• 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

braineclipse said:
Are you saying that Lewis could give the club an interest free loan that would save the club £10-15m per year without it costing him anything?
Click to expand...

The cost of it would be nothing in comparison to the gain in asset at the end

Borrowing interest is no where near the same as saving interest.
 
Last edited:
Superhudd said:
The cost of it would be nothing in comparison to the gain in asset at the end
Click to expand...

Once again, what do you think the cost would be for what you're asking? Either per season or in total...

You're not arguing that this is the best financial decision for Lewis are you?
 
Superhudd said:
The cost of it would be nothing in comparison to the gain in asset at the end

Borrowing interest is no where near the same as saving interest.
Click to expand...


Why would it be saving interest?


What you should be comparing it to is the amount he would lose due to not being able to invest that 200m in other projects.



Edit: Your premise is also based upon Lewis having 200m sat around in a bank account somewhere doing nothing. Do you have any actual evidence of that?
 
Last edited:
I would take a sugar daddy to be honest. I think we have made some great strides in the last 10 years, but we could actually start thinking about challenging for titles and maybe even winning a Champions League one day. I was always against this, but after seeing Chelsea win the CL, I'm weakening to the idea of a sugar daddy taking over, how else can you win these days? Teams like Dortmund have been successful through great management and having a fantastic youth policy and scouting system, but our youth system is poor and nowhere near good enough to win without serious investment. Ok it would make us look like hypocrites after heavily criticising Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project, but who gives a brick if we started to win trophies again?
 
Spursalot said:
Why would it be saving interest?


What you should be comparing it to is the amount he would lose due to not being able to invest that 200m in other projects.

Edit: Your premise is also based upon Lewis having 200m sat around in a bank account somewhere doing nothing. Do you have any actual evidence of that?
Click to expand...


LOL.. he would be investing it into the Tottenham project to get a better improved asset down the road.

He had 3Billion laying around when he wanted to buy Mitchells and Butler chain :lol:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/leisure/article3162431.ece
 
Superhudd said:
LOL.. he would be investing it into the Tottenham project to get a better improved asset down the road.

He had 3Billion laying around when he wanted to buy Mitchells and Butler chain :lol:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/leisure/article3162431.ece
Click to expand...



He had 3B laying around because he liquidised other assets.


Option 1: Invest 200m elsewhere, make profit on that and allow spurs to build their own stadium, then sell them for profit.

Option 2: Give the 200m for spurs, wait until the stadium is built, then sell spurs for profit.


It's not exactly rocket science. You would have to be a dumbass to pick option 2.
 
Jurgen the German said:
I would take a sugar daddy to be honest. I think we have made some great strides in the last 10 years, but we could actually start thinking about challenging for titles and maybe even winning a Champions League one day. I was always against this, but after seeing Chelsea win the CL, I'm weakening to the idea of a sugar daddy taking over, how else can you win these days? Teams like Dortmund have been successful through great management and having a fantastic youth policy and scouting system, but our youth system is poor and nowhere near good enough to win without serious investment. Ok it would make us look like hypocrites after heavily criticising Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project, but who gives a brick if we started to win trophies again?
Click to expand...

I would give a brick. I don't want a sugar daddy in the same terms as Chelsea, City, PSG, Monaco etc
 
Spursalot said:
He had 3B laying around because he liquidised other assets.


Option 1: Invest 200m elsewhere, make profit on that and allow spurs to build their own stadium, then sell them for profit.

Option 2: Give the 200m for spurs, wait until the stadium is built, have repayment paid, then sell spurs for profit.


It's not exactly rocket science. You would have to be a dumbass to pick option 2.
Click to expand...

You would have to be a dumbass to let him pick A.. why should we let him pick A.

BTW you forgot the bit in bold
 
Superhudd said:
You would have to be a dumbass to let him pick A.. why should we let him pick A.

BTW you forgot the bit in bold
Click to expand...


I wouldn't 'let' him do anything, Option 1 is the clear winner in terms of profit.


Option 1: profit from investment and spurs.


Option 2: Profit from spurs.
 
Lewis had a billion dollars to lose on Bear Stearns. We could have wasted a big chunk of that on underperforming strikers.
 
Spursalot said:
ENIC are bad because they want to make money and won't just throw money at spurs.


:lol:
Click to expand...

Not asking them to throw money at Spurs.. where did I say that.

What I did say was that should Lewis invest an interest free loan to Tottenham to be REPAID.. then he would get a better asset at the end of it to sell

Chucking money at it implies something else.. which I feel I have made the point that I don't want that kind of owner.
 
Superhudd said:
Not asking them to throw money at Spurs.. where did I say that.

What I did say was that should Lewis invest an interest free loan to Tottenham to be REPAID.. then he would get a better asset at the end of it to sell

Chucking money at it implies something else.. which I feel I have made the point that I don't want that kind of owner.
Click to expand...


You have implied that throughout your entire argument.


You want ENIC to give money to spurs that will reduce their possibility of making profit overall if they invested that money elsewhere.


That would be the cost of them loaning us money, the loss of investment opportunity elsewhere.


So because ENIC would prefer to make more money, they will not give Spurs the 200m to build a stadium.
 
Superhudd said:
Not asking them to throw money at Spurs.. where did I say that.

What I did say was that should Lewis invest an interest free loan to Tottenham to be REPAID.. then he would get a better asset at the end of it to sell

Chucking money at it implies something else.. which I feel I have made the point that I don't want that kind of owner.
Click to expand...

When you failed to counter the argument from Spursalot where he pointed out that your suggestion would cost Lewis money?

Asking him to give up a significant profit by helping out Spurs as a club is not throwing money at Spurs? What is it then?
 
What's the difference between an investment in Tottenham as apossed to one elsewhere.

That they know that the debt can be serviced by what we earn.. not unlike a certain Manchester club.. therefore greed means they get fed by two spoons
 
braineclipse said:
When you failed to counter the argument from Spursalot where he pointed out that your suggestion would cost Lewis money?

Asking him to give up a significant profit by helping out Spurs as a club is not throwing money at Spurs? What is it then?
Click to expand...

Throwing money at something is different in my book to Lending money and getting it back.

Throwing money at something is more papering over the cracks to save something that in all honesty is on its knees
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back