ENIC...

pelayo59

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
1,030
I think you're wrong. Bad stories over time will grind down our attractiveness as a club to sponsors. You think that Nike or whoever will be more or less likely to chuck a load of cash at us after this?
Anyway, it's not just about commercial shit. We're talking about the club's responsibilities as a national institution. If you think those sorts of things don't matter, you're singing off a completely different hymn sheet from me. More people care about this sort of thing than you think, I reckon.
Do you think Nike from America or AIA from Asia will give a fuck about that club is using money from English government? Or Audi and Kumho Tyre who shut down their factories? In reality that it's something that 99% of people will forget about the next week football will be back.
 

PaulM

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
58
Jamie Carragher put it well when we said he (and the football world) expected this from Daniel Levy & Mike Ashley... great company we're in folks.
Jamies Carragher's opinion on this stuff means nothing to me. Aside from the spitting stuff highlighted above, Carragher showed last year in his debate with Gary Neville about us that he knows nothing about the economics of running a football club. Outside of the actual game, he's pretty clueless.
 

PaulM

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
58
P.S

I have heard rumours within my industry that we will amend our decision and backtrack on the original plan.

Watch this space.
Can't see Levy just giving in to public pressure or being seen to give in to it. If he rows back, I'm betting it's in conjunction with a pay cut for the players so the line will be "well we saved x on the players so we feel confident we can now pay the non-playing staff".
 

pagevee

Ehhhh, What's up Doc?
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
614
While I do not work as an Advisor, am not a Tax professional, or a lawyer. Hindsight is 20/20.

Ideally, I would have recommended Levy take a 40% cut, the Director's take a 30% cut, I would place all employees earning less than 19.54 per hour on furlough, propped up the wages of the furloughed employees back to 100%, cut wages of all employees earning over 100k Annual by 25%, all employees earning over 50k Annual take a 20% cut, all non-furlough employees under 50k Annual take a 15% cut. Responding as needed to make sure an employee of a lower tier does not earn more than someone in the tier above.

This would show the greatest cuts being taken by the people who can reasonably afford the cash flow decrease during this crisis. This uses the same public funding for income to pay 80% of the lowest earning employees at the club AND guarantees those positions while using funds from higher earners to prop the lowest earners back up to 100%/normal pay.

If the numbers need to be adjusted, start deferring more from the top/down or just guilt trip the shit out of the first team. I call this, putting your money where your mouth is.
 

SpunkyBackpack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,791
I think you're wrong. Bad stories over time will grind down our attractiveness as a club to sponsors. You think that Nike or whoever will be more or less likely to chuck a load of cash at us after this?
Who Nike? The same Nike who sponsor teams funded with blood money and Russian gangster money? The same Nike who continue to sponsor players with rape and doping allegations? The same Nike whose acrylic sportswear is made in sweatshops in a place we can ignore because the people there are brown rather than white? I'm sure they're really bothered at one of their clubs using a legitimate govenment scheme to save some cash on wages during a global pandemic. The didn't ditch Lance Armstrong til 2012.

Money dont care, you might, i might, corporations dont until it becomes too big to manage, which this will never be because it's not sexy or damaging enough for them to give 2 shits about.

The bottom line is it wont affect the bottom line.

Anyway, it's not just about commercial shit. We're talking about the club's responsibilities as a national institution. If you think those sorts of things don't matter, you're singing off a completely different hymn sheet from me. More people care about this sort of thing than you think, I reckon.
National institution? We're not the Post Office. We're a multi-billion pound corporate entertainment juggernaught overseen by a billionaire based in a tax haven funded by investments groups that exists to sell polyester shirts with logos on to mugs and children. If you are upset thats what football is then im afraid you're 30 years too late.

The world Spurs exists in it is about commercial shit, it's only about commercial shit and neither you or me matter a jot, its about money and dont worry, no money will be harmed by a load of miffed Spurs fans (who would change their tune if we won a trophy last season because we're all fickle) and opposition fans who also dont give a shit, they just like poking people on the internet. Journos will write their thing and move on to the next thing.

That might make you sad, and it should but it doesn't change a thing about it. Welcome to the 21st century, where it's all made up and the ethics dont matter.
 
Last edited:

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
18,399
Who Nike? The same Nike who sponsor teams funded with blood money and Russian gangster money? The same Nike who continue to sponsor players with rape and doping allegations? The same Nike whose acrylic sportswear is made in sweatshops in a place we can ignore because the people there are brown rather than white? I'm sure they're really bothered.

Money dont care, you might, i might, corporations dont until it becomes too big to manage, which this will never be because it's not sexy or damaging enough for them to give 2 shits about.

The bottom line is it wont affect the bottom line.



National institution? We're not the Post Office. We're a multi-billion pound corporate entertainment juggernaught overseen by a billionaire based in a tax haven funded by investments groups that exists to sell polyester shirts with logos on to mugs and children. If you are upset thats what football is then im afraid you're 30 years too late.

The world Spurs exists in it is about commercial shit, it's only about commercial shit and neither you or me matter a jot, its about money and dont worry, no money will be harmed by a load of miffed Spurs fans (who would change their tune if we won a trophy last season because we're all fickle) and opposition fans who also dont give a shit, they just like poking people on the internet. Journos will write their thing and move on to the next thing.

That might make you sad, and it should but it doesn't change a thing about it. Welcome to the 21st century, where it's all made up and the ethics dont matter.
Sadly I agree. It is not a moral world and big business certainly isn't a moral place.
 

Yid-ol

Just-in-Edinburgh
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
26,748
This would show the greatest cuts being taken by the people who can reasonably afford the cash flow decrease during this crisis. This uses the same public funding for income to pay 80% of the lowest earning employees at the club AND guarantees those positions while using funds from higher earners to prop the lowest earners back up to 100%/normal pay.
Can I ask how you know they can reasonably afford the cut?

If it's because they earn the most money, then this is completely blinkered on the income side of a person's financial situation.
 

pagevee

Ehhhh, What's up Doc?
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
614
Can I ask how you know they can reasonably afford the cut?

If it's because they earn the most money, then this is completely blinkered on the income side of a person's financial situation.
Seriously? This is why you disagree?

There is no way for me to know anyone's specific financial status. That being the case, it is a reasonable assumption that a person with a six-figure salary, whitecollar job, and potentially some form of formal education to have accrued more assets than a coworker closer to the poverty line. Those accumulated assets enable individuals to be better equipped than their coworker to ride out a temporary cash flow crisis.

Nothing is perfect but if you earn six figure income and you are paycheck to paycheck then you need to reevaluate your priorities, go on a budget, change your lifestyle, pay down your debt, or prepare yourself for debtors prison/bankruptcy. Harsh, but if you live outside your means there are consequences. Income levels have nothing to do with your budget or your decision making.

I am not saying shit doesn't happen, medical expenses are insane, divorce is expensive, but I am not going to change my recommendations because of an anomaly. It is Reasonable that higher earning individuals are better equipped to handle a larger financial burden. That is why governments unsuccessfully try to tax them more than normal people, over here it is called an income tax bracket for a reason.
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
588
On Google news it seems like the story has moved on to the Mourinho/Ndombele thing and Jimmy Greaves. I would imagine that in a few days there will be some newer stories coming out.

In terms of Twitter I have never taken much notice of it. It appears to be constantly full of people slagging off football clubs etc. because it's a mouthpiece for people to voice their opinion without the requirement for knowledge or understanding. It really wouldn't surprise me to see hundreds of thousands of dislikes (or whatever happens) from Twitter users, but it doesn't mean anything.

What I think hasn't been made clear yet is in what way will we lose money from this supposedly bad PR? This isn't a dig - this is a genuine question. When somebody says "this will cost us more in the long run" what revenue streams are we talking about here? My instinct is that the financial cost from bad PR is based on sponsors, and to my mind at least the decision makers at those potential sponsors will have a very different view of the furlough decision than people on Twitter will.

To me it is a storm in a tea cup and will blow over before we know it. Life these days (before the outbreak) is full of people jumping on the Internet to complain about stuff and I view this as a very similar situation. Already there are newer stories about Spurs making the headlines, soon there will be a decision about player pay which will take the headlines, and then if the club reverses the decision after that it will be another story. All of those stories will receive massive criticism on Twitter etc. no matter the content, and all the while I doubt anybody at AIA or whatever is looking to retract their sponsorship deals with the club.

Time will tell I suppose.
It’s about brands wanting to associate with our brand.

I will give you a simple example:

@Vinny_Sammways_left_peg too:

Tiger Woods cheating on his wife cost his sponsors anywhere between $5 - 12 BILLION. This was calculated by a team of experts at Reuters. Reports my team were sent in the aftermath said it could even have been more than this.

Of course, our brand value is nowhere near that of Tiger Woods. But this is just an example of how much damage to a brand can cost.

I would estimate this would wipe at least 20% off what we can sell stadium rights for. AT LEAST!

If you are Rolex, Mercedes or Apple - do you want to associate with Tottenham Hotspur?

Before these deals are made you have a team of 100+ people working on them. You have researchers and a chain of command within the corporate structure.

You think 5million Twitter engagements of negative Spurs PR are meaningless? Think again. These will be meticulously measured and submitted to the board of any potential sponsor. Usually by a specialist social media analysis company.

You need to really understand the bigger picture here.

I still believe the decision will be reversed, but we will see.
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
588
Who Nike? The same Nike who sponsor teams funded with blood money and Russian gangster money? The same Nike who continue to sponsor players with rape and doping allegations? The same Nike whose acrylic sportswear is made in sweatshops in a place we can ignore because the people there are brown rather than white? I'm sure they're really bothered at one of their clubs using a legitimate govenment scheme to save some cash on wages during a global pandemic. The didn't ditch Lance Armstrong til 2012.

Money dont care, you might, i might, corporations dont until it becomes too big to manage, which this will never be because it's not sexy or damaging enough for them to give 2 shits about.

The bottom line is it wont affect the bottom line.



National institution? We're not the Post Office. We're a multi-billion pound corporate entertainment juggernaught overseen by a billionaire based in a tax haven funded by investments groups that exists to sell polyester shirts with logos on to mugs and children. If you are upset thats what football is then im afraid you're 30 years too late.

The world Spurs exists in it is about commercial shit, it's only about commercial shit and neither you or me matter a jot, its about money and dont worry, no money will be harmed by a load of miffed Spurs fans (who would change their tune if we won a trophy last season because we're all fickle) and opposition fans who also dont give a shit, they just like poking people on the internet. Journos will write their thing and move on to the next thing.

That might make you sad, and it should but it doesn't change a thing about it. Welcome to the 21st century, where it's all made up and the ethics dont matter.

Hope this helps.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
18,399
It’s about brands wanting to associate with our brand.

I will give you a simple example:

@Vinny_Sammways_left_peg too:

Tiger Woods cheating on his wife cost his sponsors anywhere between $5 - 12 BILLION. This was calculated by a team of experts at Reuters. Reports my team were sent in the aftermath said it could even have been more than this.

Of course, our brand value is nowhere near that of Tiger Woods. But this is just an example of how much damage to a brand can cost.

I would estimate this would wipe at least 20% off what we can sell stadium rights for. AT LEAST!

If you are Rolex, Mercedes or Apple - do you want to associate with Tottenham Hotspur?

Before these deals are made you have a team of 100+ people working on them. You have researchers and a chain of command within the corporate structure.

You think 5million Twitter engagements of negative Spurs PR are meaningless? Think again. These will be meticulously measured and submitted to the board of any potential sponsor. Usually by a specialist social media analysis company.

You need to really understand the bigger picture here.

I still believe the decision will be reversed, but we will see.
All well and good for individuals but football clubs have done far worse and not been affected by sponsorship.
 

SpunkyBackpack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,791

Hope this helps.
For crying out loud. How they came up with those numbers aside, Tiger Woods was Nike's number one, he represented everything they stood for for decades and they threw more money behind him than anyone or anything else. He then pissed all of that away by doing the thing the press love the most, falling from top all the way to rock bottom via a sex and drugs scandal that was global news for months. We did a government designated scheme to pay office staff. We aren't even Nike's top club in our own city. You think those are comparable?

So no, it doesn't help. But feel free to keep rating anything you disagree with as spam if that makes you happy.
 

Vinny_Sammways_left_peg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
8,286
It’s about brands wanting to associate with our brand.

I will give you a simple example:

@Vinny_Sammways_left_peg too:

Tiger Woods cheating on his wife cost his sponsors anywhere between $5 - 12 BILLION. This was calculated by a team of experts at Reuters. Reports my team were sent in the aftermath said it could even have been more than this.

Of course, our brand value is nowhere near that of Tiger Woods. But this is just an example of how much damage to a brand can cost.

I would estimate this would wipe at least 20% off what we can sell stadium rights for. AT LEAST!

If you are Rolex, Mercedes or Apple - do you want to associate with Tottenham Hotspur?

Before these deals are made you have a team of 100+ people working on them. You have researchers and a chain of command within the corporate structure.

You think 5million Twitter engagements of negative Spurs PR are meaningless? Think again. These will be meticulously measured and submitted to the board of any potential sponsor. Usually by a specialist social media analysis company.

You need to really understand the bigger picture here.

I still believe the decision will be reversed, but we will see.
Apple, with their track record ethically?


I'm of the opinion that your take on this is far to over the top for it to matter as much as you continue to make out.

Also it was almost two weeks ago that Levy did what he did. You and a few others on here are still bothered by it.

A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her cross to the other side.

The two monks glanced at one another because they had taken vows not to touch a woman.

Then, without a word, the older monk picked up the woman, carried her across the river, placed her gently on the other side, and carried on his 
journey.

The younger monk couldn’t believe what had just happened. After rejoining his companion, he was speechless, and an hour passed without a word between them.

Two more hours passed, then three, finally the younger monk could contain himself any longer, and blurted out “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”

The older monk looked at him and replied, “Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?”


I think I am genuinely over it.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
29,240
The Tiger Woods example 😂

Some incredible reaches in here...Levy choosing not to have morals will do nothing to our brand, come on stop being so overdramatic...money talks in business.
 

pelayo59

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
1,030

Hope this helps.
Please show me any similarities about story by one individual person who betrayed their wife with 13 girls and football club who put their small part of workers on furlough in the middle of pandemic and global crisis?
 

Nebby

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
1,715
Nike make millions by part
You make some really valid points.

No one truly knows the cost of our decision. Like you say, it may well depend on what lies ahead. How long will lockdown last? Will clubs who did not furlough go bust/lay off staff?

The main reason I believe the decision to furlough in the way we have is purely based on implied cost of bad publicity.

Carragher’s spit blew over. It was a bad moment, but it wasn’t something that saw people dying.

Coronavirus outbreak has involved the entire world. It has created an outpour of emotion.

To the finance guys, our club is a BRAND. Our brand has been tarnished because of this, in a massive way. You shouldn’t underestimate that.

Go on Twitter and search for Spurs/Tottenham. Click on posts. Check their impact (times seen/comments/retweets).

Type the same into Google News.

All negative. All detailing a rich, greedy club who only think of themselves during an international crisis.

My simple question is this:

Is the amount we will save by furloughing worth this? Absolutely no way.

It’s not just us. Other businesses have made disastrous PR moves too. Virgin spring to mind.

If you offered the club a chance to remove two weeks of negative PR and change that story to sit with positive stories like City, United or Arsenal - how much would they pay?

Way, way more than we are going to save.
Absolute guff.
 

dudu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
3,395
It’s about brands wanting to associate with our brand.

I will give you a simple example:

@Vinny_Sammways_left_peg too:

Tiger Woods cheating on his wife cost his sponsors anywhere between $5 - 12 BILLION. This was calculated by a team of experts at Reuters. Reports my team were sent in the aftermath said it could even have been more than this.

Of course, our brand value is nowhere near that of Tiger Woods. But this is just an example of how much damage to a brand can cost.

I would estimate this would wipe at least 20% off what we can sell stadium rights for. AT LEAST!

If you are Rolex, Mercedes or Apple - do you want to associate with Tottenham Hotspur?

Before these deals are made you have a team of 100+ people working on them. You have researchers and a chain of command within the corporate structure.

You think 5million Twitter engagements of negative Spurs PR are meaningless? Think again. These will be meticulously measured and submitted to the board of any potential sponsor. Usually by a specialist social media analysis company.

You need to really understand the bigger picture here.

I still believe the decision will be reversed, but we will see.
If that were the case, how would Man City have any sponsors whatsoever?
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
588
The furlough decision is saving us how much per month? Let’s say £1.5million at a stretch.

Let’s say we furlough for 3 months.

We save £4.5million

Now....

We come to finalise a deal for the stadium...

The value of this deal will be reduced by MORE than £4.5million.

I know, because it’s my profession.

This alone proves my point. Without all the other negatives associated with the decision.

Fortunately there are more sensible people on here that have agreed with me, but not going to bother arguing with people who don’t have the knowledge of this area of business to understand.

If you want some example reports of what we use at to assess the value of sponsorship deals when processing bid management, let me know.(y)
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
588
If that were the case, how would Man City have any sponsors whatsoever?
Have a look who their main sponsors are.

My point isn’t that we will not find sponsors. It’s that the value of deals WILL decrease.
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
588
The Tiger Woods example 😂

Some incredible reaches in here...Levy choosing not to have morals will do nothing to our brand, come on stop being so overdramatic...money talks in business.
Completely contradicted yourself.

Yes, money talks. When signing sponsorship deals these brands will use this saga against us (with bundles of data) in order to pay us less money for sponsorship.

Overall we will lose more than we are saving.

Really I am not going to waste any more time on this now.

I will come back once we have some further developments, press releases or data on this.
 
Top