ENIC

[robp135]

The great thing about Levy is that he actually wanted us to be long term sustainable. He knew we needed to increase our revenues if we truly wanted to endure as a top club. It fudges me off no end this narrative that has formed around poor old Villa not being able to spend to compete, after doing oh so well in recent years. Well….we did exactly as well as Villa have done, and we did it while living through an age of austerity in order to finance a massive infrastructure project, constantly selling our best players and operating the lowest wages to turnover ratio in the league.

I tip my hat massively to Levy for what he was able to do with that. And agree with the comment that for so long, his strategy benefitted him, Lewis. And us. But at some point it stopped working, and last summer was simply not good enough. He had to go.

There is simply no way that under Levy or with Levy in any position of power we’d have pulled off this summer under him. It’s like a different club. That’s not to say he was all bad. In fact he was excellent and top of the range for so long. But he ran out of road. A quarter of a century is a great innings, and there’s no shame in that. But I’m glad we made the moves that we did.

Levy was the right person to be in charge of running the club from 2001-2021. I’d argue had Lewis bought the club sooner and put Levy in charge we would be in a better position. But from 2021 onward we needed someone more ambitious on the pitch. You cannot charge the highest price season ticket in a £1B stadium and put out a mid table team.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Levy was the right person to be in charge of running the club from 2001-2021. I’d argue had Lewis bought the club sooner and put Levy in charge we would be in a better position. But from 2021 onward we needed someone more ambitious on the pitch. You cannot charge the highest price season ticket in a £1B stadium and put out a mid table team.

Totally agreed. This is exactly it.

I’m very interested in how the kids think about boosting the value here. The calculation of how much more cash is needed to boost the valuation by how much.

But I’m happy that at a minimum they want us competing like a top club for top players, and I hope this is now our level. I don’t expect the same amount every summer, but when we need a top replacement, we go for it. That’s all I really ask. The club with the most expensive stadium and highest prices should be doing that.

 

[robp135]

Totally agreed. This is exactly it.

I’m very interested in how the kids think about boosting the value here. The calculation of how much more cash is needed to boost the valuation by how much.

But I’m happy that at a minimum they want us competing like a top club for top players, and I hope this is now our level. I don’t expect the same amount every summer, but when we need a top replacement, we go for it. That’s all I really ask. The club with the most expensive stadium and highest prices should be doing that.

The only way to grow the revenues now is on field success. Bigger prize money for starters. But we had got to the point where being the worst of the best teams was beginning to hurt the club in terms of commercial. Your can’t be the plucky North London underdog in a 60,000 state of the art billion pound stadium. But we’re also the not anywhere near challenging for the major honours. The 2 superstar players had left without being replaced. So what’s the incentive for a kid in x,y,z country to support Spurs?

That begins to impact what brands are prepared to pay us. It begins to hurt ticket sales. The firms that buy corporate boxes will just stick to Arsenal & Chelsea in London.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Totally agreed. This is exactly it.

I’m very interested in how the kids think about boosting the value here. The calculation of how much more cash is needed to boost the valuation by how much.

But I’m happy that at a minimum they want us competing like a top club for top players, and I hope this is now our level. I don’t expect the same amount every summer, but when we need a top replacement, we go for it. That’s all I really ask. The club with the most expensive stadium and highest prices should be doing that.

Maybe they don’t care about the valuation? Maybe they believe that having a net worth of £5 billion is enough and they’d rather have some fun and leave a legacy of trophies instead of trying to get their net worth to £6 or £7 billion?

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Maybe they don’t care about the valuation? Maybe they believe that having a net worth of £5 billion is enough and they’d rather have some fun and leave a legacy of trophies instead of trying to get their net worth to £6 or £7 billion?

I will have a bet with you that they sell this club within 5 years

 

[robp135]

The value of the club (asset) is not just about being able to sell it. Its also about being able to borrow against it. They take that money, which is tax free, and invest in an asset with a return that’s greater than the interest rate on the loan. Rinse and repeat.

While Joe Lewis never took money out of the club, he will have used the club to secure those loans which have made him wealthier. The more valuable Spurs is the more they can borrow…..and it’s tax free.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

The value of the club (asset) is not just about being able to sell it. Its also about being able to borrow against it. They take that money, which is tax free, and invest in an asset with a return that’s greater than the interest rate on the loan. Rinse and repeat.

While Joe Lewis never took money out of the club, he will have used the club to secure those loans which have made him wealthier. The more valuable Spurs is the more they can borrow…..and it’s tax free.

In most businesses borrowing to improve/expand has a more predictable roadmap...new factory/machinery/r&d etc.

The list of clubs that have taken Macquarie loans ain't great reading.
One Macquarie loan is equivalent to Tonalis transfer fee. Hold that up against traditional assets businesses buy, and the asset we bought is massively more at risk of NOT outrunning the interest rate on the loan.

But better players appears to be the common opinion of how we get better. (It might even be the only way we have left tbh). Other clubs have thought the same...and are now in the brick.

Now, we (and this is a rare exception in football) have foundations like no other, so I'm not particularly concerned (plus we might also be underpinned by the kids wealth, it's just not liquid).

Enics loans had all been mainly for infrastructure up to this point. Perfect.
Borrowing for player acquisitions is a slippery slope.

The point is football ain't easy peasy.

 

[harr1984]

Don't see what the big debate is - we are moving in a different way now, and from a footballing perspective it's more positive. The only question is whether we sustain it or not, but in regards to how we moved under Levy it's apples and oranges....

 

[Bishop]

Don't see what the big debate is - we are moving in a different way now, and from a footballing perspective it's more positive. The only question is whether we sustain it or not, but in regards to how we moved under Levy it's apples and oranges....

We shouldn't need to sustain this level of spending every summer going forward, but yes we should maintain this degree of decisiveness when it does come to whatever transfer business we intend on doing.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Maybe they don’t care about the valuation? Maybe they believe that having a net worth of £5 billion is enough and they’d rather have some fun and leave a legacy of trophies instead of trying to get their net worth to £6 or £7 billion?

This would be my pathway in their position. What fun, what a motivation to get you out of bed in the morning.

I die with 4bn rather than 6bn ...so fudging what. I've still left my younger generations minted.

 

[harr1984]

We shouldn't need to sustain this level of spending every summer going forward, but yes we should maintain this degree of decisiveness when it does come to whatever transfer business we intend on doing.

Yes that's basically what I meant - people getting wrapped up in the net spend and whatever are missing the point, that was never the issue. Long may it continue.....

 

[Baleforce]

The great thing about Levy is that he actually wanted us to be long term sustainable. He knew we needed to increase our revenues if we truly wanted to endure as a top club. It fudges me off no end this narrative that has formed around poor old Villa not being able to spend to compete, after doing oh so well in recent years. Well….we did exactly as well as Villa have done, and we did it while living through an age of austerity in order to finance a massive infrastructure project, constantly selling our best players and operating the lowest wages to turnover ratio in the league.

I tip my hat massively to Levy for what he was able to do with that. And agree with the comment that for so long, his strategy benefitted him, Lewis. And us. But at some point it stopped working, and last summer was simply not good enough. He had to go.

There is simply no way that under Levy or with Levy in any position of power we’d have pulled off this summer under him. It’s like a different club. That’s not to say he was all bad. In fact he was excellent and top of the range for so long. But he ran out of road. A quarter of a century is a great innings, and there’s no shame in that. But I’m glad we made the moves that we did.

But we don’t know what we’ve pulled off this summer yet, it might work well, it could just as likely absolutely fudge us.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Don't see what the big debate is - we are moving in a different way now, and from a footballing perspective it's more positive. The only question is whether we sustain it or not, but in regards to how we moved under Levy it's apples and oranges....

And both can be discussed and respectfully debated, both are massive parts of Tottenhams recent and current history