• 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

Daniel Levy - Former Chairman

Legohamster said:
The bigger wages statements etc came after the window had shut.

Robertson and Senesi will be on large wages as in demand frees

We've bid good money for Savinho and JPVH and it's not even mid June yet
Click to expand...

I'm sure Vinai gave a statement about our wages to revenue ratio in December.

We supposedly "bid good money for Ageuro and Cavani" in the winter window of 2011 as well, so i would suggest it would be better to wait until after the summer window has closed with these owners before taking any conclusions...
 
Gutter Boy said:
Hong Kong consortium led by Ng Wing Fai (Firehawk Holdings)

American consortium led by Brooklyn Earick

The combined consortium (Eight Sports) is run by Earick, but ultimately owned by Ng's company (Triller)


They both separately bid £4b for the club last October. Now they've bought 25% for £1b, so presumably they've got up to £7b left to finish the job
Click to expand...

Fair enough..........we shall see
 
I'm gonna try being ambivalent till we the transfer window is over. And as a minority stake we will see if any of them take positions at the top table or have any large involvement with operations. As it stands we know very little other than the made who saved our club has sold most of his interest. It's a sad day for me.
 
This is what ChatGPT is saying, please take with a pinch of salt.



Yes. As of June 2026, if Tottenham received significant new investment, they would likely be one of the Premier League clubs best positioned to increase spending while remaining within both Premier League PSR and UEFA financial sustainability rules. However, there are still limits.

A few reasons why:

* Tottenham generated £565.3m in revenue in their latest accounts, putting them among Europe’s highest-earning clubs.
* Their stadium and commercial operations generate huge non-football income, giving them a stronger revenue base than most clubs.
* Independent PSR analysis suggests Spurs currently have substantial headroom under Premier League profitability rules.
* UEFA’s squad cost rules are now the bigger constraint. From 2025/26, wages, transfer amortisation and agent fees must not exceed 70% of relevant revenue.

The important point is that investment itself doesn’t automatically allow spending. Under modern rules, an owner cannot simply inject £500m and spend it all on transfers like in the early days of Chelsea or Emirates Marketing Project. Clubs still need sufficient revenues to justify the ongoing wage and transfer costs.

For Spurs specifically:

* They already have revenues comparable to some of Europe’s elite clubs.
* Their wage bill has historically been lower than rivals such as Emirates Marketing Project, Arsenal and Liverpool, leaving room to grow.
* Despite reporting accounting losses, many of those losses relate to stadium depreciation and financing costs, which are treated differently under PSR calculations.

The biggest obstacle is not really FFP/PSR headroom; it’s whether ownership is willing to absorb the cash cost of higher wages and transfer fees. Tottenham also carry significant stadium-related debt, although much of that debt is long-term and tied to the stadium project.

So if a wealthy investor arrived tomorrow and wanted Spurs to compete financially with the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and Emirates Marketing Project, the regulations would probably allow a substantial increase in spending. They could not spend without limit, but they are nowhere near as constrained as clubs that have low revenues or PSR issues. Based on the available financial data, Tottenham’s spending ceiling is more likely determined by ownership ambition than by FFP.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
I am also at a loss to what their influence will look like, they can't plough money in, even if they wanted to right??
Click to expand...
Hard to tell.

Could be an initial purchase of shares that were available....before a hostile takeover later on.

Or. These are the ultimate new owners, that the Lewis's know they'll be selling to, so may put money in in lieu of that, maybe getting something more for that.(Equity, options etc) As the money they've ponied up so far has gone straight to DL.
 
Yiddo said:
This is what ChatGPT is saying, please take with a pinch of salt.



Yes. As of June 2026, if Tottenham received significant new investment, they would likely be one of the Premier League clubs best positioned to increase spending while remaining within both Premier League PSR and UEFA financial sustainability rules. However, there are still limits.

A few reasons why:

* Tottenham generated £565.3m in revenue in their latest accounts, putting them among Europe’s highest-earning clubs.
* Their stadium and commercial operations generate huge non-football income, giving them a stronger revenue base than most clubs.
* Independent PSR analysis suggests Spurs currently have substantial headroom under Premier League profitability rules.
* UEFA’s squad cost rules are now the bigger constraint. From 2025/26, wages, transfer amortisation and agent fees must not exceed 70% of relevant revenue.

The important point is that investment itself doesn’t automatically allow spending. Under modern rules, an owner cannot simply inject £500m and spend it all on transfers like in the early days of Chelsea or Emirates Marketing Project. Clubs still need sufficient revenues to justify the ongoing wage and transfer costs.

For Spurs specifically:

* They already have revenues comparable to some of Europe’s elite clubs.
* Their wage bill has historically been lower than rivals such as Emirates Marketing Project, Arsenal and Liverpool, leaving room to grow.
* Despite reporting accounting losses, many of those losses relate to stadium depreciation and financing costs, which are treated differently under PSR calculations.

The biggest obstacle is not really FFP/PSR headroom; it’s whether ownership is willing to absorb the cash cost of higher wages and transfer fees. Tottenham also carry significant stadium-related debt, although much of that debt is long-term and tied to the stadium project.

So if a wealthy investor arrived tomorrow and wanted Spurs to compete financially with the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and Emirates Marketing Project, the regulations would probably allow a substantial increase in spending. They could not spend without limit, but they are nowhere near as constrained as clubs that have low revenues or PSR issues. Based on the available financial data, Tottenham’s spending ceiling is more likely determined by ownership ambition than by FFP.
Click to expand...
Think that fairly accurate.

With this year being even more advantageous for spending as we are not hamstrung by the 70% UEFA rules
 
LutonSpurs said:
I'm gonna try being ambivalent till we the transfer window is over. And as a minority stake we will see if any of them take positions at the top table or have any large involvement with operations. As it stands we know very little other than the made who saved our club has sold most of his interest. It's a sad day for me.
Click to expand...

I don't think they want a minority share. I'm sure they are planning to now move to takeover the whole club; this is just the bridge

The Nepos are surely scared brickless after they nearly lost daddy's trust fund in just 6 months, so I'm sure they will bow out quietly now and go back to their regattas.
 
Yiddo said:
All people want to know is if they will invest in the playing squad. Will we see 100 players coming in on a 10 year contract?
Click to expand...

at this point no, from what seems to be known

- they bought 24.9% of ENIC (not Spurs) from Levy, Levy retains 5%
- the money is between them and Levy (no change to club)
- 25% would have allowed them to block certain things, they don't have "significant control" threshold
- They should have significant control

From outside, it looks like early positioning for later plans

- Would be interesting to see if ENIC dilute shares by investing themselves
- Be interesting to see if these guys take any active/push role early
 
wow all over bbc news now. Makes you wonder if he was trying to look at this deal when they bid £4bn for the club and why he was removed.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
If so, they’d surely have wanted all Levy’s shares? This looks like Levy wanting to lump into something else and turning to professional sports investors to realise his funds.
Click to expand...
They may have wanted all Levy's shares, but he was unwilling to sell that last 5%. If they want to get a majority share in Spurs, it's a good start.
The fact that the two parties involved in the venture previously tried to buy Spurs would indicate that it is just a first step, but can never be certain. Of course it's also Levy wanting to cash in. Why wouldn't he? He's rich on paper but not cash rich. If the deal goes through that changes.
It's also probably a "fudge you" to the Lewis family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back