ENIC...

Nebby

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
1,719
Gave you creative mark it deserved.

Levy is interested in bottom line, and bottom line only, ENIC is an investment company.
It is our whole modus-operandi, every other club spends to their income to try to be as successful as they can within their financial limitations on the pitch, we spend just enough to get top prize money, and make the largest profits and re-invest the cash those profits in non-playing operations.

He is doing the right thing, in trying to reduce the overheads, with our revenue in freefall, and the value of his investment reducing, but he should not be declaring we have no operation and reducing by 20% the wages of the most vulnerable, without first having sorted out the situation of the highest earners, and without having taken significantly more than 20% reduction himself.

I agree with you he is putting pressure on players, but that is not from a moral standpoint (he has already shown his lack of them with what he has done), it is from a business bottom line basis.
That's because he's the chairman of a business that's valued at over $1.5 billion. You don't get to hold that position if you go all touchy-feely at the first sign of trouble.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,026
So that's it? The many examples and different arguments I supposedly missed in this thread all boiled down to "not everyone has done it (yet)"?


Q: Why are Spurs acting differently to every other club in our business?
A1: They're not.
A2: Levy feels this is the right thing to do for the club.
A3: Spurs have over £600m in stadium debt to pay off.
A4: Levy is more astute than other PL chairmen and you'll see plenty of other clubs do exactly the same thing if the players don't collectively agree to a wage deferment.
A5: Why should they do what everyone else does? Hold on, here comes that moral argument again...
A1 - How are they not, we are the only club to have forced its staff to take a wage cut ?
A2 I accept that, but would word it Levy feels it is the right thing for his own bottom line and investment.
A3 Spurs have that debt long-term financed and have record profits over the last 2 years, and received in February second half of years TV Revenue payout. Cash is not the issue.
A4 Levy is not more astute per se, just he sees football differently, he sees it as a way to make money out of the game for himself (through salary and bonuses) and ENIC, others see it primarily as an entertainment business, and re-invest in that on-pitch entertainment.
A5 Because maybe if the other 95% of clubs are acting in a certain way, even Mike Ashley, maybe, just maybe, that is the right way to act.

This is like when the £30 for away tickets came in, 18 clubs voted in favour of it, guess which was club was one of the 2 that didn't (the other being Arsenal)
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
19,451
A1 - How are they not, we are the only club to have forced its staff to take a wage cut ?
A2 I accept that, but would word it Levy feels it is the right thing for his own bottom line and investment.
A3 Spurs have that debt long-term financed and have record profits over the last 2 years, and received in February second half of years TV Revenue payout. Cash is not the issue.
A4 Levy is not more astute per se, just he sees football differently, he sees it as a way to make money out of the game for ENIC, others see it primarily as an entertainment business, and re-invest in that on=pitch entertainment.
A5 Because maybe if the other 95% of clubs are acting in a certain way, maybe that is the right way to act.

This is like when the £30 for away tickets came in, 18 clubs voted in favour of it, guess which was club was one of the 2 that didn't (the other being Arsenal)
Ah ok you've invalidated yourself there, I'm done with replying to this now. Hadn't realised there was a specific agenda behind it all but I guess it now all makes sense.

Have a good day.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,026
Ah ok you've invalidated yourself there, I'm done with replying to this now. Hadn't realised there was a specific agenda behind it all but I guess it now all makes sense.

Have a good day.
He is even on record as saying that in the days he invested in Rangers, he said ENIC have no interest in football, just they feel the price of football clubs were under-valued in the market at that time, and he could exploit that. Not specifically in those words but that ballpark, but cannot be bothered to find the actual quote, think A&C posted the interview on here a while ago.
 

LeSoupeKitchen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
2,206
The other thing is football is just a money vacuum. It just gobbles up every cent you throw at it without changing. You could literally give the premier league a trillion pounds and it would be exactly the same except Kane would be on £100m a week and Newcastle would buy Joelinton for £500m.

That's why no government money should go near it - it will just disappear.

You've almost got to leave football to equilibrate itself as long as the same factors are being applied to all teams. Football isn't going to just stop and all teams go out of business. If money going into it starts to decrease then so will player wages in time. And footballers will accept this - what the fuck else are they going to do?
 

KaribYid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
770
The excuses being made for Levy and the club in this thread are appaling. If Arsenal or West Ham did what we did, everyone would rightfully have a go at them.

I'm not anti-Levy like a lot of people on here but I've lost a lot of respect for him during all this.

We played our last game on March 10th. Less than a month later, we've furloughed our staff and cut pay. Does anyone in here really think it would've affected the financial stability of the club if staff were paid their full wages that at the beginning of the month, everyone thought would be paid as normal? The optics is terrible and it looks like Levy could not wait to save a few pennies. The club just announced a 68m profit. The club has 123m in the bank. We could've paid staff up until April in full and reviewed the situation from there.

It's the swiftness that has really bothered me. If this situation goes on for months - as it almost certainly will - I'm sure that a lot of PL clubs will start to feel the pinch. But to run to the government when the Club could easily afford to pay workers in full for a month or two at least is really poor taste. It may have been a correct business decision, but it's a morally bankrupt decision. It's disappointing to see so many people defending this. Us and Newcastle are the only clubs to cut staff salaries. Mike Ashley is a charlatan who I couldn't think any lesser of, Daniel Levy I thought was better than this.
 

KingKay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
6,048
If people aren't working then it makes sense for them to be furloughed. This applies to all industry, football is no different.

Sick of the faux outrage all of the time by people determined to turn football into a fucking soap opera.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
2,951
It's ultimately all just a massive drama over not much at all isn't it? I'm not seeing any justification for the ridiculous vilification of Levy and the club anywhere - the best people can offer is "morally we should be different from every other business" - but absolutely no-one can say why exactly that should be.

However, it's football - the world of perpetual false-drama and ridiculous narrative. The fact that BBC news led with this story a couple of days ago shows how hysterically this country and others react to anything to do with football. If it's not hyperbole about how important the results are, it's super-villain owners and evil corporate monsters - all because clubs are doing the same thing every other business in the same position is doing.

And we're getting people saying they won't pay the club any money anymore, that our image will "be tarnished forever" etc. Yes you will. No it won't (outside the Twitter bantersphere).

The pointless over the top invented artificial drama of football which, as always, is completely ambivalent to the facts, the truth or any sense of objectivity. That's all this is.
I very much agree with this. You can make a range of specific points but they will simply be ignored as the poster reaches for a new stone to throw. It's pointless really - some people make their mind up early doors and that's that.

I found it interesting when this idea of players wages and the "morality" issue was raised in the gov briefing yesterday. A journalist asked something along the lines of "is it immoral for PL players to receive 100% wages whilst other staff are being furloughed" - a leading question for sure - but the Health Secretary just seemed stunned that this was what the journalist was using for his one question. The whole room seemed a bit shocked!

The serious people who have important things to do couldn't give a flying fuck about what footballers are doing, and rightly so. The people messing their pants about this seemingly have nothing better to be thinking about. When I saw it then reported on the BBC as "Health Secretary calls players immoral" or whatever that highlighted the pantomime nature of modern sport. It was such a non-event in the briefing but was rehashed by the sports media as breaking news.

We all know that players can make a huge difference by taking a pay cut. We all know that football revenues are in limbo until the PL decides how it is going to conclude. We all know that there are far more important things to be worrying about. But like you say, some people simply can't resist brewing storms in tea cups. Ho hum.
 

KaribYid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
770
If people aren't working then it makes sense for them to be furloughed. This applies to all industry, football is no different.

Sick of the faux outrage all of the time by people determined to turn football into a fucking soap opera.
So why have only two clubs out of 20 done it?
 

pelayo59

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
1,035
The optics is terrible and it looks like Levy could not wait to save a few pennies. The club just announced a 68m profit. The club has 123m in the bank. We could've paid staff up until April in full and reviewed the situation from there.
It was 10 months ago, in that time the club changed manager, refinanced the debt, we lost 40m from Champions League(in comparison to last year), an amount of money which UEFA probably send to the club at the end of the season not now, we lost our matchday revenue and TV money.

I would say that the club knows the situation better because it's totally different situation now.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
25,396
The argument really is whether £1M a month is a meaningful amount to Tottenham. If people are adamant that it is then I respect their opinion that Levy is doing the right thing.

To me this amount of money is such a small proportion of total outlay it seems unbelievable it is the difference between life and death of the club. For other big businesses who employ thousands of people then being able to furlough does make a huge difference to their total outlay.

It's not just football. If a highly successful city law firm that had massively increased in value over the last few years (albeit technically in debt having recently moved to plush new offices) were to get the government to pay for all admin staff, cleaners, security etc (and give them a pay decrease) while continuing to pay all the lawyers their full obscene salaries then I would be equally appalled.
I wonder if the same people that are desperate for these workers to get this money will be the same people happy that we miss out on a player because we might not have that couple of million in the bank to get the deal over the line. Let’s wait and see. Will be interesting to note.
 

ebzrascal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
2,347
I very much agree with this. You can make a range of specific points but they will simply be ignored as the poster reaches for a new stone to throw. It's pointless really - some people make their mind up early doors and that's that.

I found it interesting when this idea of players wages and the "morality" issue was raised in the gov briefing yesterday. A journalist asked something along the lines of "is it immoral for PL players to receive 100% wages whilst other staff are being furloughed" - a leading question for sure - but the Health Secretary just seemed stunned that this was what the journalist was using for his one question. The whole room seemed a bit shocked!

The serious people who have important things to do couldn't give a flying fuck about what footballers are doing, and rightly so. The people messing their pants about this seemingly have nothing better to be thinking about. When I saw it then reported on the BBC as "Health Secretary calls players immoral" or whatever that highlighted the pantomime nature of modern sport. It was such a non-event in the briefing but was rehashed by the sports media as breaking news.

We all know that players can make a huge difference by taking a pay cut. We all know that football revenues are in limbo until the PL decides how it is going to conclude. We all know that there are far more important things to be worrying about. But like you say, some people simply can't resist brewing storms in tea cups. Ho hum.
I think the question was valid this is a national crisis and everyone should be in it together... Premier league footballers are clearly not doing their but so far.. Why some prominent player have not come out and offered to help pay staff wages is frankly obscene.. I don't what I feel about football at the moment to be honest. That Levy is the first does not sit well with me...
 

shelfboy68

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
10,353
S
I wonder if the same people that are desperate for these workers to get this money will be the same people happy that we miss out on a player because we might not have that couple of million in the bank to get the deal over the line. Let’s wait and see. Will be interesting to note.
Since when did that change :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
19,451
The optics is terrible and it looks like Levy could not wait to save a few pennies. The club just announced a 68m profit. The club has 123m in the bank.
We announced the profit for last year. Same as the "money in the bank" (which isn't a thing anyway).

Since then we've spent a fortune on players, sold none, and our wage bill has rocketed. We owe about £85m in unpaid transfer fees and we're only owed about £4m.

Just clearing up the idea that the club is sitting on some Scrooge McDuck style moneypit.

Also, this thread. "Optics" FFS. Feel like I'm constantly in a meeting at a PR agency the amount of times I've seen this buzzword.
 
Last edited:

KikoSpurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
171
If I were Lewis I'd consider Levy's position.

Failure in delivering results; supporters not so keen in renew ST; bad PR by cutting staff wages during this coronavirus crisis.
 

Monkey boy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
4,486
So all non playing staff are furloughed yet we still get hourly updates on social media about previous games. Strange that?
 

Wsussexspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
5,571
If I were Lewis I'd consider Levy's position.

Failure in delivering results; supporters not so keen in renew ST; bad PR by cutting staff wages during this coronavirus crisis.

Pretty sure Lewis would have been consulted on the wage cuts.

Rumours posted on here only couple of weeks ago from ITK were that he isn't very impressed with Levy and he was going to be moved aside from the football side of the business. Personally thought it was lot of personal opinion than ITK but thats only my view on it. Sure others have there's.
 

thekneaf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
1,091
Other clubs have not announced their measures. That does not mean they're not doing similar.
 
Top