• 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
deadleyledley said:
[1] Aside from the cash injection where 100m is nowhere near enough.

[2] The big thing for me is, are ENIC willing to take a loss on selling the mediocre players we have? Because that's what we will get offered from any club willing to take them off us.

[3] If we want to improve the squad now, it means doing the hard thing and selling for a loss. Then investing whatever we get in sales plus injection to get better quality profile players.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Commenting on your post in 3 separate component parts ...

1. £100m every year or so would be fantastic. PSR / FFP stops owners doing what Abramovich and Sheik Mansour did - pump in millions/ billions and spend it all on players. Drip feeding £50m in here and £100m in there means we maintain a healthy cash flow position and can keep spending as we have been for the last 3-4 years (where we have been one of the biggest spenders in world football). Importantly, ENIC are using their own money and not borrowing against the club.

2. Taking a loss on a player is a complicated topic. For example, we spent £50m on Richarlison 4 years ago. Due to player amortisation / depreciation, his fee was spread over 5 years on our books. So he is currently worth £10m as an asset from a regulatory perspective (PSR). If we sold him for £30m now we'd make a £20m profit and not a £20m loss. Next summer it would be pure profit. As Bentancur has renewed his contract, if we sold him next summer whatever we received would also be pure profit. I'd happily sell Richy, Johnson and Bentancur next summer if it meant we spent £200m on a CF, LWF and DCM.

3. I think we're almost at the point where our squad is pretty deep / good, but we need to add real first team ready quality. So instead of buying 7 players (for £30-£40m) we only need to buy 2-3 for £70-80m each). Same budget - less players. Next summer I really want a top CF, DCM and LWF. But to do that we need to make space and ensure we stay inside PSR. So we need to offload 3 or 4 players.
 
McCOYS said:
I'm saying that ENIC own more of the football club now after the £100m cash injection, hence the minority investors own less. That minority investors reduction has effectively created the £100m. The club's value hasn't increased because the £100m is going to be spent on players and whatnot.

It's written on this website. The section is titled ''Ownership Power Play'',

''While fans focus on transfer potential, the bigger story may be within the club’s ownership structure. ENIC’s injection now means that their stake in the club has risen from 86.91% to 87.62%.''

thefightingcock.co.uk

More than money: What ENIC’s £100m injection really means for Spurs

The injection arrives just weeks after a quiet but monumental change
thefightingcock.co.uk thefightingcock.co.uk
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, that's not how it works.

You don' t need to read an article to know that ENIC's % increased - I've already gone over it a few times since, and I'm sure it is on the club announcement itself.

If you put £100m into a club, that club is - at that point - worth £100m more. The minority owners own less of the overall value, but they still retain the same value of investment.

Otherwise, it would be a weird scenario where you could put £1bn into the club, effectively dissolving the minority share, then take it all back out again. That isn't how share issuance works though.
 
Didn’t they (ENIC) just fund this via the TV rights loan for the £100m?

Confused Confusion GIF
 
spids said:
I am lucky enough to work for a Global technology company operating in over 200 countries, and am in a position where I present to the board regularly (as an employee / executive subject matter expert in a specific area). A successful board usually has about 10-12 members:
  • Non-Executive Chair (for us it's Peter Charrington)
  • Executive CEO (for us it's Vinai)
  • Executive CFO (for us it's Matthew Collecott performs this role but is a finance director rather than a CFO)
  • 6 - 8 Non Executive Directors (NEDs)
Each NED typically has deep knowledge and experience in an area of expertise that will help review the organisation's progress against strategy, ensure the executives are making the best decisions, and provide assurance to the shareholders. Boards typically meet quarterly, and the meetings last over 2-3 days and review every aspect of the business and strategy. The board is responsible for hiring and firing the CEO, so Vinai will be under the microscope. Also shows how things have changed for the better from when Levy was both the CEO and Chairman (talk about conflict of interest!). This set up is why most informed observers expect a new CFO to be appointed by the end of the company's financial year (which runs to the end of June).

I would expect us to have a collection of NEDs who have specialist knowledge and experience in one of the following types of areas:
  • Football administration and regulation
  • Football scouting and transfers
  • Medical (sport specific)
  • Commercial revenue
  • Marketing
  • Communications
  • Sponsorship deals
  • Property management
  • Football finance
Daniel Levy would actually make an amazing NED for a football club. If I was a big European club I would be knocking Levy's door down to appoint him as a subject matter expert NED on Football administration and regulation, to guide the board and owners on their strategy to navigate the complex regulations now in place. Obviously wouldn't listen to a word he says on transfers ... ;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Levy is more of a NOB than a NED though of course
 
Zest said:
So, we got £200m, woohoo. £100m to oil the wheels, then a chunk of the £100m in interest on the £100m…

Expect its possibly good for two extra £40m signings then, we’ll see.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The way we pay for players is over time. Therefore we can spend more than £100m as we are only paying the first instalment in the first year. The downside of that is we still owe a lot on players bought over the past few years.
 
Zest said:
So, we got £200m, woohoo. £100m to oil the wheels, then a chunk of the £100m in interest on the £100m…

Expect its possibly good for two extra £40m signings then, we’ll see.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think it is all to do with cash flow and easing that somewhat.

ENIC have said they want to reduce the debt the club has going forward so will probably look to knock off some of the transfer debt as and when. As for the stadium, we are only paying off the interest so far. A long way to go on that.
 
Brian Fantana said:
I think it is all to do with cash flow and easing that somewhat.

ENIC have said they want to reduce the debt the club has going forward so will probably look to knock off some of the transfer debt as and when. As for the stadium, we are only paying off the interest so far. A long way to go on that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thought the Pilot Exec might well be for sponsorship, which would make us flush for 2-3 windows more. SpaceX Arena incoming, more likely Boring Arena knowing our luck!
 
I'm going to maintain this until end of January. Start taking big strides to fix this monstrosity of a squad or fuck off. Been here long enough this shit is totally unacceptable.
 
Heres the difference between the big clubs and Spurs

The big clubs would make a striker their number 1 priority in January and make a huge signing no matter the cost. A proper signing.

Spurs simply wont do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top