• 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!

Manager Antonio Conte

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Matt1882 said:
You keep saying this but that's not how it works.
If they sold 10% they have 10% less of the income the club generates so they keep it. They don't sell 10% of the club for say £200,000,000 and spend it on players.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They can structure it however they want to structure it. They give up a 10% stake (only relevant when the club is sold) and in turn use that to reinvest. If the club is successful and the 200M increases the value of the club by say 500M, it’s win/win/win (ENIC/10% investor/fans)

They don’t take any of our income now, it’s the clubs
 
Matt1882 said:
You keep saying this but that's not how it works.
If they sold 10% they have 10% less of the income the club generates so they keep it. They don't sell 10% of the club for say £200,000,000 and spend it on players.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It’s a form speculate to accumulate. You issue equity which dilutes yours shares but the invested cash gets you CL football, better sponsorship, if the team does well you can even sell some players. So the overall asset increases which offsets the 10% dilution of shares.

My feeling as to why they haven’t done this is they think player investment is a gamble unlike stadium investment and obviously the impact of control on the club.
 
Zomb said:
They can structure it however they want to structure it. They give up a 10% stake (only relevant when the club is sold) and in turn use that to reinvest. If the club is successful and the 200M increases the value of the club by say 500M, it’s win/win/win (ENIC/10% investor/fans)

They don’t take any of our income now, it’s the clubs
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Tomo said:
It’s a form speculate to accumulate. You issue equity which dilutes yours shares but the invested cash gets you CL football, better sponsorship, if the team does well you can even sell some players. So the overall asset increases which offsets the 10% dilution of shares.

My feeling as to why they haven’t done this is they think player investment is a gamble unlike stadium investment and obviously the impact of control on the club.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's no evidence whatsover that these parasites want to put any money into THFC that doesn' increase revenue. Like, guaranteed increases. As Tomo alludes to, they'd rather spend it on something that makes more money than gamble it on players. A gamble we keep losing.
 
Tomo said:
It’s a form speculate to accumulate. You issue equity which dilutes yours shares but the invested cash gets you CL football, better sponsorship, if the team does well you can even sell some players. So the overall asset increases which offsets the 10% dilution of shares.

My feeling as to why they haven’t done this is they think player investment is a gamble unlike stadium investment and obviously the impact of control on the club.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree but if Lewis won’t speculate, they will be forced to rethink. Teams like Villa, Brighton and Everton can outspend us….
 
Matt1882 said:
There's no evidence whatsover that these parasites want to put any money into THFC that doesn' increase revenue. Like, guaranteed increases. As Tomo alludes to, they'd rather spend it on something that makes more money than gamble it on players. A gamble we keep losing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If the value of the club starts to drop (which it will), they have to act. Our revenue is down c.25% over last three years, Whilst Chelsea’s has increased (so can’t solely hide behind Covid). This is a key metric to the perceived value (sale price). If we were a listed company, Levy would be long gone
 
Zomb said:
Greedy ENIC see it as 250M lost as opposed to turn it into an extra 500/750M
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fag packet figures, but lets assume as half-decent CL run = 100m p/a.

ENIC throws 250m no-strings into the trf pot.

Accepting that the £250m was figuratively speaking the 'entrance fee' to get there. you'd think a large amount of the fans would then expect to see that 100m per year channeled back into "better players" and "bigger wages" because of being in the CL.

On what basis are the fans going to accept ENIC saying "oooh, look we've been in the CL for five seasons.... We want to take 1/2 bn in cash out of the club"?

Not very likely to be well recieved is it? People would want to see that level of spending maintained, not to drop back to recent levels after 1 window.

Then in terms of any kickback to ENICs pocket.....

Not saying it wouldn't be nice, but even removing 100% of any consideration of risk, it's not as simple as CL = all the associated income = profit to go back in ENIC's pocket....... There's player bonuses, payrises and sustaining the level of trf activity to keep up there to factor in too.

In reality, in that scenario of 5 x year = 500m, any lkely kickback to ENIC would be a fraction of said CL income.



TLDR?

This is where the talk of sustainability comes back into play..... If we can get 250m from sellgin shares, then blinding let's go; I'm keen. However, in terms of guaranteeing top 4 and sustaining a level of activity to keep us in a title race every year? 250 is a minor blip... Look at our summer 19/20.... Goons this year..... Everton when they went 'big'.....


Can't think who said it, but whilst CL income is lovely.... It's not very likely that ENIC will take great risks to get it.
 
Last edited:
Airfixx said:
Fag packet figures, but lets assume as half-decent CL run = 100m p/a.

ENIC throws 250m no-strings into the trf pot.

Accepting that the £250m was figuratively speaking the 'entrance fee' to get there. would you a large amount of the fans to then expect to see that 100m per year channeled back into "better players" and "bigger wages" because of being in the CL.

On what basis are the fans going to accept ENIC saying "oooh, look we've been in the CL for five seasons.... We want to take 1/2 bn in cash out of the club"?

Not very likely to be well recieved is it? People would want to see that level of spending maintained, not to drop back to recent levels after 1 window.

Then in terms of any kickback to ENICs pocket.....

Not saying it wouldn't be nice, but even removing 100% of any consideration of risk, it's not as simple as CL = all the associated income = profit to go back in ENIC's pocket....... There's player bonuses, payrises and sustaining the level of trf activity to keep up there to factor in too.

In reality, in that scenario of 5 x year = 500m, any lkely kickback to ENIC would be a fraction of said CL income.

TLDR?

This is where the talk of sustainability comes back into play..... If we can get 250m from sellgin shares, then blinding let's go; I'm keen. However, in terms of guaranteeing top 4 and sustaining a level of activity to keep us in a title race every year? 250 is a minor blip... Look at our summer 19/20.... Goons this year..... Everton when they went 'big'.....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are indirect revenue upsides to being successful….. tickets sold, brand, player value increases, sponsorship, PL placing etc etc

Agree 250m doesn’t guarantee it, but our current as is policy guarantees we won’t finish in the top 4 or win things other than the odd outlier

There is no kickback to ENIC, why should there be? The kick back comes when the club is sold (for a higher price)
 
Zomb said:
There are indirect revenue upsides to being successful….. tickets sold, brand, player value increases, sponsorship, PL placing etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I understand this..... But you do understand that CL (and associated income) is FAR from pure profit?

500/700 actual NET profit (as per your OG post) would require - at a conservative guess - well over a decade of sustained, fairly successful CL football.

Zomb said:
Agree 250m doesn’t guarantee it, but our current as is policy guarantees we won’t finish in the top 4 or win things other than the odd outlier
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A one-off 250m spend up doesn't amount to a change in policy though.... (Very part of the message in you post).

It's just a welcome boost.
 
Zomb said:
If the value of the club starts to drop (which it will), they have to act. Our revenue is down c.25% over last three years, Whilst Chelsea’s has increased (so can’t solely hide behind Covid). This is a key metric to the perceived value (sale price). If we were a listed company, Levy would be long gone
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hopefully their act is to jump out of a skyscraper window like the NY stock exchange crash.
 
Zomb said:
If the value of the club starts to drop (which it will), they have to act. Our revenue is down c.25% over last three years, Whilst Chelsea’s has increased (so can’t solely hide behind Covid). This is a key metric to the perceived value (sale price). If we were a listed company, Levy would be long gone
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In theory, you could 'sack' Levy tomorrow.... It won't make the OWNERSHIP invest any more money.... Which, let's face, it is the bottom line of what most people want.

ENIC own 85% of Spurs.
Levy owns approx 28% of ENIC.
 
Loda said:
By the way , he is no better manager than Jose Mourinho , ask any Inter or Chelsea fans they would tell you that , he never outdone
whatever Mourinho did at both club , he won 1 epl at Chelsea , Mou won 3 , he won serie A, Mou has treble

No point in sacking Mourinho if you end up hiring someone who would turn toxic even faster if you don't give him the money.
Don't give me crap like he just won serie A so he is a manager in his prime not finished, i mean do you think Mourinho wouldn't win serie A if he was allowed to recruit 22 new players at Inter within 2 seasons ?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Jose just spent more than any other side in Serie A and currently has Roma 6th, and 7th if Fiorentina win their game in hand. They've also not won a single 'big game' all season and he's done his usual toxic routine. The man also spent insane amounts (like, hundreds and hundreds of millions) at United only to leave them in mid table. Ole was far better with the same squad. Fucking Ole.

Stop this Jose apologist nonsense, please. Ask any Chelsea fan who was better for them in recent history and they'll say Conte. All of them were more worried about us hiring Conte than they were us hiring Jose. I'm sure Inter fans may say differently because they had Jose IN HIS PRIME. The current Mourinho is a fucking shadow of his former self, eaten up by bitterness and no longer even remotely charming or funny, just a shell.

Also those '22 new players' included guys like Young, Moses, Sanchez, Kolarov, Darmian, Perisic etc. Hardly sparkling new signings. Many of these players Jose had at United but couldn't get a tune out of them, and instead he whined about not being backed. Same with fucking Lukaku under Jose vs Conte. Different player entirely.
 
Airfixx said:
I understand this..... But you do understand that CL (and associated income) is FAR from pure profit?

500/700 actual NET profit (as per your OG post) would require - at a conservative guess - well over a decade of sustained, fairly successful CL football.



A one-off 250m spend up doesn't amount to a change in policy though.... (Very part of the message in you post).

It's just a welcome boost.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Conte spent 200M at Inter. They won the league and every played increased in value by 30-50%. It would transform us IMO
 
Airfixx said:
In theory, you could 'sack' Levy tomorrow.... It won't make the OWNERSHIP invest any more money.... Which, let's face, it is the bottom line of what most people want.

ENIC own 85% of Spurs.
Levy owns approx 28% of ENIC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agree hence the listed comparison. However, A new CEO without a 30% stake would be a big plus for me….. and potentially see a change in strategy

He’s naturally risk averse, and it’s his pension and wealth so you can arguably see why he is reluctant to take risks
 
Airfixx said:
On what basis are the fans going to accept ENIC saying "oooh, look we've been in the CL for five seasons.... We want to take 1/2 bn in cash out of the club"?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Btw, they essentially did this over the last decade; only they part-built a stadium with the proceeds.... And look at the endless uproar surrounding that!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top