• 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 - Chairman

The Portugeezer said:
Actually they wouldn't be fudged because Abromavich would sell the club too another Billionaire and just continue where he left off. Makes me laugh people think clubs like Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project will go under. It's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Because there are so many billionaires in the world who want to buy football clubs. If there was, why don't they own more clubs now?
 
jts1882 said:
There is a worse thing. Selling to a leveraged buyout.

With a sugar daddy buyout the fans get to enjoy trophies, albeit not as much as winning them the right way. On a broader view, the sugar daddies put money into football, money that goes to players, coaches and managers.

With the leveraged buy out there are no positives. Large amounts of money are taken out of football and established clubs with long histories are put at risk. Look at Liverpool and how Hicks & Gillett brought them to the edge. United are lucky in that they had built a strong business model under Kenyon and Gill, while Fergie had delivered success on the field to help build the international brand. Luckily for the Glazers they had a willing toadie in the top hat socialist from Govan and he has managed to maintain success despite them leaching £500 million from the club.

If we were to fall to a corporate raider we would not be string enough to survive without severe damage. We only have to look at how long it has taken to recover from Scholar's gambles to see how risky this would be. For this reason, plus distaste for the sugardaddy model, I say "Long live Levy".

P.S. The UEFA financial fair play rules do nothing to protect clubs from leveraged buyouts, a far more harmful thing to the game.
Click to expand...

I've said for a long time that Spurs are more likely to be a target for opportunist investors like Glazer, Hicks and Gillette (who would see and treat Spurs as a cash cow) than we are to be a target for billionaire benefactors like Mansour and Abramovich.

Those who want Levy out (thankfully, a very small minority) should be careful what they wish for.
 
The Portugeezer said:
Actually they wouldn't be fudged because Abromavich would sell the club too another Billionaire and just continue where he left off. Makes me laugh people think clubs like Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project will go under. It's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that Abramovich would take care who he sold the club to (with a potential severe cost to himself), I doubt that will happen. And you're assuming that the buyer would keep his promises, be honest and straightforward and have tons of money to burn.

It's wishful thinking in that I wish it will happen, but it's far from an impossibility. Having seen Abramovich stay beyond the CL title and invest heavily in the squad after that too probably means that he's going to stick around for a while though.
 
braineclipse said:
I agree that UEFA/FIFA/The FA should do something to protect the clubs, but it's very difficult to imagine regulation that would stop these kinds of takeovers without breaking free trade regulations etc.
Click to expand...

Yes this is a tricky one. In the American sports prospective new owners have to prove they actually have money of their own, but that is not the capitalist way.

More broadly I would like more restrictions on what cash and debt transfers limited companies can make (it would help with massive corporate tax avoidance as well). You can't stop a company borrowing to buy another and then paying itself dividends to pay the debt (that is perfectly legitimate), but they should be able to transfer large amounts of debt, cash or assets.
 
Except for Hangeland though, I don't see who they'd miss that much (other than being a tad short in numbers of course)
 
Fulham were the only club to vote against the Premier League financial fair play rules I think
 
The Portugeezer said:
Actually they wouldn't be fudged because Abromavich would sell the club too another Billionaire and just continue where he left off. Makes me laugh people think clubs like Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project will go under. It's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

How do you know. Billionaires today have other problems - like maintaining their billions. you would not find many willing to to throw there money
into non performing assets.
 
Jordinho said:
Fulham were the only club to vote against the Premier League financial fair play rules I think
Click to expand...

I think there were two, possibly City.

As for Abramovich selling out, you can never be sure. Portsmouth sold to several billionaires who turned out penniless or even non-existent. On the other hand, Abramovich will probably demand a substantial down payment, although even then there is the possibility of a Glazer.
 
And for Fulham that's after losing Dembele and Dempsey in the summer because Dempsey was in his final year and Dembele had a release clause...

I really think they need to spend some money in January to make sure they stay safe and if nothing else to show the players there that something positive is happening at the club.
 
The Portugeezer said:
Actually they wouldn't be fudged because Abromavich would sell the club too another Billionaire and just continue where he left off. Makes me laugh people think clubs like Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project will go under. It's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Well said, Chelsea and City are in a far stronger position brand-wise because of the money given to them in one form or another by their current owners.

I remember in the pre-RA days Chelsea being sold for a £1, now that's when they had a precarious future. Similarly they were in big financial trouble under Bates before RA bailed them out. Chelsea are probably in the best financial position they've ever been these days.

This is the first time they've ever been a real powerhouse in the English game, when they won the league in 1955 they were nowhere near the force they are today. A few years later they were struggling and way behind us as a force in English football. From memory we were able to get Smith Allen and effectively Greaves from them in the 50s and 60s, we couldn't raid them like that nowadays.

It may be of course that some cracks are appearing in the Chelsea empire, but it looks like they'll be attempting to buy their way out of possible trouble again as they have done before under RA,. It would have course be a massive achievement on our part if we finish above them again, here's hoping we can.
 
Last edited:
JPG_357 said:
Well said, Chelsea and City are in a far stronger position brand-wise because of the money given to them in one form or another by their current owners.

........

Chelsea are probably in the best financial position they've ever been these days.

.......
Click to expand...

Neither of their brands are anywhere near strong enough to support them without massive cash injections from their owners.

Don't confuse having a rich owner with being in a good financial position. Chelsea had large long-term debts before RA and were also struggling to cover the short term ones, but that's nothing like the level of short term debt (wages) they currently have compared to their relatively modest income.

There's absolutely no reason why RA should continue to throw his money at that club, and the moment he stops their income will fall well short of their required expenditure.
 
One thing about Abramovitch. He clearly loves the game and, as owner of a competitive side, enjoys playing with his toy. Same with Fayed and Fulham and probably Mansour at ManCity. You can't say that about the Glazers, who are clearly in it for money first. You have to wonder about the somewhat bloodless John Henry at Liverpool. Villa have been taken over by an absolute Zombie. Arsenal might be well run financially, but could anyone call Stan Kroenke a passionate owner? He's fortunate to have had Wenger run that club so skillfully over the years, but they're starting to run out of steam.

Not all wealthy patriarchs bring the same level of commitment and interest. We're well off having Levy at the helm and I've heard countless envious comments from fans of many rival clubs over the years.
 
scaramanga said:
Neither of their brands are anywhere near strong enough to support them without massive cash injections from their owners.

Don't confuse having a rich owner with being in a good financial position. Chelsea had large long-term debts before RA and were also struggling to cover the short term ones, but that's nothing like the level of short term debt (wages) they currently have compared to their relatively modest income.

There's absolutely no reason why RA should continue to throw his money at that club, and the moment he stops their income will fall well short of their required expenditure.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing the two, Chelsea as you say were in massive problems before RA rescued them. They are now in a far stronger position. They might not be able to sustain their current success on and off the pitch post RA, but still he will leave them in a far stronger position than when he joined them, and crucially they have had ten years of trophies unparalled in Chelsea's history, and indeed our own. Chelsea fans have lived the dream, nothing can take that away from them.
 
JPG_357 said:
I'm not confusing the two, Chelsea as you say were in massive problems before RA rescued them. They are now in a far stronger position. They might not be able to sustain their current success on and off the pitch post RA, but still he will leave them in a far stronger position than when he joined them, and crucially they have had ten years of trophies unparalled in Chelsea's history, and indeed our own. Chelsea fans have lived the dream, nothing can take that away from them.
Click to expand...

Whilst RA is throwing money at them they are better off, but he's under no obligation to continue doing so. Should he stop, their huge wage bill would cause them massive problems very quickly - especially with their comparatively small supporter base.
 
greatwhitenorf said:
One thing about Abramovitch. He clearly loves the game and, as owner of a competitive side, enjoys playing with his toy. Same with Fayed and Fulham and probably Mansour at ManCity. You can't say that about the Glazers, who are clearly in it for money first. You have to wonder about the somewhat bloodless John Henry at Liverpool. Villa have been taken over by an absolute Zombie. Arsenal might be well run financially, but could anyone call Stan Kroenke a passionate owner? He's fortunate to have had Wenger run that club so skillfully over the years, but they're starting to run out of steam.

Not all wealthy patriarchs bring the same level of commitment and interest. We're well off having Levy at the helm and I've heard countless envious comments from fans of many rival clubs over the years.
Click to expand...

Well said. I'd rather a committed billionaire like RA than ENIC and Levy, but if we don't get such a person then our current owners are better than many others.
 
So Gallas is the only player whose contract expires this summer? What are the odds of him joining QPR this window, I wonder?
Overall though that is great testimony to the way Spurs are run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back