• 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

Finney Is Back said:
Yes would be allowed. Pretty sure that expenses on infrastructure aren't counted towards FFP numbers anyway. i.e. for FFP the interest on infrastructure debt and stadium depreciation wouldn't be included in the numbers. When looking at the accounts for this year I think we would come in at 88% for FFP.
Click to expand...

The new spending rules are wages + amortisation + agents fees can't be more than 90% of turnover for this year. 80% next year and 70% the year after. These are only for the first team. It's measured from jan to december. With punishment dished out for the beginning of the following season.
 
johnola said:
So if the club is sold on, what happens to the development project?

Do Enic keep all that and finish it off?
Click to expand...
Depends on which entities own which assets and what is and isn't included as part of the sale. I know that some of the surrounding properties were already sold (pre planning gain) to companies outside of THFC while we were building the stadium. But things like the south podium and potential development are still owned by THFC.
 
dingdongo said:
Wasn't there talk of up to 4 potential buyers?

Why do you think Simon Jordan smirks at the end there when he says 'It's interesting that this bid/buyer went public with their interest...' What's the reasoning behind that do you think?
Click to expand...

Might think they're not serious or that spurs leaked it to get others interested. Dunno.
 
NaijaSpurs said:
After splashing over a billion on a new stadium they need to offer well over £3m

Also, I am wary about being bought by another investment company.
Click to expand...
Why? The club has paid for the stadium from it's own resources and we still have a whole heap of debt on top of the resources already committed from the club. Why does that make the equity worth more than 3b (as I assume you mean)?
 
NaijaSpurs said:
We have one of the best stadiums in the world while Chelsea need to build a new one. On that alone no way will Levy and Lewis accept less than what Chelsea cost. Cannot see ENIC selling for less than 4.5 billion
Click to expand...
Chelsea sold for £2.5b so Levy and Lewis wouldn't be accepting less than what Chelsea cost. Chelsea also have more 'prestige' value as a brand than we do
 
Last edited:
Lilbaz said:
The new spending rules are wages + amortisation + agents fees can't be more than 90% of turnover for this year. 80% next year and 70% the year after. These are only for the first team. It's measured from jan to december. With punishment dished out for the beginning of the following season.
Click to expand...
Is it only those things? What about general operating costs?.... I thought they were also included in the costs section? If they are then we're fine this year. Will be fine next year. May struggle the year after (so might have to sell a player or two).

If normal operating costs are not included then we've got plenty of wiggle room this year, next year and the year after.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Is it only those things? What about general operating costs?.... I thought they were also included in the costs section? If they are then we're fine this year. Will be fine next year. May struggle the year after (so might have to sell a player or two).

If normal operating costs are not included then we've got plenty of wiggle room this year, next year and the year after.
Click to expand...
If we're close to the limit most teams around us must be even closer?
 
Finney Is Back said:
Chelsea sold for £2.5b so Levy and Lewis wouldn't be accepting less than what Chelsea cost. Chelsea also have more 'prestige' value as a brand than we do
Click to expand...
It’s a fair price IMO
But you couldn’t argue Chelsea was a distressed sale so would in theory be cheaper
I think the rumoured offer is right for where we are today
 
Bedfordspurs said:
It’s a fair price IMO
But you couldn’t argue Chelsea was a distressed sale so would in theory be cheaper
I think the rumoured offer is right for where we are today
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think it is a fair offer. I would love Levy and Lewis to demand a condition of sale like happened with Chelsea where the new buyers also have to inject a considerable amount of liquidity on top of buying the equity.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Depends on which entities own which assets and what is and isn't included as part of the sale. I know that some of the surrounding properties were already sold (pre planning gain) to companies outside of THFC while we were building the stadium. But things like the south podium and potential development are still owned by THFC.
Click to expand...

Probably a plus for some but a big negative for other suitors.

Personally I’d like to see new owner commit to the completion of the development, without any backsliding and balderdash.

If they do that then I am fine with whomsoever it is.

But it might be better for Enic to hive that part off, deliver it themselves and then flog bits like the hotel back to the club.

I didn’t really know I cared about this yesterday to be honest but I do.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Is it only those things? What about general operating costs?.... I thought they were also included in the costs section? If they are then we're fine this year. Will be fine next year. May struggle the year after (so might have to sell a player or two).

If normal operating costs are not included then we've got plenty of wiggle room this year, next year and the year after.
Click to expand...

No operating costs. You can also make a loss of up to £60m over 3 years.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...gulations-to-replace-ffp-all-you-need-to-know
 
Surfless said:
I am so conflicted by this potential situation. On the face of it, to be at the top table of competing for players in terms of wages and transfer fees, after years of watching Chelsea, Emirates Marketing Project and now Saudi Sportswashing Machine financially dope via huge investment, would be amazing. To genuinely be in the mix for a player like Diaz who went to Liverpool, or the forthcoming auction there will be for Gvardiol, would be the stuff of when I cheat at Football Manager, set up a second manager, and buy all Spurs' dross for £300m to enable me to go and buy everyone....

But, and its a big but - this is everywhere now. While Chelsea were early adopters, and bought titles galore, with the impending sale of Utd and Liverpool being up for sale, you could soon have an EPL which has six or seven financially backed power houses and then a bunch of also rans. Middle East money won't buy Crystal Palace, or Norwich will they? If this happens (its arguable its already getting that way) then that to me is the death of association football in this country.
Click to expand...
A financially backed power house is only truly driven by sovereign wealth or a philanthropic owner these days.
Investment funds/private equity want to be involved, they're obviously seeing something in it, (well some are, some want out...so go figure) but it's a risky game and mindless spending won't provide a return. (They're ultimate goal)

The sugar daddy buying pool is very limited and some of it suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back