What's new

Levy plans to stay long term but must consider takeover bids

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
I don’t think I get the point actually. The cheeseroom is part of a commercial package that some people (companies) are willing to pay top dollar for. That will continue in perpetuity.

You don’t think that will make us better able to afford good players?

It’s a false dichotomy to suggest we can either afford good players OR a cheese room. If that were the case then no one should be for the cheese room. The cheese room is an investment which the owners believe will pay dividends - im happy to trust them on that.


Elsewhere there are some lambasting ENIC for treating the club as an investment. That is ridiculous. EVERY club owner views the club as an investment (apart from those clubs owned by fans).

The Middle Eastern owners are largely looking to launder their reputations. Near enough everyone else wants to make money. That might not fit with the pure ideals that some fans have but it is the reality of modern day football.

Noticing that ENIC’s actions are consistent with those of investors looking to make a buck is noticing the bleeding obvious. The key is that the ENIC are behaving in the long-term interests of the club - which can be said of remarkably few other owners. Levy has repeatedly said that he is merely a temporary guardian and that he must look after the long-term health of the club.
 

CoopsieDeadpool

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2012
18,257
70,419
That wasn’t the point I was making I was generically referring to world class players but didn’t want to pick a random player who hasn’t played at Spurs, I could just easily have put Neymar instead of Bale but then had everyone say I was being hugely unrealistic.


'Hugely unrealistic' not being to far from the words Poch used when questioned about us buying Bale.

But, yeah I'm with you in regards to world class talent being purchased/on display.

I've been a defender of Levy since the year dot, but he (and the many managers he's gone through) have constantly stated that the small stadium meant we couldn't compete for such players, and the new one will provide us with the resources to (hopefully) compete when it comes to attempting to attract such players.

So, he will soon have nowhere to hide, no excuse to give. The ball is well and truly in his court now.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
I’m just not sure someone is gonna invest £2bn in a high risk investment just to cream £25-50m a year off the top is it really worth the risk. And a football club is a risk that can quickly devalue if investment is not made on the pitch. And let’s be honest £2bn investors aren’t exactly growing on trees. They are a massive brand looking for awareness who I think would invest probably in the team. Or an Abramovich type looking for a play thing. On the plus side I would say we still have an upside and can go to another level as a brand. But the only way to do that is to win stuff. I’m not too worried about a cowboy buyer. At £2bn it makes no sense to me to asset strip us.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,356
3,330
Put simply I’m in a horrible dilemma. I think ENIC are terrible owners who are taking our cash - either at the stadium or our army of armchair fans - and using it to build a property portfolio while starving the football squad of the investment it needs. This should lead me to want them to sell but given the price they are demanding - £2bn - the only type of owner we get will be even more focussed on getting a return on their asset which again will only come from monetising us the fans.

All owners will be looking for returns. The only time that won't happen is if the owners are so rich that money isn't an issue (which is actually pretty rare in rich people) or if the owners are die hard Spurs fans and are willing to lose millions in order to see us win the league.

I always smile when people slag off ENIC for using Spurs to make money because the implication is that other football club owners are not in it for the money. That somehow ENIC are a one off, super greedy bunch of capitalist bastards. I'm not saying that all club owners are in it solely for the money - I'm sure there are lots of reasons that people/organisations would like to own a sports team - but it will be exceptionally rare to find some that have no care for profitability.

Personally I don't agree with the idea that they are bad owners. My view is that when you compare the club now to when ENIC first took control there is a lot of progress there, both on and off the pitch. That does not equate to being a bad owner in my opinion.

And I think that if they wanted to build a property portfolio there are much, much simpler ways of doing that. Mainly just by buying and selling property. I think the overhead of having to run a football club just to build a property portfolio makes no sense.

To rub salt in the wound ENIC are selling us a lie by suggesting that once the stadium is built we will compete in the transfer market. We won’t compete with them as owners. Just look at the training ground, a big capital investment, wotld class, but what have we done to populate it with world class youth ? Nothing, we are constantly surpassed in the race for the best youth by Man City and Chelsea because at youth level fees and wages dominate.

The training ground doesn't earn revenues though, does it. You are comparing us to two of the richest clubs in world football and saying we cannot compete with the fees/wages they are willing to pay to youth players (which I agree with) but I cannot see how that makes ENIC bad owners.

Once the new stadium is open we should see an increase in revenues, and from that it would follow that our total wage bill can increase. I believe that the policy has always been that the total wage bill for playing staff will be capped at 70% of club revenues. If the revenues increase, the wage cap can increase. We have already seen the first indications of that with Kane's contract.

Of course, all this financial stuff takes time to take hold. A lot of fans expect things to happen overnight (relatively speaking) but that's simply not realistic in my opinion. If, in 5 years time we still see no indications of increased player spending in line with increased club revenue then I think it would be fair to say that ENIC have not been true to their policy of investing in the first team. But until that point it's very unfair to say that they are lying and make claims about the future which you have no way of knowing are true or not.

Sometimes I genuinely believe that we could spend a billion pounds on players, win the league five years running, and fans would still moan about ENIC and Levy. Some people just don't like them and will never like them. But I think once they are gone we will look back at the ENIC years as some of the most fruitful.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
All owners will be looking for returns. The only time that won't happen is if the owners are so rich that money isn't an issue (which is actually pretty rare in rich people) or if the owners are die hard Spurs fans and are willing to lose millions in order to see us win the league.

I always smile when people slag off ENIC for using Spurs to make money because the implication is that other football club owners are not in it for the money. That somehow ENIC are a one off, super greedy bunch of capitalist bastards. I'm not saying that all club owners are in it solely for the money - I'm sure there are lots of reasons that people/organisations would like to own a sports team - but it will be exceptionally rare to find some that have no care for profitability.

Personally I don't agree with the idea that they are bad owners. My view is that when you compare the club now to when ENIC first took control there is a lot of progress there, both on and off the pitch. That does not equate to being a bad owner in my opinion.

And I think that if they wanted to build a property portfolio there are much, much simpler ways of doing that. Mainly just by buying and selling property. I think the overhead of having to run a football club just to build a property portfolio makes no sense.



The training ground doesn't earn revenues though, does it. You are comparing us to two of the richest clubs in world football and saying we cannot compete with the fees/wages they are willing to pay to youth players (which I agree with) but I cannot see how that makes ENIC bad owners.

Once the new stadium is open we should see an increase in revenues, and from that it would follow that our total wage bill can increase. I believe that the policy has always been that the total wage bill for playing staff will be capped at 70% of club revenues. If the revenues increase, the wage cap can increase. We have already seen the first indications of that with Kane's contract.

Of course, all this financial stuff takes time to take hold. A lot of fans expect things to happen overnight (relatively speaking) but that's simply not realistic in my opinion. If, in 5 years time we still see no indications of increased player spending in line with increased club revenue then I think it would be fair to say that ENIC have not been true to their policy of investing in the first team. But until that point it's very unfair to say that they are lying and make claims about the future which you have no way of knowing are true or not.

Sometimes I genuinely believe that we could spend a billion pounds on players, win the league five years running, and fans would still moan about ENIC and Levy. Some people just don't like them and will never like them. But I think once they are gone we will look back at the ENIC years as some of the most fruitful.
Great post.

I think some of the criticism is very contrived.

Of course ENIC are not perfect but if you don’t look around at other clubs and count yourself lucky then you need to learn some gratitude.
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2014
13,603
58,005
It really is irritating when Levy claims the stadium isn't affecting the budget because a certain amount has been set aside for the budget.. Then claims we didnt sell certain players so there wasn't enough available. So basically the stadium doesnt affect the budget because there isn't a budget.

Talking absolute fucking nonsense.
 

Lou3000

£
May 28, 2014
861
2,525
It really is irritating when Levy claims the stadium isn't affecting the budget because a certain amount has been set aside for the budget.. Then claims we didnt sell certain players so there wasn't enough available. So basically the stadium doesnt affect the budget because there isn't a budget.

Talking absolute fucking nonsense.

His statements are down right insulting. He's basically lecturing the supporters, saying that you can't make signings for the sake of it
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
It really is irritating when Levy claims the stadium isn't affecting the budget because a certain amount has been set aside for the budget.. Then claims we didnt sell certain players so there wasn't enough available. So basically the stadium doesnt affect the budget because there isn't a budget.

Talking absolute fucking nonsense.

The stadium was always going to effect transfer budgets. Even if we had a lump of it put aside we still had to find the rest of it, and once the stadium is paid off (not finished as don't expect much of a difference until it's paid off) we should have extra cash available....so again impacting on it.
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2014
13,603
58,005
The stadium was always going to effect transfer budgets. Even if we had a lump of it put aside we still had to find the rest of it, and once the stadium is paid off (not finished as don't expect much of a difference until it's paid off) we should have extra cash available....so again impacting on it.

I just wish they was honest about it, dont belittle us by trying to articulate it in a way that makes it sound fine, be upfront and say yeah of course its having an affect.
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
All owners will be looking for returns. The only time that won't happen is if the owners are so rich that money isn't an issue (which is actually pretty rare in rich people) or if the owners are die hard Spurs fans and are willing to lose millions in order to see us win the league.

I always smile when people slag off ENIC for using Spurs to make money because the implication is that other football club owners are not in it for the money. That somehow ENIC are a one off, super greedy bunch of capitalist bastards. I'm not saying that all club owners are in it solely for the money - I'm sure there are lots of reasons that people/organisations would like to own a sports team - but it will be exceptionally rare to find some that have no care for profitability.

Personally I don't agree with the idea that they are bad owners. My view is that when you compare the club now to when ENIC first took control there is a lot of progress there, both on and off the pitch. That does not equate to being a bad owner in my opinion.

And I think that if they wanted to build a property portfolio there are much, much simpler ways of doing that. Mainly just by buying and selling property. I think the overhead of having to run a football club just to build a property portfolio makes no sense.



The training ground doesn't earn revenues though, does it. You are comparing us to two of the richest clubs in world football and saying we cannot compete with the fees/wages they are willing to pay to youth players (which I agree with) but I cannot see how that makes ENIC bad owners.

Once the new stadium is open we should see an increase in revenues, and from that it would follow that our total wage bill can increase. I believe that the policy has always been that the total wage bill for playing staff will be capped at 70% of club revenues. If the revenues increase, the wage cap can increase. We have already seen the first indications of that with Kane's contract.

Of course, all this financial stuff takes time to take hold. A lot of fans expect things to happen overnight (relatively speaking) but that's simply not realistic in my opinion. If, in 5 years time we still see no indications of increased player spending in line with increased club revenue then I think it would be fair to say that ENIC have not been true to their policy of investing in the first team. But until that point it's very unfair to say that they are lying and make claims about the future which you have no way of knowing are true or not.

Sometimes I genuinely believe that we could spend a billion pounds on players, win the league five years running, and fans would still moan about ENIC and Levy. Some people just don't like them and will never like them. But I think once they are gone we will look back at the ENIC years as some of the most fruitful.
You really seem to have missed my points entirely. I have no problem with owners making money but it is how they make the money from the football club that matters. Make money by improving the playing side of the club, win trophies, attract more fans, to use US sports terminology "grow the franchise" then great, because we as the fans get to come along for the ride. You could look to John Henry and even to a lesser extent the Glazers as examples of this. I would even argue that both Sheikh Mansour and Abramovic fit into this category as contrary to popular belief both will, or in Sheikh Mansour's case already have, made handsome profits from the clubs through growing the franchise. Seeking to make your return on investment by starving the club of operating cashflow so you can direct it all to property assets might be very lucrative for the owners but is highly unsatisfactory for the supporters. Put another way I feel like by following this strategy ENIC are treating us as customers. If we are customers then that is fine but as a customer I'm going to ask why when I pay the highest prices in the world for the product I don't get the highest quality product on the pitch.

My point on the training ground is that the supposed rationale for that investment was that it would allow us to attract the best youth, thereby developing our own players and having a world class team without needing to compete on transfer fees. That has proved to be an utterly false proposition as the bricks and mortar alone doesn't attract the best talent, fees and wages does. If ENIC weren't/aren't willing to pay what is required to attract the best youth talent then having the best facilities becomes an exercise in vanity, unless of course you have an eye on the balance sheet in which case then yes a shiny new training centre is highly valuable as a capital asset.

You seem irked at my criticism of ENIC, I'm just as irked by fans who blindly defend ENIC simply because they are better than the idiot that is Alan Sugar. How anyone can defend our owners after this last transfer window fiasco is beyond me. Even on a financial level ENIC's penny pinching has proved very short sighted. To take just one example, but the one that I think irritates more Spurs fans than any other, the signing of Sissoko. We ended up with him because we refused to pay Mane's wages or Zaha's transfer fee. What is Sissoko's transfer value now ? What are Mane and Zaha's ? I just don't see Daniel Levy as the business genius that the BSoDL want to promote. To my mind he is the Philip Hammond of football chairmen, efficient at dealing with expenses but utterly lacking any vision.
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
The stadium was always going to effect transfer budgets. Even if we had a lump of it put aside we still had to find the rest of it, and once the stadium is paid off (not finished as don't expect much of a difference until it's paid off) we should have extra cash available....so again impacting on it.
Are you basing this on the goons experience by any chance ?
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
What is actually really winding me up is they’ve had close on £100m of our money. And it comes across like, why are we bothering them, and how dare we ask when we might actually get what we paid for.
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
Are you basing this on the goons experience by any chance ?

No, no matter what funds are being used just now or coming up for the staium (that doesn't effect transfers), once it's all done and paid for will become free and able to be used for transfers... So is impacting. The money for the stadium can't come out of thin air.
 

daryl hannah

Berry Berry Calm
Sep 1, 2014
2,674
7,717
No, no matter what funds are being used just now or coming up for the staium (that doesn't effect transfers), once it's all done and paid for will become free and able to be used for transfers... So is impacting. The money for the stadium can't come out of thin air.
Whilst we have a huge mortgage I very much doubt the banks would allow any lavish spending (affordability) as a condition of the mortgage loan.

That's why naming rights is key.
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
No, no matter what funds are being used just now or coming up for the staium (that doesn't effect transfers), once it's all done and paid for will become free and able to be used for transfers... So is impacting. The money for the stadium can't come out of thin air.
I’m sorry but I disagree. Leaving to the side for one second that over half the capital outlay has nothing to do with the stadium itself, any capital asset should be financed over the useable life of the asset. To use a simple analogy if I buy a house I take out a 25 year mortgage I don’t say I can’t afford food for the next 3-5 years because I need to pay off all the money I owe on the house. Of course in the case of stadium financing long term sponsorship deals are a key part of the equation. As Chairman of the club Levy really only had 2 key tasks this summer, ensure the stadium was delivered and put in place long term finance and sponsorship to fund it, he flunked both.
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
I’m sorry but I disagree. Leaving to the side for one second that over half the capital outlay has nothing to do with the stadium itself, any capital asset should be financed over the useable life of the asset. To use a simple analogy if I buy a house I take out a 25 year mortgage I don’t say I can’t afford food for the next 3-5 years because I need to pay off all the money I owe on the house. Of course in the case of stadium financing long term sponsorship deals are a key part of the equation. As Chairman of the club Levy really only had 2 key tasks this summer, ensure the stadium was delivered and put in place long term finance and sponsorship to fund it, he flunked both.

But if you buy a house that you (not sure if we had or not) paid off, and then find you need to pay x amount a month (I am guessing more than we did before if we did pay anything) will impact on finances within the club as would need to use this from other areas, one being wages/transfers. Once the new stadium is paid off, the extra revenue that is being used to pay the loans back will be free to use again.

I agree with your points, we have messed up the sponsorship and having the stadium ready, but I don't hold levy responsible for the stadium wires being faulty, it's shit but it's down to the people who installed it or who made the wires(if they were faulty)
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
But if you buy a house that you (not sure if we had or not) paid off, and then find you need to pay x amount a month (I am guessing more than we did before if we did pay anything) will impact on finances within the club as would need to use this from other areas, one being wages/transfers. Once the new stadium is paid off, the extra revenue that is being used to pay the loans back will be free to use again.

I agree with your points, we have messed up the sponsorship and having the stadium ready, but I don't hold levy responsible for the stadium wires being faulty, it's shit but it's down to the people who installed it or who made the wires(if they were faulty)
If the stadium made economic sense it had to be on the basis that the extra revenue was greater (significantly) than the extra costs. Get your financing right and you have more spending power, screw it up and you don’t.

The reason I asked about the goons is that most pundits trot that out without understanding the difference in our situations. The cost of finance in 2004 was many multiples what it is today. In addition, contrary to popular belief, the goons didn’t all of a sudden find themselves with free cash flow because they had paid off the debt on a steady basis. They found themselves out of debt once they managed to flog the large amounts of property they had accumulated as part of the move. They also had their trousers taken down by Islington Council which, and I credit Levy here for pulling the whole “we’ll move to Stratford” stunt, we haven’t experienced with Haringey. If there is one silver lining it is that however bad I think ENIC are Stan Kroenke is infinitely worse.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
You really seem to have missed my points entirely. I have no problem with owners making money but it is how they make the money from the football club that matters.

Make money by improving the playing side of the club,
win trophies,
attract more fans,

You could look to John Henry and even to a lesser extent the Glazers as examples of this. I would even argue that both Sheikh Mansour and Abramovic fit into this category as contrary to popular belief both will, or in Sheikh Mansour's case already have, made handsome profits from the clubs through growing the franchise. Seeking to make your return on investment by starving the club of operating cashflow so you can direct it all to property assets might be very lucrative for the owners but is highly unsatisfactory for the supporters. Put another way I feel like by following this strategy ENIC are treating us as customers. If we are customers then that is fine but as a customer I'm going to ask why when I pay the highest prices in the world for the product I don't get the highest quality product on the pitch.

My point on the training ground is that the supposed rationale for that investment was that it would allow us to attract the best youth, thereby developing our own players and having a world class team without needing to compete on transfer fees. That has proved to be an utterly false proposition as the bricks and mortar alone doesn't attract the best talent, fees and wages does. If ENIC weren't/aren't willing to pay what is required to attract the best youth talent then having the best facilities becomes an exercise in vanity, unless of course you have an eye on the balance sheet in which case then yes a shiny new training centre is highly valuable as a capital asset.

Okay had to move your post about to answer

1, Make money by improving the playing side of the club - achieved since taking over

2, win trophies - failed but not made easy by 4 clubs that had been constantly building mega profits by dominating football from the start of PL. Okay Liverpool not as dominating but where still pretty rich from 20 years of being the biggest club in the country winning a friggin lot of trophies. for then when things looked to go pear shaped Chelsea not only got bailed out, but bought everything they could. we then started our stadium project, but by the time we had already invested reasonably heavy, the Sheik took City in. took him a lot of money and 2½ seasons to win a trophy 5 transfer windows

3, attract more fans - achieved because we never had a waiting list as big as we do today, and the size of the stadium we had compared meant needing a new stadium so eventually that a good amount on that list could get to see us regular

on the Sheik and Abramovic they both had sizeable stadiums compared to us when they took over, and when the Glazers took over United they took over a very successful team with a stadium twice the size of ours, and Liverpool had a bigger stadium compared to Chelsea and City and Arsenal (till they expanded). how the hell do you really think we could compete with their money to win only 3 trophies available a season?

on your ticket price this is the 1st time you have had to pay as much, and bet you never moaned too much the amount of times they were frozen

on the training ground once everything is in place and paid for if not before now our wages are being increased, eventually the hope is it will invite the best youth talent to us. even if that talent has visited since we finished building it, their parents and advisers, advise them to take the extra 30k a week elsewhere

the transfer market has definitely been our worst area in players we have purchased in the season you mentioned about Mane, but I was shocked to see he was only on 90k when at the time it was mentioned he would be on a 130k. so perhaps there was other reasons for not joining us, and agreed the Sissoko transfer was a disaster though at the time he had, had a tremendous European Championships.

I'm glad Zaha didn't come then or this window, hardly doing much even for Palace, he does too much diving or to dramatic when touched and not sure he could help against parked buses, as most his good work when he can be asked is when he can attack open space.
 
Top