Carlyle takeover, was Cain Hoy takeover

[jimmyb]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Didn't Hicks and Gillett get rid of Benitez and later appoint Dalglish?

Especially the Dalglish thing is exactly the kind of stupid thing I have in mind - PR over understanding of the game. Sacking Poch for Klinsmann would be exactly that kind of thing.

Ferguson was a bit different, as unlike Poch, he had 'box office'.

Hicks and Gillett replaced Benitez with Hodgson.

It was FSG who replaced Hodgson with Dalglish.

Totally agreed that appointing Klinsmann would be stupid. But I don't buy the notion that Pochettino wouldn't be a big enough name for Cain Hoy, if they were to take the club over. I see no reason why they'd want to change the manager unless he is demonstrably doing a bad job.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

what makes you think they'd do better?

to improve on what we have we'd need to regularly qualify for the CL, imv. considering the difference in turnover between ourselves and those above Im unsure as to how anyone could be confident new owners would improve us in the respect.

Absolutely.

The only way in which Cain Hoy could do better than ENIC, in the short term at least, is if they were to invest heavily in the club. Especially so if they were fully to fund the new stadium.

Otherwise, it would simply boil down to whether or not they could manage the club better than ENIC over a 5-10 year period. And, while acknowledging ENIC's mistakes, that would be a big ask for Cain Hoy.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Emirates Marketing Project v Chelsea:

Financial tale of the tape between Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich

TOTAL OUTLAY
Sheikh Mansour £1.2bn
Roman Abramovich £2bn

When Samir Nasri completed a £23m move from Arsenal to Emirates Marketing Project in August 2011, his arrival at the Etihad Stadium took Sheikh Mansour’s investment in the club through the £1bn barrier in terms of signings, wages, infrastructure costs and the £210m required to take control in September 2008. With a state-of-the-art training ground close to completion and big money buys arriving in the three years since, the Sheikh has plunged approximately £1.2bn into the club. Roman Abramovich’s investment in Chelsea since July 2003 has now gone beyond £2 billion, however, due to outlay on players, wages, training ground construction and numerous managerial compensation packages.

BIGGEST SIGNING
Sergio Aguero £38m
Fernando Torres £50m

A tale of two former Atletico Madrid strikers, with one proving to be a bargain and the other going down as one of the game’s biggest flops. Although Carlos Tevez reportedly cost City an eventual £47m, Sergio Aguero is listed as the club’s record signing at £38m and the Argentine has delivered the goods since his 2011 arrival from Atletico, with his title-winning goal in May 2012 securing his legendary status. Fernando Torres has been equally unforgettable at Chelsea since his £50m move from Liverpool in January 2011, scoring just 20 goals in three-and-a-half years being loaned out to AC Milan this summer.

BARGAINS
David Silva £24m
Petr Cech £7m

Amid the lavish spending by both owners, there have been some bargains unearthed. City’s £24m move for Valencia’s David Silva in the summer of 2010 may have appeared excessive at the time, but the Spain midfielder has become one of the most consistently effective players in the Premier League and, to some City fans, the club’s best-ever player. But while Silva has been value for money, Petr Cech could be described as the bargain of the century having been signed for just £7m from Rennes in 2004. The Czech goalkeeper has become a Stamford Bridge icon after helping the club win every major honour.

WASTE OF MONEY?
Emmanuel Adebayor £25m
Managerial pay-offs £60m

Many will point to the £32.5m spent on Robinho as Sheikh Mansour’s biggest mistake, but the Brazilian’s fee was repaid instantly merely by the publicity his move from Real Madrid generated. Emmanuel Adebayor became a controversy magnet following his £25m move from Arsenal, but his strike-rate did not eclipse the negative headlines and City spent three trying to get rid of him. But in terms of money down the drain, Abramovich has racked up a bill of £60m in managerial compensation after dispensing with the services of seven managers during his reign as owner.

COST PER TROPHY
Emirates Marketing Project £240m (5)
Chelsea £154m (13)

Including Community Shields, Roman Abramovich leads Sheikh Mansour on the trophy count with 13 compared to the City owner’s five. City’s cost-per-trophy is almost £90m higher than Chelsea’s although Abramovich’s investment has been greater over a longer period of time. Chelsea’s 2012 Champions League success gives Abramovich the real edge, however, with the Russian’s money securing club football’s biggest prize – a trophy which has so far eluded Sheikh Mansour.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/...ween-Sheikh-Mansour-and-Roman-Abramovich.html

 

[metalgear]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

first mover advantage is huge in this game.
i wonder if any of them actually thought about buying tottenham at that time.

 

[milo]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

first mover advantage is huge in this game.
i wonder if any of them actually thought about buying tottenham at that time.

Abramovich met with Levy to discuss buying Spurs

 

[Shelfie]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

what makes you think they'd do better?

to improve on what we have we'd need to regularly qualify for the CL, imv. considering the difference in turnover between ourselves and those above Im unsure as to how anyone could be confident new owners would improve us in the respect.

For me, all CH would need to do better is win two trophies in fourteen years and keep us in the Prem, and I'm fairly confident that any reasonably competent set of owners could manage that.

When you consider that in the 14 years previous to ENIC we won the FA Cup and League Cup, compared to ENIC's one Lge Cup, it's not too hard a task. Especially considering that in those previous 14 years we were owned by Sugar and Scholar, who have been massively criticised by our fans, often with justification. Yet still they delivered two trophies and two 3rd places in the same time frame as ENIC's one Lge Cup and two fourth place finishes..

So as I suggested, ENIC have hardly set the bar high, and hence my confidence (though of course not certainty) that CH could outperform them.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

For me, all CH would need to do better is win two trophies in fourteen years and keep us in the Prem, and I'm fairly confident that any reasonably competent set of owners could manage that.

Without investment?

 

[Shelfie]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Abramovich met with Levy to discuss buying Spurs

Yep, and that was perhaps our chance of a lifetime to get back to the big time. We don't know how serious RA was about buying us, but if ENIC had sold at the time what a difference it would have made.

Almost for sure we would still be the second biggest club in London, indeed we may have overtaken Arsenal, as we were starting from a far higher platform than Chelsea did under RA (in terms of history and status). Instead we've ended up as the 3rd biggest London club, very much the poor relations of Chelsea and Arsenal.

And to add further sadness to the scene, Chelsea were in big trouble, and might well now only be 4th biggest London club, lagging behind the Hammers.

How things changed that fateful year when RA came onto the scene, and so much the worse for us.

 

[Shelfie]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Without investment?

Well they would have to match the investment ENIC have put into us I guess, but again that's hardly setting the bar high is it. What have ENIC invested, about 150m over 14 years, including the purchase price? About 80m, discounting what it cost to buy us?

I would expect any competent set of owners to match that. Indeed considering one of our main problems coming up is likely to be the eye watering price ENIC ask for us (about 500m plus stadium costs?), just buying us will mean new owners will have ploughed far more into the club than ENIC.

I do grant that new owners might not want to invest significantly more having met ENIC's demands. Then for me it's unlikely I'll see them as competent owners, unless of course the new stadium revenue monies are sufficient for us to better ENIC's one lge cup in 14 years.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Well they would have to match the investment ENIC have put into us I guess, but again that's hardly setting the bar high is it. What have ENIC invested, about 150m over 14 years, including the purchase price? About 80m, discounting what it cost to buy us?

I would expect any competent set of owners to match that. Indeed considering one of our main problems coming up is likely to be the eye watering price ENIC ask for us (about 500m plus stadium costs?), just buying us will mean new owners will have ploughed far more into the club than ENIC.

I do grant that new owners might not want to invest significantly more having met ENIC's demands. Then for me it's unlikely I'll see them as competent owners, unless of course the new stadium revenue streams are sufficient for us to better ENIC's one lge cup in 14 years.

You don't put money into the club by buying, that goes to the previous owners.

Expecting new owners to be competent? Judging by the number of absolute macarons running various football clubs around I'd say that's a big ask. Someone of Levy's caliber is probably no more than 1 in a 100. Look how easily Leeds and Saudi Sportswashing Machine got relegated once things started going wrong.

 

[Shelfie]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

You don't put money into the club by buying, that goes to the previous owners.

Expecting new owners to be competent? Judging by the number of absolute macarons running various football clubs around I'd say that's a big ask. Someone of Levy's caliber is probably no more than 1 in a 100. Look how easily Leeds and Saudi Sportswashing Machine got relegated once things started going wrong.

Fair comments. So by your criteria ENIC, disallowing the purchase price, have put about 80m into the club over 14 years. The money they spent on buying property doesn't count as that is in a separate company I believe. Shouldn't be hard for competent owners to match that, indeed if they end up building the new stadium, my guess is that they'll easily match that and far more beside.

Levy is a competent chairman, but under him we've won one Lge Cup in 14 years, haven't increased the stadium capacity one iota, and have slipped to being a poor third in the London hierarchy. It's not the stuff of greatness, but it is competent overall, because of the good things ENIC have done. Still, we're now faced with the prospect of a season playing away from home, hardly great is it?

The best owners in the Prem by a distance have been Chelsea's and City's. They have transformed their clubs from second tier clubs to the top tier, we still graze at the second level. Now to be fair that's a helluva lot better than 90+ professional clubs, but when I first started supporting the club, we dined at the top table.

Must stop now as am descending into the sticky land of mixed metaphors

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

For me, all CH would need to do better is win two trophies in fourteen years and keep us in the Prem, and I'm fairly confident that any reasonably competent set of owners could manage that.

When you consider that in the 14 years previous to ENIC we won the FA Cup and League Cup, compared to ENIC's one Lge Cup, it's not too hard a task. Especially considering that in those previous 14 years we were owned by Sugar and Scholar, who have been massively criticised by our fans, often with justification. Yet still they delivered two trophies and two 3rd places in the same time frame as ENIC's one Lge Cup and two fourth place finishes..

So as I suggested, ENIC have hardly set the bar high, and hence my confidence (though of course not certainty) that CH could outperform them.

When ENIC inherited Spurs from Sugar, the club was a mid to lower table perennial. It was light years off the top clubs and the gap was growing by the year. It was also comfortably behind the likes of Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Leeds and Aston Villa. By contrast, Cain Hoy would be inheriting a club that is a top six perennial, generally finishing within touching distance (sometimes agonisingly so) of Champions League qualification. Big difference.

Secondly, you can't ignore context when discussing what happened in different eras. 14 years before ENIC took over, there was no Premier League; no Champions League; no Chelsea, no Emirates Marketing Project. Back in 1987, Spurs were one of the original "Big Five". It was (or should have been) far easier for us to win trophies back then. It was far easier for every club. You'll find a far greater variety of cup winners back in the day. Far greater variety of league winners for that matter, too. The huge financial imbalance at the top of the game now has led to trophies being shared around much less.

Additionally, clubs' focus has changed. Previously, if a club wasn't going to win the league, it would focus on the cups. Nowadays, though, it's all about qualifying for the Champions League. Cup competitions are treated as of secondary importance. And it has affected us more than any other club over the past 14 years because we have more often been close (but not quite close enough) to qualifying for the Champions League than any other club.

So comparing what Scholar and Sugar did to what ENIC have done is to compare apples with oranges. It's not like for like.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Yep, and that was perhaps our chance of a lifetime to get back to the big time. We don't know how serious RA was about buying us, but if ENIC had sold at the time what a difference it would have made.

Almost for sure we would still be the second biggest club in London, indeed we may have overtaken Arsenal, as we were starting from a far higher platform than Chelsea did under RA (in terms of history and status). Instead we've ended up as the 3rd biggest London club, very much the poor relations of Chelsea and Arsenal.

And to add further sadness to the scene, Chelsea were in big trouble, and might well now only be 4th biggest London club, lagging behind the Hammers.

How things changed that fateful year when RA came onto the scene, and so much the worse for us.

We do know exactly how serious Abramovich was about buying Spurs.

The answer is 'not at all'. How do I know that? Simply because he didn't buy us. If a man like Abramovich is serious about something, he buys it.

 

[SteveAWOL]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

We do know exactly how serious Abramovich was about buying Spurs.

The answer is 'not at all'. How do I know that? Simply because he didn't buy us. If a man like Abramovich is serious about something, he buys it.

If this article is to believed, Levy quoted Abramovich an exorbitant price and Roman decided that Chelsea was a better investment...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2421675/Levy-breaks-his-silence-on-Abramovich-link.html

 

[metalgear]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Imagine the alternate scenario where Levy would've sold to Abramovich, he could've used the funds to buy Emirates Marketing Project complete with a new stadium!

 

[Shelfie]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

If this article is to believed, Levy quoted Abramovich an exorbitant price and Roman decided that Chelsea was a better investment...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2421675/Levy-breaks-his-silence-on-Abramovich-link.html

Great find Steve. IF RA was serious about buying us, and he was rebuffed by a 'silly price', then that would be the saddest day in our history. A once in a lifetime opportunity to become a major player in British and European football once again. Plus Chelsea left facing administration as a beautiful bonus.

 

[Shelfie]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Imagine the alternate scenario where Levy would've sold to Abramovich, he could've used the funds to buy Emirates Marketing Project complete with a new stadium!

Had ENIC sold to RA, I doubt they would have bought City. But even if ENIC had done so, as we have seen from their ownership of us, no way would they have pumped the money into City that the Sheiks have done.

Indeed for an 'RA Spurs', an ENIC owned City would have been great. It would have left us, Utd Arsenal and Pool as the 'new big 4', with regular CL and trophies for us, as a highly likely scenario.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Fair comments. So by your criteria ENIC, disallowing the purchase price, have put about 80m into the club over 14 years. The money they spent on buying property doesn't count as that is in a separate company I believe. Shouldn't be hard for competent owners to match that, indeed if they end up building the new stadium, my guess is that they'll easily match that and far more beside.

Levy is a competent chairman, but under him we've won one Lge Cup in 14 years, haven't increased the stadium capacity one iota, and have slipped to being a poor third in the London hierarchy. It's not the stuff of greatness, but it is competent overall, because of the good things ENIC have done. Still, we're now faced with the prospect of a season playing away from home, hardly great is it?

The best owners in the Prem by a distance have been Chelsea's and City's. They have transformed their clubs from second tier clubs to the top tier, we still graze at the second level. Now to be fair that's a helluva lot better than 90+ professional clubs, but when I first started supporting the club, we dined at the top table.

Must stop now as am descending into the sticky land of mixed metaphors

Apart from not stealing from the club, I don't think the City or Chelsea owners are good owners at all. Certainly not the kind I'd want at Spurs. I'm actually not sure what I'd pick if given a choice between the Glazers or Mansour.

The very idea that a football club can be bought and sold is just wrong. It should exist for its fans and not be someone's plaything. Clubs generate more than money on their own, it's just a matter of spending it correctly.

I could get behind a 'fundraiser' for a new stadium. If it happens that some fans are willing to donate large sums of money, so be it. It would go towards infrastructure that'll be here for a long time. Running expenses like wages and transfer fees are covered by ordinary income.

I don't really care about the sugar daddy clubs. Their achievements don't count in my eyes. They are cheating and have not earned any of the trophies they win.

 

[Shelfie]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Apart from not stealing from the club, I don't think the City or Chelsea owners are good owners at all. Certainly not the kind I'd want at Spurs. I'm actually not sure what I'd pick if given a choice between the Glazers or Mansour.

The very idea that a football club can be bought and sold is just wrong. It should exist for its fans and not be someone's plaything. Clubs generate more than money on their own, it's just a matter of spending it correctly.

I could get behind a 'fundraiser' for a new stadium. If it happens that some fans are willing to donate large sums of money, so be it. It would go towards infrastructure that'll be here for a long time. Running expenses like wages and transfer fees are covered by ordinary income.

I don't really care about the sugar daddy clubs. Their achievements don't count in my eyes. They are cheating and have not earned any of the trophies they win.

Fair enough Jordinho, we see things entirely differently.

I care deeply for example that Chelsea robbed us of a CL place by winning the trophy and thus devaluing the 4th spot we played such good football to obtain. I care deeply that that we have never had the chance to do to Arsenal what City did to Utd and win the title at their expense. How sweet that day must have been to City fans, we have never had a day remotely to compare to that in the entire history of the Prem. I care deeply indeed that we have never won the Prem, or even been realistic challengers come April/May.

I remember being at the Lane in 71 when Arsenal won the title on our ground, how I would love to see us do something like that to Arsenal.

Incidentally, as you can guess, I feel no affinity for ENIC as owners, and that lack of affinity is shared by many Spurs fans. The atmosphere has declined at the Lane in recent years, and ENIC's ownership, ticketing policies, their failure to provide a bigger ground/increased capacity, their many botched transfer opportunities, all have contributed to that.

Yes they have been 'sensible stewards' of our club and done some good things. But there's little glory or romance at the Lane these days, and so I don't see it being any great thing them being in control.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Apart from not stealing from the club, I don't think the City or Chelsea owners are good owners at all. Certainly not the kind I'd want at Spurs. I'm actually not sure what I'd pick if given a choice between the Glazers or Mansour.

Glazers every time.

Middle Eastern oil money has ruined so many things in London already, adding a football club to that list would be criminal.