• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Management ENIC

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

ENIC In or ENIC Out

  • Total voters
    209
The Mercurial No.10 said:
Trippier made a massive profit and Dele will make a sizeable-massive profit depending on appearances.

Aurier was released because he would have been like a bad smell around the club and you can bet your arse that the club lost less money by paying him off than actually having him see the contract out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Trippier - massive profit yes. But replacement value ?

And selling an England international with a couple of years left on contract for £22m or so - is a lot less than expected.

Dele sale is in effect a pay as you go value - we might get diddly squat for him if he doesn't recover form.

Aurier - I agree but for a player captaining his country to not attract buyers is pretty much unprecedented. I wasn't impressed at his coming but never foresaw he'd become worthless
 
Pzabbythethird said:
Got it. So Levy and co really did hamstring us.

Usually companies are bought and sold for a value, all in. I.e assets and liabilities. Levy and co have straddled us with nearly a billion in stadium debt, but also want that in addition to whatever they sell us for.

No one would pay that. Some would have paid 2 billion though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not quite. The debt is still due to banks not ' but also want that'

Companies are bought including debts such as bank overdrafts, but the buyer will still look at it in terms of 'Enterprise value) ie adding the debt to the amount he's paying to buy the shares.

Maybe easier to understand if you think of all companies as being financed by both equity (ie shareholders) and debt. So its logical to look at the 'Enterprise value' as the sum of both equity and debt.
 
Spursidol said:
Not quite. The debt is still due to banks not ' but also want that'

Companies are bought including debts such as bank overdrafts, but the buyer will still look at it in terms of 'Enterprise value) ie adding the debt to the amount he's paying to buy the shares.

Maybe easier to understand if you think of all companies as being financed by both equity (ie shareholders) and debt. So its logical to look at the 'Enterprise value' as the sum of both equity and debt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I understand enterprise value. Enterprise value would be a different price than what Levy and co are demanding.

Say the club is worth 3 million to most people, including all assets and non tangible assets (future cash flow, marketing, etc).

Say we also have 700 million in debt.

The enterprise value to a buyer is 3-0.7 million. I.e 2.3 million.

Levy and co are trying to pretend they aren't valuing the club at 3.7 million. That's what that 3 million figure gets you when you have 700 million in liabilities to account for.
 
Pzabbythethird said:
I understand enterprise value. Enterprise value would be a different price than what Levy and co are demanding.

Say the club is worth 3 million to most people, including all assets and non tangible assets (future cash flow, marketing, etc).

Say we also have 700 million in debt.

The enterprise value to a buyer is 3-0.7 million. I.e 2.3 million.

Levy and co are trying to pretend they aren't valuing the club at 3.7 million. That's what that 3 million figure gets you when you have 700 million in liabilities to account for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The news articles posted earlier were suggesting £3 bn including the debt (ie 2.3 bn equity) so not 3.7 bn.

But who knows the precise figure - its like many properties are put up for sale as £x , but may potential buyers will bid £x minus 20% and see if the bid is accepted or not.
 
Spursidol said:
Liverpool placed 10% of new shares with what looks like a US private equity firm (including a few sports stars such as LeBron James) in Spring 2021 raising over £05 bn for club funds.

I'd agree that someone buying in 25% might want more management control, but I think the right partner prepared to buy 10% would make sense for both Lewis/Levy and Spurs - reason being is that Spurs do need heavy investment in the squad. So the equation becomes that owning 90% of the pie is of higher value than 100% of a smaller value pie (the smaller value being if limited investment in players means infrequent CL appearances which not only impacts UEFA prize money, sponsorships etc).

If that minority partner brings ties in say USA or Asia which can bring in greater commercial income or even just brand recognition in other parts of the world as well s a cash injection, it becomes an even bigger pie of which ENIC still owns a big part.

In my view, a placing of new shares representing a 10% stake in the club bringing in say £250m -£300m would be good for all parties.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not arguing with you just pointing out the small error in your valuation - bring in new money and the valuation usually goes up way more than the cash amount. (It's why you do it)

Liverpool have gone from 1.5b to 4.1b according to Forbes .... sure that's a result of their success .... but it's also due to the 550m of new funding they raised.

A partner coming in for 10-15-20% would be fantastic - but they would be silent partners with no say - just as Liverpool's are. Very happy indeed.
 
dreamof jimmy said:
Unless the banks have guarantees on the debt by ENIC and wold only agree toENIC selling their shares if the new owners guaranteed the debt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The debt has been converted to bonds, they were sold by the club and covered by insurance. There is no THFC debt and no guarantor. Instead THFC have bond liabilities to pay over the next 30 years, it has nothing much to do with ENIC.

Any new owner would just assume the THFC bond payments just as they would assume the electric bill and player's wages.
 
Spursidol said:
The news articles posted earlier were suggesting £3 bn including the debt (ie 2.3 bn equity) so not 3.7 bn.

But who knows the precise figure - its like many properties are put up for sale as £x , but may potential buyers will bid £x minus 20% and see if the bid is accepted or not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But I'm saying that's incorrect. A buyer sees enterprise value as "all value" minus "all liability".

Here we have, say, all value equaling "x" and all liability equalling 0.7 billion.

If Levy is quoting saying the value of the club is 3 billion, what he's really saying is it's 3.7 billion (x-0.7 billion. Solve for x).

He's trying to be sneaky and say they're only quoting 3 billion, as if even that's a fair figure.

He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
 
SpiderSpurs said:
Interesting.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Key conclusions
Accepting that we are attempting to identify those levers in Tottenham’s financial performance, we can make the following conclusions, none of which are rocket science, based on the 2020-21 (and previous years’) financial performance:
  • Assuming no further lockdowns the Club’s financial position is sound but is based on the structure of its debt for which payment is not required for some years.
  • Qualification for the Champions League, and even the Europa League, make a material difference to the Club’s financial performance. The Europa Conference League does not, unless we win it.
  • The Club’s commercial income has become increasingly important to its cash flow generation. Stadium naming rights could provide a significant boost to this as would increased use of the stadium for non-football activities.
  • The Club’s net transfer spend has increased significantly in the last three years (even if not at the level of those we consider to be our peer group). This is not just down to increased spending on new players but also due to low levels of sales proceeds. Selling players is not on its own a desirable objective but we need to get better at churning the squad to maximise value from players who are not making the expected contribution to team objectives.
Even THST are starting to get the message ... the future is looking bright.
 
The Outsider said:
  • The Club’s net transfer spend has increased significantly in the last three years (even if not at the level of those we consider to be our peer group). This is not just down to increased spending on new players but also due to low levels of sales proceeds. Selling players is not on its own a desirable objective but we need to get better at churning the squad to maximise value from players who are not making the expected contribution to team objectives.
Even THST are starting to get the message ... the future is bright.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean the last point which is the most important is absolutely damning.
 
So
The Outsider said:
I'm not arguing with you just pointing out the small error in your valuation - bring in new money and the valuation usually goes up way more than the cash amount. (It's why you do it)

Liverpool have gone from 1.5b to 4.1b according to Forbes .... sure that's a result of their success .... but it's also due to the 550m of new funding they raised.

A partner coming in for 10-15-20% would be fantastic - but they would be silent partners with no say - just as Liverpool's are. Very happy indeed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
why has pinhead completely failed to bring in 10%? A failure equal to the lack of naming rights, all the while our revenue is tanking
 
surely THL should be putting away (investing ) £20-30M each year to cover the £ 0.7BN in bonds that needs paying off in 20 years, yes by then you would expect £0.7BN not to be "worth less that now" but it has to be paid off
 
what is going to happen to all the homes they have permission to build sold to pay off the bonds early ?
can't want to sell and have money in bank as its taxable then
 
rusty said:
what is going to happen to all the homes they have permission to build sold to pay off the bonds early ?
can't want to sell and have money in bank as its taxable then
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Totally seperate companies.

figure2_orig.png



Tottenham Hotspur Limited (“THL”) is the holding company created by ENIC, 85.6% of the share capital of THL is owned by ENIC Sports Inc., which is in turn 100% owned by ENIC International Limited (“ENICIL”); both of these entities are incorporated in the Bahamas. 14.4% of THL is owned by private shareholders

The actual FOOTBALL CLUB we all support is Tottenham Hotspur Football & Athletic Co. Limited (“THFACL”)

THFACL is the original Tottenham Hotspur company, established many years ago, and is responsible for the majority of the Club’s revenue generation. THFACL earns income through competition prize money, TV money, sponsorships, NFL income, stadium tours and Club memberships. THFACL owns the players’ registrations.

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Limited (“THSL”) THSL owns and operates the stadium. It earns income from ticket sales, corporate hospitality, and match day food and drink sales. THSL is owned by an intermediate holding company, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Development Limited (“THSDL”). THSL also holds the majority of the Club’s debt/bond liabilities.

Tottenham Hotspur Limited (“THL”) might just as easily be called ENIC Holding Company and indeed I think that would make understanding the structure far easier.

All the property and development companies are entirely seperate from the football.
 
The Outsider said:
Totally seperate companies.

figure2_orig.png



Tottenham Hotspur Limited (“THL”) is the holding company created by ENIC, 85.6% of the share capital of THL is owned by ENIC Sports Inc., which is in turn 100% owned by ENIC International Limited (“ENICIL”); both of these entities are incorporated in the Bahamas. 14.4% of THL is owned by private shareholders

The actual FOOTBALL CLUB we all support is Tottenham Hotspur Football & Athletic Co. Limited (“THFACL”)

THFACL is the original Tottenham Hotspur company, established many years ago, and is responsible for the majority of the Club’s revenue generation. THFACL earns income through competition prize money, TV money, sponsorships, NFL income, stadium tours and Club memberships. THFACL owns the players’ registrations.

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Limited (“THSL”) THSL owns and operates the stadium. It earns income from ticket sales, corporate hospitality, and match day food and drink sales. THSL is owned by an intermediate holding company, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Development Limited (“THSDL”). THSL also holds the majority of the Club’s debt/bond liabilities.

Tottenham Hotspur Limited (“THL”) might just as easily be called ENIC Holding Company and indeed I think that would make understanding the structure far easier.

All the property and development companies are entirely seperate from the football.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Shady stuff. Very dubious.

Thanks for posting though :nunothumb:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top