ENIC...
- Thread starter whitestreak
- Start date
- Status
dudu
Well-Known Member
- Jan 28, 2011
- 5,314
- 11,048
I'm not saying we shouldn't have bought him, but we also did buy 2 CMs in the summer, perhaps the 3rd wasn't deemed a priority then.
The time to strengthen is constantly, there should always be a follow of players joining and leaving. It shouldn't be a feast or famine situation.
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,225
- 83,143
If you are looking forward to Redknapp blasting Levy I think you are going to be disappointed.
-Afri-Coy-
Well-Known Member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 5,853
- 18,607
We didn't need a third CM (attacking) signing, and we still don't need him now.
If we had to of signed every single player who went to a rival and did well we would have a squad of about 380 players.
What we need is two capable Full Backs, A strong DM who can impose himself on our midfield, and a back up striker for Kane. Anything else would be a luxury without our injury crisis. We do have the players, we need additions and a mentality adjustment.
All this negativity is being brought up so that certain members of the forum can say: "I told you so".
It is only to our benefit if the profits are used on the playing side of the business, and not re-invested in non-football related projects.
In fact if the profits made by the footballing side of the business are diverted into these sort of projects, which has been the case so far, then it is to the detriment of the reason we are all supporters of the club.
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,225
- 83,143
I don’t think that has been the case. I believe that to be a misrepresentation.
scat1620
L'espion mal fait
- May 11, 2008
- 16,351
- 52,724
They don't need my help to do that, Lighty.
Drink!Drink!
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2014
- 1,361
- 5,033
Two successive windows with zero new or replacement players for the squad.
TWO
Two window transfer bans are one of UEFA's toughest options for punishing clubs. People in football think you hurt and punish a club by doing this. Levy and ENIC did it voluntarily.
ENIC will want us to forget this. We really, really should not.
TWO
Two window transfer bans are one of UEFA's toughest options for punishing clubs. People in football think you hurt and punish a club by doing this. Levy and ENIC did it voluntarily.
ENIC will want us to forget this. We really, really should not.
Where do you think the money has come from these non-football related projects if not from the accumulated profits of the football club ?
I don't think they print their own money, haven't had rights issue in a decade, and the borrowings are far less than the assets acquired.
The club has made c. £500m profit over the last 6 years, so how can you with a straight face (unless it is buried in the sand) say that it is a misrepresentation ?
Basically the profits made by the football club have been re-invested, but not in the team, but in Lilywhite House, a Supermarket, a College, £400m extra spent on a stadium than was required by increasing the initial spec, future housing, future hotel, future tower blocks etc, none of the profits of which will ever be re-invested in the team, but just further future projects.
It is what ENIC have always done and will continue doing., they are an investment company.
They will give us a team they think are capable of Top 4, through buying young, selling high, and developing our own. Nothing more, and the profits generated will continue to go into projects.
It is time we get what we deserve, an owner that has the football club, and winning things, rather than increasing their investment with off-field assets as their priority.
Last edited:
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,225
- 83,143
I believe they have increased the worth of the club and run the club in a way to be self-sustainable.
They have used the worth of the club to build a stadium and other things that will benefit the club.
I don’t believe it is a fair representation to say they are taking money from the playing side to pay for off-field ventures/
PLTuck
Eternal Optimist
- Aug 22, 2006
- 15,902
- 33,070
For the next 100 years, not just the next transfer window.
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,225
- 83,143
The bastards
I am going to try that, I will go to Tescos later and ask them if I can have the shopping with my worth, rather than cash.
You really don't understand economics do you. How can you have fixed assets of £1.2bn, borrowings of £ 700m, if you haven't found the other £500m from somewhere else ?
In our case where it was found, and continues to be found, is the Football Clubs cashflow generated from its accumulated profits, it is simple and undeniable as that.
Last edited:
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,225
- 83,143
I meant they have used the worth of the club to get funds to build the stadium. Thought that was clear.
This guy gets it
2017 THST: "Levy says infrastructure has cost 1.6 billion" we have a mortgage of £636 million. where does this help us (fans) it doesn't, if the club is sold then that money is equity for the owners nothing else. That is where your re build went.
KikoSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Aug 8, 2019
- 379
- 936
I don't know about the details but I think if we had taken our chances during summer we could have got a better deal (in terms of addons).
Gassin's finest
C'est diabolique
- May 12, 2010
- 37,528
- 88,241
shelfboy68
Well-Known Member
- Jun 14, 2008
- 14,566
- 19,651
Surprised levy didn't buy lord Nelson as he was cheap
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,225
- 83,143
Well like I say the reports of our offers in the summer which were rejected were similar to the amount that Utd got him for. No sign that his new contract affected his cost.
There was no boat missed in regards to getting him on the cheap as far as the reports out there are concerned.
- Status
