Wow!
ENIC, who are owned by the family trust of billionaire Joe Lewis and chairman Levy himself, are the Premier League’s oldest ownership group. They completed the first part of their takeover of Tottenham from Sir Alan Sugar in 2001.
However, despite the length of time that ENIC have owned Spurs, as per The Athletic (18 November), only Southampton, Nottingham Forest, Brentford and Ipswich Town’s owners have invested less into their clubs.
ENIC have invested £194million of their own money into Tottenham. That includes a purchase price of £94milllion, and owner funding worth £100million.
That leaves the club 16th out of all 20 Premier League sides in terms of ownership funding.
What is more, is that the four clubs below them were taken over by their current owners far later than ENIC completed their takeover of Spurs.
_____________________
Running the club "organically" or however you want to spin it, but at the end of the day this proves the "ambition" of the owners of the club.
They have properly made us an average team forever now.
Chelsea and Arsenal unquestionably have a bigger draw and global presence now since PL inception/internet etc.
Without sounding bitter, but we had all the ingredients to cement ourselves as the top London club forever but we got owners like ENIC.
How can some people still justify ENIC?
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
comment by Luka Bosh Brasi (U22178)
posted 2 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 17 minutes ago
Something something nice stadium, something something profitable business….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But yesturday you wrote an article about 'great times' under Poch which were under also ENIC.
Talking about all the failures under Poch as if it was some glory era 😂😂😂😂😂. Silly boy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree with you much, but you got that spot on.
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Here's how much Liverpool's owners have invested.
ZERO.
Spurs now routinely outspend Liverpool (last 5 years) so it is really its not a case of us spending enough. The owners have put us in this position of being able to compete financially.
So what is the issue in your opinion? What should the owners do that they are not? and i'm not talking hollow platitudes like "show ambition" i am talking about what could we have done, and afforded to have done which we have not.
I am not saying things could not have been done slightly better but we have to be serious about what can be done. We could not go out this summer and bought Solanke and Eze/Neto and Gray (or another CM) and a top CB and replaced Davies . We spent large sums again. £125m on top of last seasons £165m - nearly £300m spent by Ange already.
But we may well add more quality this January and we will certainly spend about £100m - £150m next summer, which should be 2 or 3 quality additions.
I can get the hate from the days when we were far more financially limited, and from the post-poch decisions. But I do not get the timing of this OP and how fans think they're still holding us back when all they have really done is max our revenue and spend that revenue.
You raise this, have a proper debate about it, a realistic 'what we could and should have done different' discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree with this. The major faults of Levy and Enic have been more in the past than in recent times. Of course we can continue to hold them to account for the ongoing lack of trophies, but things like backing the manager, for once they are allowing him to spend hundreds of millions. Even if we might have done more, realistically we were never going to purchase every single target. At least it's better than the days when we got Champions League for the first time and left it to the last second to think of buying someone to improve our squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, If Liverpool owners have invested nothing, then why aren’t they below spurs on the OP’s list?
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Mack (U6574)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Here's how much Liverpool's owners have invested.
ZERO.
Spurs now routinely outspend Liverpool (last 5 years) so it is really its not a case of us spending enough. The owners have put us in this position of being able to compete financially.
So what is the issue in your opinion? What should the owners do that they are not? and i'm not talking hollow platitudes like "show ambition" i am talking about what could we have done, and afforded to have done which we have not.
I am not saying things could not have been done slightly better but we have to be serious about what can be done. We could not go out this summer and bought Solanke and Eze/Neto and Gray (or another CM) and a top CB and replaced Davies . We spent large sums again. £125m on top of last seasons £165m - nearly £300m spent by Ange already.
But we may well add more quality this January and we will certainly spend about £100m - £150m next summer, which should be 2 or 3 quality additions.
I can get the hate from the days when we were far more financially limited, and from the post-poch decisions. But I do not get the timing of this OP and how fans think they're still holding us back when all they have really done is max our revenue and spend that revenue.
You raise this, have a proper debate about it, a realistic 'what we could and should have done different' discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree with this. The major faults of Levy and Enic have been more in the past than in recent times. Of course we can continue to hold them to account for the ongoing lack of trophies, but things like backing the manager, for once they are allowing him to spend hundreds of millions. Even if we might have done more, realistically we were never going to purchase every single target. At least it's better than the days when we got Champions League for the first time and left it to the last second to think of buying someone to improve our squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, If Liverpool owners have invested nothing, then why aren’t they below spurs on the OP’s list?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not agreeing with the Liverpool part of what Devon says, only the part about Spurs. Whatever Liverpool have or haven't spent, they've clearly done a better job of it than us over the years. But we knew this already. When they were on the rise with Klopp they made statement signings that took them to another level. When we were on the rise with Poch we just stood there admiring our work, not realising our potential to go further. Now the two clubs are where they are.
posted 55 minutes ago
I remember those few years when Spurs fans saw Liverpool as a genuine rival. Mammaries
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Mack (U6574)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Here's how much Liverpool's owners have invested.
ZERO.
Spurs now routinely outspend Liverpool (last 5 years) so it is really its not a case of us spending enough. The owners have put us in this position of being able to compete financially.
So what is the issue in your opinion? What should the owners do that they are not? and i'm not talking hollow platitudes like "show ambition" i am talking about what could we have done, and afforded to have done which we have not.
I am not saying things could not have been done slightly better but we have to be serious about what can be done. We could not go out this summer and bought Solanke and Eze/Neto and Gray (or another CM) and a top CB and replaced Davies . We spent large sums again. £125m on top of last seasons £165m - nearly £300m spent by Ange already.
But we may well add more quality this January and we will certainly spend about £100m - £150m next summer, which should be 2 or 3 quality additions.
I can get the hate from the days when we were far more financially limited, and from the post-poch decisions. But I do not get the timing of this OP and how fans think they're still holding us back when all they have really done is max our revenue and spend that revenue.
You raise this, have a proper debate about it, a realistic 'what we could and should have done different' discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree with this. The major faults of Levy and Enic have been more in the past than in recent times. Of course we can continue to hold them to account for the ongoing lack of trophies, but things like backing the manager, for once they are allowing him to spend hundreds of millions. Even if we might have done more, realistically we were never going to purchase every single target. At least it's better than the days when we got Champions League for the first time and left it to the last second to think of buying someone to improve our squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, If Liverpool owners have invested nothing, then why aren’t they below spurs on the OP’s list?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have been successful despite of a lack of owner investment, so the fact that ENIC haven't pumped their own capital in is not a reason to knock them because it is not a prerequisite to success.
What is a prerequisite to success is having a lot of money to spend and our owners have now put us in that position.
LFC have achieved more because they have made better decisions, and that fundamentally comes down to one decision - Klopp, who had the gravitas and strength of character to impose what he wanted on the club, and the club listened.
ENIC are guilty of making some poor decisions and may be guilty of not listening to their manager(s), but i would suggest that that is changing. The set up is very different and our spending power has allowed us to be a bit more pro-active in our dealings rather than constantly hanging on for bargains.
posted 52 minutes ago
This is the list I think the op is referring to
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5923137/2024/11/18/premier-league-investment-owner-ranking/#
Just can’t see how Liverpool owners have incvested zero?
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Mack (U6574)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
Here's how much Liverpool's owners have invested.
ZERO.
Spurs now routinely outspend Liverpool (last 5 years) so it is really its not a case of us spending enough. The owners have put us in this position of being able to compete financially.
So what is the issue in your opinion? What should the owners do that they are not? and i'm not talking hollow platitudes like "show ambition" i am talking about what could we have done, and afforded to have done which we have not.
I am not saying things could not have been done slightly better but we have to be serious about what can be done. We could not go out this summer and bought Solanke and Eze/Neto and Gray (or another CM) and a top CB and replaced Davies . We spent large sums again. £125m on top of last seasons £165m - nearly £300m spent by Ange already.
But we may well add more quality this January and we will certainly spend about £100m - £150m next summer, which should be 2 or 3 quality additions.
I can get the hate from the days when we were far more financially limited, and from the post-poch decisions. But I do not get the timing of this OP and how fans think they're still holding us back when all they have really done is max our revenue and spend that revenue.
You raise this, have a proper debate about it, a realistic 'what we could and should have done different' discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree with this. The major faults of Levy and Enic have been more in the past than in recent times. Of course we can continue to hold them to account for the ongoing lack of trophies, but things like backing the manager, for once they are allowing him to spend hundreds of millions. Even if we might have done more, realistically we were never going to purchase every single target. At least it's better than the days when we got Champions League for the first time and left it to the last second to think of buying someone to improve our squad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, If Liverpool owners have invested nothing, then why aren’t they below spurs on the OP’s list?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not agreeing with the Liverpool part of what Devon says, only the part about Spurs. Whatever Liverpool have or haven't spent, they've clearly done a better job of it than us over the years. But we knew this already. When they were on the rise with Klopp they made statement signings that took them to another level. When we were on the rise with Poch we just stood there admiring our work, not realising our potential to go further. Now the two clubs are where they are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When we were on the rise with Poch we were also spending £1bn on a new stadium.
The season of no transfers wasnt because we were admiring our good work, it was partially a lack of money but also a decision (by Poch reportedly) to save what was available and have a bigger budget next time around, on targets that would cost more but, supposedly, move us forward. The following summer saw our biggest net spend ever. Similar spending sprees had only been made possible by selling a star or 2.
In fact there is an interesting comparison with LFC, as they spent the summer chasing VVD. Didnt get him, didnt panic buy, started the season without a CB and then got him at great expense in the January window.
A decision that shows an element of risk but a view on the longer game, that when in this building phase, what is important is what the squad looks like at the end of that phase and that what is important is who you get in and not necessarily the timing. A good strategy, commitment to that strategy with an eye to the future gains, and some patience.
posted 42 minutes ago
United should actually be at the very bottom of that list with a total ownership input of £45m.
Not a single penny of the £800m used to buy the club came from the Glazers’ pockets: the entire deal was financed with loans taken out against the club’s assets and the PIK loans, which have now cost the club more than the purchase price of £800m to service.
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Mack (U6574)
posted 7 minutes ago
This is the list I think the op is referring to
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5923137/2024/11/18/premier-league-investment-owner-ranking/#
Just can’t see how Liverpool owners have incvested zero?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool owners lent their club money to extend the main stand. This was paid back:
"Aside from early investment, helping with the reconstruction of Anfield’s Main Stand, no owner funding has been recorded since the 2015-16 season. Money was actually paid back to reduce the amounts owed to FSG between 2017 and 2020."
So while they may have put money in to the club it was on a loan (and the purchase price, which isnt really investment in to the club, it's what they paid the old owners)