• 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

Bishop said:
If you read what I said clearly you will understand I call it a cult because they will respond and start talking about things you never said. It happens all the time. I don't care if they love ENIC and Levy, that's their prerogative I just find it boring when I'm constantly told I want a sugar daddy owner and why it doesn't work despite it clearly working and me having never ever asking for one. So when the level of discussion improves then so will my response to them.

Regarding Chelsea even in the article they state they made a profit the year before, they have since made a profit for the following year. They aren't going to collapse if Roman walks away. Sure if he called in their debt but they then like us would get a loan and pay it back to him the same way we are paying back our creditors. That's how business works. The likelyhood though is he will never call in the debt so until he does it a bit of a redundant argument, we aren't debt free either.

And just to be clear because it I can imagine the response, no I don't want a Romanesque owner. I just don't rate ENIC and many of the footballing decisions they have made over the years.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

Who are "they". A lot on here seem to say Enic haven't been perfect, but they are not as bad as you make out. And when you pull it apart that seems to be the case. Cults are associated with belief systems that are closed minded. I don't think posters here are. If anything the ENIC out bods are fixated on something which doesn't really stack up, as we are in a much better position than when they took over, despite the advent of super-rich predominately oil funded owners.
 
Last edited:
RigorMortis said:
A stadium hosts football activity, it’s not an activity on its own

However overall I do agree it is down to football activity, for now we are still classified as part of this big six and our stock is high and ENIC recognised an opportunity.

what’s interesting is for those so against football doping, why is it conveniently ignored that ENIC tried to be part of a footballing oligopoly.
Click to expand...

because not being part of it would have destroyed us, and I don't care about other clubs being destroyed
 
RigorMortis said:
I’m not saying he should have ignored it and I haven’t read the thread but I’m asking legitimate question for those who say ENIC do things the right way,
What’s their view on them wanting to be part of an oligopoly cutting other teams out and essentially creating a closed shop for the few.

I am not the one saying ENIC are the epitome of footballing virtue and fighting th good fight against those ghastly cheaters
Click to expand...

For what it's worth i think they fudged up big time with the format. If they had made it a couple of divisions, promotion and relegation i think it would have gone through. Promotion into the bottom league coming from uefa competitions.
There would be no chance that the biggest teams would have been relegated from both divisions. With a spending cap, and the promise to share some of the money with the domestic leagues i think people would have been fairly happy. Not like uefa are saints.
 
RigorMortis said:
I have read the full transcript
And I have already said earlier I don’t think he is complaining, he has simply pointed out that to have an immediate effect you need more experience and that is not our policy

Also do you really feel the need to ridicule other posters for merely having a different opinion to yours?
Click to expand...
I'm not ridiculing Dubai. That's factually where and how this debate started. He quoted all the sensationalist snippets and went to town on the back of it. That his MO and we are all familiar with it.
Btw. You are on his side of the argument, do you sign off on his views?
 
RigorMortis said:
Actually it says “they dithered” I read it as both of us

there’s also an article in the athletic

again we all read articles and interpret it and set it against past behaviour,
Neither you or me can prove or disprove it but judging over how in my impression we always seem to have one player most transfer windows who we are close to signing and it never goes over the line it sounds perfectly plausible.

Apoligies if I don’t have a detailed video diary or all the negotiations
Click to expand...
no you don’t
So your speculating like most fans
I remember a poster on here saying Kulu was an after thought but he was linked with us in December
Again it’s just a link so speculation
But it was out there of course
 
Bishop said:
I think part of the argument is that we do things "the right way" as if it's some moral decision (as constantly argued by Baleforce and others) when the truth is ENIC just don't have the stomach for that kind of speculative and risky financial outlay. When a way to lock in a consistent advantageous financial situation was available they jumped on it with seemingly no moral qualms.

It just throws the whole moral argument out completely. I've never bought the moral argument, it's all just business and a way to minimise their risk and costs. Our typical spending pattern does that as does a ESL that we were part of.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

that's my reason for still being pro ENIC, if they suddenly started throwing Joe's personal fortune at players just to try and win a few pots I'd be the first one behind Dubai at the protest with my can of Fosters and an ENIC OUT sign
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
I'm not ridiculing Dubai. That's factually where and how this debate started. He quoted all the sensationalist snippets and went to town on the back of it. That his MO and we are all familiar with it.
Btw. You are on his side of the argument, do you sign off on his views?
Click to expand...
My view is that ENIC think that changing manager is a cheaper alternative than trying to change the transfer policy and Conte’s comments back that up
 
Bedfordspurs said:
no you don’t
So your speculating like most fans
I remember a poster on here saying Kulu was an after thought but he was linked with us in December
Again it’s just a link so speculation
But it was out there of course
Click to expand...
I haven’t said that I’m not speculating, in fact I’m at pains to point out that this is my interpretation.

so what exactly is the point you’re making?
 
SpurMeUp said:
Who are "they". A lot on here seem to say Enic haven't been perfect, but they are not as bad as you make out. And when you pull it apart that seems to be the case. Cults are associated with belief systems that are closed minded. I don't think posters here are. If anything the ENIC out bods are fixated on something which doesn't really stake up, as we are in a much better position than when they took over, despite the advent of super-rich predominately oil funded owners.
Click to expand...
You think it doesn't stack up because you believe in them. Don't you see you're doing the cultish thing right now. You don't agree so therefore I must be wrong and my arguments doesn't stack up. Yet I don't agree that they are good for us as you think they are yet I'm not telling you that you are wrong and that your arguments don't stack up. I just accept we don't see things the same way and participate in the debate.

One of us is open-minded here...

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
 
Finney Is Back said:
So you expect us to be fine showing patience with the owners and CEO but they shouldn’t be expected to do the same with managers who consistently outperform their expectations and resources? (And by the way Redknapp was sacked having just finished 4th).
Click to expand...

Redknapp's sacking is not a good example. He fudged a season we should've walked 3rd by taking his eye off and hitching his skirt for England.

I will say we did sack a man a few months after he got us to a CL Final, but I should probably be quiet now :D...
 
Bishop said:
You think it doesn't stack up because you believe in them. Don't you see you're doing the cultish thing right now. You don't agree so therefore I must be wrong and my arguments doesn't stack up. Yet I don't agree that they are good for us as you think they are yet I'm not telling you that you are wrong and that your arguments don't stack up. I just accept we don't see things the same way and participate in the debate.

One of us is open-minded here...

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

What is the cultish thing I am doing?

I simply know what it is like running multi-million-pound turnover businesses, all be it smaller ones. And those who just come along after the events and are negative, don't add anything. There is nothing constructive. And often they don't understand the more complex detail. Just give me trophies now.
 
Last edited:
Bishop said:
I think part of the argument is that we do things "the right way" as if it's some moral decision (as constantly argued by Baleforce and others) when the truth is ENIC just don't have the stomach for that kind of speculative and risky financial outlay. When a way to lock in a consistent advantageous financial situation was available they jumped on it with seemingly no moral qualms.

It just throws the whole moral argument out completely. I've never bought the moral argument, it's all just business and a way to minimise their risk and costs. Our typical spending pattern does that as does a ESL that we were part of.

Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...

Again enic don't have the money for a risky financial outlay. They had to sell everything they had to buy us.

Lewis might but after losing over a billion on bear sterns i think he probably wants to play it safe.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-lewis-lost-1-2bn-on-bear-stearns-798488.html

I don't think enic are moral at all. I do think however the speculative risky spending is helping to destroy the game and needs to be curtailed.
 
Gazza said:
Now now don't be like that, you know perfectly well no one is saying that. People however are having a genuine conversation about how meticulous Levy and Co are off the pitch, and no so much for matters on the pitch.

I think you can also acknowledge their MO is to fatten the goose for a sell rather than push the boat out to give the managers a great chance at winning consistently.

So asking what Levy can do better, perhaps stop looking at Spurs as an investment, since his investment is secured by the stadium and training facility along with real estate as now its as safe as houses.

Go be this fan he claims to be, to do what is best for tottenham, to make us actually challenge by backing the manager to the hilt and be as decisive in the market as he is off it.
Click to expand...

It would be very interesting to see the development of the ENIC N17 property portfolio since they arrived, complete with all numbers...
 
SpurMeUp said:
What is the cultish thing I am going?

I simply know what it is like running multi-million-pound turnover businesses, all be it smaller ones. And those who just come along after the events and are negative, don't add anything. There is nothing constructive. And often they don't understand the more complex detail. Just give me trophies now.
Click to expand...
Most multi million dollar businesses aren’t awarded with trophies and competing in a league.

Employees usually have a contract with an agreed notice period and companies don’t pay fees to the other company to release them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back