Management ENIC

[Shadydan]

If Liverpool are a "well run club" despite not having one of the top 4 wage bills, nor a high net spend, how is this whole topic even valid? Surely you can see that? You said "This is a factual argument though" and "they are the literal example that we should be following"

Click to shrink...

If they haven't got top 4 wages yet are competing consistently then what does that tell you?

- They haven't once switched their strategy and hired a manager who isn't alike their previous one.
- They go and always back their managers with first choice or good quality signings .
- They are paying the wages for their superstar players.
- They supplement those players with good squad players.

This is what separates them from us...as I keep saying and as you keep ignoring, the wage argument wouldn't even be a massive thing had we tried to show the same ambition as them, they are trying to win by doing all of the above whilst we are not.

If ENIC raised our wage bill and by that I mean target players who will push us over the bracket the calls would die down because at least then it looks as if they are trying to compete - that's the frustration, you can't run the club the way you are and have such a low wage bill, like I said it's not sustainable.

 

[dudu]

When the new stadium revenue started flowing, our capacity in the transfer market increased with it, though still lagging behind all competitors on a ratio to turnover basis as the numbers have continued to demonstrate. And still within the straightjacket of a mentality that looks at players as a portfolio of liabilities to be managed rather than first and foremost a football team.

Managers and recruitment chiefs are brought to the club in order to extract maximum points out of a player portfolio built on deals and swindles and angles to be "smarter than the market".

All tactics and no strategy.

Ndombele was a big outlay and a sincere attempt to add a prime age elite player to replace what Dembele had done for us, there's no denying any of that. The failures of the Levy regime are at the margin, it's not as if we totally eschew player purchases (except for when we did).

But just to be accurate, Liverpool bought a goalkeeper for the same price as Ndombele that same summer, and had paid well more than that to activate Virgil Van Dijk's release clause on the first day of the January window the year before.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure that since the Sheikh's takeover of Man City, Spurs have at every point retained the lowest club record transfer of the entire "Big Six"

Click to shrink...

Again - that doesnt track for all our players Davinson Sanchez is another example - we paid what 48million for him - and he was in the top 5-10 of any fee paid for a defender in the league- some, sure, but this is quite common for clubs to buy players to make a profit on further down the line.

Look at Liverpool with Endo and Diaz who is still on 55k a week btw - Mane's replacement, for example.

Whilst you are

This is what I'm talking about btw

Look at the gap between us and our top 5 'rivals' and then look at the gap to the teams below us

Premier League Wages | FBref.com

Check out 2025-2026 for the Premier League Wages season.

fbref.com

You can go back to 2013/14 and you will see how far we've been off our rivals and how big the gap has been.

Click to shrink...

But you have to look deeper -

Liverpools difference is a Mo Salah. Who has been there for how long? One player -

Arsneals is a huge amount wasted on players that barely contribute.

This table does not tell the story

 

[Shadydan]

But you have to look deeper -

Liverpools difference is a Mo Salah. Who has been there for how long? One player -

Arsneals is a huge amount wasted on players that barely contribute.

This table does not tell the story

Click to shrink...

Liverpool have Salah and Van Dijk out in front to be fair but Liverpool are the anomaly anyway as discussed.

Woolwich are an interesting case, they have 5 players over the £200k mark and 6 between £150k and £200k, there's a reason they went from 6th to 3rd on their wage bill and closed the gap to the top teams, look at the gap between them and City for example and then look at the gap between them and us.

 

[Kevin Ball]

Davinson Sanchez, Foyth, Aurier, Llorente joined in August 2017 (Summer window 17/18)
Lucas Moura joined in January 2018 (Winter window 17/18)
We then had no major incomings in 18/19 (two windows)
Clarke and Ndombele joined in July 2019, with Sess a month later (Summer window 19/20)

Click to shrink...

Yes I've just double checked sorry I got it wrong - I thought Lucas Moura came in summer window 17/18 that's where I went wrong

You haven't answered my question - where did the £178mil Champions League money go to ? Because we didn't spend it on players .

 

[dudu]

Liverpool have Salah and Van Dijk out in front to be fair but Liverpool are the anomaly anyway as discussed.

Woolwich are an interesting case, they have 5 players over the £200k mark and 6 between £150k and £200k, there's a reason they went from 6th to 3rd on their wage bill and closed the gap to the top teams, look at the gap between them and City for example and then look at the gap between them and us.

Click to shrink...

Yeah OK fair. And had they actually spent those wages on good/fit strikers they may have actually won something.

 

[Spanish Spur]

It's not the 90s anymore, they wouldn't have played together.

Click to shrink...

I sometimes wonder what a good team with the right players nowadays would look like playing a traditional 4-4-2

 

[FightingIllini]

I sometimes wonder what a good team with the right players nowadays would look like playing a traditional 4-4-2

Click to shrink...

With the way that the old school 4-4-2's so often had one of the strikers operating in a Sheringham-esque second striker "in the pocket" creative role, there's really not a super meaningful difference between that and the bog standard 4-2-3-1 you see everywhere these days.

Poch defended in a 4-4-2 and depending on Dele's mood basically attacked in one as well.

 

[Spanish Spur]

I know you keep posting it but I want to make sure.

You realise "wages to turnover" is massively favouring badly-run clubs don't you? Like clubs who don't make a lot of money

For like the 10000th time, have you seen Real Madrid right next to us? It isn't what you think it is, as much as the patronising GIF attempts.

In addition "spending money on the squad" is not the same as "how much our first 11 cost". We're nearly £400m in the hole from Postecoglu alone, spending money on players that just haven't worked out.

Click to shrink...

We’re rebuilding an entire young squad from the last one that fizzled out. We haven’t even finished doing that. That’s without fine tuning and upgrading with marquee signings. 400 million is cheap

 

[CJJ]

We’re rebuilding an entire young squad from the last one that fizzled out. We haven’t even finished doing that. That’s without fine tuning and upgrading with marquee signings. 400 million is cheap

Click to shrink...

Was more of an observation that we've spent far, far more than liverpool over the past 5 years, despite the comments in a few threads making it sound like the opposite.

 

[CJJ]

Yes I've just double checked sorry I got it wrong - I thought Lucas Moura came in summer window 17/18 that's where I went wrong

You haven't answered my question - where did the £178mil Champions League money go to ? Because we didn't spend it on players .

Click to shrink...

We spent around £150m on transfer fees alone in the season after the CL final.

As per the other post, we're over £500m in the red for transfers since then (ref)

 

[walter]

Of course it is - is basically proves that within the top 6-7 annual salaries in the league, there is basically no correlation between league finish that suggests that paying more yields a better finish.

The club with the highest wage bill has not won the league within the last 10 seasons (probably longer, if we wanted to carry on looking).

As you can see below, in every season since 15/16, a team from outside the top-four salaries has finished in the top 4 places.

Season	Champions	Runner-up	Third Place	Fourth Place
24/25	Liverpool [5th]	Woolwich [4th]	Man City [1st]	Chelsea [3rd]
23/24	Man City [2nd]	Woolwich [3rd]	Liverpool [5th]	Aston Villa [7th]
22/23	Man City [2nd]	Woolwich [6th]	Man Utd [1st]	Newcastle [9th]
21/22	Man City [3rd]	Liverpool [4th]	Chelsea [2nd]	Tottenham [6th]
20/21	Man City [4th]	Man Utd [1st]	Liverpool [6th]	Chelsea [2nd]
19/20	Liverpool [5th]	Man City [2nd]	Man Utd [1st]	Chelsea [3rd]
18/19	Man City [3rd]	Liverpool [5th]	Chelsea [1st]	Tottenham [6th]
17/18	Man City [3rd]	Man Utd [1st]	Tottenham [7th]	Liverpool [5th]
16/17	Chelsea [4th]	Tottenham [7th]	Man City [2nd]	Liverpool [5th]
15/16	Leicester [17th]	Woolwich [4th]	Tottenham [7th]	Man City [1st]

So, to summarise again, this time in the last 10 seasons:

• Not once has there been an exact correlation between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th biggest salary bill and finishing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
• 1st in the salary league has not finished 1st in the league, and has only ever finished 2nd twice
• 2nd in the salary league has finished 2nd only once (Man City, 19/20)
• 3rd in the salary league has not finished 3rd in the league, but has won it 3 times
• 4th in the salary league has not finished 4th in the league, but has won it twice
• The top 4 in the league has never contained all of the top 4 paying teams

and

• The Champions are, more often than not, the 3rd highest paying team.
• 50% of the title winners have been 4th highest paying or lower
• The runners up, more often than not, the 4th highest paying team.
• The highest paying team, more often than not, finish 3rd.

The only thing you could gather from the data is that being within the top 6-7 paying teams will typically result in a top 6-7 finish. Within that group, it is mostly random as to where you'd finish when trying to associate that to total wage bill

Click to shrink...

Do you know what that table shows? A strong correlation between wages and league position.

Just because the league doesn't finish in strict order every season with the highest paid team in 1st, the second highest in second etc. a higher wage bill still equates to better results.

There are a lot of variables in football over a season but clearly just from the table you posted you can see the overall picture.

In all bar three of the seasons in your table the team with the highest wages in the league finished in the top 4. In all bar 4 the team with the second and third highest wages finished there too. In every season bar one the team with the 4th or 5th highest wages finished top 4 as well, sometimes both of them.

Apart from Leicester (which are one of the clear outliers I mentioned) only once has a team with lower than 7th highest spend got in the top 4, and even then Newcastle still had the 9th highest in the league.

That is exactly the sort of variation you would expect to see if wages correlated to league position - which they do.

 

[CJJ]

Do you know what that table shows? A strong correlation between wages and league position.

Just because the league doesn't finish in strict order every season with the highest paid team in 1st, the second highest in second etc. a higher wage bill still equates to better results.

There are a lot of variables in football over a season but clearly just from the table you posted you can see the overall picture.

In all bar three of the seasons in your table the team with the highest wages in the league finished in the top 4. In all bar 4 the team with the second and third highest wages finished there too. In every season bar one the team with the 4th or 5th highest wages finished top 4 as well, sometimes both of them.

Apart from Leicester (which are one of the clear outliers I mentioned) only once has a team with lower than 7th highest spend got in the top 4, and even then Newcastle still had the 9th highest in the league.

That is exactly the sort of variation you would expect to see if wages correlated to league position - which they do.

Click to shrink...

You're also missing the point - possibly deliberately, as I've made it clear in at least the last 5 replies to other people.

I'm talking about the variation in the top 6. E.g. relative to Spurs. It is obvious that the top 6 budgets tend to finish in the top 6. But there is not a 'strong correlation' in that group between budget and position. For it to be a strong correlation, there would need to be a variable that indicated a relationship - but there isn't. Out of the top 6 spending teams, there's no pattern to achieving a particular league finish, but spending the most does not actually achieve a league title. Spending the 5th or 6th most does not preclude the ability to win the title.

In relation to ourselves, we have never been outside of the top 7 budgets and have regularly been 5th or 6th - often above teams who finished in the top 2 or 3.


So - the ultimate point - is that people think that the reason we've not done better is because our wage bill is too low. It is not something supported by statistics, and is more of a logical fallacy. There are numerous other more pertinent factors at play.

 

[Honest John]

You're also missing the point - possibly deliberately, as I've made it clear in at least the last 5 replies to other people.

I'm talking about the variation in the top 6. E.g. relative to Spurs. It is obvious that the top 6 budgets tend to finish in the top 6. But there is not a 'strong correlation' in that group between budget and position. For it to be a strong correlation, there would need to be a variable that indicated a relationship - but there isn't. Out of the top 6 spending teams, there's no pattern to achieving a particular league finish, but spending the most does not actually achieve a league title. Spending the 5th or 6th most does not preclude the ability to win the title.

In relation to ourselves, we have never been outside of the top 7 budgets and have regularly been 5th or 6th - often above teams who finished in the top 2 or 3.


So - the ultimate point - is that people think that the reason we've not done better is because our wage bill is too low. It is not something supported by statistics, and is more of a logical fallacy. There are numerous other more pertinent factors at play.

Click to shrink...

'Kin 'ell mate. You've lost the argument hands down. Just let it go ffs.

Generally speaking, if you pay better salaries you get better players
If you get better players, you win more football matches
If you win more football matches, you'll win more titties

Why are you finding this so difficult to comprehend. And why are you so determined to make some kind of argument against the crystal clear conclusion that our owners do not prioritise sporting success in the same way that other owners of other big clubs do.

It's a bit creepy tbh.

 

[Kevin Ball]

We spent around £150m on transfer fees alone in the season after the CL final.

As per the other post, we're over £500m in the red for transfers since then (ref)

Click to shrink...

That chart is just what the club spent over the last 5 seasons , not the clubs income to outlay

 

[CJJ]

That chart is just what the club spent over the last 5 seasons , not the clubs income to outlay

Click to shrink...

Yes, it is what they spent. That is the best metric.

The stat people keep obsessing over is "revenue". That is an arbitrary figure because revenue is not profit. We are paying off a billion pound stadium. The same stupid "% of revenue" charts being shown like we're holding back money.

Here's the relevant one - the most basic 'income to outlay' graph:

 

[Petercoyssb]

I think it’s well documented that our contracts pay based on performance metrics, win bonus’, goals, assists, clean sheets etc. We’re not an all in club and as a business owner in a sales field I get it. The problem you have is you can’t move the dial as it gets out so you’re dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. Ultimately the way I look at it is, we spend, we try, we don’t get 500k Alexis Sanchez problems that create Rashford 350k problems etc. It is what it is. Excited to see what a proper coach that is used to working to tight budgets can do with a little more money

 

[spursmalc]

Alisson 55M
TAA HGP Van Dijk 75M Konate 36M Robertson 8M
Gravenberch 34M Szoboszlai 60M MacAllister 55M
Diaz 47M Gakpo 37M Salah 43M

Nunez 64M Jota 41M

Vicario 17M
Porro 39M VDV 43M Romero 42M Udogie 15M
Bentancur 21M Bissouma 25M Maddison 40M
Johnson 40M Solanke 65M Son 22M

Richarlison 60M Kulusevski

Click to shrink...

Players do not care about this ratio only what they earn. The important thing is the earlier lists with us as having the 7th highest wages.

 

[citizenabel]

He's not easy to get rid of as he owns around 30% of ENIC

Levy and convicted felon Lewis (nominally his family) essentially ARE ENIC

Click to shrink...

The only nearly accurate part of your post refers to baldick's share holding which is slightly under 30% and therefore regarded as a minority holding when compared to the controlling 70%+ held in a Lewis family trust.

To class Levy & Lewis as partners is laughable....Lewis and his family own ENIC and their wealth is circa £6b while poor little Dannyboy might struggle to make half a billion.

Both need to move on but the finances required to acquire the Lewis share would be far more difficult to procure than Levy's relatively small holding.

 

[FightingIllini]

The only nearly accurate part of your post refers to baldick's share holding which is slightly under 30% and therefore regarded as a minority holding when compared to the controlling 70%+ held in a Lewis family trust.

To class Levy & Lewis as partners is laughable....Lewis and his family own ENIC and their wealth is circa £6b while poor little Dannyboy might struggle to make half a billion.

Both need to move on but the finances required to acquire the Lewis share would be far more difficult to procure than Levy's relatively small holding.

Click to shrink...

Exactly what the practical buyout implications of this are I'm not totally sure, but I believe ENIC, the company, owns ~86% of Spurs (with other smaller partners owning the remainder), and then ENIC itself is split roughly 70/30 between the Lewis Family Trust and Levy.

So you'd be buying Levy out of ENIC, not Spurs as such. ENIC would still be majority owned by the Lewis Trust, and it's ENIC as an entity which has the controlling interest in Spurs.

As human beings though, Levy and Lewis are partners and always have been. Financial mumbo-jumbo aside, the relationship of personal trust and confidence between them is what has kept Levy's control of the club as ironclad as it has been.

 

[Kevin Ball]

Yes, it is what they spent. That is the best metric.

The stat people keep obsessing over is "revenue". That is an arbitrary figure because revenue is not profit. We are paying off a billion pound stadium. The same stupid "% of revenue" charts being shown like we're holding back money.

Here's the relevant one - the most basic 'income to outlay' graph:

Click to shrink...

The problem is you're showing the metric for 22/23 and not the metric for 19/20 when the money £178mil was around .
Revenue is best looked at in profit/loss not just outlay on its own .
There are many income streams to the club mainly :-
SKY tv right's
Gate receipts
Sponsorships
Merchandise
Events - Boxing , NFL , Concerts and Rugby
That's without the money made from kiosks selling beer and food before , during and after the games .
It's a licence to print money .
So forgive me if I don't share your confidence in Levy . He should've invested the windfall CL money for us to kick on and rebuild the squad . You need fresh faces through the door to change things up , even if you're running away with the league you should still bring in fresh faces to change it up . Instead we spent 2 windows stagnating . I defended Levy to the hilt before the baron period and our fall from grace , slowly deteriorating to where we are now .
I want us to win the league , winning the UEFA cup has just papered over some cracks - we finished 17th in the league "17th" losing 22 games . Any other season we would've got relegated . You're excusing his bad performances by saying he's not at fault for us being where we are . He's the guy who says who we buy or not . Conte was right - it's become acceptable to fail , and the reason that's happening is Daniel Levy . Who else do think is at fault for our failure to stay in the race for the title ?