Jack Grealish

sausage

Elongated Member
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
3,046
You keep on peddling this but ENIC haven’t financed the stadium. They have borrowed the money. They would have been lent the money on the basis that the stadium will generate enough revenue to pay back the loan over that period and more. I’m sure ENIC have put some money in but they will get all that money back and plenty more make no mistake. Can we drop this idea that ENIC are in it for anything but the money at least then it’s a bit more palatable
You seem to be completely oblivious as to the conditions in which £500m loans are set out. I have to keep "peddling it" because there's a lack of understanding on the subject.

As an aside, if ENIC were "in it for the money", then you'd have expected us to be ran like Blackpool or Newcastle, with asset stripping. As it happens, ENIC (owned by Spurs fans) are interested in making the club more valuable, the methods of which align with the ambitions of the fans.
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
6,156
I'm just providing a reason why we're not spending money like City, even if we somehow could viably do so.

I want us to buy pretty much every top level player we're linked to, don't get me wrong. But if I had money in the club right now I don't know if I'd want that on top of the huge loans that's been taken due to the stadium construction and I also can't say for sure that it'd be in the club's best interest to do so.
Yeah I don't think we should be spending money like city, united, liv but we can't spend as much as fulham, leicester? I mean 60 mill negative net spend is going to turn us into Portsmouth if I believed this forum.
 

king26

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
797
Yeah I don't think we should be spending money like city, united, liv but we can't spend as much as fulham, leicester? I mean 60 mill negative net spend is going to turn us into Portsmouth if I believed this forum.
this year 60 mill next year 120 mil not the way spurs do deals
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
40,305
You keep on peddling this but ENIC haven’t financed the stadium. They have borrowed the money. They would have been lent the money on the basis that the stadium will generate enough revenue to pay back the loan over that period and more. I’m sure ENIC have put some money in but they will get all that money back and plenty more make no mistake. Can we drop this idea that ENIC are in it for anything but the money at least then it’s a bit more palatable
The i in enic stands for investment. If you want new owners that's fine. I'm open to it as is levy he has said that spurs are always for sale. Problem is no takers.

So complaining about it or that we have a limited transfer budget while the stadium is being built is a bit pointless. So levy just has to do the best he can with the resources he can.
 

kendoddsdadsdogsdead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,278
You seem to be completely oblivious as to the conditions in which £500m loans are set out. I have to keep "peddling it" because there's a lack of understanding on the subject.

As an aside, if ENIC were "in it for the money", then you'd have expected us to be ran like Blackpool or Newcastle, with asset stripping. As it happens, ENIC (owned by Spurs fans) are interested in making the club more valuable, the methods of which align with the ambitions of the fans.
Ok, enlighten, what are the conditions for this loan? Or any loan of this size for a football or Sports business.
 

sausage

Elongated Member
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
3,046
Who is claiming this?

The stadium is the reason we’ve been given for spending modestly for 15 years.

Now it’s the reason we’re using to justify Levy spending fuck all (while taking a £5M salary himself)

This madness needs to end
You're claiming (or at least, heavily implying) the profit is free to be spent on transfers. Until we have secured sponsorship for the stadium, I'd say it's a given that we need to retain cash in the bank as security on the loans.




That, and the fact that, you know, the window hasn't closed yet - we could yet spend a wedge.
 

sausage

Elongated Member
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
3,046
Ok, enlighten, what are the conditions for this loan? Or any loan of this size for a football or Sports business.
It's been mentioned often, especially by those with more knowledge on the subject than I have, that we would be required to maintain a healthy bank balance as a fall-back (and security) against the £400m loan. ENIC have also provided guarantees to bridge funding, with a guaranteed £50m. It's all on the website in financial speak and involves plenty of acronyms and jargon, but essentially you can't then go off and destabilise the financial security of the "club" (business) without spooking the creditors.
 

whitesocks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
3,387
You seem to be completely oblivious as to the conditions in which £500m loans are set out. I have to keep "peddling it" because there's a lack of understanding on the subject.

As an aside, if ENIC were "in it for the money", then you'd have expected us to be ran like Blackpool or Newcastle, with asset stripping. As it happens, ENIC (owned by Spurs fans) are interested in making the club more valuable, the methods of which align with the ambitions of the fans.
How much more valuable can they make the club?
We'd have to win the league as the next step, and that would take investment we are unlikely to see until the stadium is paid off, or Enic have sold us to a multi billionaire.

This is looking to be a very disappointing window but just maybe we are moving into the last stage of Enic's ownership.
Just throwing it out there.... as you were.
 

sausage

Elongated Member
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
3,046
How much more valuable can they make the club?
We'd have to win the league as the next step, and that would take investment we are unlikely to see until the stadium is paid off, or Enic have sold us to a multi billionaire.

This is looking to be a very disappointing window but just maybe we are moving into the last stage of Enic's ownership.
Just throwing it out there.... as you were.
Well, it's all based on income, really. I guess part of it revolves around the security of income outside of football, so NFL, concerts and so on. I guess a large part of it is drawing in fans, so global "interest". That is not down to just winning the league, like Leicester, but I guess it would be consistent success.

The last part would be squad value, so buying more Deles than Llorentes - which is maybe where players like Grealish are of interest. I'd expect that we'd hope to produce a "football factory" of talent through the academy though, rather than buying.

All just my opinion/speculation though.
 

The Journalist

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
340
This is completely wrong.

The financial fair play regulations are to do with profitability not debts.

The new owners at Villa can put in money to pay off debts but Villa will still fall foul of the FFP regulations if its losses exceed £39m over a three year period including the current season. The only practical way out of the problem for Villa is to sell players at a profit and that means selling Grealish.

If they fail the FFP test the punishment can now include a points deduction or exclusion from automatic promotion or the play-offs. Basically failing FFP means another season in the Championship.
Post of the day
 

RJR1949

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
308
I didn't say it was to do with debts but a part of ffp does include debts not paid to other teams. Most of the clubs that have been prosecuted under uefa rules ffp is because they owed other teams money for player transactions.

It is not really to do with profitability either. It is about player transactions and wages.
I’m afraid you are wrong.

The FFP regulations govern the maximum amounts teams are allowed to lose.

Of course if you run up losses you are liable to owe people money, including other clubs, but it is quite possible for a club to owe nothing because it had been fully funded by its owners but still fail the FFP tests.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
40,305
I’m afraid you are wrong.

The FFP regulations govern the maximum amounts teams are allowed to lose.

Of course if you run up losses you are liable to owe people money, including other clubs, but it is quite possible for a club to owe nothing because it had been fully funded by its owners but still fail the FFP tests.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4110278/amp/UEFA-ban-Partizan-Belgrade-European-competition-one-three-seasons-unpaid-debts.html

'This decision was taken after FK Partizan failed to comply with the articles 65(1), 66(1) and 66bis(1) of the UEFA club licensing and financial fair play regulations.'

The articles refer to unpaid monies towards football clubs, employees and social or tax authorities.
 

SpartanSpur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
7,602
"save him money".

Save us money. Save the club money.

"Smooth things through" = pay more money. I don't really know why that differentiates what you say from the rest if I'm honest. Ultimately you're saying pay up. £1m more is £20k a year on some-one's wages. When you're dealing with £100m, you think 1 or 2 per cent doesn't make much difference.

You know why rich people are rich? They look after every little fucking penny. We have to look after every little penny. So it's not just the case of being a million here and a million there. A million is a lot of bloody money.
By save him money I meant him acting on behalf of the club in negotiations. That should have been obvious by the part later on where I explicitly said he isn't in it for the money.

We've had plenty of information over the years on how harsh a negotiator Levy is, going cold on deals for weeks, moving the goalposts, etc... Even our own ITKs despair at him at times.

Levy is a busy man who wears many hats, he was on the US tour doing chairman's duties and no doubt meeting potential sponsors or even investors. This was during a key part of the window. A sporting director could have been arranging meetings during this time and trying to add more of human element to deals. Keeping on the case more. A sporting director probably has more time to communicate with Poch and Hitchen on the needs of the squad. A sporting director probably has less hesitation over deals as it's a key part of the role.

That enough differentiation to 'pay more f-ing money' for you?

There are a lot of successful businessmen in the world that appreciate the need to 'grease the wheels' at times to seal key deals. I highly doubt the people at the top at Liverpool are stupid. They certainly are rich and successful. We're talking about buying a lad from the championship here, it's not like I'm asking Levy to go out and buy Ronaldo. I'm fine with our targets and a smaller net spent compared to rivals.

Every club/chairman in football seems to get deals done without earning this reputation, many smaller than us doing similar priced deals, without recouping half of the money we do, and yet hardly any of them are going bust. As others have said he blew a stupid amount of money on Sissoko and the club survived.

You seem a very intelligent and knowledgeable man which I respect but I despair at how much you are taking this argument to the extreme. Levy is a brilliant chairman but that doesn't mean everything he does is perfect.

I appreciate that the stadium costs and related debt brings our net spend below other top clubs, but the club really need to stop reiterating that football business is unaffected if it isn't. Even our FD did an article for a finanical publication explaining it, wouldn't be very professional to lie about it. Maybe the extra cost of delivering the stadium is having an effect on current cashflow which is fair enough, they should just communicate it if so.

Sorry to go on but the tone of that really annoyed me. I'm not even anti-Levy FFS, I just don't think he only shits rainbows.
 

ToDarrenIsToDo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
1,436
Can't be bothered to read through the last couple of hours of Grealish posts, do they have to sell because of FFP or not? A simple yes or no would be perfecto
 

SpartanSpur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
7,602
Can't be bothered to read through the last couple of hours of Grealish posts, do they have to sell because of FFP or not? A simple yes or no would be perfecto
The Journalist seems suggest so. Some possible Villa ITKs that seem a lot more casual in their info style (think guy in the pub) seem to think otherwise. Some quite well clued up guys in here also think they need to sell.
 
Top