ENIC

[braineclipse]

It’s a fair point
I’m not saying ENIC have been all bad although I certainly think there underlying motive has been more to enhance the value to sell the club on over success on the pitch. I also don’t know how good a new owner would be, what I do think during the here and now is that ENIC aren’t doing a very good job in terms of footballing matters. I would also disagree on the fact they make more good descisions than bad, I’d think their three proven good descisions have been hiring Jol, Redknapp and Poch.

hopefully they will have a fourth on appointing Conte

Disagree on the here and now. Conte, Paratici. Excellent decisions imo. Spending money, not massive perhaps, but significant money. Around 60m euros net spend this season according to transfermarkt, and doesn't include Romero as his as certainly being made permanent.

Good mix of younger players like Sarr and somewhat more established players who still have potential for growth.

A lot of work left to be done in the summer. That's the result of previous years more than what's been going on recently.

Decisions under previous managers/directors have been poor, particularly in hindsight. But money has been spent for a while now, again significant money, in a pandemic. People in charge of the footballing side have seemingly been trusted. Got Mourinho and Nuno wrong. Nuno was apparently Paratici being trusted. These things happen, the consequences are large, impacts the club and team for years, but it happens.

 

[Gazza]

Price is determined by supply and demand. If fans wan't cheaper ticket prices they need to stop paying at the price offered.

I've done exactly that with many more ... you do know the spurs attendances are starting to decline.

If you want to talk about ethics and football being the working man's game, those days are long gone, but levy is leading the race with those prices.

 

[braineclipse]

Success on the pitch is a risky financial proposition. Living off the success of the growth of the PL without having to make any particularly risky financial decisions is the wise thing to do. Look at the value the PL has increased and subsequently Spurs have at the same time without having to spend a penny. It's genius.

It's also why we are never going to see a change in their operating model. What does winning the PL gain the club financially versus the financial risk involved? To a fan that's everything, but Levy and Lewis are not fans.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

I think there has been risk, but it's been managed well. Just because the myriad potential really bad outcomes didn't happen doesn't mean there wasn't risk.

Lewis will by all signs continue without personal investment in the team. That's the reality. I can get the wish for a different owner, though I personally do not want a Saudi Sportswashing Machine style takeover, I get it. But I don't quite get why "ENIC out" seems to assume that whoever replace them will be better. I think the risk of a negative result of a takeover is significant.

We are spending money though. In part thanks to the stadium I think. Significant net spends three years in a row now (first funded by the CL run). After the stadium was completed (unsurprisingly), but still spending despite the pandemic. That was always the plan I think, it seems like a good one.

 

[AjaxDeSuperYids]

The owners at our club are a problem but not Necessarily from their own making

every club should be self supporting and sustainable. It’s just sensible and how all sports should be run. It wouldn’t happen in US sort for example as they get the competition balanced with financial viability

the issue we have in European football (I can’t comment on the rest of the world) is that the clubs that were an extension of the fan base have now become extensions of a rich man’s armoury to defend their reputations. That’s not healthy and really takes away why theses clubs were created (from works groups, local churches, friendship groups and many more)

it’s actually quite toxic and unhealthy for the sport long term but whilst there is money there will always be crooks I guess.

the fit and proper persons test is something I’ve always found hilarious. I’ve had the pleasure and misfortune of meeting a lot of self made millionaires. Not one of them hasn’t brick one someone one the way up. It’s why they made their money.

I’ve also met a lot of people who have inherited wealth. With a lot of them their actually quite dumb people but bank of dad helps out their errors. On other extremes they use their luck form being born in a state of privilege to push down others in many ways, most of which a normal person couldn’t or wouldn’t do

the dilemma in football is that clubs have become play things but fans haven’t. The majority of fans are still normal people who work for a living and use football as a release from their daily lives. It’s contradictory to the owners now in such a big way

leicesters owners weren’t fans of the club before they brought it. They brought the club cheap as it had gone bust and couldn’t pay for the stadium they had built. They basically exploited the opportunity like most businessmen, and now there revered because they saved the club and frugality as far as I’m aware don’t have human rights issues and aren’t criminals (minimum standards) and seem to be genuinely likeable

It’s the same with abramovich, same with the dildo twins, same with the ginger gang at United, and many many more but with much more negative twists as we know

when people talk good owners I think of Gibson at boro. Local guy invested his own money in the club he grew up with. Same with Bloom at Brighton, and Benham at Brentford

Their owners that are fit and proper and are fans too. That’s the real panacea. Owners who love the club, not the status owning a club brings.

Our issue as we know is Lewis doesn’t own Tottenham because he is a spurs fan. He doesn’t care for footy in reality. For him it has grown to be his biggest investment growth and therefore a prize in his portfolio. Levy may or may not have been a fan but again we do know the growth at spurs (and he has contributed more than most despite what people think) has made him very rich.

him and Lewis are now at a cross roads. Do they cash out and take the massive massive profits on their business. Or do they carry on hoping and planning for growth that they can’t necessarily control due to the opposition

as I’ve said numerous times the valuation they have on a club with such debt is bonkers imo.
We owe about £800m, with a playing staff value of around £600M at a guess and a land asset base of around £1.2b. So a balance of about £1B
Add in good will value and the clubs place on the league and I still can’t fathom how it’s a £3b valuation
Id say half of that and the new owners take the debt would be about fair value in what’s a volatile unstable sport despite all the recent crazy growth. Levy and lewis would make about £1.45B profit on their investment which is staggering really

the issue of course is there are people who believe £3B is fair value on the basis of what’s to come bad the future but the clubs future can change so quickly. The wonderful stadium can quickly become less full. The sponsors can move there money to get next big thing. And suddenly the value is less in reality

But we as fans can’t change the owners. The so called protests also seemed to include more beer cans than people. There isn’t a know spurs fan with the £££ to buy them out so we sit and wait and hope… and it’s the one that kills you

Great post.

So when its all said and done and lewis sells, he’s going to increase his worth from something like £5bn to around £6.5bn.

Well done joe your lifes work is done, you can now rest easy as you wind down your last few years before being no more on this planet.

Great work you must feel so fulfilled and warm and cuddly inside.

fudging clam.

 

[Lilbaz]

I think there has been risk, but it's been managed well. Just because the myriad potential really bad outcomes didn't happen doesn't mean there wasn't risk.

Lewis will by all signs continue without personal investment in the team. That's the reality. I can get the wish for a different owner, though I personally do not want a Saudi Sportswashing Machine style takeover, I get it. But I don't quite get why "ENIC out" seems to assume that whoever replace them will be better. I think the risk of a negative result of a takeover is significant.

We are spending money though. In part thanks to the stadium I think. Significant net spends three years in a row now (first funded by the CL run). After the stadium was completed (unsurprisingly), but still spending despite the pandemic. That was always the plan I think, it seems like a good one.

We got to cl finals, had league challenges without massive investment. Now the stadium is up and running it will be interesting to see what we can do.

Our recruitment has been bad for a couple of years. But apointing paraticci to take over and conte as manager is a good first step.

I'd like new owners or investment (stadium naming rights for example) to come in and clear some of the debt. But i'm not desperate for it and i don't hate enic. For what running a business as a buisiness?

What i want is proper spending controls in football. Not just the prem but the whole of europe. That is the real issue and thing that fans should be angry about.

 

[braineclipse]

I think it is much more complicated mate. Poch's success gave us a taste of what can be achieved. Imagine we had backed him at the critical moments. Instead look at us now, it's galling. Well that is how I see it anyway.

Big name/money signings under Pochettino were mostly not good. We can imagine what could have happened and maybe probably had we spent more at a critical time it would have helped somewhat. Maybe, but the record doesn't indicate that.

Not laying all that on Pochettino, but he was surely involved, had his input, towards the end probably more control.

Transfermarkt, signings under Pochettino over 20m euros:
-Ndombele
-Sanchez
-Sissoko
-Son
-Moura
-Sessegnon
-Aurier
-Janssen

I'll add GLC because it was a big loan fee always likely to be made permanent.

I make that 9 players. One outright success in Son. A lot of meh, maybe/potentially, alright, fair enough, does a job. Arguably one outright success from 9! Set the cutoff where you want, make it one in 6/7/8. Ignore Sessegnon because he's still young with potential, make it one in 5. That's poor however one slices it.

Pochettino was fantastic for us. But the significant money transfer business while he was here was not good at all. I love(d) Pochettino, it wasn't all on him I'm sure, but that's just not good.

Him thinking that a rebuild was long overdue, at the height of his powers at the club, he signed players that he later said would take a long time to really settle in. Players that didn't improve the starting 11 one real significant bit. He was backed and frankly he was negligent with that money when it came to the immediate needs of the team on the pitch. And he knew about those needs.

How much criticism does Pochettino get for our downfall? Not so much. Levy though...

And again, I fudging adored Pochettino. But like Levy, like everyone, he made big costly mistakes. Levy has to endure the consequences of his though.

Anyone, apart maybe from someone bringing direct lasting financial doping to our club, will have a lot of poor decisions on their records over 20 years. Most, imo, more than Levy.

Edit: Robspur12, as I hope you understand I used your post as a bit of a starting point for what could arguably be called a rant. I in no way meant that as a criticism of you or your opinion. Might as well have written that without quoting you, or perhaps not have written it at all would have been better. But hey...

 

[Bishop]

I think there has been risk, but it's been managed well. Just because the myriad potential really bad outcomes didn't happen doesn't mean there wasn't risk.

Lewis will by all signs continue without personal investment in the team. That's the reality. I can get the wish for a different owner, though I personally do not want a Saudi Sportswashing Machine style takeover, I get it. But I don't quite get why "ENIC out" seems to assume that whoever replace them will be better. I think the risk of a negative result of a takeover is significant.

We are spending money though. In part thanks to the stadium I think. Significant net spends three years in a row now (first funded by the CL run). After the stadium was completed (unsurprisingly), but still spending despite the pandemic. That was always the plan I think, it seems like a good one.

I think there has been risk, but it's been managed well. Just because the myriad potential really bad outcomes didn't happen doesn't mean there wasn't risk.

Lewis will by all signs continue without personal investment in the team. That's the reality. I can get the wish for a different owner, though I personally do not want a Saudi Sportswashing Machine style takeover, I get it. But I don't quite get why "ENIC out" seems to assume that whoever replace them will be better. I think the risk of a negative result of a takeover is significant.

We are spending money though. In part thanks to the stadium I think. Significant net spends three years in a row now (first funded by the CL run). After the stadium was completed (unsurprisingly), but still spending despite the pandemic. That was always the plan I think, it seems like a good one.

Conversely why assume that whomever replaces ENIC will be worse?

I don't even have an issue with the amounts spent, I have issue with how it was spent and the timing of such spend. I also have issue with many of the footballing decisions the club has made. A more savvy and less risk averse operator could and likely would have had more successes.

I also can't lie the appointments of the likes of Mourinho really just down that ENIC have no clue. We could not have picked a more ill suited man for the manager role. It's decisions like that, that just confirm we needed someone else in charge of football matters because Levy is clueless. Paratici is a start let's hope he's a good appointment.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

 

[Robspur12]

Big name/money signings under Pochettino were mostly not good. We can imagine what could have happened and maybe probably had we spent more at a critical time it would have helped somewhat. Maybe, but the record doesn't indicate that.

Not laying all that on Pochettino, but he was surely involved, had his input, towards the end probably more control.

Transfermarkt, signings under Pochettino over 20m euros:
-Ndombele
-Sanchez
-Sissoko
-Son
-Moura
-Sessegnon
-Aurier
-Janssen

I'll add GLC because it was a big loan fee always likely to be made permanent.

I make that 9 players. One outright success in Son. A lot of meh, maybe/potentially, alright, fair enough, does a job. Arguably one outright success from 9! Set the cutoff where you want, make it one in 6/7/8. Ignore Sessegnon because he's still young with potential, make it one in 5. That's poor however one slices it.

Pochettino was fantastic for us. But the significant money transfer business while he was here was not good at all. I love(d) Pochettino, it wasn't all on him I'm sure, but that's just not good.

Him thinking that a rebuild was long overdue, at the height of his powers at the club, he signed players that he later said would take a long time to really settle in. Players that didn't improve the starting 11 one real significant bit. He was backed and frankly he was negligent with that money when it came to the immediate needs of the team on the pitch. And he knew about those needs.

How much criticism does Pochettino get for our downfall? Not so much. Levy though...

And again, I fudging adored Pochettino. But like Levy, like everyone, he made big costly mistakes. Levy has to endure the consequences of his though.

Anyone, apart maybe from someone bringing direct lasting financial doping to our club, will have a lot of poor decisions on their records over 20 years. Most, imo, more than Levy.

Edit: Robspur12, as I hope you understand I used your post as a bit of a starting point for what could arguably be called a rant. I in no way meant that as a criticism of you or your opinion. Might as well have written that without quoting you, or perhaps not have written it at all would have been better. But hey...

No offence taken at all mate. I am off with the kids this week so should be looking after them rather than writing on a forum so I need to give you an abridged response. I believe a lot more blame should lie on Levy for the failings of Poch era than on Poch himself even given those expensive failures at the end, the man was rarely given his first choice players. Even those at the end are hard to put on Poch entirely given he was only allowed a very small time to work with them and Lo Celso initially impressed enough to convince Mourinho that he should be signed permanently. In the main his signings albeit mostly not first choice worked, whether or not you believe they were fantastic players. But we don’t need a re hash of the Poch argument. Levy gets the credit for the infrastructure projects but he should also carry a lot of responsibility for the playing side failings. Just look how many good managers have crashed and burned under his tenure. It can’t just be on them.

 

[Bishop]

Big name/money signings under Pochettino were mostly not good. We can imagine what could have happened and maybe probably had we spent more at a critical time it would have helped somewhat. Maybe, but the record doesn't indicate that.

Not laying all that on Pochettino, but he was surely involved, had his input, towards the end probably more control.

Transfermarkt, signings under Pochettino over 20m euros:
-Ndombele
-Sanchez
-Sissoko
-Son
-Moura
-Sessegnon
-Aurier
-Janssen

I'll add GLC because it was a big loan fee always likely to be made permanent.

I make that 9 players. One outright success in Son. A lot of meh, maybe/potentially, alright, fair enough, does a job. Arguably one outright success from 9! Set the cutoff where you want, make it one in 6/7/8. Ignore Sessegnon because he's still young with potential, make it one in 5. That's poor however one slices it.

Pochettino was fantastic for us. But the significant money transfer business while he was here was not good at all. I love(d) Pochettino, it wasn't all on him I'm sure, but that's just not good.

Him thinking that a rebuild was long overdue, at the height of his powers at the club, he signed players that he later said would take a long time to really settle in. Players that didn't improve the starting 11 one real significant bit. He was backed and frankly he was negligent with that money when it came to the immediate needs of the team on the pitch. And he knew about those needs.

How much criticism does Pochettino get for our downfall? Not so much. Levy though...

And again, I fudging adored Pochettino. But like Levy, like everyone, he made big costly mistakes. Levy has to endure the consequences of his though.

Anyone, apart maybe from someone bringing direct lasting financial doping to our club, will have a lot of poor decisions on their records over 20 years. Most, imo, more than Levy.

Edit: Robspur12, as I hope you understand I used your post as a bit of a starting point for what could arguably be called a rant. I in no way meant that as a criticism of you or your opinion. Might as well have written that without quoting you, or perhaps not have written it at all would have been better. But hey...

You're making the mistake of assigning too much responsibility for the transfer business to Poch's feet. He said himself he did not make the transfer decisions. We have always had a transfer committee and at no time in ENIC reign has a manager/coach ever had free will to spend the the transfer money where they wanted. The transfer committee worked via consensus with Levy having the ultimate veto. So if the transfers didn't work Poch had a stake in that but no more than a percentage. I mean take Sissoko he didn't even want him and made that clear yet you're putting that at Poch's feet. Obviously we don't know the circumstances for every transfer but we can use what Poch said at the time to work out certain obvious things.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

 

[parklane1]

You're making the mistake of assigning too much responsibility for the transfer business to Poch's feet. He said himself he did not make the transfer decisions. We have always had a transfer committee and at no time in ENIC reign has a manager/coach ever had free will to spend the the transfer money where they wanted. The transfer committee worked via consensus with Levy having the ultimate veto. So if the transfers didn't work Poch had a stake in that but no more than a percentage. I mean take Sissoko he didn't even want him and made that clear yet you're putting that at Poch's feet. Obviously we don't know the circumstances for every transfer but we can use what Poch said at the time to work out certain obvious things.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

tickle my balls with a feather, however it does not tend to stop fans from putting their own slant on who is to blame.

 

[RigorMortis]

Something has happened over the last 5-10 years where that sentiment has been lost - id like to blame it on social media but i don't want to sound like an old git.

Someone on here recently said Spurs fans had a right to be depressed after decades of dissapointment - i mean GHod help these guys if they actually supported any one of 95% of professional clubs who have less to cheer about than us

Think it’s also to do with bad descision and obsession with the latest shiny new managerJol to Ramos and Redknapp to AVB

you could argue on the flip side that changing managers has worked well for Chelsea and Jol was on a decline and Redknapp distracted by court cases and the England job.

i would agree moving to the new stadium has accelerated this though.

There is no single factor but ENIC have been the one constant here and i think do play a major role in both our rise to our glass ceiling under them and the decline. The question is can they break that cycle under them and I don’t think we will

 

[Gazza]

tickle my balls with a feather, however it does not tend to stop fans from putting their own slant on who is to blame.

Ultimately will always lay with the man at the top, its his job to make sure everyone is pulling their weight including himself ... like it or not

 

[parklane1]

Ultimately will always lay with the man at the top, its his job to make sure everyone is pulling their weight including himself ... like it or not

You know what they say about those who assume?

 

[RigorMortis]

The coherent strategy is to increase our revenue via the new stadium, which is all reinvested. That has been the modus operandi for years as you know. It was a massive undertaking and should help the club for the foreseeable, long past Levy. No club ever ever gets transfers spot on all the time everytime. There will be ups and downs. You could argue Levy's impatience has meant we have lost some stability and are floundering with so many different managers in a short period - that makes it difficult to rebuild the side which takes time and a consistent manager. But then it tends to be the enic out types that also want instant solutions. And Levy trying to bring about quick wins is what you presumably want too. But a patient approach where we have stability, consistency and build one step at a time is what will see us prosper.

You're big on criticism, but have no ideas on how to deliver what it is you want to see. Easy to criticise. Much harder to create.

Well it depends on what increased revenue constitutes towards.

I’m simply a fan, like you.
You have provided no solution how the increased revenue breaks our glass ceiling, I am perfectly entitled to criticise the descisions ENIC have made and the fact that in my opinion there isn’t an intention of pushing us really forward but more for us to simply survive in the upper echelons with the occasional push for the CL. To achieve sustained success is simply to risky and in my opinion they primary goal is to raise the value of their asset.

The pro ENIC posters seem to think that this is a short term reaction but ENIC have been here over twenty years.
You buy ENIC’s line and I don’t. I hope I’m wrong and you’re right but at the moment I don’t see it and that isn’t based on short termism that’s based on suppprting the club over the twenty years they have been in charge
Neither you nor I have any idea which one of us will be correct

 

[Gazza]

You know what they say about those who assume?

I know the phrase but explain the relevance to my post please gramps

 

[parklane1]

I know the phrase but explain the relevance to my post please gramps

It was not really aimed at you, just those who assume who is at fault without any real knowledge. Maybe that is you who knows.

 

[Gazza]

It was not really aimed at you, just those who assume who is at fault without any real knowledge. Maybe that is you who knows.

Well I don't think there is much assuming in saying ultimately everything that happens at the way the club is run falls down to Levy, since he is the ultimate decision maker. That's what happens when you sit on top of the pile.

 

[Lilbaz]

You're making the mistake of assigning too much responsibility for the transfer business to Poch's feet. He said himself he did not make the transfer decisions. We have always had a transfer committee and at no time in ENIC reign has a manager/coach ever had free will to spend the the transfer money where they wanted. The transfer committee worked via consensus with Levy having the ultimate veto. So if the transfers didn't work Poch had a stake in that but no more than a percentage. I mean take Sissoko he didn't even want him and made that clear yet you're putting that at Poch's feet. Obviously we don't know the circumstances for every transfer but we can use what Poch said at the time to work out certain obvious things.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk

What is an ultimate veto? I believe ally gold said the coach has a veto as did levy in his interview last summer. A veto is a veto as far as i'm aware.

I get levy might be the one that sets the parameters of players we go for. Price range, wages, age.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Well it depends on what increased revenue constitutes towards.

I’m simply a fan, like you.
You have provided no solution how the increased revenue breaks our glass ceiling, I am perfectly entitled to criticise the descisions ENIC have made and the fact that in my opinion there isn’t an intention of pushing us really forward but more for us to simply survive in the upper echelons with the occasional push for the CL. To achieve sustained success is simply to risky and in my opinion they primary goal is to raise the value of their asset.

The pro ENIC posters seem to think that this is a short term reaction but ENIC have been here over twenty years.
You buy ENIC’s line and I don’t. I hope I’m wrong and you’re right but at the moment I don’t see it and that isn’t based on short termism that’s based on suppprting the club over the twenty years they have been in charge
Neither you nor I have any idea which one of us will be correct

What is the ENIC line you refer to?

 

[Jurgen the German]

I think there has been risk, but it's been managed well. Just because the myriad potential really bad outcomes didn't happen doesn't mean there wasn't risk.

Lewis will by all signs continue without personal investment in the team. That's the reality. I can get the wish for a different owner, though I personally do not want a Saudi Sportswashing Machine style takeover, I get it. But I don't quite get why "ENIC out" seems to assume that whoever replace them will be better. I think the risk of a negative result of a takeover is significant.

We are spending money though. In part thanks to the stadium I think. Significant net spends three years in a row now (first funded by the CL run). After the stadium was completed (unsurprisingly), but still spending despite the pandemic. That was always the plan I think, it seems like a good one.

Unless Levy’s children inherit the club then eventually we will get new owners. Whether they will be better than the current ones remains to be seen but it’s wrong to assume either way that they will be better or indeed worse.

If a government were in charge of a country for 20 years and started making some bad decisions along the way, quite a lot of people would think it’s time for a change. I think it’s a similar case here.