Lets Talk About Wages

[Superhudd]

So imagine scenarios with or without Lewis paying for the stadium..

Lewis without input

Stadium coast 350m
Repayed over 15 years if lucky so payed maybe by 2032 (Yes i'll probably be pushing up daises by then)
Value of Tottenham goes to a Billion
Lewis sells and makes a conservative profit of 900m into the sunset (because thats what Enic are, they saddle the business with risk not themselves)


Lewis with stadium input

Lewis pays for stadium 350m
Lewis sells for a Billion
Conservative profit of 500m in 2019

O

Which is the one where a handful of people win, and which is the one where everyone wins.

 

[Spursalot]

So imagine scenarios with or without Lewis paying for the stadium..

Lewis without input

Stadium coast 350m
Repayed over 15 years if lucky so payed maybe by 2032 (Yes i'll probably be pushing up daises by then)
Value of Tottenham goes to a Billion
Lewis sells and makes a conservative profit of 900m into the sunset (because thats what Enic are)


Lewis with stadium input

Lewis pays for stadium 350m
Lewis sells for a Billion
Conservative profit of 500m in 2019

O

Which is the one where a handful of people win, and which is the one where everyone wins.

Wait what? so if levy does it with input he makes far less money, yet this seems like a better plan to you?


:|

 

[jimmyb]

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.. what 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

I'm not spinning anything. I'm being perfectly straightforward - which is more, I'm afraid, than can be said for your line of argument.

Once again, I have to stress that there is a world..........nay, a fudging huge universe of difference between what Hicks, Gillette and Glazer did / are doing to their respective clubs and what Lewis / Levy are doing to Spurs. Sorry, fella, but I really cannot understand why you're finding it so hard to see it.

Can you really not understand the yawning chasm between, on the one hand, burdening a club with a mountain of debt which causes the club to haemorrhage huge amounts of money every year while adding nothing by way of value in return and, on the other hand, prudently taking on debt to pay for a desperately needed asset which will add huge value and enable the club massively to increase its revenue earning potential?

Frankly, it's a no brainer.

P.S. What "buy back" shares are you talking about?

 

[Superhudd]

Yes I know the difference.

But both have the same ending... its the ending, the endgame of it all, I'm talking about.



Both walk away with huge assets with minimal input

 

[jimmyb]

So imagine scenarios with or without Lewis paying for the stadium..

Lewis without input

Stadium coast 350m
Repayed over 15 years if lucky so payed maybe by 2032 (Yes i'll probably be pushing up daises by then)
Value of Tottenham goes to a Billion
Lewis sells and makes a conservative profit of 900m into the sunset (because thats what Enic are, they saddle the business with risk not themselves)


Lewis with stadium input

Lewis pays for stadium 350m
Lewis sells for a Billion
Conservative profit of 500m in 2019

O

Which is the one where a handful of people win, and which is the one where everyone wins.

I question your estimates.

No way would Spurs be worth ?ú1 billion - even after the stadium is built. There are only a handful of clubs in the world worth that much. And we wouldn't be one of them.

But that's by the by.

If Lewis and Levy make a big profit out of Spurs having delivered on each of ENIC's key objectives:

- making a success of the first team
- developing a thriving youth system
- building a new, state of the art training ground and academy
- building a new stadium that is fit for the 21st century and for a club with big ambitions

......while running the club on sound economic principles in difficult times, then I won't begrudge them the profit that they might make from any sale. They will have earned it.

 

[Superted]

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 ?

Real Madrid are always getting bailed out by the govt aren't they? Think it's disgusting that the country is about to go down the toilet yet somehow they can fund those 2 clubs.

 

[Superhudd]

I wouldn't begrudge them either Jimmy.. just wish it was ?ú350m less than what they might expect.

Value

Without debt I would put the clubs value at or around Arsenals, having looked into it the value by Forbes, Arsenal with stadium debt at ?ú807m 8th April.

OK so lets knock down the 500m profit to 300m. Remember, Enic also gets the resale of the flats ontop as a nice sweetner too for Enic. How many was it at premium they can sell.

Another thing I'd like to bring up... Joe Lewis according wiki was born 1937, that puts him in the age 75 age bracket.. in 2032 he would be 95.

 

[jimmyb]

Yes I know the difference.

But both have the same ending... its the ending, the endgame of it all, I'm talking about.



Both walk away with huge assets with minimal input

Firstly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit if it has been earned.

Secondly, I'm sorry if I sound like a stuck record but no..........they don't both have the same ending. The examples given couldn't be more different.

Liverpool FC are some ?ú200 million worse off as a consequence of their association with Hicks and Gillette. That's just in terms of the money which Hicks and Gillette leeched off the club. In terms of the ground that Liverpool has lost as a consequence, the figure is far higher. Maybe double. Maybe more than that, even.

Man Utd are some ?ú400 million worse off as a result of Glazer's association with the club.

Quite the opposite for Spurs. ENIC have taken no money out of the club. They have put money into the club. They have turned around a club that limped from season to season in perennial mid table mediocrity (barring the occasional flirtation with relegation) and have had it challenging in the upper echelons of the Premier League table for most of the past seven years.

They have added huge value to the club. That is what good management does.

So, if and when they sell, they will have earned the right to make a handsome profit.

 

[jimmyb]

I wouldn't begrudge them either Jimmy.. just wish it was ?ú350m less than what they might expect.

Value

Without debt I would put the clubs value at or around Arsenals, having looked into it the value by Forbes, Arsenal with stadium debt at ?ú807m 8th April.

OK so lets knock down the 500m profit to 300m. Remember, Enic also gets the resale of the flats ontop as a nice sweetner too for Enic. How many was it at premium they can sell.

Another thing I'd like to bring up... Joe Lewis according wiki was born 1937, that puts him in the age 75 age bracket.. in 2032 he would be 95.

Arsenal is, I'm sorry to say, a far more valuable club and brand than Spurs is currently. They have enjoyed 20 years and more of uninterrupted, relative success. They have won five league titles over that period; a couple of doubles; plenty of FA Cups; and, most importantly, they have been perennial Champions League qualifiers.

They consequently have a far higher profile and presence around the world. They have a huge global fan base. They have a far bigger share of the UK's young fan base than Spurs do. And those fans will be revenue cows to be milked in the future. It will take many years of success for Spurs to catch up.

Not sure what point you're trying make about Joe Lewis' age?

 

[Superhudd]

Firstly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit if it has been earned.

Secondly, I'm sorry if I sound like a stuck record but no..........they don't both have the same ending. The examples given couldn't be more different.

Liverpool FC are some ?ú200 million worse off as a consequence of their association with Hicks and Gillette. That's just in terms of the money which Hicks and Gillette leeched off the club. In terms of the ground that Liverpool has lost as a consequence, the figure is far higher. Maybe double. Maybe more than that, even.

Man Utd are some ?ú400 million worse off as a result of Glazer's association with the club.

Quite the opposite for Spurs. ENIC have taken no money out of the club. They have put money into the club. They have turned around a club that limped from season to season in perennial mid table mediocrity (barring the occasional flirtation with relegation) and have had it challenging in the upper echelons of the Premier League table for most of the past seven years.

They have added huge value to the club. That is what good management does.

So, if and when they sell, they will have earned the right to make a handsome profit.

But the endings are the same for the owners of Hicks,Gillete,Glazer & Enic... both walk away having put in minimal input whilst gaining a huge asset. This is what is the same about these owners, yes some have screwed over for money, one has given a foundation to prosper.. the endgame for the owners are exactly the same, take out loans in order to increase own standing.(Should Enic take out loans or Bonds for new stadium)

I don't begrudge Enic making a profit on what they have achieved since they took over although.. more champions league football would have been nice. I have never once said they shouldn't. As i said it would be great if they took a hit on the profit they will make in order to suit everyone.. not just themselves.

When and it is a when they sell, out of interest Jimmy, what is the input money wise Enic have put into the club. Do you have a figure?

Should they sell for 800m what is there profit money wise.

 

[Superhudd]

Arsenal is, I'm sorry to say, a far more valuable club and brand than Spurs is currently. They have enjoyed 20 years and more of uninterrupted, relative success. They have won five league titles over that period; a couple of doubles; plenty of FA Cups; and, most importantly, they have been perennial Champions League qualifiers.

They consequently have a far higher profile and presence around the world. They have a huge global fan base. They have a far bigger share of the UK's young fan base than Spurs do. And those fans will be revenue cows to be milked in the future. It will take many years of success for Spurs to catch up.

Not sure what point you're trying make about Joe Lewis' age?

I disagree with the values, they would be comparable in value.

Being able to spend on a standing of debt free would mean being able to buy and pay wages akin to a team in the top 7 of the world. Hell where are we at the minute.. 12th or something.


I thought also that recently the charts spoke about the difference between Tottenham and Arsenal was mainly matchday revenue. Maybe I read that wrong. Basically a bigger stadium will put the wrongs right that have widened since the 90s. It wasn't that long ago too that the Evening Standard would every year put out an article stating who was the bigger supported fanbase in London, every year I saw it and Tottenham was always top, since Emirates that has undoubtly changed, but can and will be challenged with the new digs. Also buisiness will sell on the basis of what is achievable with that stadium, therefore Arsenal will be compared as a value.

 

[Superhudd]

BTW didn't Enic want 400m from Abramovich pre new stadium.. With stadium they will want at least 800m.

 

[jimmyb]

But the endings are the same for the owners of Hicks,Gillete,Glazer & Enic... both walk away having put in minimal input whilst gaining a huge asset. This is what is the same about these owners, yes some have screwed over for money, one has given a foundation to prosper.. the endgame for the owners are exactly the same, take out loans in order to increase own standing.

I don't begrudge Enic making a profit on what they have achieved since they took over although.. more champions league football would have been nice. I have never once said they shouldn't. As i said it would be great if they took a hit on the profit they will make in order to suit everyone.. not just themselves.

When and it is a when they sell, out of interest Jimmy, what is the input money wise Enic have put into the club. Do you have a figure?

Should they sell for 800m what is there profit money wise.

It depends how you define input. It's not just about how much money is invested in a club by its owner. "Input" also takes the shape of management expertise.

And that, in many respects, is far more important than financial contributions. Take Portsmouth, for instance. Sacha Gaydamack put a significant amount of his own money into the club. Yet he made a complete dog's dinner of properly managing the club. Look at it now.

As to what ENIC have paid thus far, I can't say for certain since they have grown their shareholding over the years, in different ways and from multiple sellers.

At the time that they bought 27% of the club off Sugar, they already owned about 3%. They paid Sugar 80p per share, which translated into a little under ?ú22 million. Let's say that they paid a similar amount (although it was probably less) for their initial 3%. So they had paid a total of about ?ú24 million for the 30% of shares that they owned back in 2001.

They subsequently increased their shareholding to about 56% after the 2004 rights issue. That cost them in the region of ?ú11 million.

They then bought Sugar's remaining 12% for ?ú25 million in 2007, taking their shareholding to about 67%.

They contributed the entire ?ú15 million to the 2009 share placement, by which time, they owned some 86% of the company.

Various other purchases from shareholders large and small ensued. I have no idea what price was paid. At a guess, in the region of ?ú25-30 million.

So the total is likely to be a little over ?ú100 million. But who knows? Could be as much as ?ú120 million.

 

[jimmyb]

I disagree with the values, they would be comparable in value.

Being able to spend on a standing of debt free would mean being able to buy and pay wages akin to a team in the top 7 of the world. Hell where are we at the minute.. 12th or something.


I thought also that recently the charts spoke about the difference between Tottenham and Arsenal was mainly matchday revenue. Maybe I read that wrong. Basically a bigger stadium will put the wrongs right that have widened since the 90s. It wasn't that long ago too that the Evening Standard would every year put out an article stating who was the bigger supported fanbase in London, every year I saw it and Tottenham was always top, since Emirates that has undoubtly changed, but can and will be challenged with the new digs. Also buisiness will sell on the basis of what is achievable with that stadium, therefore Arsenal will be compared as a value.

There was a time when Spurs and Arsenal were level pegging. But Arsenal have surged way ahead over the past 15 years or so. Even once we have built the new stadium, our income will be significantly smaller than theirs. And that figure will likely grow when the Emirates shirt sponsorship deal expires in a couple of years time and Arsenal can finally sign a deal that reflects their worth.

 

[jimmyb]

BTW didn't Enic want 400m from Abramovich pre new stadium.. With stadium they will want at least 800m.

I think that story is a bit of a myth, to be honest.

As things stand, I would guess that Levy would want in the region of ?ú400 million for the club. Once the new stadium is built (and taking into consideration the debt that will come with it), I would guess that Levy would want, maybe, ?ú600 million?

 

[Superhudd]

You fooking of to bed or what :ross:

I'll read those in the morning.

 

[yiddo2786]

Does Joe Lewis just have ?ú400m lying about?

 

[Naughton16]

Arsenal are worth is 2.3x Spurs according to Forbes 2012 football club valuations

 

[camspur]

But the endings are the same for the owners of Hicks,Gillete,Glazer & Enic... both walk away having put in minimal input whilst gaining a huge asset. This is what is the same about these owners, yes some have screwed over for money, one has given a foundation to prosper.. the endgame for the owners are exactly the same, take out loans in order to increase own standing.(Should Enic take out loans or Bonds for new stadium)

I don't begrudge Enic making a profit on what they have achieved since they took over although.. more champions league football would have been nice. I have never once said they shouldn't. As i said it would be great if they took a hit on the profit they will make in order to suit everyone.. not just themselves.

When and it is a when they sell, out of interest Jimmy, what is the input money wise Enic have put into the club. Do you have a figure?

Should they sell for 800m what is there profit money wise.

There's a big difference between Hicks & Gillette's takeover of Liverpool, the Glazers at MU and ENIC at Spurs.

The takeovers of Liverpool and Man Utd were funded by loans against assets of the club thus giving the club's massive debt which the owners then creamed off in dividends, the ENIC takeover was funded by ENIC's own cash, no loans and no creaming off of profit. How can you say they are the same when it is clear that they are not?

 

[braineclipse]

Superhudd:

1. Do you agree that a stadium build paid for by the club is an asset to the club and to the owners? A bigger, better stadium would mean the club would generate substantially more money every year.

What asset to the club was added by the Glazer or Hicks/Gillett takeover? None? Ok. So discussion over then? Not the bloody same.

2. You say the risk is only there for the club, not for the owner. Well, the owner owns the club so that makes no sense on the face of it. Of course there is a risk for the owner. The risk that is there for the club, like us doing a Valencia or that the costs of the stadium mean on the pitch problems that cost us long term then the value of the club drops, that is real risk for the owner.

3. What club in the world has ever had a serious business man as an owner that has then spit in several hundred million pounds to build a stadium for the club? My guess would be that this never happened. To expect Lewis to do what no one has done before seems a tad demanding to me.