ENIC...

[coys200]

Very illuminating line from the minutes of the board meeting with THST:

• MG asked how the figures for the year ending June 2019 were looking
• DL (Daniel Levy) thought they were looking okay as the UCL run had balanced out some of additional expenses incurred in relation to the extended stay at Wembley

So the fear I articulated last season has been confirmed - the absolute clusterfuck with the stadium opening date cost the club tens of millions of pounds, so much that even reaching the Champions League Final wasn't enough to cover it. Between Wembley rents on a game-by-game basis, rubbish attendances, cheaper ticket prices, 8,000 coroporate packages unfulfilled, NFL cancelled and more, it's cost us an absolute fortune - enough to buy a world-class player - and we'd have been far, far better off just admitting from the start it was going to take two years and planning on that basis. Also explains the 18 month transfer drought if it was becoming apparent that we weren't going to be ready, which has obviously been a disaster on the pitch, and could yet lead to missing out on the same amount again by failing to reach the Top 4, and players either leaving or refusing to join. The long-term picture still looks bright, but this saga was disastrous and by far ENIC's worst moment in charge.

How on earth can you tell that from that statement ? the CL run was about £60m. There’s no way an extra 6 months at Wembley cost that. Wembley overrun probably cost us about £20m maximum . There was very little in it attendance wise. The main cost was extra rent to Wembley. He basically said figures looked “OK” he didn’t say they looked“shit or awful”. And I’d imagine he was being on cautious side as they may well still be working on final figures. He just stated the obvious, Wembley cost us extra but the CL run compensated.

 

['O Zio]

This, for me, is a major issue: what the hell is going on with our scouting? What is the setup? As you say, we’ve managed to find some real gems in the past - you mentioned some real steals above and I’d add Son to that list as the crowning achievement on that score - but since then we’ve not uncovered any hidden treasures. And we’ve missed some real humdingers too - Tielemans being a prime example. Leicester found Mahrez and Vardy before Tielemans and Maddison. Maybe we should just poach their scouts...

I think we need a DoF, loath as I was after the Comolli debacle.

For me having a DoF is clearly the best system but the trouble with it is that there are really only a handful (if that!) of them who are in the kind of elite bracket that I'd want. Plenty of clubs have a DoF but half of them are just some ex-player and it's largely a ceremonial role and just someone to sit in on board meetings who "gets the club"

If we bring someone in it needs to be a) the sort of elite level DoF that can really improve us, not some random flavour of the month type like that Southampton guy we got or some ex-player/club legend type nonsense and b) it has to be someone who sees eye to eye with Poch. Obviously they don't have to agree on everything, but when you have two people in the roles who have completely contradictory ideas on what the club needs then it's inevitable that it'll all end in tears like it did with Job and Commoli

 

[rez9000]

For me having a DoF is clearly the best system but the trouble with it is that there are really only a handful (if that!) of them who are in the kind of elite bracket that I'd want. Plenty of clubs have a DoF but half of them are just some ex-player and it's largely a ceremonial role and just someone to sit in on board meetings who "gets the club"

If we bring someone in it needs to be a) the sort of elite level DoF that can really improve us, not some random flavour of the month type like that Southampton guy we got or some ex-player/club legend type nonsense and b) it has to be someone who sees eye to eye with Poch. Obviously they don't have to agree on everything, but when you have two people in the roles who have completely contradictory ideas on what the club needs then it's inevitable that it'll all end in tears like it did with Job and Commoli

100% agree.

 

[Spurslove]

Very illuminating line from the minutes of the board meeting with THST:

• MG asked how the figures for the year ending June 2019 were looking
• DL (Daniel Levy) thought they were looking okay as the UCL run had balanced out some of additional expenses incurred in relation to the extended stay at Wembley

So the fear I articulated last season has been confirmed - the absolute clusterfuck with the stadium opening date cost the club tens of millions of pounds, so much that even reaching the Champions League Final wasn't enough to cover it. Between Wembley rents on a game-by-game basis, rubbish attendances, cheaper ticket prices, 8,000 coroporate packages unfulfilled, NFL cancelled and more, it's cost us an absolute fortune - enough to buy a world-class player - and we'd have been far, far better off just admitting from the start it was going to take two years and planning on that basis. Also explains the 18 month transfer drought if it was becoming apparent that we weren't going to be ready, which has obviously been a disaster on the pitch, and could yet lead to missing out on the same amount again by failing to reach the Top 4, and players either leaving or refusing to join. The long-term picture still looks bright, but this saga was disastrous and by far ENIC's worst moment in charge.

Do you know what level of financial penalties were incurred by the contractors for over-running so horrendously?

.

 

[dontcallme]

Do you know what level of financial penalties were incurred by the contractors for over-running so horrendously?

.

Enough for us to not buy half a team of world class players apparently.

 

[Spurslove]

For me having a DoF is clearly the best system but the trouble with it is that there are really only a handful (if that!) of them who are in the kind of elite bracket that I'd want. Plenty of clubs have a DoF but half of them are just some ex-player and it's largely a ceremonial role and just someone to sit in on board meetings who "gets the club"

If we bring someone in it needs to be a) the sort of elite level DoF that can really improve us, not some random flavour of the month type like that Southampton guy we got or some ex-player/club legend type nonsense and b) it has to be someone who sees eye to eye with Poch. Obviously they don't have to agree on everything, but when you have two people in the roles who have completely contradictory ideas on what the club needs then it's inevitable that it'll all end in tears like it did with Job and Commoli

I think that's possibly a very good shout. A DoF but as you quite rightly point out, the knack of finding the right man can be very tricky and after our last experience, I would understand Levy being extremely cautious about it.

Levy clearly has a brilliant business brain but he's not a football man and as Poch only recently told us all, he's not a manager, he's just a coach, so for me, there might very well be a wonderful opportunity for a top quality DoF to come in and become directly responsible for all the recruitment (in close conjunction with Poch of course, who will need to assess any potentially incoming player's mentality and character).

But it's all down to how Levy sees it, and that is the key.

.

 

[coys200]

My guess on the Wembley extra costs would be. We averaged 53k at Wembley so that was 9k below the stadium. So probably lost £500k approx over 14 games. So let’s call that £10m. And I doubt stadium was more than £1m a match. So I think £20m is a decent guess in immediate loses. But also remember 18/19 was at the new ST prices as well. Obviously the actual build cost who knows but that just goes into the refinancing and isn’t immediate.

 

[Donki]

Very illuminating line from the minutes of the board meeting with THST:

• MG asked how the figures for the year ending June 2019 were looking
• DL (Daniel Levy) thought they were looking okay as the UCL run had balanced out some of additional expenses incurred in relation to the extended stay at Wembley

So the fear I articulated last season has been confirmed - the absolute clusterfuck with the stadium opening date cost the club tens of millions of pounds, so much that even reaching the Champions League Final wasn't enough to cover it. Between Wembley rents on a game-by-game basis, rubbish attendances, cheaper ticket prices, 8,000 coroporate packages unfulfilled, NFL cancelled and more, it's cost us an absolute fortune - enough to buy a world-class player - and we'd have been far, far better off just admitting from the start it was going to take two years and planning on that basis. Also explains the 18 month transfer drought if it was becoming apparent that we weren't going to be ready, which has obviously been a disaster on the pitch, and could yet lead to missing out on the same amount again by failing to reach the Top 4, and players either leaving or refusing to join. The long-term picture still looks bright, but this saga was disastrous and by far ENIC's worst moment in charge.

The building of a world class stadium, doubling our capacity, bringing in more revenue streams, enhancing our brand in a global market is "ENIC's worst moment in charge". They weren't building a fucking lego house here, they were doing it after years of planning and with the whole Brexit fall out. Yes they were ambitious, yes they could have built a smaller less expensive stadium but I for one am proud of it. Do you have any idea logistically how difficult this project was? Keeping the stadium on the original site is even more credit to Levy IMO.

 

[Spurslove]

The building of a world class stadium, doubling our capacity, bringing in more revenue streams, enhancing our brand in a global market is "ENIC's worst moment in charge". They weren't building a fucking lego house here, they were doing it after years of planning and with the whole Brexit fall out. Yes they were ambitious, yes they could have built a smaller less expensive stadium but I for one am proud of it. Do you have any idea logistically how difficult this project was? Keeping the stadium on the original site is even more credit to Levy IMO.

I believe it was the biggest capital development project in the whole of Europe.

.

 

[coys200]

Their only cock up was an over ambitious TL had they said we’d need to be at Wembley for 2 years nobody would have had an issue with that.

 

[Spurslove]

Their only cock up was an over ambitious TL had they said we’d need to be at Wembley for 2 years nobody would have had an issue with that.

Yes, but I don't think anyone could have predicted at the outset what kind of delays would be incurred, in delivering the finished project. These only happen in stages bearing in mind there were thousands of companies in the contractor's supply chain, with all those companies having many suppliers of their own, and I believe there were also problems in the recruitment of specialist building personnel.

I guess you could say it was a little churlish of the main contractor to suggest such a short completion time, but like any company involved in a major tender, they chanced their arm a little. Needless to say, I don't think they did their own reputation much good either.

.

 

[skaz04nik]

I think ENIC's management is ok but nothing to be proud of

1. THFC has always been among top20 richest clubs (based on Deloitte FML), at least since mid 90s, fluctuating between #10 - #15
Top20 richest clubs have had a revenue CAGR of 8% since 01/02 to 17/18 season. Spurs had 9.5%, however the majority of this growth is since 16/17 (and heavily driven by renewed TV deal)

If we compare 01/02 to 15/16 (which is a majority of ENIC's reign) our revenue CAGR is less than top20 cumulative (Our 7.6% vs top20 8.3%)

2. During last 2-3 seasons we have improved our position yet we are nowhere close to breaking into top5-7
It could be better. There are several clubs which successfully made it into top 5/6 (at least once): Real Madrid (used to be #5 richest in 01/02); Barca (#11 in 00/01), Chelsea, Arsenal, Mancity and PSG
Another examples to watch are Atletico Madrid and Dortmund; both have demonstrated excellent CAGR in recent 10 years (17 and 13% respectively)

ENIC's management is not too bad though. It could be much worse for us - e.g. Newcastle (revenue higher than ours in early 00s, now not even close). United's CAGR also not impressive (7% since 01/02)

3. The stadium investment for me is questionable (medium risk low return)
We might get +50 mln EUR (maybe 60 mln) per season with 1.1 bn CAPEX that's <5% ROI. Generally speaking, even at a CAGR of 7% that ROI is poor; to add the on pitch performance is at risk

It obviously depends on other spending options.
City had a net spending (for squad) of EUR 1.2 bn since 2007 which was enough to win several titles etc etc and break into top5 richest clubs; PSG - 800 mln net; Liverpool spent EUR 157 mln net since Klopp has arrived (assuming Coutinho not sold that would be ~EUR 300 mln or so)

Squad investments are high risk high return yet there's no team which broke into top5-6 richest after stadium investment

Arsenal had excellent years 00/01 to 05/06, revenue almost doubled. After moving to new stadium revenue stagnated for 6 years (EUR 264 mln to EUR 268 mln in 11/12). Valencia (once crowned champion of La Liga) was almost dead after stadium project

Atletico did it successfully however their investment was not so CAPEX heavy as ours (CAPEX to revenue close to 1:1, ours is 2.5-3 to 1)

Anyway what done is done, however we are now in a need of 5-6 new players at least (I'd say EUR 300 mln in next 2 windows should we aim for good quality), let's see what ENIC shall do

 

[sausage]

2. During last 2-3 seasons we have improved our position yet we are nowhere close to breaking into top5-7
It could be better. There are several clubs which successfully made it into top 5/6 (at least once): Real Madrid (used to be #5 richest in 01/02); Barca (#11 in 00/01), Chelsea, Arsenal, Mancity and PSG

Ok, so only the clubs with fraudulent finances, then...

 

[Shadydan]

Some of the posts you read on international break are hilarious.

 

[Sp3akerboxxx]

I’m really sorry but this is some of the biggest load of nonsense ever posted on SC. As you allude to in the post itself they haven’t stuck in a billion pounds they are borrowing. ENIC’s total equity injection into Spurs is far less than £100m and if something went wrong they wouldn’t step in and pay the loans they would bankrupt the club. That’s business. Similar to the Glazers at Man U, they at this point have net taken out money from the club but own it 100%. Very clever business but don’t be deluded that the fans haven’t paid for that 100% both through gate receipts and less directly through commercial deals (the sponsors aren’t charities) and tv rights. Again as you say we aren’t the owners we are the customers and as such our role is to ask for the best product to be delivered to us commensurate to the price the owners are asking us to pay. As we will shortly be asked to pay the highest price of any fans in the league we should expect to be delivered a product on the pitch that matches that and not care too much about the owners finances.

Finally as to ENIC being long term this only applies to the return on their investment. Trust me if they had been offered £1bn for the club by Cain Hoy last year they were ready to sell (that is ITK not speculation) once the stadium is finished and an NFL deal agreed they will want even more none of which will help us the fans.

Itk is speculation.

 

[spursfan77]

Their only cock up was an over ambitious TL had they said we’d need to be at Wembley for 2 years nobody would have had an issue with that.

There was quite a lot of resistance to this at the time, I seem to remember. Something about local businesses folding etc. When actually it looks like they were fine on the High Road with the local trade and that from the workers on site.

 

[DogsOfWar]

I think ENIC's management is ok but nothing to be proud of

1. THFC has always been among top20 richest clubs (based on Deloitte FML), at least since mid 90s, fluctuating between #10 - #15
Top20 richest clubs have had a revenue CAGR of 8% since 01/02 to 17/18 season. Spurs had 9.5%, however the majority of this growth is since 16/17 (and heavily driven by renewed TV deal)

If we compare 01/02 to 15/16 (which is a majority of ENIC's reign) our revenue CAGR is less than top20 cumulative (Our 7.6% vs top20 8.3%)

2. During last 2-3 seasons we have improved our position yet we are nowhere close to breaking into top5-7
It could be better. There are several clubs which successfully made it into top 5/6 (at least once): Real Madrid (used to be #5 richest in 01/02); Barca (#11 in 00/01), Chelsea, Arsenal, Mancity and PSG
Another examples to watch are Atletico Madrid and Dortmund; both have demonstrated excellent CAGR in recent 10 years (17 and 13% respectively)

ENIC's management is not too bad though. It could be much worse for us - e.g. Newcastle (revenue higher than ours in early 00s, now not even close). United's CAGR also not impressive (7% since 01/02)

3. The stadium investment for me is questionable (medium risk low return)
We might get +50 mln EUR (maybe 60 mln) per season with 1.1 bn CAPEX that's <5% ROI. Generally speaking, even at a CAGR of 7% that ROI is poor; to add the on pitch performance is at risk

It obviously depends on other spending options.
City had a net spending (for squad) of EUR 1.2 bn since 2007 which was enough to win several titles etc etc and break into top5 richest clubs; PSG - 800 mln net; Liverpool spent EUR 157 mln net since Klopp has arrived (assuming Coutinho not sold that would be ~EUR 300 mln or so)

Squad investments are high risk high return yet there's no team which broke into top5-6 richest after stadium investment

Arsenal had excellent years 00/01 to 05/06, revenue almost doubled. After moving to new stadium revenue stagnated for 6 years (EUR 264 mln to EUR 268 mln in 11/12). Valencia (once crowned champion of La Liga) was almost dead after stadium project

Atletico did it successfully however their investment was not so CAPEX heavy as ours (CAPEX to revenue close to 1:1, ours is 2.5-3 to 1)

Anyway what done is done, however we are now in a need of 5-6 new players at least (I'd say EUR 300 mln in next 2 windows should we aim for good quality), let's see what ENIC shall do

I think you're taking a bit of a pessimistic view on this personally.

1. The first 13/14 years of Enic's tenure was slowly building an entire, underachieving, club to where we should have been (knocking on the door of the old SKY top four/five with City's rise)
The last five/six years have been us cementing a place in the SKY top five (now six) which sees a much higher level of commercial possibilities.
So, for me, it's the last five/six years CAGR which is the most important, and is closer to 15/16%.

2. The creation/expansion of the big brands from the footballing powerhouses such as Barca, Real, Bayern, United etc mean breaking into the top 5 richest is, currently, an unfair measure. We would need at least a decade of dominance in the Prem/CL to create that kind of commercial strength.

3. The stadium will see a minimum of 50 million pounds increase on WHL match-day revenue, 24 million on 16 extra events and 10 million on naming rights, so worst case an 8% ROI.
Optimistically, we would see closer to 70 million pounds increase on WHL match-day revenue, 50 million from the 16 events, and 15 million from a naming rights deal, so closer to 12% ROI.

And, I would expect our footballing revenue to now stagnate as we will have maxed out matchday revenue, broadcast revenue I don't see rising much further anytime soon, and our commercial value is unlikely to rise too much more without winning PL/CL regularly.
However, I suspect we may see further revenue growth through property development of the area (hotel, flats, goods in yard, etc) along with improved utilisation of the stadium for non-footballing activities as transport links/local area improves.

I can understand (although not entirely agree) with those who disagree with Enic/Levy's running of the football side of the club, but in terms of running the business side I struggle to find how they/he can be criticised.

 

[Spurslove]

I think ENIC's management is ok but nothing to be proud of

1. THFC has always been among top20 richest clubs (based on Deloitte FML), at least since mid 90s, fluctuating between #10 - #15
Top20 richest clubs have had a revenue CAGR of 8% since 01/02 to 17/18 season. Spurs had 9.5%, however the majority of this growth is since 16/17 (and heavily driven by renewed TV deal)

If we compare 01/02 to 15/16 (which is a majority of ENIC's reign) our revenue CAGR is less than top20 cumulative (Our 7.6% vs top20 8.3%)

2. During last 2-3 seasons we have improved our position yet we are nowhere close to breaking into top5-7
It could be better. There are several clubs which successfully made it into top 5/6 (at least once): Real Madrid (used to be #5 richest in 01/02); Barca (#11 in 00/01), Chelsea, Arsenal, Mancity and PSG
Another examples to watch are Atletico Madrid and Dortmund; both have demonstrated excellent CAGR in recent 10 years (17 and 13% respectively)

ENIC's management is not too bad though. It could be much worse for us - e.g. Newcastle (revenue higher than ours in early 00s, now not even close). United's CAGR also not impressive (7% since 01/02)

3. The stadium investment for me is questionable (medium risk low return)
We might get +50 mln EUR (maybe 60 mln) per season with 1.1 bn CAPEX that's <5% ROI. Generally speaking, even at a CAGR of 7% that ROI is poor; to add the on pitch performance is at risk

It obviously depends on other spending options.
City had a net spending (for squad) of EUR 1.2 bn since 2007 which was enough to win several titles etc etc and break into top5 richest clubs; PSG - 800 mln net; Liverpool spent EUR 157 mln net since Klopp has arrived (assuming Coutinho not sold that would be ~EUR 300 mln or so)

Squad investments are high risk high return yet there's no team which broke into top5-6 richest after stadium investment

Arsenal had excellent years 00/01 to 05/06, revenue almost doubled. After moving to new stadium revenue stagnated for 6 years (EUR 264 mln to EUR 268 mln in 11/12). Valencia (once crowned champion of La Liga) was almost dead after stadium project

Atletico did it successfully however their investment was not so CAPEX heavy as ours (CAPEX to revenue close to 1:1, ours is 2.5-3 to 1)

Anyway what done is done, however we are now in a need of 5-6 new players at least (I'd say EUR 300 mln in next 2 windows should we aim for good quality), let's see what ENIC shall do

As a layman, I understand all those words but not necessarily in that order.

.

 

[Ionman34]

I think ENIC's management is ok but nothing to be proud of

1. THFC has always been among top20 richest clubs (based on Deloitte FML), at least since mid 90s, fluctuating between #10 - #15
Top20 richest clubs have had a revenue CAGR of 8% since 01/02 to 17/18 season. Spurs had 9.5%, however the majority of this growth is since 16/17 (and heavily driven by renewed TV deal)

If we compare 01/02 to 15/16 (which is a majority of ENIC's reign) our revenue CAGR is less than top20 cumulative (Our 7.6% vs top20 8.3%)

2. During last 2-3 seasons we have improved our position yet we are nowhere close to breaking into top5-7
It could be better. There are several clubs which successfully made it into top 5/6 (at least once): Real Madrid (used to be #5 richest in 01/02); Barca (#11 in 00/01), Chelsea, Arsenal, Mancity and PSG
Another examples to watch are Atletico Madrid and Dortmund; both have demonstrated excellent CAGR in recent 10 years (17 and 13% respectively)

ENIC's management is not too bad though. It could be much worse for us - e.g. Newcastle (revenue higher than ours in early 00s, now not even close). United's CAGR also not impressive (7% since 01/02)

3. The stadium investment for me is questionable (medium risk low return)
We might get +50 mln EUR (maybe 60 mln) per season with 1.1 bn CAPEX that's <5% ROI. Generally speaking, even at a CAGR of 7% that ROI is poor; to add the on pitch performance is at risk

It obviously depends on other spending options.
City had a net spending (for squad) of EUR 1.2 bn since 2007 which was enough to win several titles etc etc and break into top5 richest clubs; PSG - 800 mln net; Liverpool spent EUR 157 mln net since Klopp has arrived (assuming Coutinho not sold that would be ~EUR 300 mln or so)

Squad investments are high risk high return yet there's no team which broke into top5-6 richest after stadium investment

Arsenal had excellent years 00/01 to 05/06, revenue almost doubled. After moving to new stadium revenue stagnated for 6 years (EUR 264 mln to EUR 268 mln in 11/12). Valencia (once crowned champion of La Liga) was almost dead after stadium project

Atletico did it successfully however their investment was not so CAPEX heavy as ours (CAPEX to revenue close to 1:1, ours is 2.5-3 to 1)

Anyway what done is done, however we are now in a need of 5-6 new players at least (I'd say EUR 300 mln in next 2 windows should we aim for good quality), let's see what ENIC shall do

 

[shelfmonkey]

I think ENIC's management is ok but nothing to be proud of

1. THFC has always been among top20 richest clubs (based on Deloitte FML), at least since mid 90s, fluctuating between #10 - #15
Top20 richest clubs have had a revenue CAGR of 8% since 01/02 to 17/18 season. Spurs had 9.5%, however the majority of this growth is since 16/17 (and heavily driven by renewed TV deal)

If we compare 01/02 to 15/16 (which is a majority of ENIC's reign) our revenue CAGR is less than top20 cumulative (Our 7.6% vs top20 8.3%)

2. During last 2-3 seasons we have improved our position yet we are nowhere close to breaking into top5-7
It could be better. There are several clubs which successfully made it into top 5/6 (at least once): Real Madrid (used to be #5 richest in 01/02); Barca (#11 in 00/01), Chelsea, Arsenal, Mancity and PSG
Another examples to watch are Atletico Madrid and Dortmund; both have demonstrated excellent CAGR in recent 10 years (17 and 13% respectively)

ENIC's management is not too bad though. It could be much worse for us - e.g. Newcastle (revenue higher than ours in early 00s, now not even close). United's CAGR also not impressive (7% since 01/02)

3. The stadium investment for me is questionable (medium risk low return)
We might get +50 mln EUR (maybe 60 mln) per season with 1.1 bn CAPEX that's <5% ROI. Generally speaking, even at a CAGR of 7% that ROI is poor; to add the on pitch performance is at risk

It obviously depends on other spending options.
City had a net spending (for squad) of EUR 1.2 bn since 2007 which was enough to win several titles etc etc and break into top5 richest clubs; PSG - 800 mln net; Liverpool spent EUR 157 mln net since Klopp has arrived (assuming Coutinho not sold that would be ~EUR 300 mln or so)

Squad investments are high risk high return yet there's no team which broke into top5-6 richest after stadium investment

Arsenal had excellent years 00/01 to 05/06, revenue almost doubled. After moving to new stadium revenue stagnated for 6 years (EUR 264 mln to EUR 268 mln in 11/12). Valencia (once crowned champion of La Liga) was almost dead after stadium project

Atletico did it successfully however their investment was not so CAPEX heavy as ours (CAPEX to revenue close to 1:1, ours is 2.5-3 to 1)

Anyway what done is done, however we are now in a need of 5-6 new players at least (I'd say EUR 300 mln in next 2 windows should we aim for good quality), let's see what ENIC shall do

Wtf have I just read?!!