If you want a different Tottenham, go and get it.

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Aussie Ardiles said:
Leeds foreign billionaire Peter Risdale?
Mandaric and Gaydemark are/were both worth less than £200m.
Click to expand...
They still spent more than they could, and killed the clubs in the process. It's just a matter of scale.

AS Monaco's owner just paid out his ex-wife 1/2 his fortune so has taken a massive hit in his personal wealth. The other problem with Monaco is they are in a city which doesn't follow football and don't get the crowds or sponsorship to be a viable long term "toy thing"
Click to expand...
Neither Chelsea, nor City at this time get the crowds or sponsorship to be viable long term either at the present spending rate. City's ownership dressed up their subsidization as new naming rights on the stadium, and a new shirt sponsor deal, but it's still money coming in that isn't sustainable. Chelsea don't make enough from commercial or matchday revenue to make up for their spending.

The present concern is that they at some point might stop the spending. And then the clubs would be in trouble. The wider concern is that football has always been a business. The objective of a business is to make a profit. All clubs were run along those principles. The problem is that if certain owners show up, and rather than follow basic business principles, massively over-spend beyond the commercial capabilities of the clubs, then it leads to a vicious cycle. You either have to do likewise, and thus, spend more than you earn in perpetuity in order to compete, or you have no change of competitive success. That's why it's called financial doping.

Italian clubs did that in the late 80s and early 90s, with many going nearly bust, getting propped up with loans from ownership. Inter and AC Milan are feeling that hangover at the moment. The reason FFP was introduced was because it was recognized to be a problem. You are trying to claim that since others do it, all clubs, and therefore owners should be expected to do the same. Why though, should ENIC be expected to shovel money into Spurs on a continuous basis? It is a business, it is expected to make money.
 
ArcspacE said:
Sorry, mate - did you just ask why would a company sell (non-voting) shares to the public?
Click to expand...
You're the one claiming they would. I am simply pointing out that ENIC don't say they will. They are saying they will take the loan, and convert it to equity. No sale of shares implied or stated. You're the one making the claim beyond what the words on the page say...
 
Juicy Sushi said:
You're the one claiming they would. I am simply pointing out that ENIC don't say they will. They are saying they will take the loan, and convert it to equity. No sale of shares implied or stated. You're the one making the claim beyond what the words on the page say...
Click to expand...
They'll convert it to non-voting capital for shares

Companies sell non-voting shares all the time. I own in a few companies myself

Are you familiar with investing in general (no disrespect)
 
Last edited:
ArcspacE said:
They'll convert it to non-voting capital for shares

Companies sell non-voting shares all the time. I own in a few companies myself

Are you familiar with investing in general (non disrespect)
Click to expand...
I work here: www.fin.gc.ca

When was the last time THFC sold non-voting shares to the public? If they don't do this regularly, then why are you expecting they would in this case. In the press release, they simply state that ENIC loaned the club 40 million in order to fund operations of the club. They say that their plan is to convert that loan into non-voting equity in the club. They make no mention of selling shares in any way whatsoever.

So, given that you are reading something into the press release which is not written there, on what basis are you doing so?
 
Juicy Sushi said:
I work here: www.fin.gc.ca

When was the last time THFC sold non-voting shares to the public? If they don't do this regularly, then why are you expecting they would in this case. In the press release, they simply state that ENIC loaned the club 40 million in order to fund operations of the club. They say that their plan is to convert that loan into non-voting equity in the club. They make no mention of selling shares in any way whatsoever.

So, given that you are reading something into the press release which is not written there, on what basis are you doing so?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't it be the case? Why else would the convert it to non-voting stock?
 
ArcspacE said:
Why wouldn't it be the case? Why else would the convert it to non-voting stock?
Click to expand...
As I said, to account for all the money they've invested come selling time. ENIC aren't selling shares to the public. They don't want to sell shares at all, it would appear, since they delisted the club.

But this is all quite a detour from the matter that started the conversation. Certain people claim the club should spend more money on transfers. I ask where that money will come from. It isn't sitting on the books of the club, unused. If that is the case, then, as some do demand, it would need to come from ENIC's pockets. On what basis should they have to do so? Why should they, as a business, be expected to take a loss on their investment by virtue of continually shovelling money into the transfer market? It is a business, and run on that basis. Saying that "Chelsea and City do" doesn't make the case that THFC must do the same.
 
Tucker said:
Vincent Tan.

He may have got Cardiff to the premier league, but he ripped the soul out of the club by changing their colour to red.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Sorry the earlier point was made that billionaires come in spend a bit then up and leave. For all the stupid shit he has done he still hasn't up and left and spent more than they could.
 
Juicy Sushi said:
They still spent more than they could, and killed the clubs in the process. It's just a matter of scale.


Neither Chelsea, nor City at this time get the crowds or sponsorship to be viable long term either at the present spending rate. City's ownership dressed up their subsidization as new naming rights on the stadium, and a new shirt sponsor deal, but it's still money coming in that isn't sustainable. Chelsea don't make enough from commercial or matchday revenue to make up for their spending.

The present concern is that they at some point might stop the spending. And then the clubs would be in trouble. The wider concern is that football has always been a business. The objective of a business is to make a profit. All clubs were run along those principles. The problem is that if certain owners show up, and rather than follow basic business principles, massively over-spend beyond the commercial capabilities of the clubs, then it leads to a vicious cycle. You either have to do likewise, and thus, spend more than you earn in perpetuity in order to compete, or you have no change of competitive success. That's why it's called financial doping.

Italian clubs did that in the late 80s and early 90s, with many going nearly bust, getting propped up with loans from ownership. Inter and AC Milan are feeling that hangover at the moment. The reason FFP was introduced was because it was recognized to be a problem. You are trying to claim that since others do it, all clubs, and therefore owners should be expected to do the same. Why though, should ENIC be expected to shovel money into Spurs on a continuous basis? It is a business, it is expected to make money.
Click to expand...
You talked of billionaires up and leaving but all the examples you give are of stupid owners who weren't 1/10 as rich our owner, in fact not even billionaires. I beg to differ on the City and Chelsea way of running the club being unsustainable but we'll just have to see how the next 10-15 years play out. My thinking is Chelsea and City along with United will share all the league titles, and share the cups with Liverpool, Woolwich & maybe even Everton. I can't see the spending ceasing at all while they are winning or at the main table of European football.
 
ArcspacE said:
better players = better results

better results = higher revenue (for them as well)

We're not looking for a 500m blank cheque, mate - just some positive intent of sorts. Our net spend indicates tragic ambition, imv
Click to expand...
But you really are looking for something of that amount, since that's what it would require. City has dropped literally a billion on transfers in half a decade. To actually compete with them would require an investment of similar scale. We aren't a little bit smaller than those clubs. We're a hell of a lot smaller. Did you read that Swiss Ramble article you so eagerly cited? It's not a case that another 20 million will make a difference. Those clubs are literally spending an order of magnitude beyond what other clubs were spending.
 
Aussie Ardiles said:
You talked of billionaires up and leaving but all the examples you give are of stupid owners who weren't 1/10 as rich our owner, in fact not even billionaires. I beg to differ on the City and Chelsea way of running the club being unsustainable but we'll just have to see how the next 10-15 years play out. My thinking is Chelsea and City along with United will share all the league titles, and share the cups with Liverpool, Woolwich & maybe even Everton. I can't see the spending ceasing at all while they are winning or at the main table of European football.
Click to expand...
You like to brush this thing off as irrelevant, and focus on the titles. Player wages have to be paid for somehow. If you make less than you spend, and consistently do so, with no way of actually increasing the revenue to cover that spending, it is the definition of unsustainable. At some point you cease to be able to do so. Be it death, the crash of global oil prices, or whatever, at some point, it all comes to a reckoning.

You guys sound exactly like the people who said that the American housing market was completely ok in 2007, and that the debt levels weren't a problem as there would never be a situation that would require them to suddenly have to pay it back.

Oops.
 
Juicy Sushi said:
You like to brush this thing off as irrelevant, and focus on the titles. Player wages have to be paid for somehow. If you make less than you spend, and consistently do so, with no way of actually increasing the revenue to cover that spending, it is the definition of unsustainable. At some point you cease to be able to do so. Be it death, the crash of global oil prices, or whatever, at some point, it all comes to a reckoning.

You guys sound exactly like the people who said that the American housing market was completely ok in 2007, and that the debt levels weren't a problem as there would never be a situation that would require them to suddenly have to pay it back.

Oops.
Click to expand...
Lets re-hash this in 2024 and see if the Arabs and Roman have sent them bankrupt and down to League 2
 
JDK said:
Chelsea have won 11 trophies since 2004. I'd take that quick thrill ride...
Click to expand...
Absolutely. In that time, they've won more Lge Championships and indeed European Cups (CL) than we have in our entire 100+year history. I probably won't see another 40 years on this planet, I want us to be winning things now, not in some misty-eyed future. To echo Keynes famous quote, 'in the long-term, we're all dead'.
 
Aussie Ardiles said:
How many owners have got bored and sold their toys? Roman's been around 10+ years and doesn't look like going anywhere soon, the City group are buying clubs around the world and are investing heavily in youth development. It's all well and good bringing up this argument about billionaries getting bored and turning a club to shit but then not backing it up. Even Tan who is a terrible owner hasn't run Cardiff into debt and sold up shop yet

:avbshock:
Click to expand...
Well said AA, I've been listening to this argument re Chelsea 'unsustainability' for years, and for years I've been saying it's wrong, and so far I've been spectacularly right and the Chelsea naysayers spectacularly wrong (Those who object on moral grounds, that's a different issue)
 
Eriksen-sen-sen said:
Well go and support Chelski then. We arent winning anything but the league cup in the foreseeable future. I am happy with that. We arent fucking Luton. Where are you from?
Click to expand...
Before I put you on ignore, I'll just point out I'm a North Londoner who has been supporting this club for well over 50 years. You see back in the 60s I remember when we used to be bigger and richer than Chelsea and buy players they could only dream of. (We even got Greavesie, who they got for nowt as a youngster, off them via Milan)

If you're happy with one League Cup every decade or so, good luck to you. I remember better times.

Incidentally, I will love it BTW, if we do win the League Cup this season. Just like I love it every time we win a trophy, unfortunately that 'loving feeling' has dried up under ENIC.
 
Greaves357_bestever said:
Absolutely. In that time, they've won more Lge Championships and indeed European Cups (CL) than we have in our entire 100+year history. I probably won't see another 40 years on this planet, I want us to be winning things now, not in some misty-eyed future. To echo Keynes famous quote, 'in the long-term, we're all dead'.
Click to expand...

What planet are you going to in 40 years time?

Did you sign up for that Mars thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom