking of the cup specialist coach a week before a final because well, ENIC deemed the faint hope of CL football more important.

Winning is a nice bonus, it's not the motivation factor.

 

[Lilbaz]

We are worth 3 billion without even doing much on the pitch and with minimal risk. Taking it to the next level requires boldness and some out of the box thinking that yes does incur some risk. The evidence so far shows that when push comes to shove, they would rather not take that risk because well it's just really worth it to them.

Edit: I honestly do not think ENIC are truly bothered if we win or not. It would nice if we did but it's clearly not the be all and end all. Increasing the bottom line is more important, hence the preference from CL qualification over everything else. Even the sacking of the cup specialist coach a week before a final because well, ENIC deemed the faint hope of CL football more important.

Winning is a nice bonus, it's not the motivation factor.

You realise levys wealth is invested into spurs? So maybe it's understandable he doesn't want to risk it all if he doesn't have to and would rather play it safe?

It's alright us from the sidelines calling for them to go for it. We have nothing to lose. For levy it's nearly everything.

 

[Bishop]

You realise levys wealth is invested into spurs? So maybe it's understandable he doesn't want to risk it all if he doesn't have to and would rather play it safe?

It's alright us from the sidelines calling for them to go for it. We have nothing to lose. For levy it's nearly everything.

Yup and that's why he's risk averse and I get it and understand it, but I'm not Levy and therefore I don't need to think about his best interests. I'm only concerned about what I think is best for Spurs.

I think starting to win is important, it's been too long. There a generation of fans who haven't had that joy and as a club we are starting to be defined by the lack of winning. But we are digressing so let me not ruin this thread about potential new investment.

 

[Roland Beurre]

I suppose the pertinent question is whether companies in any of those would appoint Daniel Levy as CEO?

Maybe not, but he probably would have made a better job running the Post Office over the last 20 years