ENIC...

topper · Feb 27, 2020

davidmatzdorf said:
How long have you been following Spurs? Did you see the trundlers, mediocrities and token, superannuated ex-stars whom the club was putting onto the pitch in the 90s? Were you there when we were finishing in the bottom half of table and had a negative goal difference nearly every season? When we thought beating West Ham was the highlight of our season ... because we couldn't compete with any of the other London clubs, never mind the English "top 4" and the other major European clubs?

We're a serious, major footballing club now, regulars on the highest international stage. In 2001, we were a fucking joke. Taken over the relevant period of 16-17 years, the quality of the football has increased ten times as much as the profitability of the club.

The club has been mildly profitable since shortly after ENIC acquired it, because first they stopped running it into the ground and then they implemented a gradually-developed long-term plan. But it's a fallacy that the "English National Investment Company" is obsessed with profitability. They don't take dividends out of the club. They are a long-term investment vehicle with a business plan that is all about increasing asset value, not profitability. They acquire under-exploited assets, invest to increase their value and eventually sell them for a huge capital gain.

That last sentence is the key one -at some stage, and this is the interesting part, ENIC will have to take a decision as to the optimum time to realise the greatest value for their asset; but they will sell - that’s how they make their money and it’s not through the p&l

ToDarrenIsToDo · Feb 27, 2020

davidmatzdorf said:
No, that's not how transfer fees are accounted for.

If you sign a player on a 5 year contract for a fee of £20,000,000, then you write off £4,000,000 in each of the next 5 years of accounts. It's called "amortisation".

That's why fees for players signed in (say) 2016 are still affecting the current year's accounts and why the hiatus of 18 months when we didn't sign anyone won't have an abrupt, short-term effect on one or two sets of accounts.

So with that in mind.... if Ndombele had signed on 29th June as opppsed to the 2nd July like he did....would any of his value/ money spent figure in the accounts in any way shape or form? (With accounts showing year ending 30 June I mean)

Lighty64 · Feb 27, 2020

ToDarrenIsToDo said:
With this being the case, as all of our signings this summer and onwards were made after 30 June 2019 then surely that goes into next years numbers right? If so I fully expect world record profits to get smashed again if that's how it works (unless Ndombele was signed before 30 June 2019)

also 1 other thing to add. with the stadium delays, the rent paid to the FA for crowds a lot lower than the previous season at Wembley, a very high percentage of ST holders getting refunds every home game the only thing that might mean getting close to the original record profits was getting to the CL finals. they might get close or just over, but definitely won't be smashed

ToDarrenIsToDo · Feb 28, 2020

Lighty64 said:
also 1 other thing to add. with the stadium delays, the rent paid to the FA for crowds a lot lower than the previous season at Wembley, a very high percentage of ST holders getting refunds every home game the only thing that might mean getting close to the original record profits was getting to the CL finals. they might get close or just over, but definitely won't be smashed

Very good point. There's so many variables from the last couple of seasons it really is very difficult to know what the minimum revenue will be we can expect moving forward. Lots of upheaval etc.

davidmatzdorf · Feb 28, 2020

ToDarrenIsToDo said:
So with that in mind.... if Ndombele had signed on 29th June as opppsed to the 2nd July like he did....would any of his value/ money spent figure in the accounts in any way shape or form? (With accounts showing year ending 30 June I mean)

Interesting question, if you're an accounting freak. I'm not sure how that would be administered, but if I were doing the accounts, I would write off 2 days of his contract, representing 29 & 30 June. I suspect that they would not write off any of it, because the contract represents five football seasons and 29-30 June does not include any of his contractually-obliged participation in training or competition. A proper accountant may know better.

danielneeds · Feb 28, 2020

spursfan77 said:
Interesting from Commolli that him and Levy are still friendly with one another. I wouldn't be surprised if Levy uses him like he uses Pleat as asks him about players.

Comolli’s got his own analytics scouting company, so wouldn’t he surprised if we have used them for mining some data.

davidmatzdorf · Feb 28, 2020

davidmatzdorf said:
Interesting question, if you're an accounting freak. I'm not sure how that would be administered, but if I were doing the accounts, I would write off 2 days of his contract, representing 29 & 30 June. I suspect that they would not write off any of it, because the contract represents five football seasons and 29-30 June does not include any of his contractually-obliged participation in training or competition. A proper accountant may know better.

@ToDarrenIsToDo
I had a further thought about this. I don't think the date when the contract is signed is the material date. If a player signs for the club on (say) 29 June, the typical football contract will still state that the contract runs from five (or however many) years from 1 July. The amortisation of the contract will relate to the period stated in its terms, the period when the footballing services are being provided by the player to the club, rather than the date when it is entered into.

Wsussexspur · Feb 28, 2020

davidmatzdorf said:
How long have you been following Spurs? Did you see the trundlers, mediocrities and token, superannuated ex-stars whom the club was putting onto the pitch in the 90s? Were you there when we were finishing in the bottom half of table and had a negative goal difference nearly every season? When we thought beating West Ham was the highlight of our season ... because we couldn't compete with any of the other London clubs, never mind the English "top 4" and the other major European clubs?

We're a serious, major footballing club now, regulars on the highest international stage. In 2001, we were a fucking joke. Taken over the relevant period of 16-17 years, the quality of the football has increased ten times as much as the profitability of the club.

The club has been mildly profitable since shortly after ENIC acquired it, because first they stopped running it into the ground and then they implemented a gradually-developed long-term plan. But it's a fallacy that the "English National Investment Company" is obsessed with profitability. They don't take dividends out of the club. They are a long-term investment vehicle with a business plan that is all about increasing asset value, not profitability. They acquire under-exploited assets, invest to increase their value and eventually sell them for a huge capital gain.

As some one who it Is safe to say isn’t the biggest fan of Enic... you make very good points.

the only one I currently have to disagree with is about the quality of football! On whole it has increased however at this very moment in time we are playing some on the most turgid awful football I can remember In my 29 odd years of supporting the club. Yes big argument is we have injuries to our two biggest players and main attacking threats! But in other hand we really should be adapting tactically and trying to play football with the players who we do have fit and available.

vegassd · Feb 28, 2020

Wsussexspur said:
As some one who it Is safe to say isn’t the biggest fan of Enic... you make very good points.

the only one I currently have to disagree with is about the quality of football! On whole it has increased however at this very moment in time we are playing some on the most turgid awful football I can remember In my 29 odd years of supporting the club. Yes big argument is we have injuries to our two biggest players and main attacking threats! But in other hand we really should be adapting tactically and trying to play football with the players who we do have fit and available.

I don't think too many people would disagree with that - although "the most turgid awful" might be an overstatement! But I think this is where a lot of the faffing in this argument comes from. We aren't playing great, we lose a couple of games, and the natural reaction is to lash out and blame somebody. And since we have this cartoon-like figure of capitalism running our club it's very easy to blame him for everything.

In reality I think Levy has little influence over what happens on the pitch. All he can really do is put the tools in place for the team to be successful, which includes everything from the number of strikers we have to the quality of our sports psychologists. We are definitely a few tools short of greatness still but I don't see that as a reason to absolutely slam the chairman.

Levy's influence over the club is a long-term thing. As fans we get angry and emotional when we are playing poorly and lose, but that's a short-term thing. There will have been many missed opportunities by our board for sure, but saying things like "no sporting ambition" and "our success happens in spite of Levy" just don't ring true. Not to me at least.

So he's not the messiah, but he's not exactly a very naughty boy either! I was lucky enough to be at the recent Norwich game and it was pretty awful. But when you look at the team sheets, the managers, and then at the awe of our home stadium you have to ask the question what else is Levy expected to do? All the tools were there to boss the game but we didn't.

That is the nature of sport sometimes... it's how Villa are in a relegation battle but also a cup final. It's how Leicester won the league from nowhere. It's how City and PSG haven't won the CL between them. It sucks to be not winning stuff, but if it was easy to win stuff we wouldn't bother watching.

he is you know! · Feb 28, 2020

ToDarrenIsToDo said:
So with that in mind.... if Ndombele had signed on 29th June as opppsed to the 2nd July like he did....would any of his value/ money spent figure in the accounts in any way shape or form? (With accounts showing year ending 30 June I mean)

If already stated apologies, using Ndombele as an example, Herc has stated that we prefer to pay transfer fees over 4 years, loading prob differs according to price/deal. Add-ons when they are triggered.

So Year 1/2 20, Year 3.. 10, Year 4...6

HodisGawd · Feb 28, 2020

Wsussexspur said:
As some one who it Is safe to say isn’t the biggest fan of Enic... you make very good points.

the only one I currently have to disagree with is about the quality of football! On whole it has increased however at this very moment in time we are playing some on the most turgid awful football I can remember In my 29 odd years of supporting the club. Yes big argument is we have injuries to our two biggest players and main attacking threats! But in other hand we really should be adapting tactically and trying to play football with the players who we do have fit and available.

Yeah, the quality of football has dipped a bit recently. But hopefully, that is only temporary. Over the last 5 years or so we've seen some of the best football ever at Spurs. We've never looked so dominant at times. Things always go up and down though.

But with the stadium and the training ground etc etc you can't deny the trend. Looking at the club in the whole, we have been on an upward trajectory for a long time now. Perhaps not as fast as some would have liked, and there have been moments when the ball has been dropped (see our current striker situation), but Tottenham Hotspur is a far, far more high profile club than it was when ENIC took over.

Compare and contrast clubs like Aston Villa, Everton etc etc. We've even overtaken Arsenal.

As far as I see it, it's only the people who are for some reason obsessed with worthless tin pot silverware and who don't understand modern football who complain. All they care about is Arsenal and Chelsea fans taunting them. I couldn't care less, I'm not going to rise to them. How can winning the League Cup be better than being in the Champions League season after season? It isn't. If Arsenal win a cup and we qualify who has had the better season? I'm sorry but we have. They have one great day, we've set up next season. Since ENIC came in we have had better football, better players, more exciting matches against top teams and we got to the final. I would much prefer we finish 4th than win the FA Cup because it means next season we'll be hosting teams like Bayern, Real and Barca. That is awesome - waaaaaay better than playing in the shitty Europa.

Moaning and being negative is an easy narrative to get into, but the reality is pretty positive.

HodisGawd · Feb 28, 2020

vegassd said:
I don't think too many people would disagree with that - although "the most turgid awful" might be an overstatement! But I think this is where a lot of the faffing in this argument comes from. We aren't playing great, we lose a couple of games, and the natural reaction is to lash out and blame somebody. And since we have this cartoon-like figure of capitalism running our club it's very easy to blame him for everything.

In reality I think Levy has little influence over what happens on the pitch. All he can really do is put the tools in place for the team to be successful, which includes everything from the number of strikers we have to the quality of our sports psychologists. We are definitely a few tools short of greatness still but I don't see that as a reason to absolutely slam the chairman.

Levy's influence over the club is a long-term thing. As fans we get angry and emotional when we are playing poorly and lose, but that's a short-term thing. There will have been many missed opportunities by our board for sure, but saying things like "no sporting ambition" and "our success happens in spite of Levy" just don't ring true. Not to me at least.

So he's not the messiah, but he's not exactly a very naughty boy either! I was lucky enough to be at the recent Norwich game and it was pretty awful. But when you look at the team sheets, the managers, and then at the awe of our home stadium you have to ask the question what else is Levy expected to do? All the tools were there to boss the game but we didn't.

That is the nature of sport sometimes... it's how Villa are in a relegation battle but also a cup final. It's how Leicester won the league from nowhere. It's how City and PSG haven't won the CL between them. It sucks to be not winning stuff, but if it was easy to win stuff we wouldn't bother watching.

I absolutely 100 per cent agree with this.

I see Levy-hating Spurs fans going absolutely apoplectic about us not having won the League Cup or FA Cup for ages. As if that would change anything. But really, it all comes down to, as you say, "That is the nature of sport sometimes".

All Levy can do is create the conditions for winning. After that it is down to the mentality of the manager and the players and Lady Luck. And, unfortunately, she has been a spiteful bitch to us.

nickspurs · Feb 28, 2020

he is you know! said:
If already stated apologies, using Ndombele as an example, Herc has stated that we prefer to pay transfer fees over 4 years, loading prob differs according to price/deal. Add-ons when they are triggered.

So Year 1/2 20, Year 3.. 10, Year 4...6

But you’re mixing up cash flow and profit accounting. The previous posts were about amortisation which impacts profit. This is when you have an asset that lasts for x years (in our case a players contract length) so you just have the cost ‘spent’ equally over those x years.

Your (valid) point on our penchant for staggered payments is when money actually transfers to other clubs, i.e. cash flow.

he is you know! · Feb 28, 2020

nickspurs said:
But you’re mixing up cash flow and profit accounting. The previous posts were about amortisation which impacts profit. This is when you have an asset that lasts for x years (in our case a players contract length) so you just have the cost ‘spent’ equally over those x years.

Your (valid) point on our penchant for staggered payments is when money actually transfers to other clubs, i.e. cash flow.

Yes, appreciate that. Probably wrong time to crowbar this subject in.

Spurspiria · Feb 28, 2020

It's been a long journey. Undeniably frustrating at times. But I think back to when Enic took over and we have come a long long way. We could barely string more than 2 passes together in the 90s. The passing game started to improve when Hoddle took over. From Jol onwards we stopped being a mid table or lower side. The new stadium was so long in the planning. I'm sure since the Graham days we were looking at maximising our capacity from the old stadium. We were limited by the roads. Park lane limited how far we could extend the south stand by. We now can get varied classy food and beer options. No more pissing in the sinks in the toilets. I remember when we qualified for Europe for years and the euphoria of it. Now we expect nothing less than champions league and it would be a massive disappointment if we don't make it. That's a long way. We are aiming higher. That says to me that there is a lot to be optimistic about despite the frustrations along the way.

Saoirse · Feb 28, 2020

Everyone who wants ENIC gone seems to think something better would replace them. And they always seem to imagine the best-case scenario. For many that's a Man City, although personally I would seriously oppose that. In reality though, we're more likely to get an average owner. And if you ranked all the Premier League owners from 2001 when ENIC took over on the job they eventually did, or indeed those who are owners now, I really struggle to believe anyone wouldn't put ENIC in the top half. They're not perfect. But there's been a HELL of a lot worse. Better the devil you know in this case.

ToDarrenIsToDo · Feb 28, 2020

Saoirse said:
Everyone who wants ENIC gone seems to think something better would replace them. And they always seem to imagine the best-case scenario. For many that's a Man City, although personally I would seriously oppose that. In reality though, we're more likely to get an average owner. And if you ranked all the Premier League owners from 2001 when ENIC took over on the job they eventually did, or indeed those who are owners now, I really struggle to believe anyone wouldn't put ENIC in the top half. They're not perfect. But there's been a HELL of a lot worse. Better the devil you know in this case.

If you take away all the owners who have in large spells spent beyond their clubs means, ENIC probably come out 1st or 2nd in most lists. It took huge fees for Drinkwater, Kante, Mahrez and Maguire to get Leicester just about back to breaking even according to their accounts.

Unless I'm missing anyone that's glaringly obvious I can't think of many that run the business side and footballing side as well balanced as ENIC.

dontcallme · Feb 28, 2020

Saoirse said:
Everyone who wants ENIC gone seems to think something better would replace them. And they always seem to imagine the best-case scenario. For many that's a Man City, although personally I would seriously oppose that. In reality though, we're more likely to get an average owner. And if you ranked all the Premier League owners from 2001 when ENIC took over on the job they eventually did, or indeed those who are owners now, I really struggle to believe anyone wouldn't put ENIC in the top half. They're not perfect. But there's been a HELL of a lot worse. Better the devil you know in this case.

While I agree that ENIC have been very good for us, anyone buying us now would need serious money behind them.

carmeldevil · Feb 28, 2020

Saoirse said:
Everyone who wants ENIC gone seems to think something better would replace them. And they always seem to imagine the best-case scenario. For many that's a Man City, although personally I would seriously oppose that. In reality though, we're more likely to get an average owner. And if you ranked all the Premier League owners from 2001 when ENIC took over on the job they eventually did, or indeed those who are owners now, I really struggle to believe anyone wouldn't put ENIC in the top half. They're not perfect. But there's been a HELL of a lot worse. Better the devil you know in this case.

Yep. Of course ENIC needs to improve their operations. I sure hope Levy etc reevaluate their internal business process and improve especially now since the stadium is done. They really need to reevaluate how they do transfers. At least I hope they have already done so.

Any future owners pool that has $ to buy Tottenham if it ever comes up for sale is small. And some of them are not my ideal choices (hedge fund bros or rich people from authoritarian countries). But that's just me.

sammyj · Feb 28, 2020

We have never been the best in the world, close but not quite. But we have now got the best stadium and training ground in the world, patience and we will push for the title for many more years to come

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

ENIC...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I believe

Well-Known Member

Front Page Gadfly

Kick-Ass

Front Page Gadfly

Well-Known Member

The ghost of Johnny Cash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads