Levy / ENIC

[FightingIllini]

Its insane to throw stupid amounts of money that cannot be recovered at transfer fees

Only if you don't recover it in the form of parabolically escalating asset value of the club, which all of the petro-dopers have.

Those projects haven't "spent" as much money as the conventional wisdom suggests. Transfer fees are an investment in potential revenue growth flowing from being at the top of the sport.

And people obsess about how ENIC hasn't "taken money out of the club" (Levy being the only person at the club allowed to make a top-of-market salary apparently doesn't count), but when the billion-odd capital gain ENIC has made on Spurs belongs entirely to their balance sheet rather than financing some investment in the team as is industry standard elsewhere, that really puts the lie to that notion. Actuarially speaking it is the same thing as the Glazers.

 

[MemphisWill]

Only if you don't recover it in the form of parabolically escalating asset value of the club, which all of the petro-dopers have.

Those projects haven't "spent" as much money as the conventional wisdom suggests. Transfer fees are an investment in potential revenue growth flowing from being at the top of the sport.

And people obsess about how ENIC hasn't "taken money out of the club" (Levy being the only person at the club allowed to make a top-of-market salary apparently doesn't count), but when the billion-odd capital gain ENIC has made on Spurs belongs entirely to their balance sheet rather than financing some investment in the team as is industry standard elsewhere, that really puts the lie to that notion. Actuarially speaking it is the same thing as the Glazers.

Your consistent defence of the Abu Dhabi/Qatari ownership of City and PSG is, frankly, annoying. But mostly its just founded on misconception. You say that their spending hasn't been sunken cost, but has rather been an investment in the increased value of their brand. Which is fine, theoretically, if you do not consider that this value touted is only to the current ownership groups. Both clubs are still heavily reliant on fully incestuous sponsorship deals.

The value of anything is always what someone else is willing to pay for it. And no one is going to pay what you purport City or PSG to be worth. The latter plays in a 2nd tier league with 3rd tier media rights income and the former is the 2nd team in their own city. Without the slaveowners funding at huge personal expense, both clubs will sink back to 2nd tier domestic status within half a decade if not immediately.

Abramovich is the only one whose spending has arguably created real value. And that's as much geography as anything else. Chelsea will always be posh now, the racist cunts.

 

[MemphisWill]

Good post.

All I would say is if Levy was borrowing a billion, he would be paying a lot less interest ;-)

are you ok with the dividends?

They maybe could have gotten better terms, Levy is better at that. But he also misses opportunities by trying to scrounge every penny. United were the hottest property on the sports market at the time they secured their funding and it was definitely a competitive environment. They didn't have the luxury of being too shrewd, really.

They ended up with basically the healthiest, most profitable football club on the planet. One thats basically a self-sufficient perpetual motion machine for success. Don't think they quibble over the interest rate, at the end of the day.

 

[NorseYid]

Only if you don't recover it in the form of parabolically escalating asset value of the club, which all of the petro-dopers have.

Those projects haven't "spent" as much money as the conventional wisdom suggests. Transfer fees are an investment in potential revenue growth flowing from being at the top of the sport.

And people obsess about how ENIC hasn't "taken money out of the club" (Levy being the only person at the club allowed to make a top-of-market salary apparently doesn't count), but when the billion-odd capital gain ENIC has made on Spurs belongs entirely to their balance sheet rather than financing some investment in the team as is industry standard elsewhere, that really puts the lie to that notion. Actuarially speaking it is the same thing as the Glazers.

They are using the club operation to constantly invest in the asset of the company.

Nothing is new.

They haven't put a single penny into the company let alone the club. Every single pound of capital comes form the FC itself, not the other way around.

 

[FightingIllini]

Your consistent defence of the Abu Dhabi/Qatari ownership of City and PSG is, frankly, annoying.

I mean, those are abhorrent political regimes, and what they've been allowed to use their cash to do has been horribly destabilizing for the game and the powers that be should have fought against it then and should still fight against it now. Don't get me wrong on any of that.

But to jump from there to the notion that those groups have been anything other than exemplary owners of their football clubs per se is pretty silly, especially in City's case. Unlimited funds, sure, but those are immaculately designed and operated projects, and the sort of gauche, aimless money splashing they are so often associated with is really better applied to their competition.

Football player transfers were grossly undervalued before Abramovich's Chelsea happened. That's just the reality of it, the revenue to be made dominating the elite European competitions was way more than the player cost of getting there against the then-existing competition. Those early entrants identified that market failure and exploited it.

But mostly its just founded on misconception. You say that their spending hasn't been sunken cost, but has rather been an investment in the increased value of their brand. Which is fine, theoretically, if you do not consider that this value touted is only to the current ownership groups. Both clubs are still heavily reliant on fully incestuous sponsorship deals.

The value of anything is always what someone else is willing to pay for it. And no one is going to pay what you purport City or PSG to be worth. The latter plays in a 2nd tier league with 3rd tier media rights income and the former is the 2nd team in their own city. Without the slaveowners funding at huge personal expense, both clubs will sink back to 2nd tier domestic status within half a decade if not immediately.

Abramovich is the only one whose spending has arguably created real value. And that's as much geography as anything else. Chelsea will always be posh now, the racist cunts.

You might be right to a degree on PSG (who have the geography advantage Chelsea does and uncontested CL access, the place the money is really going), but you aren't right on City. City is PL aristocracy now, and would be worth a massive amount to a prospective buyer who would surely be looking to continue the same kind of project.

Their stadium and shirt deals are fake and inflated, but only by so much.

 

[Matt1882]

That’s not true - the stadium does do us favours *
I despise him and his business model but even I can see that

* Covid

Let's see how many more years, with a packed stadium, NFL, Guns n Roses, Anthony Joshua, etc etc etc that he keeps pleading poverty.

 

[MemphisWill]

You might be right to a degree on PSG (who have the geography advantage Chelsea does and uncontested CL access, the place the money is really going), but you aren't right on City. City is PL aristocracy now, and would be worth a massive amount to a prospective buyer who would surely be looking to continue the same kind of project.

Their stadium and shirt deals are fake and inflated, but only by so much.

What did we calculate it at the last time we discussed this, £4B in spend/investment for City?

There's no way anyone planning to operate a stable financial enterprise would pay £4B for City.

 

[FightingIllini]

What did we calculate it at the last time we discussed this, £4B in spend/investment for City?

There's no way anyone planning to operate a stable financial enterprise would pay £4B for City.

I'd be interested to see the numbers, that figure seems high to me. A lot of that must be the capital expenditure that plays a big role in making City so appealing.

Daniel Levy isn't the lone genius who figured out it would be financially smart to put shovels in the ground. We're probably the only club whose football-related real estate portfolio is more valuable than City's.

 

[MemphisWill]

I'd be interested to see the numbers, that figure seems high to me. A lot of that must be the capital expenditure that plays a big role in making City so appealing.

Daniel Levy isn't the lone genius who figured out it would be financially smart to put shovels in the ground. We're probably the only club whose football-related real estate portfolio is more valuable than City's.

I don't understand viewing things through the lens of either/or. Pointing out that City is, at best, a decades long loss-leader (at the level of their financial losses, you have to generate United levels of momentum, which takes consistent success over several generations not just a booming decade, and then siphon off profits for a very long time to recoop the "investment") does not construct a defense of Levy, nor is that what I'm doing.

The reality, however, is that United, ENIC, FSG, etc. are managing the football clubs in the proper way. They're spending within their income levels (ENIC could spend higher, obviously, but the fact that the aren't has seen outside asset investment). If their management groups went bust tomorrow and were liquidated, the clubs would sustain with new ownership and little in the way of disruption.

If Mansour or the Qataris decided to fuck off tomorrow, were assassinated, or otherwise broke all relations with the west...City/PSG would collapse. Their legitimate revenue streams cannot manage their wages, much less the expenditure on signings required to sustain their success. On the open market their sponsorships are worth far less than what they pull in, especially in an environment where they're not owned by Arab oil barons certain to spend season on season for the best players. And the possibility of Mansour or the Qataris fucking off tomorrow and breaking all ties with the west? Much higher than that of anyone else who owns a major football club.

Levy is no genius. He's just a suit, like the Glazers. But this idea that supporters have that they want ownership willing to bankrupt themselves for trophies is ridiculous. Its the same mindset as people who bet their mortgage at the track. Why would you want your club to be on the brink of demise?

 

[FightingIllini]

The reality, however, is that United, ENIC, FSG, etc. are managing the football clubs in the proper way.

On some of this other discussion we're just haggling over the margin. Clearly the petro clubs have incurred large losses over the years (though City has been profitable on paper for a few years now), and it's equally clear that their success (along with the rising tide of European, English especially, football) has grown the asset value of the clubs. My complaint is that the asset inflation gets totally ignored in these calculations, I'm not dying on the hill that Abramovich's Chelsea has been a bountiful financial project strictly speaking. It's just not the bonfire of money it's made out to be, and I don't think you really disagree.

But it's the quoted bit that I really want to object to. The grouping is not first world western civilization owners on one side, dirty arriviste outsiders on the others. That's balderdash, financially speaking.

The Glazers, FSG, City Football Group, and Abramovich all, alike, dedicate market-rate resources to the squad and operate with an operational mandate and imperative to compete for and win major honors. All are willing to make strategic transfer market investments to ensure their continued place at that level. City and Chelsea had to burn through massive losses to get there, and Chelsea remains pretty dumb about spending and haphazard about off the pitch revenue maximization (United is also the former, City is neither), but in this moment they are fundamentally operating the same sort of football operation.

ENIC is not, period. Woolwich is somewhere in between.

This will reveal itself in due time. Because Spurs' European position is unsustainable, its revenue is unsustainable, and therefore its asset value is unsustainable. The bill will come due, ENIC has already missed its moment to maximize its return in selling the club, at least relative to its competition. In addition to being more justifiable as stewards of a competitive sports team, the English big four have the better business strategy too.

There is simply no justification for the way ENIC reacted to the Poch boom as a business operation. They utterly fucked it from tip to tail, and now it's all downhill for Tottenham Hotspur PLC unless there is massive, massive player investment. Maybe they'll wake up and realize it, who knows. I'd rather they sell to someone who does.

If Mansour or the Qataris decided to fuck off tomorrow, were assassinated, or otherwise broke all relations with the west...City/PSG would collapse.

This is somewhere between overwrought and laughable depending on what you mean by "collapse".

City aren't likely to maintain their undefeatable juggernaut status even with the oil money. But if you think their Cinderella carriage would turn back into Richard Dunne the moment the Sheikh left town you're just being silly.

 

[Kid Chameleon]

Levy wouldn't give him £1m a week for a year with no resale value.

But would we really consider this a worthwhile transfer? He's 34 years old and the chances of us getting our money's worth from him is pretty remote. I don't want the Kane money to be wasted on OAPs.

It's a big name and would generate a lot of excitement but I'd rather get that from what the team are doing on the pitch than use a superstar to try and gloss over our problems.

 

[MemphisWill]

This will reveal itself in due time. Because Spurs' European position is unsustainable, its revenue is unsustainable, and therefore its asset value is unsustainable. The bill will come due, ENIC has already missed its moment to maximize its return in selling the club, at least relative to its competition. In addition to being more justifiable as stewards of a competitive sports team, the English big four have the better business strategy too.

There is simply no justification for the way ENIC reacted to the Poch boom as a business operation. They utterly fucked it from tip to tail, and now it's all downhill for Tottenham Hotspur PLC unless there is massive, massive player investment. Maybe they'll wake up and realize it, who knows. I'd rather they sell to someone who does.

I will agree with this, with the caveat that the number of English club's whose valuation and fiscal position can withstand continual absence from the CL and major honours is arguably 1 - United.

Even Liverpool were not bulletproof, their mismanagement saw them plummet before they stripped their squad of nearly all its value to pay for a rebuild. They were wildly successful in acquisitions, probably one of the best rates of success on transfers ever in this last spell, which allowed them to muscle their way back in. Chelsea have had brief spells outside, but they've managed through irresponsible spending to claw their way back time and again. Woolwich, despite the history and global support, have been caught in a spiral - one we seem to be mimicking.

So, its a bit harsh on ENIC to act as though they've uniquely fucked this up. They missed their window to capitalize, absolutely. But even if we'd won the PL in '16 and '17, and followed it with the CL in '19 and the LC this past season....whenever we did have the inevitable drop in form for a run of seasons, climbing back in would be a massive ask.

City can buy their top 4 place every season. United have revenue that means they should be there every season they aren't a comical disaster in management/the boardroom. Chelsea, in general, will buy their spot as well. Which means, in an average season, everyone else is competing for a single seat on the ride - its just an unsustainable proposition in the first place as the margin for error season to season is practically nil. Which is why its hard to blame ENIC...we've managed to secure the future of the club as legitimately top notch facilities wise from a period of sustained upper-mediocrity, which should mean we're always in amongst things.

They could have just splashed it all backing the manager. Might have worked. We might be relegated playing in WHL wondering if we'll ever crack the top half of the PL again. The ESL probably would've worked without everyone getting pissed that we were included.

 

[FightingIllini]

I will agree with this, with the caveat that the number of English club's whose valuation and fiscal position can withstand continual absence from the CL and major honours is arguably 1 - United.

Even Liverpool were not bulletproof, their mismanagement saw them plummet before they stripped their squad of nearly all its value to pay for a rebuild. They were wildly successful in acquisitions, probably one of the best rates of success on transfers ever in this last spell, which allowed them to muscle their way back in. Chelsea have had brief spells outside, but they've managed through irresponsible spending to claw their way back time and again. Woolwich, despite the history and global support, have been caught in a spiral - one we seem to be mimicking.

So, its a bit harsh on ENIC to act as though they've uniquely fucked this up. They missed their window to capitalize, absolutely. But even if we'd won the PL in '16 and '17, and followed it with the CL in '19 and the LC this past season....whenever we did have the inevitable drop in form for a run of seasons, climbing back in would be a massive ask.

City can buy their top 4 place every season. United have revenue that means they should be there every season they aren't a comical disaster in management/the boardroom. Chelsea, in general, will buy their spot as well. Which means, in an average season, everyone else is competing for a single seat on the ride - its just an unsustainable proposition in the first place as the margin for error season to season is practically nil. Which is why its hard to blame ENIC...we've managed to secure the future of the club as legitimately top notch facilities wise from a period of sustained upper-mediocrity, which should mean we're always in amongst things.

They could have just splashed it all backing the manager. Might have worked. We might be relegated playing in WHL wondering if we'll ever crack the top half of the PL again. The ESL probably would've worked without everyone getting pissed that we were included.

I know I've been a broken record about this, but let's remember the actual figures in terms of revenue.

We're closer to United than Everton is to us. Liverpool is right on United's tail (United was near double Liverpool a handful of years ago). They made the right call pushing their chips in, Levy choked and missed his window. It's a high-stakes game.

Spurs would be a very different prospect as a business with a PL title-caliber squad and the trophies to show for it. That's a tough prospect at this moment in time, admittedly, for a variety of reasons. But how far is Levy willing to let the club fall? Early returns are not great!

 

[MemphisWill]

I know I've been a broken record about this, but let's remember the actual figures in terms of revenue.

We're closer to United than Everton is to us. Liverpool is right on United's tail (United was near double Liverpool a handful of years ago). They made the right call pushing their chips in, Levy choked and missed his window. It's a high-stakes game.

Spurs would be a very different prospect as a business with a PL title-caliber squad and the trophies to show for it. That's a tough prospect at this moment in time, admittedly, for a variety of reasons. But how far is Levy willing to let the club fall? Early returns are not great!

Someone brought it up recently (I think it may have been you, thinking of it) but the cost to go from good to great, however, is exorbitant.

We definitely have to rebuild, we need significant spend. We may get it, at least at the recent Liverpool level. The trouble is we have to thread the needle and make every penny count...that's always the trick.

 

[FightingIllini]

We definitely have to rebuild, we need significant spend. We may get it, at least at the recent Liverpool level. The trouble is we have to thread the needle and make every penny count...that's always the trick.

And there's where the Conte thing is so enraging.

There's your chance to push the chips in on an opportunity that does not come by every window, but we let it go by, because even where there is investment it has to be on Levy's gossamer-narrow terms.

Conte was a managerial Virgil Van Dijk, there it was.

 

[John Thomas]

And there's where the Conte thing is so enraging.

There's your chance to push the chips in on an opportunity that does not come by every window, but we let it go by, because even where there is investment it has to be on Levy's gossamer-narrow terms.

Conte was a managerial Virgil Van Dijk, there it was.

Difficult to see how anyone can argue against this.

One of the weslthiest clubs on the planet has a managerial vacancy.

Serial title winning manager, in his prime and available. Or mid table manager discarded by Wolves.

We chose the latter.

 

[MemphisWill]

And there's where the Conte thing is so enraging.

There's your chance to push the chips in on an opportunity that does not come by every window, but we let it go by, because even where there is investment it has to be on Levy's gossamer-narrow terms.

Conte was a managerial Virgil Van Dijk, there it was.

I'm not sure how true it is we were close with Conte, or how true "pushing the chips in" with Conte is a guarantor of success.

A few years ago van Gaal was our big opportunity, but Levy bottled it and appointed the cheapskate option. Just not willing to sit here and rage over Paratici and Nuno when neither of them have put in a day's work for Spurs yet.

 

[FightingIllini]

I'm not sure how true it is we were close with Conte, or how true "pushing the chips in" with Conte is a guarantor of success.

A few years ago van Gaal was our big opportunity, but Levy bottled it and appointed the cheapskate option. Just not willing to sit here and rage over Paratici and Nuno when neither of them have put in a day's work for Spurs yet.

I mean let's not be cute about this.

There is no guarantor of success. But Conte wasn't just a manager he was a project, and that project was a financial risk which we refused to take.

We will spend more later to accomplish what Conte could have done now. We would have spent more on the Conte project than it would have cost for Poch to accomplish the same four years ago. The same wrong decision, over and over again.

Leicester City keeps making the opposite decision, that the cost of going for it will ultimately be the right investment, and when it goes right, keep doubling down.

In a 32k stadium in Leicestershire, with none of the bells and whistles, onward and onward they march up behind us financially, to say nothing of the glory on the road there.

 

[MemphisWill]

I mean let's not be cute about this.

There is no guarantor of success. But Conte wasn't just a manager he was a project, and that project was a financial risk which we refused to take.

We will spend more later to accomplish what Conte could have done now. We would have spent more on the Conte project than it would have cost for Poch to accomplish the same four years ago. The same wrong decision, over and over again.

Leicester City keeps making the opposite decision, that the cost of going for it will ultimately be the right investment, and when it goes right, keep doubling down.

In a 32k stadium in Leicestershire, with none of the bells and whistles, onward and onward they march up behind us financially, to say nothing of the glory on the road there.

You're choosing a strange example here in Leicester. We spend more than Leicester do. We started from a better position than Leicester did. Leicester's catching is really only a product of our dog shit scouting. We blow money, they maximize it.

If you're talking proportionally to revenue, then, yeah, they outspend us. But they're basically where we were under Harry - their finances are based on Europa qualification and due to some excellent scouting they're out performing that. They had a Cinderella season (mostly because we shit the bed), outside of that, cup run and its inherent flukey nature aside, they've managed nothing Spurs didn't from Harry->Poch.

 

[FightingIllini]

If you're talking proportionally to revenue, then, yeah, they outspend us.

Soooo, what happens when they get within 20% of us in revenue? Or when Villa does, or Leeds does, etc etc etc.

There is no secret sauce to what we've done.