Management ENIC

[CJJ]

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 ?

Click to shrink...

Pochettino is to blame - he didn't adapt the team or his tactics, and set us back a couple of season with those transfers.

On that topic, you've avoided it 3 times now, and I'm not sure why. We spent £150m on transfer fees for three players. That's where the £178m went.

I don't know if you were paying attention, but around 6 months later there was a small global incident that might have contributed to the finances somewhat

 

[walter]

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...

There's always going to be variation over and under the mean each season. A good manager can raise a club higher up the table than their wage bill would indicate. A bad run of injuries or a switch to focusing on the cups (or both...) can lead to a fall in position compared to wages. Overall though, there is very much a strong correlation between league position and wages.

Here's the top 6 wage paying clubs in the Premier League over the last ten years and their average final league position.
Wage Team Avg. Pos.
Bill
1st. Man Utd 5.6
2nd. Man City 1.8
3rd. Chelsea 5.2
4th. Woolwich 4.5
5th. Liverpool 3.3
6th. Tottenham 5.9

Data taken from here.

City, Woolwich, and us are exactly where you'd expect us to be in that table.

Liverpool and Chelsea's league positions are slightly higher and lower respectively but as already discussed, Liverpool are a well run, well focused club whereas Chelsea... aren't.

The real outlier there of course is Man. Utd. but it's well documented how much of a shit show they are these days. Even so their average League position is still higher than ours...

Also that table doesn't take into account other competitions. All of those clubs have won significantly more cups, both European and domestic than Spurs in that period.

It's clear too that there's a drive at Spurs to reduce wages now, rather than make them more competitive.

I imagine it's why we're bringing Thomas Frank in. Levy's obviously hoping he can work his Brentford magic and get us back into the top four while spending top ten wages.

 

[SausageVince]

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...

Fucken nice post, son, i think you've strayed from intelligent cunt internet to the stupid cunt internet. Little point in you arguing with the average ape in here, they'll never understand you.

 

[MemphisWill]

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...

It's a moving goalpost, why bother?

Not to defend Levy, or say that we're spending enough, or anything.

My point is just there's a large number of posters who simply just complain about Levy/ENIC, and will no matter what. #ENICout is their tribe, and like modern day politics its "pick a position and then make the data fit".

The stadium wasn't real, just a lie so we didn't have to spend money. Then it was net spend. After the net spend went heavily negative, it was wages. Now its wage:revenue. When that increases (as it will because we'll sign players like VDV, Udogie, etc. to expensive new contracts while signing new players), there will be something else.


And I would love to wake up tomorrow to hear ENIC sold the club - if for no other reason than changing the rather stale conversation here. But its almost certainly not happening any time soon, and when it does its still more likely Levy buying out Lewis as the front for a new investment group.

 

[Kevin Ball]

Pochettino is to blame - he didn't adapt the team or his tactics, and set us back a couple of season with those transfers.

On that topic, you've avoided it 3 times now, and I'm not sure why. We spent £150m on transfer fees for three players. That's where the £178m went.

I don't know if you were paying attention, but around 6 months later there was a small global incident that might have contributed to the finances somewhat

Click to shrink...

The players were bought with our regular income streams the same way we pay for them every other season . We should have bought at least one extra world class player with that money . Every club was affected by the global incident not just us . Pochettino said "we need to be brave and rebuild the team" - so did you and Levy interpret that as "we need to close the purse strings and not buy anybody" . Levy is at fault , Pochettino should have had a sabbatical after the loss in CL final that's for sure , but he wasn't solely to blame for our shortcomings . The fault lies with the same custodian that has been there before during and after Pochettino was around . Our first trophy for 17yrs and first European trophy in 41yrs . It stinks of stupidity and arrogance . He always thinks he knows best he just doesn't and won't admit it , he should fall on his sword and let Paratici deal with buying players before we have another catastrophic season .

 

[bus-conductor]

Social media analysis - CIES Football Observatory

The 508th Football Observatory Weekly Post presents the 100 teams in the world with the most subscriptions on the following social networks : X, (...)

football-observatory.com

 

[MemphisWill]

Social media analysis - CIES Football Observatory

The 508th Football Observatory Weekly Post presents the 100 teams in the world with the most subscriptions on the following social networks : X, (...)

football-observatory.com

Click to shrink...

Interesting to see the different splits for the clubs. We're smashing it on TikTok (is this influenced by our Asian base?), but shite on twitter and insta.

 

[SpursDNA]

Very true. It is all about investing available capital to grow the value of his asset. I think it's highly debatable whether his parsimonious approach to wages for other "better" uses of capital is optimal, but clearly there are lots of banana skins in player wages. The Ndombele thing must have given the guy nightmares. On a risk-adjusted basis you have to be pretty clever in player recruitment to beat investing in residential property in Tottenham or whatever it is he is doing now.

Click to shrink...

The point is that it’s a bit of scam init - We pay for tickets and merch so we can watch our club play great football - which means there is an expectation from the fans that the money we pay will be used for the on the field product (transfer fees, staff player wages, etc) ... Instead ENIC is using the money they get from us to develop real estate - the value of which Levy/Lewis will pocket when they leave the club ... To Levy's credit, they're not hiding it - It's all being done out in the open - which makes us complete mugs.

 

[PointToPatrik]

Interesting to see the different splits for the clubs. We're smashing it on TikTok (is this influenced by our Asian base?), but shite on twitter and insta.

Click to shrink...

Twitter is gooner dominated for the most part with a good chunk of Liverpool and Man U fans on there.

Spurs were building a nice community on Bluesky but then the club just stopped using their account on the service.

 

[CJJ]

Interesting to see the different splits for the clubs. We're smashing it on TikTok (is this influenced by our Asian base?), but shite on twitter and insta.

Click to shrink...

TikTok = mind rot and vibes for Asia
Instagram = vanity
Xwitter = whiney bedwetters

I can see why we wouldn't current be of interest to the vanity crowd, and I think we could do with less twitter followers.
The day that place is shutdown will be an important landmark for evolution

 

[CJJ]

There's always going to be variation over and under the mean each season. A good manager can raise a club higher up the table than their wage bill would indicate. A bad run of injuries or a switch to focusing on the cups (or both...) can lead to a fall in position compared to wages. Overall though, there is very much a strong correlation between league position and wages.

Here's the top 6 wage paying clubs in the Premier League over the last ten years and their average final league position.
Wage Team Avg. Pos.
Bill
1st. Man Utd 5.6
2nd. Man City 1.8
3rd. Chelsea 5.2
4th. Woolwich 4.5
5th. Liverpool 3.3
6th. Tottenham 5.9

Data taken from here.

City, Woolwich, and us are exactly where you'd expect us to be in that table.

Liverpool and Chelsea's league positions are slightly higher and lower respectively but as already discussed, Liverpool are a well run, well focused club whereas Chelsea... aren't.

The real outlier there of course is Man. Utd. but it's well documented how much of a shit show they are these days. Even so their average League position is still higher than ours...

Also that table doesn't take into account other competitions. All of those clubs have won significantly more cups, both European and domestic than Spurs in that period.

It's clear too that there's a drive at Spurs to reduce wages now, rather than make them more competitive.

I imagine it's why we're bringing Thomas Frank in. Levy's obviously hoping he can work his Brentford magic and get us back into the top four while spending top ten wages.

Click to shrink...

It's weird who has 'liked' your post there, considering what it shows is that the top 6 wage paying clubs, on average, finish outside the top 3 positions except for Man City

 

[dudu]

There's always going to be variation over and under the mean each season. A good manager can raise a club higher up the table than their wage bill would indicate. A bad run of injuries or a switch to focusing on the cups (or both...) can lead to a fall in position compared to wages. Overall though, there is very much a strong correlation between league position and wages.

Here's the top 6 wage paying clubs in the Premier League over the last ten years and their average final league position.
Wage Team Avg. Pos.
Bill
1st. Man Utd 5.6
2nd. Man City 1.8
3rd. Chelsea 5.2
4th. Woolwich 4.5
5th. Liverpool 3.3
6th. Tottenham 5.9

Data taken from here.

City, Woolwich, and us are exactly where you'd expect us to be in that table.

Liverpool and Chelsea's league positions are slightly higher and lower respectively but as already discussed, Liverpool are a well run, well focused club whereas Chelsea... aren't.

The real outlier there of course is Man. Utd. but it's well documented how much of a shit show they are these days. Even so their average League position is still higher than ours...

Also that table doesn't take into account other competitions. All of those clubs have won significantly more cups, both European and domestic than Spurs in that period.

It's clear too that there's a drive at Spurs to reduce wages now, rather than make them more competitive.

I imagine it's why we're bringing Thomas Frank in. Levy's obviously hoping he can work his Brentford magic and get us back into the top four while spending top ten wages.

Click to shrink...

So 3 out of the six don't show that correlation - how is that strong?

Just cos you make excuses for why, it doesnt make the correlation strong.

 

[walter]

So 3 out of the six don't show that correlation - how is that strong?

Just cos you make excuses for why, it doesnt make the correlation strong.

Click to shrink...

All 6 of the 6 highest wage payers finished, over the last 10 years, on average in the top six, and you don't think that shows a strong correlation between wages and league position?

Let alone that half of the clubs average wage position is bang on their average League position?

Then I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with whoever invented statistics, because I can't help you.

 

[dudu]

All 6 of the 6 highest wage payers finished, over the last 10 years, on average in the top six, and you don't think that shows a strong correlation between wages and league position?

Let alone that half of the clubs average wage position is bang on their average League position?

Then I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with whoever invented statistics, because I can't help you.

Click to shrink...

It does in terms of the top six, sure, but not in the correlation between the top six and where they finish.

Many other factors are involved - Liverpool, for instance, may pay 3 players HUGE wages but in terms of wage dispersal amongst players, Woolwich probably have more players on bigger wages.

No one graph or chart tells a story without digging into the actual wages, how they are dispersed, etc.

EXAMPLE, two of Woolwich's highest-paid players barely played this season so how can their wages correspond to their output in performance?

Yes, again, there is a general trends - spend more on wages, finish higher up the league, but in terms of winning things and where you place exactly, these trends are bucked all the time.

If we go by wages - Man U should have won the Europa no?

 

[manmountainbutters]

It does in terms of the top six, sure, but not in the correlation between the top six and where they finish.

Many other factors are involved - Liverpool, for instance, may pay 3 players HUGE wages but in terms of wage dispersal amongst players, Woolwich probably have more players on bigger wages.

No one graph or chart tells a story without digging into the actual wages, how they are dispersed, etc.

EXAMPLE, two of Woolwich's highest-paid players barely played this season so how can their wages correspond to their output in performance?

Yes, again, there is a general trends - spend more on wages, finish higher up the league, but in terms of winning things and where you place exactly, these trends are bucked all the time.

If we go by wages - Man U should have won the Europa no?

Click to shrink...

Exactly. The point is not that 2nd in wages should come 2nd in the league etc! That's daft

The point is that there is a strong correlation between wage spend and league position. I will do the numbers when I have a minute.

 

[Honest John]

I just can’t understand why 'Spurs fans' invest so much time and passion defending the boards policy of investing a lower proportion of revenue in the actual football team than everyone else.

Surely we all want the excitement of seeing the best players possible out on the pitch playing for our football team. Keeping wages down to bare minimum levels is depriving the fans of doing so

They just doesn’t make any sense to me, man. It's fucking bizarre

 

[GOAT]

I just can’t understand why 'Spurs fans' invest so much time and passion defending the boards policy of investing a lower proportion of revenue in the actual football team than everyone else.

Surely we all want the excitement of seeing the best players possible out on the pitch playing for our football team. Keeping wages down to bare minimum levels is depriving the fans of doing so

They just doesn’t make any sense to me, man. It's fucking bizarre

Click to shrink...

On this, I agree.

There is no chance in us 'doing a Leeds'. Levy, for all his many faults is FAR too astute a businessman to ever let that happen.

But we can definitely afford to be shelling out a lot more on wages than we currently do. Show some fucking ambition, and pay the money that will attract the better players. Money talks - simple as that.

Players are not fans, by and large. They are employees. Football is their job, and they will go where they get paid the best (weighing up other factor such as location, like any other employee in any other walk of life would do).

If an organisation offers me £100k, and another one offers me £200k, and the location isn't some absolute back of beyond shithole, then I know which one I'd be taking.

 

[asterdroid]

The point is that it’s a bit of scam init - We pay for tickets and merch so we can watch our club play great football - which means there is an expectation from the fans that the money we pay will be used for the on the field product (transfer fees, staff player wages, etc) ... Instead ENIC is using the money they get from us to develop real estate - the value of which Levy/Lewis will pocket when they leave the club ... To Levy's credit, they're not hiding it - It's all being done out in the open - which makes us complete mugs.

Click to shrink...

They take that money to make even more money off the same people: via spending on the hotel, skywalk, karting, and so on that was all built off the football income.

 

[Honest John]

They take that money to make even more money off the same people: via spending on the hotel, skywalk, karting, and so on that was all built off the football income.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. And people make it their life's mission to come on here and defend it every day
What am I missing here, guys?

 

[manmountainbutters]

I just can’t understand why 'Spurs fans' invest so much time and passion defending the boards policy of investing a lower proportion of revenue in the actual football team than everyone else.

Surely we all want the excitement of seeing the best players possible out on the pitch playing for our football team. Keeping wages down to bare minimum levels is depriving the fans of doing so

They just doesn’t make any sense to me, man. It's fucking bizarre

Click to shrink...

Totally perverted. As if there are PL / Top 6 clubs going bust left, right and centre and oh boy aren't we lucky to have sweet Daniel to guide us through these choppy waters!

Come to think of it, has PSR upset the order in the PL? Not really. It has meant fewer foreign moneybags, and perhaps helped the Saudi league a bit. But the top teams are still the top teams.

Or maybe the financial sophisticates take a perverted delight in knowing Daniel will make a huge capital gain on his investment and he will leave very wealthy?

It is pretty odd I agree.