ENIC...

jurgen said:

There's valid questions about whether a £1bn stadium was overkill for what we needed as a club but only time will tell I suppose. It certainly seems a tasty amount unless it becomes a permanent NFL home.

Likewise, it's hard to get too excited about tales of us buying up cranes if we can't buy up top players - we're all ultimately here to support a football club, not a heavy machinery trader.

Click to expand...

How can having a legitimate plan to generate revenue in order for us to compete be overkill?

Shadydan said:

How can having a legitimate plan to generate revenue in order for us to compete be overkill?

Click to expand...

I was about to ask the same thing.

People act as though it’s linked to the lack of signings when as I understand it much of the stadium build was funded by loans. Something tells me those same loans aren’t being given if the reason is too buy footballers’.

Firstly, I did state it is a question. That revenue generation plan is contingent on numerous things, it's a plan after all. The current crisis we're in has demonstrated that contingency - now of course this is an absolutely unforeseen circumstance - but it's still affected the immediate plan. I think his point is that revenue generation would also be possible without some of the facilities we've built at a large cost.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask (for example) how quickly the unique mega-slidey pitch pays itself off, what number of NFL games and events are needed and guaranteed to pay for its construction, and how long it will take to feed back into the club and the playing squad, or whether profits from those events are ever going to go towards that budget anyway?

jurgen said:

Firstly, I did state it is a question. That revenue generation plan is contingent on numerous things, it's a plan after all. The current crisis we're in has demonstrated that contingency - now of course this is an absolutely unforeseen circumstance - but it's still affected the immediate plan. I think his point is that revenue generation would also be possible without some of the facilities we've built at a large cost.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask (for example) how quickly the unique mega-slidey pitch pays itself off, what number of NFL games and events are needed and guaranteed to pay for its construction, and how long it will take to feed back into the club and the playing squad, or whether profits from those events are ever going to go towards that budget anyway?

Click to expand...

How are you anticipating the cost?

For all we know, the difference between rebuilding the massively out-of-date WHL versions the new stadium were negligible. The rhetoric is angled that we've spent an extra £600m on the slide pitch and decor when a huge amount is likely to be the extortionate cost of land acquisition, labour, and all of the other stuff that isn't mutually exclusive.

I don't see the point in pondering whether or not we should have built things which have already been built.

I think what people need to get their heads around is that the real benefits of the stadium are unlikely to benefit the current generation of players. This group will play in it, yes, and will get to use all the super slick facilities of course. But when it comes to financial benefits, that is a long term plan, not a short term one - and if you were ever expecting it to be an instant fix then you are of course going to be severely disappointed. Revenue streams increased from the first matchday it opened, however whilst there is still an enormous debt to pay off, only a proportion of that can be used for investing into players. Once it is paid off, then all of the extra gate receipts, the NFL games, concerts, corporate events etc all become pure money generators. However that isn't going to be for a fair few years, especially not in light of the coronavirus outbreak. It took Arsenal seven years of playing at the Emirates before being able to splash the cash and sign Mesut Ozil and Alexis Sanchez - other than one or two young players on the fringes of the first team, none of the squad who had played at Highbury were around to see it. If we follow the same trajectory, we'll need to wait until summer 2026, by which point the current crop will most likely be long gone.

You therefore need to ask yourself the question - how long do you intend to support Tottenham for? If you are actually a Harry Kane / Heung-min Son fan, then the stadium is a bad idea because it will most likely just hamper transfer budgets whilst you are here. But if you are planning on still being here when those players are in their mid-30s, it potentially will give us the edge in the market.

Other than that - ENIC's model has been basically the same as FSG's. Keep the business running profitably and sustainably, and when windfalls of cash become available either through player sales or extended Champions League runs - invest back into the team. Difference was that FSG got a double sized windfall in 2018 and invested it particularly well, whereas our "marquee signings" have rarely worked out when we've tried to go big.

Exactly as you've said, but especially this:

SUIYHA said:

Difference was that FSG got a double sized windfall in 2018 and invested it particularly well, whereas our "marquee signings" have rarely worked out when we've tried to go big.

Click to expand...

People fixated on "selling clubs" being a bad thing, but Liverpool sold Coutinho for a lot more than he was worth, and he was expendable. People might say we should have done the same at some point, but there'd be criticisms in that timeline, too.

As it happens, VVD was the key to their turnaround and Allison helped (although imo not to the same extent). Maybe they got lucky, maybe it was scouting acumen, but we've had Salah-type signings that have flopped where all of their big signings have mostly been hit after hit.

Plenty of people think Levy would sell his own nan for the right price, but our biggest problem might be that we haven't sold players frequently enough to allow a regeneration of the squad like others have. Problem with that being that the same people who moan now would moan about that, too.

SUIYHA said:

I think what people need to get their heads around is that the real benefits of the stadium are unlikely to benefit the current generation of players. This group will play in it, yes, and will get to use all the super slick facilities of course. But when it comes to financial benefits, that is a long term plan, not a short term one - and if you were ever expecting it to be an instant fix then you are of course going to be severely disappointed. Revenue streams increased from the first matchday it opened, however whilst there is still an enormous debt to pay off, only a proportion of that can be used for investing into players. Once it is paid off, then all of the extra gate receipts, the NFL games, concerts, corporate events etc all become pure money generators. However that isn't going to be for a fair few years, especially not in light of the coronavirus outbreak. It took Arsenal seven years of playing at the Emirates before being able to splash the cash and sign Mesut Ozil and Alexis Sanchez - other than one or two young players on the fringes of the first team, none of the squad who had played at Highbury were around to see it. If we follow the same trajectory, we'll need to wait until summer 2026, by which point the current crop will most likely be long gone.

You therefore need to ask yourself the question - how long do you intend to support Tottenham for? If you are actually a Harry Kane / Heung-min Son fan, then the stadium is a bad idea because it will most likely just hamper transfer budgets whilst you are here. But if you are planning on still being here when those players are in their mid-30s, it potentially will give us the edge in the market.

Other than that - ENIC's model has been basically the same as FSG's. Keep the business running profitably and sustainably, and when windfalls of cash become available either through player sales or extended Champions League runs - invest back into the team. Difference was that FSG got a double sized windfall in 2018 and invested it particularly well, whereas our "marquee signings" have rarely worked out when we've tried to go big.

Click to expand...

But the refinancing of the stadium debt last year through a private placement in the bond market was for maturities of 15-30 years, taking advantage of low interest rates . Surely that would be consistent with an entirely different strategy - minimise the short term impact upon transfer budgets through spreading the cost over a much longer term and locking in historically low interest rates. Kane could be a grandfather by the time it is paid off, not mid 30's

jurgen said:

Firstly, I did state it is a question. That revenue generation plan is contingent on numerous things, it's a plan after all. The current crisis we're in has demonstrated that contingency - now of course this is an absolutely unforeseen circumstance - but it's still affected the immediate plan. I think his point is that revenue generation would also be possible without some of the facilities we've built at a large cost.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask (for example) how quickly the unique mega-slidey pitch pays itself off, what number of NFL games and events are needed and guaranteed to pay for its construction, and how long it will take to feed back into the club and the playing squad, or whether profits from those events are ever going to go towards that budget anyway?

Click to expand...

The answer to all of that is 42...we'll find out whether that's years, NFL games, trophies etc. eventually

In all seriousness though, I anticipate that the debt can be repaid on time without 100% of the stadium revenue being thrown at it. Maybe I'm wrong...our transfer policy and wage budget over the coming years (rather than now, during a global crisis) will probably be the best indicator.

SUIYHA said:

I think what people need to get their heads around is that the real benefits of the stadium are unlikely to benefit the current generation of players. This group will play in it, yes, and will get to use all the super slick facilities of course. But when it comes to financial benefits, that is a long term plan, not a short term one - and if you were ever expecting it to be an instant fix then you are of course going to be severely disappointed. Revenue streams increased from the first matchday it opened, however whilst there is still an enormous debt to pay off, only a proportion of that can be used for investing into players. Once it is paid off, then all of the extra gate receipts, the NFL games, concerts, corporate events etc all become pure money generators. However that isn't going to be for a fair few years, especially not in light of the coronavirus outbreak. It took Arsenal seven years of playing at the Emirates before being able to splash the cash and sign Mesut Ozil and Alexis Sanchez - other than one or two young players on the fringes of the first team, none of the squad who had played at Highbury were around to see it. If we follow the same trajectory, we'll need to wait until summer 2026, by which point the current crop will most likely be long gone.

You therefore need to ask yourself the question - how long do you intend to support Tottenham for? If you are actually a Harry Kane / Heung-min Son fan, then the stadium is a bad idea because it will most likely just hamper transfer budgets whilst you are here. But if you are planning on still being here when those players are in their mid-30s, it potentially will give us the edge in the market.

Other than that - ENIC's model has been basically the same as FSG's. Keep the business running profitably and sustainably, and when windfalls of cash become available either through player sales or extended Champions League runs - invest back into the team. Difference was that FSG got a double sized windfall in 2018 and invested it particularly well, whereas our "marquee signings" have rarely worked out when we've tried to go big.

Click to expand...

Great post. Do you think we have really ever had a "Marque Signing" in recent years?

Wheeler Dealer said:

Great post. Do you think we really ever have had a "Marque Signing" in recent years?

Click to expand...

I suppose Ndombele could be described that way... he broke our transfer record last summer, along with a fair few of the chairs in the canteen since.

@BringBack_leGin The club made approximately £400m profit from 04/05 up to and including 17/18, all of which was ploughed into infrastructure. Obviously that means that we are £600m in debt rather than £1bn but you can understand why people, upon seeing another article about Spurs announcing record profits while not buying some of the very good players that could have been got with that money, might get the hump.

RichieS said:

@BringBack_leGin The club made approximately £400m profit from 04/05 up to and including 17/18, all of which was ploughed into infrastructure. Obviously that means that we are £600m in debt rather than £1bn but you can understand why people, upon seeing another article about Spurs announcing record profits while not buying some of the very good players that could have been got with that money, might get the hump.

Click to expand...

We did though didn't we? We ended up spending £120m+ last season net, I think.

That's only aesthetic net, too - it doesn't take into account what was spend on all the auxiliary expenses that come with transfers such as agent fees, contract fees etc. I also don't know if the potential Gedson fee is accounted for in any way.

Gb160 said:

I suppose Ndombele could be described that way... he broke our transfer record last summer, along with a fair few of the chairs in the canteen since.

Click to expand...

You being fattist again mate shocking.

jurgen said:

Firstly, I did state it is a question. That revenue generation plan is contingent on numerous things, it's a plan after all. The current crisis we're in has demonstrated that contingency - now of course this is an absolutely unforeseen circumstance - but it's still affected the immediate plan. I think his point is that revenue generation would also be possible without some of the facilities we've built at a large cost.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask (for example) how quickly the unique mega-slidey pitch pays itself off, what number of NFL games and events are needed and guaranteed to pay for its construction, and how long it will take to feed back into the club and the playing squad, or whether profits from those events are ever going to go towards that budget anyway?

Click to expand...

It's an interesting question but I think we can begin to answer it in 2 ways:

From a fan's perspective, what is the point of knocking down the old, atmospheric stadium just to have something a bit newer? Why suffer the time at Wembley, financial outlay and risk losing the atmosphere just for something a bit bigger and newer?

From a commercial perspective, had it been built with a philosophy of "just enough" events companies would view Wembley, Emirates or London Stadium as better venues to host their events. A "just enough" stadium would not provide any sort of competitive advantage to the playing team.

As for the sliding pitch, we can now host an event on a Friday night then play football on an unblemished pitch on Saturday morning which those other stadiums cannot do. I don't think there will be a certain number of one-off NFL games required to "pay off" the feature - it's more that we are now the best place for an NFL franchise to base themselves so the rewards could be very high.

Of course we are yet to see how the stadium might become a competitive advantage so nobody can say with certainty how good of a gambit it was. But as a once in a lifetime undertaking (hopefully) I think that going at it in a full-blooded way is worth the expense. It's as future-proof as possible and is a cut above what our rivals have to offer.

sausage said:

Exactly as you've said, but especially this:



People fixated on "selling clubs" being a bad thing, but Liverpool sold Coutinho for a lot more than he was worth, and he was expendable. People might say we should have done the same at some point, but there'd be criticisms in that timeline, too.

As it happens, VVD was the key to their turnaround and Allison helped (although imo not to the same extent). Maybe they got lucky, maybe it was scouting acumen, but we've had Salah-type signings that have flopped where all of their big signings have mostly been hit after hit.

Plenty of people think Levy would sell his own nan for the right price, but our biggest problem might be that we haven't sold players frequently enough to allow a regeneration of the squad like others have. Problem with that being that the same people who moan now would moan about that, too.

Click to expand...

We sold Carrick for £18m - signed Berbatov, Assou-Ekotto and Malbranque for the money
We sold Berbatov for £30m - signed Modric, Corluka and Gomes for the money
We sold Modric for £35m - signed Lloris, Vertonghen and Dembele for the money
We sold Bale for £85m - signed the "magnificent seven" for the money - most notably including Eriksen and I suppose Lamela and Chadli
We sold Walker for £50m - signed Lucas and Sanchez for the money

In each case, a big name sale was used to raise funds to buy multiple players who became important first teamers for years to come. In each case, the fans went apeshit and cited it as a lack of ambition, but in many cases the team actually improved overall, even if it took a couple of years of transition.

Now I'll caveat this by saying getting this right is extremely difficult. Generally speaking if there are better players available than what you are selling for a cheaper price, then other clubs will go for them instead of your player. Your scouting needs to be on point. But mastering the art of cashing in on top assets at exactly the right moment then re-investing in players that grow into top class stars can take clubs on a budget to big places. It's why teams like Atletico Madrid, Dortmund and Lyon have been so successful, as well as Arsenal in the early Wenger years. Annoyingly, Chelsea have also been pretty good at this in the last few years too so that they've been able to meet FFP rules. But whilst we once upon a time managed to fetch top dollar for our players and build more well rounded squads instead of relying on one or two talented individuals, we've missed the boat with a few players. If we'd sold Eriksen, Alli and Dier in 2017 we could have probably gotten £200m for the trio, but instead they all regressed, the team has gone backwards, and Eriksen eventually left for just £16m whilst the other two are trying to rebuild their careers.

The other thing is - we're also clearly not a "final destination" club for the genuinely elite players. Players need to see that joining Tottenham and making a name for yourself can get you a big money move to a Real Madrid. If all they see is stories like Eriksen, Alli, Vertonghen, Alderweireld etc peaking at Spurs then disappearing off the radar without having won anything, why would they want to join a club like that? Of course ideally we want to be that final destination where players win trophies, but until that starts happening we need to show that we can offer the next best thing.

Wheeler Dealer said:

Great post. Do you think we have really ever had a "Marque Signing" in recent years?

Click to expand...

Ndombele, Soldado and Lamela were all fairly big name, big budget signings at the time. Lloris was cheaper but he was France captain and extremely highly rated too.

We make a tidy sum from the Academy Rent.

Every little helps

wrd said:

I don't see the point in pondering whether or not we should have built things which have already been built.

Click to expand...

Ha ha I have been thinking like that as I’ve been reading down the posts.

Metalhead said:

Ha ha I have been thinking like that as I’ve been reading down the posts.

Click to expand...

You could always ponder whether we would have won something if we'd had a proper backup striker in the last 6 years (to cover periods where Kane was out) or whether a zero net spend for the next 15-30 years is more important...