• 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
Spurs fans being entitled , not having patience, what a ridiculous argument.
22 years of mediocre football and results while our London neighbours have won cups and leagues.
Some people will defend ENIC regardless, we are finishing the season without a manager for the second time in three years and still ENIC can do no wrong.
Its very hard to compete, we don't have the money, progress is difficult, blah , blah, excuse after excuse, after excuse.

And I tell you something else, the standard the Chicken in the Chicken shop in the ground has gone right down hill, maybe you could pass that message on to your overloads.
 
Top_Spur said:
So what does the half hearted 'Levy Out' chant achieve when we're losing but when we're winning there's no chant?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Here's the funny thing: If the players try their best and play entertaining football under the watchful eye of an invested manager who knows how to use his squad effectively, with proper backing, intelligent recruitment and a can-do attitude from the man upstairs, they may not need to sing it at all.

Personally, I think everybody should turn up in black cloakes and get properly Hot Fuzz about it all, stare at Levy in his little ivory tower box and slowly chant...

7icel0.jpg
 
BernardMatthews said:
The problem is that since 1983 footballers wages and the money involved in football has increased at a far more significant amount than the average wage.

You can’t compare 1983 to 2023. It’s pointless.

Like looking at the breakdown of our UEFA cup team / squad of 1984 and replicating that next year. Those days have gone.

Harry Kane earns £200k a week before tax just from Spurs.
If you earn 1% of that you are doing quite well in life.

That’s just 1 player. Funding this game is something I just can’t justify.

Insanity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you earned 1% of Kanes income then you would still be in the top 3% of U.K. earners.
 
LeParisien said:
I think you’ve developed tunnel vision and you’ve forgotten what was being discussed.

The key point was that an increase in the value of the club does not imply a corresponding increase in the clubs liquidity (ie capacity to spend).

Taking out loans to build a stadium is a normal thing to do and the debt is secured against an asset with a stable value. I think you’re getting confused by the amortisation schedule which does not represent the true value of the stadium. It’s an accounting practice. It also ignores that the stadium generates revenue. Unless you want to argue that the stadium debt is unmanageable then this is a dead end.

Taking out loans to spend on players is a lot more risky because their values are not stable. Ndombele is a good example. He was worth 55m until he wasn’t. If players guaranteed the same returns as a stadium then taking out loans to buy them would be a good idea. They don’t.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think you don't have a clue... Liquidity relates to the ease with which you cash in your assets. If my assets are valuable but hard to turn in to cash I can still borrow against those assets which will determine my ability to spend.

By the way I used the term amortisation rather depreciation to see if you had the slightest clue in what your talking about. You got caught!

Amortisation is set against non tangible assets. In terms of the stadium it's tangible so it is depreciation which is used. For spurs the stadium depreciation is set at 30m pa at present. In accounting depreciation and amortisation do not ignore revenue, it I simply another part of the accepted practice.

Your point that the stadium is some great money making machine is incorrect, it's like saying owning a factory makes you money. It's the end product which does that.

The fact is levy borrowed the clubs money to build the stadium, that in short term at least increases the value of his shares in spurs. Meanwhile we have a shit product as witnessed by yesterdays debacle after shit poor investment. The stadium means little without an end product.
 
LeParisien said:
they’re not. Google gives incorrect information because it confuses wealth with income. The top 1% are earning about £3000 per week.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even worse then isn’t it. Average cost of taking a family of 4 to a Spurs game £300??

But there is no way i’m the same bracket as a professional footballer or even a stockbroker earning a £500k bonus.

Maybe the top 0.25% are making all the big money then.

Where are you getting your information from??
 
StevenPL said:
I think you don't have a clue... Liquidity relates to the ease with which you cash in your assets. If my assets are valuable but hard to turn in to cash I can still borrow against those assets which will determine my ability to spend.

By the way I used the term amortisation rather depreciation to see if you had the slightest clue in what your talking about. You got caught!

Amortisation is set against non tangible assets. In terms of the stadium it's tangible so it is depreciation which is used. For spurs the stadium depreciation is set at 30m pa at present. In accounting depreciation and amortisation do not ignore revenue, it I simply another part of the accepted practice.

Your point that the stadium is some great money making machine is incorrect, it's like saying owning a factory makes you money. It's the end product which does that.

The fact is levy borrowed the clubs money to build the stadium, that in short term at least increases the value of his shares in spurs. Meanwhile we have a shit product as witnessed by yesterdays debacle after shit poor investment. The stadium means little without an end product.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don’t know why you gave a definition of liquidity. What was wrong about what I said?

I’ll repeat it:

“an increase in the value of the club does not imply a corresponding increase in the clubs liquidity (ie capacity to spend).”

Liquidity (in context) is absolutely about our capacity to spent on players. That’s what we’re talking about.

The value of the stadium is largely irrelevant to that because we’re not selling it any time soon. The amortisation of the stadium is not relevant to our capacity to spend.

The increase in revenue the new stadium generates is absolutely relevant to our capacity to spend. To suggest it’s only the football in the pitch that earns income is obviously false. What !!?

You need to tie your knowledge to the argument at hand instead of just spitting out something you read in a text book ten years ago.
 
BernardMatthews said:
Even worse then isn’t it. Average cost of taking a family of 4 to a Spurs game £300??

But there is no way i’m the same bracket as a professional footballer or even a stockbroker earning a £500k bonus.

Maybe the top 0.25% are making all the big money then.

Where are you getting your information from??
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Percentile points from 1 to 99 for total income before and after tax

This table shows the percentile points of the income distribution, estimated from the Survey of Personal Incomes each year.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

:)

Best viewed from a computer
 
LeParisien said:
I don’t know why you gave a definition of liquidity. What was wrong about what I said?

I’ll repeat it:

“an increase in the value of the club does not imply a corresponding increase in the clubs liquidity (ie capacity to spend).”

Liquidity (in context) is absolutely about our capacity to spent on players. That’s what we’re talking about.

The value of the stadium is largely irrelevant to that because we’re not selling it any time soon. The amortisation of the stadium is not relevant to our capacity to spend.

The increase in revenue the new stadium generates is absolutely relevant to our capacity to spend. To suggest it’s only the football in the pitch that earns income is obviously false. What !!?

You need to tie your knowledge to the argument at hand instead of just spitting out something you read in a text book ten years ago.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You just talk utter rubbish. My point is about the loan and how that translates to the clubs books and the ownership of the club.

You've decided to redefine liquidity. Again this is how liquid someones assets are, ie how interchangable they are for cash or the demand in the marketplace for such an asset. It does not relate directly to what they can or can't spend on. If I have highly liquid assets but a turnover resulting in less than my costs and accrue debt, I can exchange an asset for cash to pay my costs ie my debt, the liquidity of my asset allowed me to pay off an existing debt not spend more....

Again with amortisation because I threw it in just to watch you fall down trying to use it. But your still at it....... Tangible/ intangible...

Having the best stadium means jack. It's the football on the pitch which will decide how many season tickets we sell, the sponsorship deal we get, and tbrevenie from Europe, youve also missed the costs associated with the stadium..the interest on the loan etc etc etc

Levys investment in the stadium resulting in a period of under and poor investment in the team is starting to bear fruit... Your view still relates to buying a house, its almost levy like, you believe we are nothing more than a real estate deal. Have you confused us with field of dreams.
 
StevenPL said:
You just talk utter rubbish. My point is about the loan and how that translates to the clubs books and the ownership of the club.

You've decided to redefine liquidity. Again this is how liquid someones assets are, ie how interchangable they are for cash or the demand in the marketplace for such an asset. It does not relate directly to what they can or can't spend on. If I have highly liquid assets but a turnover resulting in less than my costs and accrue debt, I can exchange an asset for cash to pay my costs ie my debt, the liquidity of my asset allowed me to pay off an existing debt not spend more....

Again with amortisation because I threw it in just to watch you fall down trying to use it. But your still at it....... Tangible/ intangible...

Having the best stadium means jack. It's the football on the pitch which will decide how many season tickets we sell, the sponsorship deal we get, and tbrevenie from Europe, youve also missed the costs associated with the stadium..the interest on the loan etc etc etc

Levys investment in the stadium resulting in a period of under and poor investment in the team is starting to bear fruit... Your view still relates to buying a house, its almost levy like, you believe we are nothing more than a real estate deal. Have you confused us with field of dreams.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This argument is funny if you take a step back. My training is in law, I assume yours is accountancy?

I’m asking you to follow the argument being made which you seem incapable of doing. You are repeating some abstract points that don’t relate at all to the argument being made.

I’m not interested in considering a broad discussion on the definition of liquidity. I’m interested in whether the increase in the value of the club since ENIC took over implies greater liquidity and therefore a greater capacity to spend on players. It does not.

Unless you’re going to speak to that specific point then don’t reply! I disagree with many things you said but I won’t be distracted from the argument made. I did not ask you to jump in on my conversation with someone else but if you have something useful to add then go ahead!
 
i think this is the first season i can remember where people will only be excited about next season if we shift certain players. its not going to matter who comes in. theres players here who it is vital they get shifted not just because they are not good enough but because they are part of a big culture problem at the club. soft losers who just dont cut the mustard and have proven that time and time again.

dier, sanchez, lloris, davies, son, kane, lucas.

the only 2 id keep is kane, and davies for the bench, but even if kane goes as long as its a mass clearout of that lot i dont think its the end of the world.

if the first game of next year we have lloris and dier starting at the back then its another year down the drain.
 
Last edited:
AberdeenYid said:
I’d say there’s around ten posters on here that are consistently anti ENIC. You are probably the only one I don’t have on ignore, due to the sheer repetition of the output.

To them (and you), all praise for at least sticking to your convictions. Whilst I don’t agree with how it’s done on here a lot of the time, I honestly have more time for these convictions than I do the fair-weather version of changing every week.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You are an impeccable judge of character Aberdeen
 
BernardMatthews said:
The problem is that since 1983 footballers wages and the money involved in football has increased at a far more significant amount than the average wage.

You can’t compare 1983 to 2023. It’s pointless.

Like looking at the breakdown of our UEFA cup team / squad of 1984 and replicating that next year. Those days have gone.

Harry Kane earns £200k a week before tax just from Spurs.
If you earn 1% of that you are doing quite well in life.

That’s just 1 player. Funding this game is something I just can’t justify.

Insanity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And...
Every team has to deal with this...not one of them charge the same as us for tickets.
The football we play is the most boring in the league and we never come close to winning anything. Top 4 is the priority and that comes from the bald goblin at the top.
Unfortunately the same goblin expects miracles from the managers having to use shite like Dier and Sanchez. Hopefully things get very rough for him in the next few weeks
 
This is the emotional roller coaster that is being a fan , am I still pissed off about yesterday ?
Yes

Now Woolwich just screwed up and 23 hours has passed am I a s angry as last night ?
No

Do I still want ENIC out ?
Yes

Is the thought of them staying giving me indigestion as it did at 5.00 pm yesterday?
No

I suspect others are the same
 
Archie said:
And...
Every team has to deal with this...not one of them charge the same as us for tickets.
The football we play is the most boring in the league and we never come close to winning anything. Top 4 is the priority and that comes from the bald goblin at the top.
Unfortunately the same goblin expects miracles from the managers having to use shite like Dier and Sanchez. Hopefully things get very rough for him in the next few weeks
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Supply and demand though. We have high ticket prices. We sell out every home league games every other week.

Tells you the prices are correct doesn’t it? People see enough value to keep paying the money. Like addicts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top