Of course - my company spend hundreds of millions on branding but I’m always arguing about the return
I just don’t see it with TH stadium.
We have a finite ‘customer’ base… or perhaps we don’t and the annual day trippers are the target
-
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...
Management ENIC
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I just don’t see it with TH stadium.
We have a finite ‘customer’ base… or perhaps we don’t and the annual day trippers are the target
Fair enough, you may have missed my edit...
Edit: A question for you. If mentioning the stadium and club isn't worth anything, then why do global companies pay millions to have their names on the sides of stadia and arenas around the world?
From a different forum, very interesting post...
Let me start with, do I believe Spurs should have won more under current ownership in last 20 years? yes. However what you painted above is too simplistic a view, lacks nuance and misses out stuff
- Clubs successful periods are cyclic in nature, years/decades of success, followed by years/decades of drought. Forest, Leeds, Everton are easy examples of previously successful teams struggling but still around, you don't need me to go through the Championship and League 1 to point out "big" clubs that are no longer relevant. You starting your trophy view in 1950 is a perfect example of that (in a 40 year period we won more trophies than in the other 100+ years)
- Your view/picture (and this is the extremely frustrating part) looking at that, is basically Spurs were a great club and ENIC fudged it up and it's downhill since purchase, and that is wrong on so many levels it comes across as disingenuous/dishonest
Let me paint a picture slightly different
Trophies
- 1882 - 1950 (2 Trophies in 68 years)
- 1950 - 1989 (12 Trophies in 39 years, ~70% of all Spurs silverware)
- Context - 1980 -82 (2 of the 3 decade trophies pre Scholar purchase)
- 1990 - 2024 (3 trophies in 34 years)
League Positions (Top division only)
List of compelling events not listed above
1984 - Club purchased by Scholar
- Context - in 80's TV rights held by ITV, 5 teams including Spurs got 75% of TV revenue deal
1991 - Sold to Sugar on verge of bankruptcy
1992 - PL formed, CL formed
- Context, Sky takes over TV rights, now 50% of revenue is based on league finishes and number of times on tv
- Two decades follow where Spurs doesn't take advantage of new tv money
1994 - Spurs fined, points deduction imposed based on financial irregularities of the Scholar era
2001 - ENIC purchases Spurs
2003 - Chelsea purchased by RA and proceed to lose £1M/week for next 13 years
2008 - City purchased by Abu Dhabi and proceed to invest in a way that has them facing 115 charges of financial irregularities
- Context - 2008-24, Chelsea and City win 30 of the available trophies (basically they win close to 2 of the trophies available each year between them)
2009 - Spurs applies for approval to build new stadium, approved in 2010 but CPO for the needed properties don't get approved until 2014
2019 - Stadium gets opened
2020 -2021 - Stadium closed to fans due to Covid, matchday revenue dropped from £95M to basically nothing for 2 years.
2021 - Saudi Sportswashing Machine purchased by Saudi group with £320B fund
2022 -Matchday revenue returns, Spurs matchday revenue crosses £106M
All of the above is fact, just data points
Let me give you an interpretation (so yes, this is opinion)
- Spurs wasn't a particularly relevant club pre the 50's
- 60's - 70's are heyday, no co-incidence that skews a lot of older fans perspective of Spurs, even in 70's there are a bunch of bottom half league finishes and relegation
- From the 80's the club is on a downward trajectory (some of that doesn't highlight itself until the 90's)
- In the 90's there are series of unfortunate events, loss of fiscal advantage from ITV deal, the close to bankruptcy, the failure to capitalize on the increased revenue of the PL & CL (that allows United, Woolwich, Liverpool in particular to pull away) that basically puts the club in hole that ENIC will have to dig out of.
- In the 2000's you get the addition of the money doping clubs (Chelsea & City) that creates a pool of 5 clubs we have severe financial & structural disadvantages against. (vs. the 80's where we were part of the "advantaged 5")
- Against that backdrop, the club under ENIC puts in consistently the best league form across the history of the club, while building WC infrastructure that will allow the club to compete.
In summary, my perspective is this view of "well, if ENIC had spent $30M more here or whatever decision you disagree with" is the reason Spurs isn't raking in the trophies is nonsense
- They have probably saved the club from being an Everton or West Ham, and future proofed it.
- Could they have done more? absolutely but this "worse owners ever narrative" just doesn't fly
- Would it be great to have owners who splash cash? sure (with the moral hypocrisy that comes with it)
Too lazy, but I could probably do a cup run view, i.e. the QF/SF/Finals/runner ups in ENICs time (last time I checked in was more than 22 in 24 years IIRC), so we haven't been out of cup contention, we just haven't converted (and that itself is a whole other conversation).
Let me start with, do I believe Spurs should have won more under current ownership in last 20 years? yes. However what you painted above is too simplistic a view, lacks nuance and misses out stuff
- Clubs successful periods are cyclic in nature, years/decades of success, followed by years/decades of drought. Forest, Leeds, Everton are easy examples of previously successful teams struggling but still around, you don't need me to go through the Championship and League 1 to point out "big" clubs that are no longer relevant. You starting your trophy view in 1950 is a perfect example of that (in a 40 year period we won more trophies than in the other 100+ years)
- Your view/picture (and this is the extremely frustrating part) looking at that, is basically Spurs were a great club and ENIC fudged it up and it's downhill since purchase, and that is wrong on so many levels it comes across as disingenuous/dishonest
Let me paint a picture slightly different
Trophies
- 1882 - 1950 (2 Trophies in 68 years)
- 1950 - 1989 (12 Trophies in 39 years, ~70% of all Spurs silverware)
- Context - 1980 -82 (2 of the 3 decade trophies pre Scholar purchase)
- 1990 - 2024 (3 trophies in 34 years)
League Positions (Top division only)
- 1900s: Positions 15th, 15th, 12th, 17th, 17th, 20th → Average: 16th
- 1920s: Positions 6th, 2nd, 12th, 15th, 12th, 15th, 13th, 21st → Average: 12th
- 1930s: Positions 3rd, 22nd → Average: 12.5th
- 1950s: Positions 1st, 2nd, 10th, 16th, 16th, 18th, 2nd, 3rd, 18th, 3rd → Average: 9.9th
- 1960s: Positions 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 3rd, 7th, 6th, 11th → Average: 5.1st
- 1970s: Positions 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 19th, 9th, 22nd, 11th, 14th → Average: 11.4th
- 1980s: Positions 10th, 4th, 4th, 8th, 3rd, 10th, 3rd, 13th, 6th, 3rd → Average: 6.4th
- 1990s: Positions 10th, 15th, 8th, 15th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 14th, 11th, 10th → Average: 10.8th
- 2000s: Positions 12th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 9th, 5th, 5th, 11th, 8th, 4th → Average: 9.1st
- 2010s: Positions 5th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th → Average: 4.8th
- 2020s: Positions 7th, 4th, 8th, 5th → Average: 6th
List of compelling events not listed above
1984 - Club purchased by Scholar
- Context - in 80's TV rights held by ITV, 5 teams including Spurs got 75% of TV revenue deal
1991 - Sold to Sugar on verge of bankruptcy
1992 - PL formed, CL formed
- Context, Sky takes over TV rights, now 50% of revenue is based on league finishes and number of times on tv
- Two decades follow where Spurs doesn't take advantage of new tv money
1994 - Spurs fined, points deduction imposed based on financial irregularities of the Scholar era
2001 - ENIC purchases Spurs
2003 - Chelsea purchased by RA and proceed to lose £1M/week for next 13 years
2008 - City purchased by Abu Dhabi and proceed to invest in a way that has them facing 115 charges of financial irregularities
- Context - 2008-24, Chelsea and City win 30 of the available trophies (basically they win close to 2 of the trophies available each year between them)
2009 - Spurs applies for approval to build new stadium, approved in 2010 but CPO for the needed properties don't get approved until 2014
2019 - Stadium gets opened
2020 -2021 - Stadium closed to fans due to Covid, matchday revenue dropped from £95M to basically nothing for 2 years.
2021 - Saudi Sportswashing Machine purchased by Saudi group with £320B fund
2022 -Matchday revenue returns, Spurs matchday revenue crosses £106M
All of the above is fact, just data points
Let me give you an interpretation (so yes, this is opinion)
- Spurs wasn't a particularly relevant club pre the 50's
- 60's - 70's are heyday, no co-incidence that skews a lot of older fans perspective of Spurs, even in 70's there are a bunch of bottom half league finishes and relegation
- From the 80's the club is on a downward trajectory (some of that doesn't highlight itself until the 90's)
- In the 90's there are series of unfortunate events, loss of fiscal advantage from ITV deal, the close to bankruptcy, the failure to capitalize on the increased revenue of the PL & CL (that allows United, Woolwich, Liverpool in particular to pull away) that basically puts the club in hole that ENIC will have to dig out of.
- In the 2000's you get the addition of the money doping clubs (Chelsea & City) that creates a pool of 5 clubs we have severe financial & structural disadvantages against. (vs. the 80's where we were part of the "advantaged 5")
- Against that backdrop, the club under ENIC puts in consistently the best league form across the history of the club, while building WC infrastructure that will allow the club to compete.
In summary, my perspective is this view of "well, if ENIC had spent $30M more here or whatever decision you disagree with" is the reason Spurs isn't raking in the trophies is nonsense
- They have probably saved the club from being an Everton or West Ham, and future proofed it.
- Could they have done more? absolutely but this "worse owners ever narrative" just doesn't fly
- Would it be great to have owners who splash cash? sure (with the moral hypocrisy that comes with it)
Too lazy, but I could probably do a cup run view, i.e. the QF/SF/Finals/runner ups in ENICs time (last time I checked in was more than 22 in 24 years IIRC), so we haven't been out of cup contention, we just haven't converted (and that itself is a whole other conversation).
Because they are selling brand awareness and their products
I just don’t see a FC needs to do the same. We don’t sell consumer products, travel, subscriptions etc.
Good post and a lot of facts but missing other facts look at attendances as a benchmark for the clubs size, and success not just trophies…. Also the glamour and prestige, the aura the world class players, the wealthy fanbase. Not all binary with trophies but needs to be considered
Bollox, boxing has been held at Tottenham since 1922.
Baldcunt built this stadium in 1922?
The point is dipshit, all our stadia for over 100 years have been used for boxing.
My point is - anything other than football makes Baldcunt hard.
That's the future to him.
"dipshit" lol
You can’t put a pound note figure on marketing or branding ROI. It’s always a punt. An argument I’m forever having, due to running a branding and marketing agency.
Two things are possible here i’d suggest:
1 - Levy had a figure in mind for the naming rights and wouldn’t move from it.
2 - He’s keeping the rights open for a prospective buyer to place their own name on the stadium.
I don’t think he’s turned down good money to improve brand awareness. He, like you, is a numbers guy. He’s not going to be talked into brand awareness strategies like this.
2 makes a lot of sense
This is wow factor tho
It always amuses me when some have a pop at Levy for holding concerts, NFL and boxing, etc in the stadium. as if these things has never happened before Levy/ENIC.
There's loads of reason to have a pop at Levy about, using the stadium for boxing, NFL, concerts.. isn't one of them IMO
Still gossip about Qatari investment and having a stadium they could name after Qatari National Bank or Ooredoo would certainly sweeten any deal.
More so than there still being seven years left on the Nike Stafium contract.
It’s idiotic. It’s boosted revenue into the club enormously. It matches CL revenue, meaning not getting CL doesn’t hurt us like it does some other teams.
Lots of shit to knock Levy for, but this isn’t one them.
Baldcunt is selling our soul.
And making us fools.
View: https://x.com/SkySportsBoxing/status/1916184397180555502
And making us fools.
View: https://x.com/SkySportsBoxing/status/1916184397180555502
But our man beat him
- Viddal Riley def. Cheavon Clarke (c) (UD 12); BBBofC Cruiserweight title
Spurs stories | Viddal Riley - one of our own chasing boxing glory on Saturday
Viddal Riley will live the dream on Saturday - a Spurs fan and boxer from Tottenham challenging for a British title at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - on the undercard of one of the biggest domestic fights in recent history.
www.tottenhamhotspur.com
The entire event seemed to be set up like WWE
- trying to create a local rivalry between two boxers no one would otherwise care about
- a failed weigh in
- Eubank snr magically turning up at the last minute, and both Benn's pretending to be shocked
- Eddie Hearn threatening to sue Eubank snr
It's make believe/pantomime, don't take it seriously.