Spurs supporters trust reject meeting Levy...

[Littlest Hobo]

Don't agree PJ. I think Levy went for it because if it had worked and we were left on the outside the club would have been in receivership in 12 months.......or less.

He had no choice.

You have hit the nail on the head 80. This is exactly why you are WRONG imo.

Levy and all the other owners were happy to forgo everyone else to protect their own self centred interests. ZERO thought for fans and other clubs. Protect ourselves and fcuk the rest. At least Spurs (Levy) can point to the fact he was protecting his business. But whats the risk? Most of our debt is tied up in London real estate. The other rich clubs were ringfencing more money which would just be handed over to big name players.

As i say, i would rather see spurs go bankrupt and play conference football than see us ride roughshod over other clubs.

 

[Littlest Hobo]

More money doesn't bring more debt, if you have a regulatory framework, it's as simple as that.[/QUOTE]

Give me an example where more income/money hasnt led to more debt in football

 

[Departed]

You have hit the nail on the head 80. This is exactly why you are WRONG imo.

Levy and all the other owners were happy to forgo everyone else to protect their own self centred interests. ZERO thought for fans and other clubs. Protect ourselves and fcuk the rest. At least Spurs (Levy) can point to the fact he was protecting his business. But whats the risk? Most of our debt is tied up in London real estate. The other rich clubs were ringfencing more money which would just be handed over to big name players.

As i say, i would rather see spurs go bankrupt and play conference football than see us ride roughshod over other clubs.

Bankruptcy means ceasing to operate. And I would never wish that on anyone as the implications of an organization going bankrupt are far-reaching.

Spurs going bankrupt would wipe out hundreds if not thousands of jobs from ancillary businesses. This focus on greed is ridiculous. Greed is agents.

More money doesn't bring more debt, if you have a regulatory framework, it's as simple as that.

Give me an example where more income/money hasnt led to more debt in football

Man United. More money has meant less debt as they pay it off. More money for Spurs would mean the same thing. Lowering debt is a great way to increase the value of the club.

 

[Departed]

This is a generalization so there are always exceptions but one of Europe and the UK's biggest problems post WW2 is the inability to adapt and change. Mired in tradition (which I get and in some cases it works) has prevented necessary changes.

Football will not survive the way it is. What it will look like in the future remains to be seen. But this notion of fans driving direction is only true to a point. A very limited point. If the economics are changing it doesn't matter who says what.

Having the government get involved in English football would be a disaster. Especially if that doesn't happen anywhere else. Having the EU get involved in football regulation? They will make UEFA look like geniuses.

Something will crack. If it is player salaries then football will start to lose athletes to other high-paying sports. There are always unexpected consequences to quick fixes without any thought behind them.

 

[Littlest Hobo]

Man United. More money has meant less debt as they pay it off. More money for Spurs would mean the same thing. Lowering debt is a great way to increase the value of the club.[/QUOTE]

Before Glaziers Man Utd were
regular league champions
regular CL finalists and winners
regular highest wage bill
regular best stadium in the world
regular highest transfers
zero debt

When the Glaziers came in with their Billions they immediately brought
huge debt
no more Premier Leagues
no more CL finals or wins
overtaken in the wage bills
stadium falling to bits
no longer dominant in transfer market
massive debt which takes huge turnover to service and is hardly any lower now than it was a decade ago.

All the extra income, and it is a huge increase has gone into the owners pockets, the players pockets and servicing the debt. Wow, that sounds really good for football clubs everywhere

 

[Matic]

Profit is not a dirty word. It takes money to evolve the game. It will take money to solve the lack of quality referees, the racism problem and the grassroots lack of support.

Regulating structures is how you direct money to the appropriate places.

Right now you have FIFA and UEFA regulating the structures and by the time the money gets where it is really needed there isn much left because these organizations absorb a massive chunk.

You can blame the owners if you wish but I would look at their overall profitability and compare it to any other labour intensive business before casting stones.

The two big drains that money flows into are player wages and regulatory bodies infrastructure. Start there.

I'm not blaming owners for the current mess, but I'm not naïve enough to know that all these top-club owners wouldn't engineer the situation so they control the game in exactly the same way the likes of UEFA, FIFA etc. all do now. My concerns are, whatever happens, the changes need to ensure that the likes of Man Utd and Liverpool won't be able to reign as untouchable forces because of their global profitability compared to the likes of Burnley or Brighton.

Profitability isnt a dirty word, but monopoly is. If each club has their own rights to broadcast how on earth do you stop that from happening when Man Utd would rake in millions and someone like WBA wouldnt?

 

[Spursex]

More money doesn't bring more debt, if you have a regulatory framework, it's as simple as that.

Give me an example where more income/money hasnt led to more debt in football[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure you're following my argument/debate. It's not what was, it's about what can be.

More debt in football isn't a given IF you regulate wages, it's really no more complex than that. Wages overall make up 75% of all costs across all leagues in some clubs it's even higher.

So all you have to do is bring in a legally sanctioned percentage limit v revenues; set it as we did at 60% and you'll make a profit more often than not - we are the prime example of having a hard an fast rule and sticking to it. We have built the assets we built for the betterment of fans/the club EXACTLY because we did this!!

Other owners are not as string when faced with salary demands.

So, up until Covid, we were the model of financial propriety and proved that it could be done!!

It's that simple.

 

[Matic]

For the record, I am completely in support of governing players wages and getting a hold of the runaway fee's in football. My concern is with what comes AFTER a breakaway from the likes of Sky.

 

[Littlest Hobo]

More debt in football isn't a given IF you regulate wages, it's really no more complex than that. Wages overall make up 75% of all costs across all leagues in some clubs it's even higher.

Do you think clubs like Man City, Utd, Liverpool etc would not just circumvent this with other incentives over and above wages?

 

[Departed]

Man United. More money has meant less debt as they pay it off. More money for Spurs would mean the same thing. Lowering debt is a great way to increase the value of the club.

Before Glaziers Man Utd were
regular league champions
regular CL finalists and winners
regular highest wage bill
regular best stadium in the world
regular highest transfers
zero debt

When the Glaziers came in with their Billions they immediately brought
huge debt
no more Premier Leagues
no more CL finals or wins
overtaken in the wage bills
stadium falling to bits
no longer dominant in transfer market
massive debt which takes huge turnover to service and is hardly any lower now than it was a decade ago.

All the extra income, and it is a huge increase has gone into the owners pockets, the players pockets and servicing the debt. Wow, that sounds really good for football clubs everywhere

Hmmmm....the owner's pockets, well that's good because why else would you inves in a club?

The players' pockets? Hmmm...well FFP was supposed to solve that with relative salary caps but UEFA didn't enforce that.

Debt is how you expand a business and make it more viable. At some point you have to pay it off.

This is just another example of people thinking success is a bad thing.

If you want to target people who rip off the system target large corporate CEO's who get paid stupid amounts of money, have zero risk of ownership, and get paid off with massive parachute payments if they get fired for doing a shitty job.

THOSE are the people to direct and greed accusations at.

Owning a business is a risk. Risk should be rewarded.

 

[Spursex]

More debt in football isn't a given IF you regulate wages, it's really no more complex than that. Wages overall make up 75% of all costs across all leagues in some clubs it's even higher.

Do you think clubs like Man City, Utd, Liverpool etc would not just circumvent this with other incentives over and above wages?

As I have repeatedly said; it would have to be legistatively led in the same way that accounting standards are i.e. if you break them, you break the law and you will be sanctioned for it...just as businesses are if they get caught cheating on their taxes.

The legislative model is already in place.

 

[muttley]

How do you stop big club monopoly on success if you have massive, global clubs like Man Utd pulling in millions on millions through self-broadcasting?

I'm all for the end of the Sky, FA, Premier League, UEFA, FIFA dictatorships, but painting these big club owners as potential saviours of the modern game is ridiculous. They are all cut from the same greedy cloth. Give them an inch and they will take several thousand miles.

The simple answer is that they pay more tax......football tax.

Move to the model where the money goes from the fan to the club based on consumption in person of through media. Then think how our PAYE model works from 0% to 20% to 40% to 45% tax based on how much we earn. Then apply an equivalent model to football.

That's how I see football. So I can confidently sit there watching Orient vs Swindon knowing those 2 clubs get the benefit of my neutral support. That is because my consumption is technology enabled in the future. I also know that Utd will get more revenue but also put disproportionately more into the central pot for grass roots. There is no moral argument here as every single person in this country knows the PAYE model. They know the next door neighbour with 3 kids with low income pays less to the treasury than the rich single executive. It's a system we're very used to. It is also the basis of Rishi's new business tax model from 19% to 25%.

So it doesn't need to be that the rich clubs get richer, but they might. If they do, it will be based on their product, brand and execution which is no different than other industries. A natural supply and demand model.

This is where the government need to help football get out of their dark place, keeping the money in the same eco-system.

 

[Nick Real Deal]

Its all about money. Look who are in the CL final and look where their money comes from. Money buys trophies.

 

[muttley]

Its all about money. Look who are in the CL final and look where their money comes from. Money buys trophies.

You are of course right.

What is interesting is this CL final has become about football again because Mansour and Abramovich both have money. Therefore, it's become more about which brand of football we want to win it. I hope it's Pep's.

 

[Spursex]

Its all about money. Look who are in the CL final and look where their money comes from. Money buys trophies.

which is why our achievements in getting into the Top 4 and becoming (as we were before Jose a top 4 team) were truly staggering.

We massively over-achieved under Poch, but ultimately to win something/anything we needed far more invested in better players than the club (up until our new stadium) could ever afford.

Covid scuppered the long-practiced strategic plan of how we'd bridge that gap.

Now we need a new strategy to join the elite and asking a disinterested aging Billionaire who is thinking more about how he survives until next month, for a half a billion or so, is a non-starter, hence why the SL looked such a simple, easy answer to our short-term monetary woes.

Now Levy will have to look for outside investors yet again., or be prepared to have our planning set back 5-10 years.

 

[pjones40]

Don't agree PJ. I think Levy went for it because if it had worked and we were left on the outside the club would have been in receivership in 12 months.......or less.

He had no choice.

No we would not .We are not I it now and we will be fine. Levy went for it because he is greedy. Yes we have debt like most clubs. He went for it because he wants to be with the big boys but we are not. We have a man who runs us with a tight fist. Yet he still makes mistakes in the transfer market and with his sacking and hiring of manager's. We may not be cash rich but in assets we are fine.

 

[Departed]

No we would not .We are not I it now and we will be fine. Levy went for it because he is greedy. Yes we have debt like most clubs. He went for it because he wants to be with the big boys but we are not. We have a man who runs us with a tight fist. Yet he still makes mistakes in the transfer market and with his sacking and hiring of manager's. We may not be cash rich but in assets we are fine.

If the TV revenues followed the ESL and we weren't part of it we would have been bankrupt. Cash flow services debt. Without cash flow, you're selling assets. When you're selling assets you're in serious trouble if they are directly related to your business.

 

[freundorfoe]

Yes we have debt like most clubs.

There are no clubs with debt quite like ours. We know why this is but the timing of covid is actually pretty horrific for our finances in particular.



I really think he probably saw it as having zero choice. If the top 5 revenue generators in England plus most of the biggest elsewhere in Europe were all off to set up their own competition, and most likely with it global eyeballs, TV revenue & etc. while his plan to pay off our massive debt with matchday revenue, concerts & etc lies in tatters it probably felt like his only option.

Can't believe I'm defending Levy over this but he may well have seen the alternative as being the custodian who bankrupted the club by taking on huge debt to build an empty stadium.

 

[Departed]

There are no clubs with debt quite like ours. We know why this is but the timing of covid is actually pretty horrific for our finances in particular.

View attachment 48418

I really think he probably saw it as having zero choice. If the top 5 revenue generators in England plus most of the biggest elsewhere in Europe were all off to set up their own competition, and most likely with it global eyeballs, TV revenue & etc. while his plan to pay off our massive debt with matchday revenue, concerts & etc lies in tatters it probably felt like his only option.

Can't believe I'm defending Levy over this but he may well have seen the alternative as being the custodian who bankrupted the club by taking on huge debt to build an empty stadium.

If people don't get the magnitude of our Covid problem from that graph they never will.

 

[10Hoddle]

So they're demanding to meet with ENIC's shareholders i.e. Old Joe and Levy..

Do they seriously think they can make anything happen?

I guess it's more about letting the board know that we're on their case, in their face and will not tolerate decisions that do not have the spirit of the Club and the fans best interest at heart.

It was, however, a business decision. When you look at the debt we're in it's no wonder Levy and Joe are making these sort of decisions. At least money is as cheap as it will ever be right now. Thank goodness.