-
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
- Thread starter mattls
- Start date
That just so reads as "I've got an axe to grind" rather than real investigative journalism.
He spouts figures for revenue without even mentioning any discrepancies in ownership (Man C), stadium size (Man Utd), CL participation (Man C, Man U, Chelsea) and "global presence" (Man U, Liverpool) and then talks about net spend figures on transfers convceniently forgetting the £80m we got for Bale contributes greatly to out net spend profit.
If we had a 80,000 seater stadium and Oil -rich Sheikh owner the picture would be greatly different.
He spouts figures for revenue without even mentioning any discrepancies in ownership (Man C), stadium size (Man Utd), CL participation (Man C, Man U, Chelsea) and "global presence" (Man U, Liverpool) and then talks about net spend figures on transfers convceniently forgetting the £80m we got for Bale contributes greatly to out net spend profit.
If we had a 80,000 seater stadium and Oil -rich Sheikh owner the picture would be greatly different.
I
indianspur
Guest
did the author mention Levy wanting to turn us into Stratford Rovers??......
2012 figures taken from the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club cannot verify exactly how accurate they are but must be pretty close.
Net debt
Emirates Marketing Project 58m
Spurs 70m
Liverpool 87m
Arsenal 98m
Man utd 366m
Chelsea 878m
Loss before Tax
Chelsea 4m
Man utd 5m
Spurs 7m
Liverpool 41m
Man C 99m
Arsenal turned in a profit
So despite our poor revenue in comparison to others we still are in a very healthy position financially. Had ENIC not bought us when they did we could well have done a Leeds.
Net debt
Emirates Marketing Project 58m
Spurs 70m
Liverpool 87m
Arsenal 98m
Man utd 366m
Chelsea 878m
Loss before Tax
Chelsea 4m
Man utd 5m
Spurs 7m
Liverpool 41m
Man C 99m
Arsenal turned in a profit
So despite our poor revenue in comparison to others we still are in a very healthy position financially. Had ENIC not bought us when they did we could well have done a Leeds.
I
indianspur
Guest
Chels have a net debt of 878 mill???
Taken from the link above
CHELSEA
Accounts (of the holding company, Fordstam) for the year to 30 June 2012
Ownership: Wholly owned by Roman Abramovich, registered at Companies House as a Russian resident
Turnover: 2nd in league, £261m (up from £229m in 2011)
Broadcasting: £113m
Matchday: £78m
Commercial: £70m
Wage bill: 2nd, £173m (down from £190m in 2011)
Wages as proportion of turnover: 66%
Loss before tax: £4m (following £78m in 2011)
Net debt: £878m
Interest payable: £Nil
Highest-paid director: Unnamed, £911,000 (Ron Gourlay is the chief executive)
State they're in:
Roman Abramovich has taken the burden of his loans away from Chelsea Football Club itself, but these accounts for the holding company show the Russian oligarch's loans increased substantially in the year. Abramovich lent a further £79m to the Chelsea operation, increasing the total to a staggering £896m, poured into Chelsea since he bought the club in 2003. Some restraint is evident even in the year Chelsea's players were able to win the Champions League trophy for their paymaster. The wage bill came down and £29m was made selling fringe players. The loss of £4m would have been higher without an exceptional £18m noted from two share dealings.
I
indianspur
Guest
wow
so which is it?
we can't realistically compete with those above us - or our Chairman is not ambitious enough? he seems to be arguing both sides here
he complains about the way fans are fleeced inside the ground but doesn't seem to acknowledge that is true across the board at every single premiership football club or indeed any entertainment venue - try taking a bottle of water in to a gig or another sporting venue. this isn't a ENIC only policy.
there are obviously things which could have been done better under ENIC and instances which they got wrong - but let's not ignore the work which has been put in over the years and the overall picture of growth.
as he says - 6th is par for the course for Tottenham, was it par for the course when they took over? when was the last time we regularly finished 6th, or lower?
Craig_J
Eidur Gudjohnsen
If I was in charge of the club I'd do it the Leeds United way. AKA chuck future gate receipts about, bring in Falcao, Cavani etc and hope we keep qualifying for the Champions League.
If it goes well we'd become a force in football, if not **** it we had a laugh in the mean time and bring on the conference.
If it goes well we'd become a force in football, if not **** it we had a laugh in the mean time and bring on the conference.
a good point Craig, the last two clubs who attempted to gamble their way in to the top 4 were Leeds and Saudi Sportswashing Machine - i don't think much more needs to be said on that point to highlight the complete idiocy of the suggestion. one point which i will add on the matter is that neither of those clubs had to push their way in front of two oil money backed clubs nor an Arsenal side in a 60k state of the art stadium with the turnover they currently have - and STILL they managed to end up getting themselves relegated.
Who is talking about "gambling"?
We made a nett £2.2m profit on summer transfers. We have not touched the new money from the new Sky TV deal. We have trimmed the squad and reduced wages. Where is this money?
No one wants us to gamble. Just show some ambition & stop selling our best players all the time would be nice.
As for the new stadium. ENIC have been in charge for 13 years and we are no further forward than when they took over. Infact, the silence is deafening.
I'm sorry & I know it is unpopular on here, but I'm increasingly in agreement with the articles author.
article in the OP
you can't just isolate transfers from the clubs revenue as a whole - every penny the club 'makes' gets pumped back in one way or the other.
where is the money? in the club
re the tv money - this comes in to play at the end of this season - it will be an acid test of sorts of the clubs ambition - if next season we don't see the extra money either pumped in to the stadium build or in to the squad i will be very surprised as that would go against everything Enic have done during their ownership. when we had surplus cash we overspent on transfers - but now we're spending money on the stadium, have built the training ground and have been paying higher wages due to having better players due to being higher in the league, therefore the available money for transfers has fallen.
I think we have shown and continue to show a lot of ambition, we are always trying to make the best of what we have and looking for ways in which we can improve more than those above us who can outspend.
well that isn't quite true is it? - we may not have broke ground on the build and i agree that it's becoming ever more frustrating - but the size and importance of such a project is something which cannot be rushed in to, it's better for the club to spend time getting it 100% right as the potential for us to be crippled should it go wrong is very real.
there aren't many examples of clubs that have built new stadiums and not suffered as a result - even Chelsea with their billionaire owner are struggling to do anything with their situation.
no need to apologize - i certainly see why people get the **** over Levy/Enic and certain things - i just think we're in a good position overall - better than i have ever known it at Spurs and short of a billionaire owner coming in pumping his own money in to the club i don't see much, if any, room for improvement on what Enic are currently doing - as the article says we're the 6th biggest club in terms of turnover and we've consistently been punching above that for about 8 years now, we are dwarfed financially by those above us - so where do we expect to see new owners improve?
I
indianspur
Guest
once Enic took over, they should have made a new stadium the priority.....back in 2001, the PL was a juggernaut already and was only going to get bigger. We needed a bigger capacity not only to raise income but also bring in younger fans. Arsanal saw the need to expand and are now reaping the rewards financially. They are an example of forward thinking and how you dont need a billionaire backer to pump in cash. A well run club which is what we are but on a smaller scale. Its 2014, had we seriously put plans in place for a new stadium back in 2001 then by now we would comfortably be in a new stadium and have the financial clout to buy big and keep our best too.
Arsenal had the bonus of regular Champions League revenue tbf - in 2001 that was a pipe dream for us.
a stadium build is circa 400m - you need to secure loans and all sorts to cover that sort of project, something which even now we are struggling to do - so the idea it would have been possible 10+ years ago is more than a little naive if you ask me.
I
indianspur
Guest
i dont think its naive at all. Banks and financial institutions were much more willing to lend money, sponsors were plentiful willing to join the football bandwagon, im sure it would have been easier to secure naming rights than it is now. Arsanal had regular CL football, but it was never a guarantee. It was not guaranteed income that they could use as evidence when applying for funding for their new ground...........im sure had it been the number one priority from the beginning back in 2001 then ENIC would somehow found a way to have us in a new ground by at least 2 or 3 years ago. It would have happened. They were simply short sighted from the start