• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tottenham Hotspur Karen Club....what do they do?

lurker of old said:
That may change if we ever find a sponsor for the stadium.
Given that we must have approached every major corporate by now, doesn't it suggest that DL would rather cut off our nose to spite our face by not accepting what the market will pay, and continuing to hold out for what it won't pay? How long before the Board goes "ooops...why not settle for something more realistic and just get some cash in"?
Click to expand...
He's appointed an expert in the area to deal with that. I doubt any company was queuing up to sponsor a stadium over the last 18 months when most venues around the world were closed or operating at reduced capacity and reduced events.
 
DubSpur said:
He's appointed an expert in the area to deal with that. I doubt any company was queuing up to sponsor a stadium over the last 18 months when most venues around the world were closed or operating at reduced capacity and reduced events.
Click to expand...
The lack of international travel will have made the prospect of an NFL franchise difficult too.
 
DubSpur said:
He's appointed an expert in the area to deal with that. I doubt any company was queuing up to sponsor a stadium over the last 18 months when most venues around the world were closed or operating at reduced capacity and reduced events.
Click to expand...
The key here was signing one before that happened. Word going round the market was that Dan the man was wanting over £25m a year! Market rate was about £15m (and that is upper end). On that £15m number we’ll soon be down by about £60m.

At least we’ve now got an expert in to sell the rights I guess, though we’re no longer considered a CL club so the number we get may have fallen further.
 
Last edited:
Finney Is Back said:
The key here was signing one before that happened. Word going round the market was that Dan the man was wanting over £25m a year! Market rate was about £15m. On that £15m number we’ll soon be down by about £60m.

At least we’ve now got an expert in to sell the rights I guess, though we’re no longer considered a CL club so the number we get may have fallen further.
Click to expand...
No, the key was demonstrating what the stadium can offer (unless you really are suggesting that Levy should've known covid was coming and acted before that). That is now starting to be done with covid restrictions lifting. No other venue will be hosting premier league games, NFL games, world title boxing fights, concerts etc. There's very few venues in the world that will have events that are of interest in every area of the world on a regular basis.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I’ve heard Kat and Martin say in the past that the club does share commercially sensitive information with them from time to time which they need to keep confidential, and they understand that, so it’s not unheard of for certain things they learn in their meetings to not be minuted.
Granted the ESL is a topic of huge controversy but for the club to explain its position, the financials of being involved - and perhaps more importantly, of not being involved - etc in sufficient detail, they would no doubt need to share such commercially sensitive information, and would also have confidentiality obligations to other parties involved in the whole ESL set up. So I can absolutely see why there would be no minutes.
I believe the Trust should still have had the meeting and fed back to its members their opinion on what they learned.
Instead they chose the ESL as their hill on which to die, and ridiculously called for the club Board to resign, which was never going to happen.

The Trust are proud - and rightly so imo - of the relationships they have built at all levels in the club, but they have pretty much blown most of that away in one hit by going for the nuclear option.

I also think the Trust is a bit conflicted between looking at what is best for football supporters in general (I.e. ESL is bad) vs looking at what is best for Spurs supporters in particular (I.e. being left outside the ESL would be bad).

For the record, I am not against the Trust at all in principle. I agree such an organisation representing supporters is needed, and I think they do a huge amount of good work. It is their approach and tone that grates with many. I certainly don’t expect deference, but abrasive communications are not going to help them. (Accepted however that they are also playing to their Members such as yourself who expect that kind of approach).

It will be interesting to see what comes from the government ‘fan-led’ (lol) review. I would be surprised if it is anything better than what Levy has already offered and the Trust turned down. If that is the case, I fully expect the Trust not to understand when a offer is no longer on the table, and try to resurrect it. I do think they are worried about losing their “influence”.
Click to expand...

I like the detail here, but I disagree on a few things mate.

I've also heard the Trust talk about commercially sensitive information they receive from the club - hell, I remember Darren Alexander talking about it at length in the early 2010s when speaking of the Trust's work on the away ticket price cap and things like that.

The difference to my mind is that the club can ask for certain things to be left off the minutes at meetings, but asking for whole meetings to be left off the minutes is just showing contempt for the fans on a level that indicates just how poorly Levy and his cabal think of them and their support. The ESL scandal was exploding, the media was tearing it all down, the fans were desperate for some answers - and the club's response was to try to get a secret meeting with the Trust so the latter would issue a statement filled with bland platitudes on the club's behalf to calm us all down.

The Trust have a right to be proud of all the work they've done, but at the end of the day, if they have to choose between being deferential to the club and thus outright dismissive of the fans that literally pay them to be their representatives, or to stand up to the club and call them out...well, the moral thing to do would be option 2, every time. I'm surprised that a lot of folks here and elsewhere seem to think that Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy are moral (ha!), while ignoring the fact that the Trust's decision to stand up to the club and burn bridges on a matter of principle was definitely the moral thing to do.

I don't think you're against the Trust at all, and I agree with you in that their communications are often hit-or-miss. But you're right in that some of their communications work for members like myself who don't mind them being an independent voice for us as opposed to another club mouthpiece.

The thing about the fan-led review I like is that it's started the conversation on fan ownership and fan roles in football governance, which was in stasis for a very long time. I suspect the review will recommend fan representation on boards, and I agree that at that time, the THST will make a play to be included in that discussion.
 
DubaiSpur said:
I like the detail here, but I disagree on a few things mate.

I've also heard the Trust talk about commercially sensitive information they receive from the club - hell, I remember Darren Alexander talking about it at length in the early 2010s when speaking of the Trust's work on the away ticket price cap and things like that.

The difference to my mind is that the club can ask for certain things to be left off the minutes at meetings, but asking for whole meetings to be left off the minutes is just showing contempt for the fans on a level that indicates just how poorly Levy and his cabal think of them and their support. The ESL scandal was exploding, the media was tearing it all down, the fans were desperate for some answers - and the club's response was to try to get a secret meeting with the Trust so the latter would issue a statement filled with bland platitudes on the club's behalf to calm us all down.

The Trust have a right to be proud of all the work they've done, but at the end of the day, if they have to choose between being deferential to the club and thus outright dismissive of the fans that literally pay them to be their representatives, or to stand up to the club and call them out...well, the moral thing to do would be option 2, every time. I'm surprised that a lot of folks here and elsewhere seem to think that Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy are moral (ha!), while ignoring the fact that the Trust's decision to stand up to the club and burn bridges on a matter of principle was definitely the moral thing to do.

I don't think you're against the Trust at all, and I agree with you in that their communications are often hit-or-miss. But you're right in that some of their communications work for members like myself who don't mind them being an independent voice for us as opposed to another club mouthpiece.

The thing about the fan-led review I like is that it's started the conversation on fan ownership and fan roles in football governance, which was in stasis for a very long time. I suspect the review will recommend fan representation on boards, and I agree that at that time, the THST will make a play to be included in that discussion.
Click to expand...
How can the government enforce fan ownership when they have let a club be brought by the Saudi government
 
DubaiSpur said:
I like the detail here, but I disagree on a few things mate.

I've also heard the Trust talk about commercially sensitive information they receive from the club - hell, I remember Darren Alexander talking about it at length in the early 2010s when speaking of the Trust's work on the away ticket price cap and things like that.

The difference to my mind is that the club can ask for certain things to be left off the minutes at meetings, but asking for whole meetings to be left off the minutes is just showing contempt for the fans on a level that indicates just how poorly Levy and his cabal think of them and their support. The ESL scandal was exploding, the media was tearing it all down, the fans were desperate for some answers - and the club's response was to try to get a secret meeting with the Trust so the latter would issue a statement filled with bland platitudes on the club's behalf to calm us all down.

The Trust have a right to be proud of all the work they've done, but at the end of the day, if they have to choose between being deferential to the club and thus outright dismissive of the fans that literally pay them to be their representatives, or to stand up to the club and call them out...well, the moral thing to do would be option 2, every time. I'm surprised that a lot of folks here and elsewhere seem to think that Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy are moral (ha!), while ignoring the fact that the Trust's decision to stand up to the club and burn bridges on a matter of principle was definitely the moral thing to do.

I don't think you're against the Trust at all, and I agree with you in that their communications are often hit-or-miss. But you're right in that some of their communications work for members like myself who don't mind them being an independent voice for us as opposed to another club mouthpiece.

The thing about the fan-led review I like is that it's started the conversation on fan ownership and fan roles in football governance, which was in stasis for a very long time. I suspect the review will recommend fan representation on boards, and I agree that at that time, the THST will make a play to be included in that discussion.
Click to expand...

It is possible that is what the government will say - the key term being “recommend”, because to mandate it would I assume require legislation and I can’t see that happening. Then it will be down to each club to decide what that would look like for them, and when to implement (depending on the level of detail in the recommendation).
The club will do something in this area I am sure (I recall it being said a while back that the THFC Board is one of only a few clubs who follow the PL recommendation to meet with fans at least 3 times a year). Then I think the Trust will have a decision to make i.e. how much to battle for the structure they want which may leave them on the sidelines, versus working to “tweak” rather than overhaul what the club offer whilst making sure they are playing a key part in the discussion; then work from within to improve over time. The long game I guess. (I am sure they will also expect that a seat on the Board, if it goes that far, even if only covering supporter-related issues, is going to come with confidentiality obligations).

On the other hand, don’t be surprised if what the government comes up with is far more wishy-washy - along the lines of closer interaction and consultation with fans. It will probably be somewhere between the two. Remember the whole ESL debacle created a temporary distraction for Boris & co, and allowed them to play to populist sentiment, it’s not really something they care hugely about as a government, imo. Plus Tracey Crouch has now moved on to other things so some momentum and continuity may have been lost.
 
Wouldn't it be refreshing if the Trust backed Levy in pushing back against financial doping and unfair competition by oil-rich concerns?

Instead, the Trust seems to be a place for people who are frustrated (probably with their own lives) who take it out on our owners. Divisive bunch of haters sadly. Would be far more interested in coming up with chants to ridicule the oil-subsidised clubs, than the same old moaning about Levy; who's actually done a fair job elevating our club.
 
DubSpur said:
No, the key was demonstrating what the stadium can offer (unless you really are suggesting that Levy should've known covid was coming and acted before that). That is now starting to be done with covid restrictions lifting. No other venue will be hosting premier league games, NFL games, world title boxing fights, concerts etc. There's very few venues in the world that will have events that are of interest in every area of the world on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
Clearly that was the key, as evidenced by that £25m pa sponsorship deal we have.

I expect we’ll end up signing a deal at a similar level to the £15m a year deal we could’ve done before it opened…. Time will tell I guess.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I believe they refused the meeting in the summer as they were told it would only happen if no record of the meeting was kept, contrary to every other meeting between the trust and club in the past.
Click to expand...

If they wanted a meeting with that level of detail I can see the club asking not to share details, it depends what was going to be said
 
Bedfordspurs said:
How can the government enforce fan ownership when they have let a club be brought by the Saudi government
Click to expand...
He didn’t say that the government would enforce fan ownership, he said fan representation on boards. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Saudi Sportswashing Machine’s new owners, ghastly as they are, do this.
 
Finney Is Back said:
He didn’t say that the government would enforce fan ownership, he said fan representation on boards. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Saudi Sportswashing Machine’s new owners, ghastly as they are, do this.
Click to expand...
Easy flimflam win for them
But fan ownership has been a big push of the trust and is in Dubai’s post
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Levy should initiate this by putting up 10% (£200m?) of the club for sale to fans with the guarantee that all placement proceeds go into transfer funds.

Kill multiple issues in one go.
Click to expand...

It would also kill ENICs valuation of the club by introducing some reality. £200m for 10% would flop:swerved by institutional investors, and a good £150m in excess of what fans would put in as a romantic punt.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Wouldn't it be refreshing if the Trust backed Levy in pushing back against financial doping and unfair competition by oil-rich concerns?

Instead, the Trust seems to be a place for people who are frustrated (probably with their own lives) who take it out on our owners. Divisive bunch of haters sadly. Would be far more interested in coming up with chants to ridicule the oil-subsidised clubs, than the same old moaning about Levy; who's actually done a fair job elevating our club.
Click to expand...
A very accurate description.

It's abundantly clear in their communications that these are people without any relevance, value or professionalism in their daily lives. The kind that become union reps or H&S types.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Levy should initiate this by putting up 10% (£200m?) of the club for sale to fans with the guarantee that all placement proceeds go into transfer funds.

Kill multiple issues in one go.
Click to expand...
Only if that 10% agree to match any share of funding that the 90% puts in, up to an unlimited level.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Levy should initiate this by putting up 10% (£200m?) of the club for sale to fans with the guarantee that all placement proceeds go into transfer funds.

Kill multiple issues in one go.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea. Would you buy any shares? I guess fans might buy token amounts - £100 as a Xmas present for someone. With say 20,000 fans that only raises £2m.

would be interesting to see if the likes of @Finney Is Back would do what they accuse Levy of not doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back