Sugar Daddy - Yea or Nay?

[DubaiSpur]

These are the evil ***** that own Emirates Marketing Project
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/tanzania-government-accused-serengeti-sale-maasai-lands

"Tanzania has been accused of reneging on its promise to 40,000 Masai pastoralists by going ahead with plans to evict them and turn their ancestral land into a reserve for the royal family of Dubai to hunt big game."


Its all about status.
They own their trophy football club. They want to hunt Elephants and Lions as trophies.

The City they live in is built by slave labour.


If we are ever gonna take money from someone its about the characters of these people. Some of who would be happy enough to sell out to newly cash rich ISIS in the morning.

Ho ho ho ho. Morality in football, what a gas.

I don't like what football has become, despite the fact that this is basically the football world I've lived with all my life: pre-PL never existed for me. But I don't think there has ever really been morality in football, and certainly not now: our owner got rich off short-selling the pound on Black Wednesday, certainly not the paragon of virtuous living (although admittedly that isn't too bad, in the scheme of things).

 

[Modric THFC]

Ho ho ho ho. Morality in football, what a gas.

I don't like what football has become, despite the fact that this is basically the football world I've lived with all my life: pre-PL never existed for me. But I don't think there has ever really been morality in football, and certainly not now: our owner got rich off short-selling the pound on Black Wednesday, certainly not the paragon of virtuous living (although admittedly that isn't too bad, in the scheme of things).

I'd take a bit of unethical white collar stuff over human right abuses and getting a chubby while whipping out endangered species any day.
Anyway it was the tories fault they entered the ERM at such a low rate. They could have avoided it all.

 

[jimmyb]

There's only two/three clubs out of reach financially and one of those is currently doing worse than us anyway.

Liverpool and Arsenal are reachable as we currently stand - once the new stadium is delivered we'll be on the same footing, albeit behind in terms of recent success, but it will only take good managment to have us in a position where we can challenge properly.

The amount of drama queens and doom merchants who want instant success is appalling - go and support City or Chelsea if the only things important to you are winning. 3 years a go we were an England managers sacking away from being genuine title challengers - where was the 'no chance of winning without a sugar daddy' phalanx then? all it's taken is a period of regression for supporters to throw in the towel. Pathetic

There is always a chance that, without big investment but with some good management and a bit of luck, we can build a team that can get close to a title challenge. The problem is that, long term, we won't be able to sustain such challenges. We will always be vulnerable to the covetous eyes of the biggest clubs. That will mean still losing our best players and constant periods of rebuilding - and as we have discovered to our cost, rebuilding plans don't always go as well as we would like.

For sustained success and parity in the long term with clubs like Chelsea, City and Utd, we will unquestionably need serious investment.

 

[imcallingbullsh*t]

There is always a chance that, without big investment but with some good management and a bit of luck, we can build a team that can get close to a title challenge. The problem is that, long term, we won't be able to sustain such challenges. We will always be vulnerable to the covetous eyes of the biggest clubs. That will mean still losing our best players and constant periods of rebuilding - and as we have discovered to our cost, rebuilding plans don't always go as well as we would like.

For sustained success and parity in the long term with clubs like Chelsea, City and Utd, we will unquestionably need serious investment.

You say that but are chelsea or city really financially independent? Utd i think are of a size that they can fend for themselves. However if tomorrow the russian or arab money was pulled from either of those 2 clubs they would be in the same boat as us within a 5yr period. Look at Villa, a billionaire sports club owner turning up doesnt mean they will just use it as play money. Liverpool owners want a return on investment, its only chelsea and city that are being used a pure play things.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I'd take a bit of unethical white collar stuff over human right abuses and getting a chubby while whipping out endangered species any day.
Anyway it was the tories fault they entered the ERM at such a low rate. They could have avoided it all.

I blame John Major. In all seriousness, like I said, a bit of unethical currency trading is admittedly far less morally dubious than hunting safaris in Tanzania or slave labour in Abu Dhabi (especially given that I agree with you, entering the ERM at that rate, in the state we were in, was just inviting trouble), but once you start grading morality on a grey scale, you really cannot claim to hold any real moral high ground. Football is widely immoral, just more immoral in some places than in others.

 

[thfcsteff]

These are the evil ***** that own Emirates Marketing Project
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/tanzania-government-accused-serengeti-sale-maasai-lands

"Tanzania has been accused of reneging on its promise to 40,000 Masai pastoralists by going ahead with plans to evict them and turn their ancestral land into a reserve for the royal family of Dubai to hunt big game."


Its all about status.
They own their trophy football club. They want to hunt Elephants and Lions as trophies.

The City they live in is built by slave labour.


If we are ever gonna take money from someone its about the characters of these people. Some of who would be happy enough to sell out to newly cash rich ISIS in the morning.

=D>
Unfortunately there aren't many in those positions who have character and wish to invest in football. But I agree with the principle of what you're saying 100%.

 

[jimmyb]

Problem is, our stadium will not be built for another 5 years. You're talking another 5-10 years to pay it off. It was only Wenger's towing the line and not spending that kept them afloat. They would have been in deep trouble had they not consistently qualified for the CL. We all like to mock him, but he did a pretty damn good job keeping them in the top 4 for so long. Assuming we are using the same model as they are, would that mean we would have to do as they did and qulaify every year to turn a profit? And do you think we would be capable of doing that on an even smaller net spend that we currently operate under now?

Says who?

It could be built within 3 years. Should be built within 4.

As to the Arsenal analogy, we have a number of advantages that they didn't.

a) Our revenues now are some 50% higher than Arsenal's were when they embarked on the Emirates construction.
b) Interest rates are far lower now than they were when Arsenal were looking to secure funding.
c) It is commonly acknowledged that Arsenal massively undervalued their stadium naming rights. Levy will not make the same mistake.
d) Unlike Arsenal, Spurs do not have to spend £60m relocating a council waste and recycling facility.

I would estimate that even after annual interest and repayment of the new stadium debt, Spurs will still be some £20-40m per annum better off than they are now (and that doesn't take into account the likelihood of far higher broadcasting and commercial income in the years ahead and the possibility of Champions League qualification).

 

[jimmyb]

These are the evil ***** that own Emirates Marketing Project
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/tanzania-government-accused-serengeti-sale-maasai-lands

"Tanzania has been accused of reneging on its promise to 40,000 Masai pastoralists by going ahead with plans to evict them and turn their ancestral land into a reserve for the royal family of Dubai to hunt big game."


Its all about status.
They own their trophy football club. They want to hunt Elephants and Lions as trophies.

The City they live in is built by slave labour.


If we are ever gonna take money from someone its about the characters of these people. Some of who would be happy enough to sell out to newly cash rich ISIS in the morning.

Erm..............Mansour isn't from Dubai.

He's from Abu Dhabi!

 

[Jurgen the German]

Says who?

It could be built within 3 years. Should be built within 4.

As to the Arsenal analogy, we have a number of advantages that they didn't.

a) Our revenues now are some 50% higher than Arsenal's were when they embarked on the Emirates construction.
b) Interest rates are far lower now than they were when Arsenal were looking to secure funding.
c) It is commonly acknowledged that Arsenal massively undervalued their stadium naming rights. Levy will not make the same mistake.
d) Unlike Arsenal, Spurs do not have to spend £60m relocating a council waste and recycling facility.

I would estimate that even after annual interest and repayment of the new stadium debt, Spurs will still be some £20-40m per annum better off than they are now (and that doesn't take into account the likelihood of far higher broadcasting and commercial income in the years ahead and the possibility of Champions League qualification).

Could be? So realistically, I was one year out, sorry. How many years has it been delayed now?

How long have we been looking to secure stadium naming rights for? Didn't we even sack someone because they failed to secure us a lucrative deal?

We SHOULD and more than likely will get more than Arsenal get for their stadium agreed, but they had the advantage of CL money every season. I think we are a long way off that to be blunt. They were a better team than we are now. The fact is, they have struggled to fill their stadium despite what their match attendance figures suggest, I can see our fans becoming disullisioned with the ticket prices if the the football does not improve.

As Dubai points out, large amounts of our revenue comes from the fans.

 

[jimmyb]

Could be? So realistically, I was one year out, sorry. How many years has it been delayed now?

It's taken a long time to get this far but there really is only the one hurdle to jump now. And it's most likely that that will happen in January.

How long have we been looking to secure stadium naming rights for? Didn't we even sack someone because they failed to secure us a lucrative deal?

I don't doubt that we could sign a stadium naming rights deal tomorrow if we needed to. Levy will merely have been holding out for even better than he has already been offered.

We SHOULD and more than likely will get more than Arsenal get for their stadium agreed, but they had the advantage of CL money every season. I think we are a long way off that to be blunt.

It doesn't matter that they have the advantage of CL money every season. As I said, our revenues are already some 50% higher than theirs were when they began construction of the Emirates. And all reports suggest that the next Premier League broadcasting deal will smash the record set by the current deal. Once we have the added revenue from the new stadium, our turnover will be north of £250m and possibly nudging on £300m. Even without CL qualification.

They were a better team than we are now. The fact is, they have have struggled to fill their stadium despite what their match attendance figures suggest, I can see our fans becoming disullisioned with the ticket prices if the the football does not improve.

There might be empty seats at the Emirates but all tickets are sold out. And yes, of course Spurs will have to be sensible with pricing (especially for cup games); and of course the fans will need to have a team that we can believe in if we are to maximise our potential. But that's three or four years away. So much can change between now and then.

 

[Shelfie]

The bottom line is that ENIC have been less successful in the 14 years of their reign, compared to the previous 14 under Sugar and Scholar, and lots of fans aren't too fond of those two chairmen. So given that, it's not too great for Levy as far as Spurs history goes.

 

[Robbo]

Normally I'd say no ten out of ten times, but with the deteriorating state of football these days, I'm more and more inlcined to say **** it, let's go.

At least then I might be able to celebrate some hollow success on my way to falling out of love with the game completely.

 

[Shelfie]

Normally I'd say no ten out of ten times, but with the deteriorating state of football these days, I'm more and more inlcined to say **** it, let's go.

At least then I might be able to celebrate some hollow success on my way to falling out of love with the game completely.

You never know Robbo, you might enjoy the success. Plenty of Spurs fans enjoyed us doing the double despite us having more money than the likes of Leicester who we beat in the Cup final that year, for example.

 

[chicken_badge]

The bottom line is that ENIC have been less successful in the 14 years of their reign, compared to the previous 14 under Sugar and Scholar, and lots of fans aren't too fond of those two chairmen. So given that, it's not too great for Levy as far as Spurs history goes.

Eh? Not buying that. 2000-2014 v 1986-2000? If you count trophies, yes. But we had two or three clubs over that time, different phases. Since 2000 we have been on a general upward journey, plateauing at 5th place in a much more competitive league. ENIC have the club in a very stable position, under Scholar and Sugar it was about risk and ultimately the club were in a mess.

Both those chairmen fluffed key chances for this club to kick on, we missed the boat when the Sky money came in - United's success is off the back off an FA Cup win, and we did the same a year later. We didn't gamble on a big striker when Ferdinand and Bergkamp were available first time, plumping for our usual halfway deal for Chris Frickin Armstrong.

ENIC have done all they can to get our club ready for the next big money buyer and they cannot do anything about our roots which will put off the Arab money. And why should they? I honestly believe the proof will be in the pudding this season and next, we will fall but only so far then be back.

 

[Shelfie]

Eh? Not buying that. 2000-2014 v 1986-2000? If you count trophies, yes. But we had two or three clubs over that time, different phases. Since 2000 we have been on a general upward journey, plateauing at 5th place in a much more competitive league. ENIC have the club in a very stable position, under Scholar and Sugar it was about risk and ultimately the club were in a mess.

Both those chairmen fluffed key chances for this club to kick on, we missed the boat when the Sky money came in - United's success is off the back off an FA Cup win, and we did the same a year later. We didn't gamble on a big striker when Ferdinand and Bergkamp were available first time, plumping for our usual halfway deal for Chris Frickin Armstrong.

ENIC have done all they can to get our club ready for the next big money buyer and they cannot do anything about our roots which will put off the Arab money. And why should they? I honestly believe the proof will be in the pudding this season and next, we will fall but only so far then be back.

Fair points CB. It depends on your priorities I guess. For me I prefer the superior trophy haul of 1986-2000 to the superior league performance overall of 200-14.

It's also worth noting that the TWO HIGHEST league positions came in 1987 and 1990 (3rd twice), whereas under ENIC our best is fourth (twice).

 

[Shelfie]

Further to my previous post, it's worth noting that in terms of trophies, you have to go back to the 1930s to find less successful owners than ENIC.

The periods 86-2000, 72-86, 58-72, and allowing for the War, 38-58 all yielded more tropies or in the last period, just one trophy too, but the Lge title, (51), clearly a lot superior to the LgeCup. Also, in all of these periods we managed a higher place finish than 4th, AFAIK. I think we got 2nd in 1952 for example, as well as the title trophy.

 

[billyiddo]

Shelfie - you have to put these things in to context, there has never been a period of English football where 3/4 clubs dominate the domestic trophy haul like we have seen over the last 10/15 years, as far as im aware anyway.

And besides besides, Levy along with several managers/DoFs have built consistent 6th/5th/4th placed squads - he's not in the dugout so id put the lack of trophies more on the heads of the managers personally (if i HAD to point the finger)

 

[Shelfie]

HI BY, I very much agree about context. That's precisely what I'm trying to apply in relation to the question of ENIC's struggles to get us to the top table in English football. Chelsea and City have shown , IMHO, that the only realistic route to join the 'Big 3' (Utd Pool and Arsenal) at said top table is via the 'Sugar Daddy' route.

ENIC's way of 'prudence and sensible business practices' just won't do it. Hence I want, and have wanted for many years now, a billionaire benefactor (Sugar Daddy) in charge of the club, rather than ENIC. It's true that the new stadium MIGHT be another route to the top, but I have grave doubts indeed that will be the case. Certainly, to extend the metaphor, I can't see us getting to the top in my lifetime through that route.

 

[DublinSpur]

I voted "Nay" in the poll. And this is one of the reasons why:

Hearts' Tynecastle Stadium exit a possibility

Even if the "sugar daddy" had the best of intentions I'm not sure it'd be a great idea. But when you say Yes to a sugar daddy, you have decided to roll the dice with the entire future of the club. Hearts fans were claiming they'd be "the Chelsea of The North". Scotland would have a Big Three and they'd be genuinely challenging for the Champions League. A change in ownership brings massive risks in today's economy, and I'm personally concerned that it could go terribly wrong.

 

[Shelfie]

I voted "Nay" in the poll. And this is one of the reasons why:

Hearts' Tynecastle Stadium exit a possibility

Even if the "sugar daddy" had the best of intentions I'm not sure it'd be a great idea. But when you say Yes to a sugar daddy, you have decided to roll the dice with the entire future of the club. Hearts fans were claiming they'd be "the Chelsea of The North". Scotland would have a Big Three and they'd be genuinely challenging for the Champions League. A change in ownership brings massive risks in today's economy, and I'm personally concerned that it could go terribly wrong.

It could go terribly wrong, but it could go spectacularly right like it has at Chelsea and City.