Lets Talk About Wages

[jimmyb]

Shows how well Joe Lewis is creaming the profits of the club to add to his 3 Billion.

As far as I can recall, Spurs have only once paid a dividend to shareholders since ENIC took over - though I'm happy to be corrected by any who know different.

And even that once, the amount involved was only a small percentage of profits.

So, if that's the case, Joe Lewis would have to be a very poor businessman to hope to increase his wealth in such a manner.

Of course, he isn't a poor businessman at all. Quite the opposite - which is why he's worth billions.

His investment strategy is all about maximizing the worth of his companies and assets - not milking them or asset stripping.

He is no Abramovich or Mansour, certainly. But nor is he a Glazer, Hicks or Gillette.

 

[billyiddo]

what with the impending Spanish bail out - isn't it about time that Real Madrid and Barca were reined in a little bit ? aren't they part funded by the banks out there ?

 

[Parklaner81]

October 2009, if you really must know.

His 70% share of ENIC accounted for ?ú10.5 million of the ?ú15 million raised by ENIC for the share placement that helped to pay for some of the costs incurred up to that point by planning and property purchases for the NDP.

Prior to that, he put up ?ú7.7 million of the ?ú11 million that ENIC contributed to the ?ú15 million January 2004 rights issue.

Any other questions?

Those are very likely to prove to have been absolutely tremendous investments from his point of view in the future though - they certainly weren't 'goodness of heart' gifts.

Not that I'm in any way in support of Bale's absurd statements on the matter. I'm just pointing out that Joe will likely see a very handsome return on his money some day.

 

[jimmyb]

Those are very likely to prove to have been absolutely tremendous investments from his point of view in the future though - they certainly weren't 'goodness of heart' gifts.

Not that I'm in any way in support of Bale's absurd statements on the matter. I'm just pointing out that Joe will likely see a very handsome return on his money some day.

Absolutely.

As I said, Joe Lewis is no Abramovich or Mansour.

I was merely answering Bale's question.

 

[uksb]

Bale is just trolling.

 

[Superhudd]

Those are very likely to prove to have been absolutely tremendous investments from his point of view in the future though - they certainly weren't 'goodness of heart' gifts.

Not that I'm in any way in support of Bale's absurd statements on the matter. I'm just pointing out that Joe will likely see a very handsome return on his money some day.

Agree, even more so when we finish paying of the loan he takes out in order to make himself a Billion pound asset.

I do not see anything different in that scenario than what the Glaziers have done, or Hicks and Gillette.

I'd prefer it that the club was owned fully by the fans (shareholders) and we employed the best buisnesman to do what Levy does.

Afterall, we could then sell for a Billion and put all that money into a trust fund for this great club instead of Enic walking away with it all.

 

[NaijaSpurs]

Both methinks

 

[NaijaSpurs]

I know they're the best club side in Europe but I didn't expect Barca to be the highest average salary.....

Messi, Xavi, Iniesta etc would be retained on big money. Those 3 would probably be on north of ?ú200K a week, with Messi on waay north of that amount

 

[parklane1]

all that proves is how crap villas finances are managed, until we get the increased revenue of the stadium I'm happy we are where we are.

Indeed.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Extracted from Global Sports Salaries Survey 2012: the richest teams by average first-team pay


Average pay per player per week

Barcelona ... ?ú101,160
Real Madrid ... ?ú90,859
Emirates Marketing Project ... ?ú86,280
Chelsea ... ?ú79,197
AC Milan ... ?ú71,143
Bayern ... ?ú68,845
Inter ... ?ú66,436
Man Utd ... ?ú64,344
Arsenal ... ?ú61,532
Liverpool ... ?ú60,954
Juventus ... ?ú54,725
Schalke ... ?ú48,802
Aston Villa ... ?ú47,401
Tottenham ... ?ú44,394

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/datablog/2012/may/03/football-barcelona-madrid-wages

Even Villa pay better than us.

I don't know how they work these "first team" figures out, but I do believe that a lot of our fans (and the media) think that our players are on a lot more than they actually are.

 

[jimmyb]

Agree, even more so when we finish paying of the loan he takes out in order to make himself a Billion pound asset.

I do not see anything different in that scenario than what the Glaziers have done, or Hicks and Gillette.

I'd prefer it that the club was owned fully by the fans (shareholders) and we employed the best buisnesman to do what Levy does.

Afterall, we could then sell for a Billion and put all that money into a trust fund for this great club instead of Enic walking away with it all.

What loan?

Lewis the same as the Glazers, Hicks and Gillette?

Fans owning the club, selling it and then effectively giving the new owners their money back?

...

...

Have you been on the sauce?

 

[Superhudd]

What loan?

Lewis the same as the Glazers, Hicks and Gillette?

Fans owning the club, selling it and then effectively giving the new owners their money back?

...

...

Have you been on the sauce?

You know precisely what I am saying.

 

[mick cooper]

I don't know how they work these "first team" figures out, but I do believe that a lot of our fans (and the media) think that our players are on a lot more than they actually are.

it must be a bind, the average player in our team, having to get by on ?ú2.3M a year in wages.

 

[scaramanga]

You know precisely what I am saying.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I don't, and I'm not entirely sure anyone else does either.

Can you explain please?

 

[Naughton16]

what with the impending Spanish bail out - isn't it about time that Real Madrid and Barca were reined in a little bit ? aren't they part funded by the banks out there ?

Yes, and as a knock on effect time for everyone else as well. Now is not a time to be spending big in football.

 

[jimmyb]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I don't, and I'm not entirely sure anyone else does either.

Can you explain please?

This.

Once again, Superhudd:

What loan?

In what way is Lewis no different to Glazer, Hicks and Gillette?

What is the logic of your "plan", even if it was remotely feasible?

 

[Superhudd]

Its not a planas such, its an ideal situation where the club is owned by the fans.

Enic will take out a loan/bonds repayed by the club in order to build the 60K+ stadium which in turn brings Enic a very nice asset.

Hicks, Gillete and Glazers take out loan/bonds to buy asset above repayed by the club.

Both scenarios are paid for by the club, both scenarios owners get a huge asset not paid for by them.


Of course thats business, its the way the world goes round, but as said in an ideal world the club is owned by fans

Us fans if we did own the club could quite possibly do the same as what Enic are doing and instead of Enic getting the funds/profits when selling the club once stadium is complete and loans paid off to some rich multi-billionaire as a toy the fans would sell it, but us as fans would put those profits into a trust fund for the club, unlike Enic who would walk off into the sunset with it.

Look I know this isn't going to happen, its just an ideal situation, where owners who put in very little in comparison to what they get back.

 

[jimmyb]

Enic will take out a loan/bonds repayed by the club in order to build the 60K+ stadium which in turn brings Enic a very nice asset.

ENIC won't be taking on debt to pay for the new stadium. THFC will. Therefore, it is only right and natural that THFC is responsible for repayments.

Hicks, Gillete and Glazers take out loan/bonds to buy asset above repayed by the club.

Both scenarios are paid for by the club, both scenarios owners get a huge asset not paid for by them.

They're completely different scenarios. I'm surprised that I have to explain it to you.

Glazer, Gillette and Hicks placed huge debt on Man Utd and Liverpool without adding anything of value to those clubs. They simply bled them dry, to the tune of ?ú60 million and ?ú40 million per annum respectively. The clubs had nothing to show for it.

By going ahead with the stadium, ENIC will also be placing huge debt on THFC. But.......and it's a big BUT.......the club will only be taking on the debt to add massive value. The debt will pay for a huge asset. So Spurs' net asset position will be even better once the stadium has been built than it is now. The new asset will generate sufficient revenue to cover the interest and debt repayments while still increasing the club's profits by a significant margin.

So far from being entirely parasitical, as Hicks and Gillette's debt was to Liverpool and Glazer's debt is to Man Utd, Spurs' stadium debt will be hugely beneficial.

Of course thats business, its the way the world goes round, but as said in an ideal world the club is owned by fans

Us fans if we did own the club could quite possibly do the same as what Enic are doing and instead of Enic getting the funds/profits when selling the club once stadium is complete and loans paid off to some rich multi-billionaire as a toy the fans would sell it, but us as fans would put those profits into a trust fund for the club, unlike Enic who would walk off into the sunset with it.

Look I know this isn't going to happen, its just an ideal situation, where owners who put in very little in comparison to what they get back.

It might be a good thing if the club was owned by the fans. But, then again, it might not. You don't have to look too closely at this forum to find bickering, recklessness, ignorance, prejudice, chaotic thinking and downright stupidity. Nor do you have to look too deeply into the history of elections around the world to find electorates that have made giant mistakes and lived to regret it. Democracy can be overrated and isn't always the best or most effective solution.

As to your Trust fund idea, the point is that you would still have sold the club. Which would mean that the fans no longer had control. Which would mean that whatever money the fans donated to the club from the proceeds of the sale would, effectively, be giving the new owners back the money they paid.

 

[SPURS]

So this gives lie to the constant assertions that 'City and Chelsea are ruining in football'!

As it turns out Real and Barca are way out in front. It's been them driving up wages and transfer fees all along NOT English clubs. It's just that UEFA and Platini like to spacegoat the English clubs.

Don't forget it's Real Madrid that hold the transfer record of ?ú80m for Ronaldo and paid ?ú62m for Kaka. Barcelona are just as bad, ?ú42m + Eto for Ibrahimovic, ?ú33m for Villa etc etc and this is not recent, it goes way back.

 

[Superhudd]

ENIC won't be taking on debt to pay for the new stadium. THFC will. Therefore, it is only right and natural that THFC is responsible for repayments.



They're completely different scenarios. I'm surprised that I have to explain it to you.

Glazer, Gillette and Hicks placed huge debt on Man Utd and Liverpool without adding anything of value to those clubs. They simply bled them dry, to the tune of ?ú60 million and ?ú40 million per annum respectively. The clubs had nothing to show for it.

By going ahead with the stadium, ENIC will also be placing huge debt on THFC. But.......and it's a big BUT.......the club will only be taking on the debt to add massive value. The debt will pay for a huge asset. So Spurs' net asset position will be even better once the stadium has been built than it is now. The new asset will generate sufficient revenue to cover the interest and debt repayments while still increasing the club's profits by a significant margin.

So far from being entirely parasitical, as Hicks and Gillette's debt was to Liverpool and Glazer's debt is to Man Utd, Spurs' stadium debt will be hugely beneficial.



It might be a good thing if the club was owned by the fans. But, then again, it might not. You don't have to look too closely at this forum to find bickering, recklessness, ignorance, prejudice, chaotic thinking and downright stupidity. Nor do you have to look too deeply into the history of elections around the world to find electorates that have made giant mistakes and lived to regret it. Democracy can be overrated and isn't always the best or most effective solution.

As to your Trust fund idea, the point is that you would still have sold the club. Which would mean that the fans no longer had control. Which would mean that whatever money the fans donated to the club from the proceeds of the sale would, effectively, be giving the new owners back the money they paid.

Whatever way you spin it Jimmy whether its for the club to use an asset, or an owner to buy the club, there is at the end of the day no difference in the fact both are being done by creating a debt repayed by the football club in order to give individual/s an asset with minimal input. If Lewis wants a Billion pound asset then pay for the stadium.. around 350M then sell the club, yes you might not make as much profit, but you would have done the right thing by the club and its fans.

As for your comment regarding fans selling, well we would only sell to someone that wasn't going to do a Glazer or Hicks & Gillete, it would pretty suck going through back to back scenario's of having to repay two fooking loans off, yes the club gets a stadium... we would have fooking earned it.

I also think btw the buy back shares is all a rouse to make sure they had the shares before the value goes from 200m towards something nearer a Billion. Lets scare them that if we don't buy them the banks won't lend. Its a bit like Abramovich saying unless you give me stamford bridge pitch we are moving.. clever buisnessmen manipulating our love for a club.

And yes I'd probably do the same if I was in Levy's shoes. O