What owners would you prefer ?

  • 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

What owners would you prefer ?


  • Total voters
    128
Roar Look Big GIF by Apple TV
 
Poll is pretty shit, honestly, because it's trying to take the piss out of ENIC with several options but displaying a complete misunderstanding of the financial running of the club.

Better poll would have been wages + transfers as a percentage of turnover that people expect.
You’re asking people to have a better understanding of financials than they do or care about.
We have one guy who watches with us that moans constantly about ENIC during games — fortunately, only one — and his argument is ‘it’s a football club not a business’. You can’t argue with that mindset. I suggest that you don’t even try.
 
Serious question stevee stevee , I'm struggling to see the difference between option 2 and a magic money tree.

Responsible investing is what ENIC does. They aren't speculators, they get ROI. They're good at it.

So, I assume it means 'gives us free money, but at the right time in the right place'. Since we don't have the need to bribe Northern Ireland, I can't see the magic money tree existing again any time soon. Is there a real life example of this kind of thing? Otherwise, aren't we just talking about option 3?

FWIW, Boehly et all are going to ruin the Chavs when they need their money back. I don't see anything sustainable there. Happy to watch, though!
Yeah, you are correct.

Option 2 is a new owner investing wisely, his own money, and without breaking FFP.

Enic/Lewis have invested, literally, £0 of their own into THFC although there was a type of share cost investment.
 
Poll is pretty shit, honestly, because it's trying to take the piss out of ENIC with several options but displaying a complete misunderstanding of the financial running of the club.

Better poll would have been wages + transfers as a percentage of turnover that people expect.
It's certainly wasn't my intention to do that, and I honestly can't see how you put that spin on it.

It's purely and simply a poll to reflect the type of owners people want and to prove that there really is no such thing as "Enic in" posters.

Apologies if I've taken you up wrong, only your post is a stand alone one.
 
Poll is pretty shit, honestly, because it's trying to take the piss out of ENIC with several options but displaying a complete misunderstanding of the financial running of the club.

Better poll would have been wages + transfers as a percentage of turnover that people expect.
Taking the piss out of ENIC?

The way the club has been run the last 4 years I would suggest it’s the other way round
 
I agree to some degree.
You’re looking at net spend. I’m looking at revenue.
In order to decrease your net spend, you’ve got to be able to offset your incoming transfer with sales. Higher revenue teams don’t need to do that. They can afford higher net because of their additional revenue.

We were very good at selling off players to decrease the net but it led to a reputation as a ‘selling club’ and caused fan unrest and since then we’ve held onto players for far too long. . We had opportunities to sell Dier for 50m — the same fans clamoring to get rid of him now were against then — and Dele for a massive amount. Either we wouldn’t do it or they wouldn’t go. There are posters here desperate to keep Harry for another year. Knowing when to sell is as important as knowing when to buy but I don’t think many of our fans trust the club to invest sales money wisely if at all.

My original point isn’t really about how the club is run today. We’ll all agree that it’s run sub-optimally. We might disagree over to what extent.
I’m just trying to make the case that our basic problem of finding ways to compete with higher revenue clubs won’t go away with a change of ownership. It didn’t when ENIC bought out Sugar and probably won’t when ownership changes hands again. It’s not a magic bullet. I think most people would agree that Dortmund are a very well run club but it hasn’t stopped Bayern from winning 11 straight Bundesligas and 5 DFB-Pokal Cups in that time.
I’m perfectly okay with (some of) the posters here wanting oligarchs and salivating over the thought of getting Qatari money to run the club. It’s an honest position of putting the chance to win trophies first and foremost. Personally, I’ll probably end up at Leyton Orient.
I think, at the end of the day, we both see pretty much the same thing, just from different perspectives, to a degree.

I feel it's a horrible position to be in personally, as we simply won't be able to compete on level terms with state run clubs, over the long term. It's the primary reason why I've lost a vast amount of the interest I have in Football as a whole, as I don't really want us to be another doped club but, realistically, it's the only way the field is levelled for us if we want consistent success.
 
2 is what created the opening and led us to the doping clubs buying and destroying football. It's what put dozens of clubs up against the wall over the years. 2 should be illegal.

5 is the only ethical choice to protect the integrity of the sport. Earn your keep and keep what you earn.
Football was always that way. We won the double because we had richer owners.

Liverpool had all their success in the late 70's and 80's because of the Littlewoods injecting a comparatively huge amount of money into the club.

The landscape fluctuated, with different clubs getting primacy depending on how much their owners were prepared to spend of their own money.

We now have competition between nation wealth now, and we're not in that group. However, the absolute top talent in the World always has to start at some point, so we need to be one of those clubs that is proficient in both spotting and developing them. Alongside this, I feel we also need to have an owner prepared to take the odd gamble and use his own money to ensure the right player(s) is secured.

FWIW, I don't disagree with your sentiment, if it were applied to Football as a whole. But this is in relation to Spurs only, so 2 is the only compromise I can see where my own opinion towards our club is concerned.
 
It's certainly wasn't my intention to do that, and I honestly can't see how you put that spin on it.

It's purely and simply a poll to reflect the type of owners people want and to prove that there really is no such thing as "Enic in" posters.

Apologies if I've taken you up wrong, only your post is a stand alone one.
I just think you've gone a bit too far in trying to assuage the ENICout crew (which it's hard to blame you because no one wants to get bogged down in that trench warfare again) and it doesn't help that you apparently exceeded some field character/word maximums and shopped off the meaty part of options 4 and 5 leaving it up to interpretation.

In my opinion, #1 is #5. There's absolutely no evidence that ENIC take money out of the club - everything is reinvested. And no, it's not reinvested in go karts and Sainsbury. The difference between ENIC and FSG (also #5l is basically naught, right down to the net spend. The only real differentiation that most supporters can pick up on is that FSG tolerated slightly more risk than Levy has shown a willingness to do with a wage:turnover of 64% (vs. 57%) and the willingness to lay out a transfer fee for VVD that was about 17% of their revenue at that time (vs. Spurs signing Ndombele for 15% of our revenue at the time).

1/5: Spurs, FSG

2: Most football clubs, but primarily because football clubs are a poor financial investment which are rarely self sufficient and so these benevolent owners are just trying to keep the enterprise afloat.

2b: Irresponsible spenders that end up jeopardizing their clubs. Leeds, Pompey, Everton, probably Leicester before all the dust settles.

3: We know who these are

4: United is the only club I can think that fits the bill here, so long as you classify the debt payments due to the takeover scheme as taking money out of the club. We will probably be in this category when Levy borrows money to buyout Lewis and take over the club, which is the most likely scenario in any ownership change.
 
Football was always that way. We won the double because we had richer owners.

Liverpool had all their success in the late 70's and 80's because of the Littlewoods injecting a comparatively huge amount of money into the club.

The landscape fluctuated, with different clubs getting primacy depending on how much their owners were prepared to spend of their own money.

We now have competition between nation wealth now, and we're not in that group. However, the absolute top talent in the World always has to start at some point, so we need to be one of those clubs that is proficient in both spotting and developing them. Alongside this, I feel we also need to have an owner prepared to take the odd gamble and use his own money to ensure the right player(s) is secured.

FWIW, I don't disagree with your sentiment, if it were applied to Football as a whole. But this is in relation to Spurs only, so 2 is the only compromise I can see where my own opinion towards our club is concerned.
Thanks for the response, very well put.

My issue with that thought, then, is that with 3 running the shop 2 will still be inadequate and ultimately futile.
 
I just think you've gone a bit too far in trying to assuage the ENICout crew (which it's hard to blame you because no one wants to get bogged down in that trench warfare again) and it doesn't help that you apparently exceeded some field character/word maximums and shopped off the meaty part of options 4 and 5 leaving it up to interpretation.

In my opinion, #1 is #5. There's absolutely no evidence that ENIC take money out of the club - everything is reinvested. And no, it's not reinvested in go karts and Sainsbury. The difference between ENIC and FSG (also #5l is basically naught, right down to the net spend. The only real differentiation that most supporters can pick up on is that FSG tolerated slightly more risk than Levy has shown a willingness to do with a wage:turnover of 64% (vs. 57%) and the willingness to lay out a transfer fee for VVD that was about 17% of their revenue at that time (vs. Spurs signing Ndombele for 15% of our revenue at the time).

1/5: Spurs, FSG

2: Most football clubs, but primarily because football clubs are a poor financial investment which are rarely self sufficient and so these benevolent owners are just trying to keep the enterprise afloat.

2b: Irresponsible spenders that end up jeopardizing their clubs. Leeds, Pompey, Everton, probably Leicester before all the dust settles.

3: We know who these are

4: United is the only club I can think that fits the bill here, so long as you classify the debt payments due to the takeover scheme as taking money out of the club. We will probably be in this category when Levy borrows money to buyout Lewis and take over the club, which is the most likely scenario in any ownership change.
I absolutely agree with you re our revenue being wholy re invested in THFC.
Unfortunately there are still some in here that believe that isn't the case.

I also wanted to keep the options as simple as possible, due to not having people rehash the same old arguments.
Even then, there was still someone who split hairs on an option (option 5),although tbf, that could be because of lack of character space as you said
 
Not incompetent, fraudster ones. Why isn't that an option? Even ones who don't invest a penny of their own cash but actually know what they're doing beyond properties and a stadium and concerts would be great.
 
I have morals and ethics, but my love for Spurs goes way beyond that. I'm voting for 3. There's no other way in today's game.

It's now or never,
There's no debate.
It's an oil and gas state,
My love won't wait.
Tomorrow will be too late
It's an oil/gas state
My love won't wait.
 
Back
Top Bottom