• 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
Spursidol said:
The debt carries a fixed interest cost of circa 2.8% and average repayment of 20 years.

So enic has no incentive to pay it off early - impossible to get cheaper debt and they get a better return on money they could have used to pay off debt.

Same for buyers of Spurs - they would want to keep debt for as long a they could
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm confused with the part that the buyers would take on the stadium debt, so it's added to the overall package of the price of the club, I had been thinking the more the present owners of the club has paid off of that debt, the less debt the new owners would have to take over, but now it's meaning in my mind that it doesn't make any difference because if more debt is paid off by the present owners, it adds to the non-debt value, and the less debt they pay off adds to the added debt value to be part of any sale.

So the present owners may as well just say in any circumstance, the club has the same value regardless of how much of the debt we have paid off, because a buyer will have to pay off the remaining debt plus the part of the debt that has already been paid.

In effect it seems to me that a buyer will actually be paying the price of the stadium, including the part of the debt the present owners have already paid off, plus any remaining debt. So the new owners will effectively be buying the stadium twice, once for the actual stadium structure, and again by paying off the entire debt that ENIC took out to erect it,
 
Last edited:
McCOYS said:
I'm confused with the part that the buyers would take on the stadium debt, so it's added to the overall package of the price of the club, I'm thinking the more the present owners of the club has paid off of that debt, the less debt the new owners would have to take over, meaning in my mind that it doesn't make any difference because if more debt is paid off by the present owners, it adds to the non-debt value, and the less debt they pay off adds to the added debt value to be part of any sale.

So the present owners may as well just say in any circumstance, the club has the same value regardless of how much of the debt we have paid off, because a buyer will have to pay off the remaining debt plus the part of the debt that has already been paid will add to the non-debt value of the club.

In effect it seems to me that a buyer will actually be paying the price of the stadium, including the part of the debt the present owners have already paid off, plus any remaining debt. So the new owners will effectively be buying the stadium twice, once for the actual stadium structure, and again by paying off the entire debt that ENIC took out to erect it,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Its easier to think of the price that the purchasers pay for 100% of the equity is the 'value of the business' less any debt in the business (which whoever owns the business is responsible for paying off the debt)

It may make it easier to understand if the 3.3 bn or whatever the price paid is not specifically linked to the value of the assets whether stadium or squad value or any other assets - its whatever the highest amount the purchaser think its worth.

Valuing Spurs is not straight forward - and I'd guess US firms are likely to pay 'lots' in the hope that they can use Spurs stadium as a base to start an NFL team in UK/europe (and NFL teams in USA are very highly valued sports businesses) quite apart from getting Spurs to be a continual CL contender and getting the extra "100m or so that might come from that. But that's why people will value Spurs and then adjust that value for the debt to arrive at the price they are prepared to pay for 100% of the equity.
 
Bollocks the club’s not for sale!

They don’t suddenly kick out the guy they’ve tasked with looking after it for 25 years under the sudden interest of chasing on field success!

Levy was seen as an obstruction to the sale, nothing more!
 
Harrier said:
Bollocks the club’s not for sale!

They don’t suddenly kick out the guy they’ve tasked with looking after it for 25 years under the sudden interest of chasing on field success!

Levy was seen as an obstruction to the sale, nothing more!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There is a possibility that’s exactly what’s happened.

Joe in charge and happy to let Levy do his thing. This changes 12-18 months ago and Joe cedes control to his daughter, who has a different outlook to her dad. She wants to make the club more succesful and is willing to speculate, but Levy is still holding out on the FFP/PSR train. So she gets rid and is now able to do as she likes.

Plausible?
 
AberdeenYid said:
There is a possibility that’s exactly what’s happened.

Joe in charge and happy to let Levy do his thing. This changes 12-18 months ago and Joe cedes control to his daughter, who has a different outlook to her dad. She wants to make the club more succesful and is willing to speculate, but Levy is still holding out on the FFP/PSR train. So she gets rid and is now able to do as she likes.

Plausible?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Plausible, but I very much doubt that’s the real reason.

Joe Lewis has been in the background for some time, so where has the family investment been the last couple of years? I’m sure Levy wasn’t an obstruction to the family investing further in the club.
 
AberdeenYid said:
There is a possibility that’s exactly what’s happened.

Joe in charge and happy to let Levy do his thing. This changes 12-18 months ago and Joe cedes control to his daughter, who has a different outlook to her dad. She wants to make the club more succesful and is willing to speculate, but Levy is still holding out on the FFP/PSR train. So she gets rid and is now able to do as she likes.

Plausible?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Let's see how they move in January and the Summer.
 
AberdeenYid said:
There is a possibility that’s exactly what’s happened.

Joe in charge and happy to let Levy do his thing. This changes 12-18 months ago and Joe cedes control to his daughter, who has a different outlook to her dad. She wants to make the club more succesful and is willing to speculate, but Levy is still holding out on the FFP/PSR train. So she gets rid and is now able to do as she likes.

Plausible?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I hope that you are right
 
AberdeenYid said:
There is a possibility that’s exactly what’s happened.

Joe in charge and happy to let Levy do his thing. This changes 12-18 months ago and Joe cedes control to his daughter, who has a different outlook to her dad. She wants to make the club more succesful and is willing to speculate, but Levy is still holding out on the FFP/PSR train. So she gets rid and is now able to do as she likes.

Plausible?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doesn't seem that plausible to me but who knows? Would be nice.
 
Spursidol said:
Its easier to think of the price that the purchasers pay for 100% of the equity is the 'value of the business' less any debt in the business (which whoever owns the business is responsible for paying off the debt)

It may make it easier to understand if the 3.3 bn or whatever the price paid is not specifically linked to the value of the assets whether stadium or squad value or any other assets - its whatever the highest amount the purchaser think its worth.

Valuing Spurs is not straight forward - and I'd guess US firms are likely to pay 'lots' in the hope that they can use Spurs stadium as a base to start an NFL team in UK/europe (and NFL teams in USA are very highly valued sports businesses) quite apart from getting Spurs to be a continual CL contender and getting the extra "100m or so that might come from that. But that's why people will value Spurs and then adjust that value for the debt to arrive at the price they are prepared to pay for 100% of the equity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It has to be more than a coincidence that since Levy was sacked there's been two 'expressions of interest' regarding a takeover within three or four weeks,
 
Harrier said:
Plausible, but I very much doubt that’s the real reason.

Joe Lewis has been in the background for some time, so where has the family investment been the last couple of years? I’m sure Levy wasn’t an obstruction to the family investing further in the club.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do we know that Joe has been in the background for some time? I’d say that Vivienne being more involved in the last month would suggest that he ceded control more recently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top