They mean sale of the company or stake in the company, rather than sale of new shares in the club
-
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
- Thread starter Howard Webb
- Start date
They mean sale of the company or stake in the company, rather than sale of new shares in the club
parklane1
Tony Galvin
I was at that game, it was Gross first season ( i think?) and we had Vega sent off toward the end and we hung on for a point. Dark days.
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Yeh had we lost we were in all kinds of trouble
spurs' magna carter
Ronnie Rosenthal
Was there for the 4-4 against Leicester soon after Defoe signed and Emirates Marketing Project made that comeback that shall not be named. There's been some really dark days, even during the recent upsurge - Lasagne Gate, Munich, 13/14 overall and the recent missing out on silverware hurt, despite the highest league finish in 50 odd years.
It's great what Levy has done, especially when you see just how much the odds have been stacked against us, four finishes in the Top 4 this decade so far is no mean feat, but no trophies so far is a bit of a kick in the teeth, especially since its now our longest wait for one since the 50s.
I'll always be grateful for what Levy has done, he looked himself in the mirror back in 2004 and made some real bold decisions, since then we really have been able to hold our head high and now have a team worthing investing time and money in.
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
Maybe I've missed it but I'm amazed I've not seen any comments on the 2 billion sell off to Mark Zuckerberg or what ever his name is! It's the sort of bulls hit that some people love and can either throw themselves into despair or ecstasy, even better for the "I always said ENIC were in it for the money" phalanx.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
scoot back a page
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
I always said ENIC were in it for the money.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Eh. He's probably not as bad as some dictator with a burning desire for a penis extension/money-laundering vehicle, but he's another one of those 'speculator' types who will sit around and leave the club as a self-sustaining asset. I suppose it's the lesser evil, since Zuckerberg hasn't done anything horrible (many questionable things, but within the rule of law and conventional conceptions of civility for the most part). Still, the ideal would be the the fans miraculously coughing up the money to buy a controlling stake in the club - second to that would be some jolly billionaire who made his money as ethically as possible (maybe selling candy to orphanages or something) and wants to be equally charitable with Tottenham Hotspur.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Hmm... well this is where we diverge in our thinking a tad. Taking the payoff doesn't tickle my dangly bits. Yeah I'd like the trophies and the spotlight on the club but they would be nothing more than hollow victories really once we press the unlimited funds button. I think we are doing just fine at the moment. I can't see a pressing need to change our strategy as it appears to be working, more or less. I do like trophies too and bleat on about them as much as the rest of you, but I prefer true love to paid for love.Eh. He's probably not as bad as some dictator with a burning desire for a penis extension/money-laundering vehicle, but he's another one of those 'speculator' types who will sit around and leave the club as a self-sustaining asset. I suppose it's the lesser evil, since Zuckerberg hasn't done anything horrible (many questionable things, but within the rule of law and conventional conceptions of civility for the most part). Still, the ideal would be the the fans miraculously coughing up the money to buy a controlling stake in the club - second to that would be some jolly billionaire who made his money as ethically as possible (maybe selling candy to orphanages or something) and wants to be equally charitable with Tottenham Hotspur.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Well, ideally, I'd like us to work up to success on our own dime too - but where we differ is that the scenario where I envision that happening is one where the club is owned by all of us, the fans, as part of a trust that controls the majority of the club's shares. Like in Germany, more or less. In an ideal world, the fans own the majority of the club - you can even keep Levy's share around (I believe he owns about a fifth of the club, iirc) and have him continue on as chairman, but the real triumph of working our own way to success comes when there is no other option, and when it's a combined effort by the fans themselves as owners and custodians of the club they love.
That's my ideal scenario - but, failing that, I don't really see much of a bonus in being majority-owned by a billionaire who leaves us to fend for ourselves over a billionaire who at least helps us along. In fact, it's somewhat pointless - we laugh at other clubs being billionaire's playthings, but we are one ourselves - only difference is that Joe Lewis isn't interested in playing around with us, and wants to sell us off for a profit when the time comes. That we have to build up the slow, arduous way in that scenario...I don't know, it seems pointless to me. What's the moral point of it? It's not that we had no other choice, it's "Our billionaire is more frugal than your billionaire, so we had to do it the slow way". That's hardly stuff for the ages.
I'm not saying ENIC aren't finally doing a good job, or that they're a drain on our club - they are going to leave the club in a better state than they found it in, and that's solid, if unspectacular progress, even if it came with little real investment on their part relative to more activist ownership groups. I'm content with where we are and where we're going. But I don't think being some mute asset that is traded on for profit with little investment on the part of our owners is some heroic endeavour on our part - it's just arbitrarily limiting ourselves because our billionaires don't spend on us, unlike other clubs' billionaires. If we were fan-owned, then that problem wouldn't arise because we are *owned* by the little guy, the everyday guy and gal in the stands who loves the club and wouldn't primarily be interested in selling it on for a profit. There is a moral point to succeeding in such a way, because the arduous effort is backed by the knowledge that it is genuinely our way. At present, though, it isn't our way, it's the way of a billionaire in the Bahamas who wants maximum profit for minimum expenditure, and thus forces us to be run in a certain manner- the fans don't come into it either way. You could switch him out with another billionaire who did spend a lot of cash and it would be no more or less morally s.atisfying - but the trophies would be s.atisfying on a more basic level, at least.
spurs' magna carter
Ronnie Rosenthal
Premier League clubs are heading for financial ruin, claims a new report that suggests overspending is to blame
Premier League clubs are hurtling towards bankruptcy due to chronic overspending, according to a new report by financial analysts Vysyble.
The report also claims the long-term implications of those losses could be a breakaway by the league's biggest clubs and the creation of a European Super League.
Titled 'We're so Rich it's Unbelievable', the document is based on the accounts of all Premier League clubs between 2008/09 and 2015/16, the last season for which data is available.
Based on the principle of 'economic profit' - the difference between revenue and costs, including the so-called 'opportunity of cost' of not doing something else with your money - the report claims Premier League clubs lost £2billion in eight years.
One of the report's co-authors, Roger Bell, said: 'Financially, football is failing. Britain's biggest football clubs are spending much, much more than they are making.
'The Premier League, and its executive chairman Richard Scudamore, should be very worried.
'Our analysis shows clubs are losing a record £876,700 every single day. Despite TV bringing in huge amounts of cash every year, it does not meet the many millions spent on players' wages.
'Clubs needs to face reality about their dire financial situation before they can't afford to pay the bills and some go to the wall.'
This stark warning runs counter to most recent analyses of the Premier League's financial health, with many experts pointing to restrictions on excessive spending introduced after Portsmouth's collapse in 2012 and the gravity-defying rise in broadcast revenues.
But Vysyble's John Purcell told Press Association Sport he and Bell disagree with the view that football clubs are better run now than they were a decade ago.
'Most of them are spending a lot more than they're taking in,' said Purcell.
'Across the league, clubs are losing £8.80 for every £100 they bring in, and that's based on 2015-16. I suspect it will be more like £12-13 now. The game is facing massive financial and structural risk.'
Purcell said only five clubs made an economic profit in 2015/16, the worst performance since 2012/13, with Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project accounting for more than half of the league's total losses over the report's eight-year period.
The report's findings, however, will raise eyebrows among many fans, as it ranks relegated Norwich City ahead of champions Leicester City in its 'Profitability Index' for 2015/16 and notes that Blackpool managed five straight years in profit as they plummeted down the league pyramid.
The report does, though, commend Burnley for their sustainable approach, point out that Leicester managed the rare feat of making a profit while winning the league and say Spurs are the most profitable club since 2008.
The real crunch for the Premier League, according to Bell and Purcell, will come when the 70 per cent three-yearly increases in domestic TV rights dry up.
Purcell said: 'We're getting to the point where the cycle of ever bigger domestic TV deals is unsustainable.
'I think we've had seven renewals since 1991 and they work to a formula - if we follow the trend, the next deal will have to clear £8billion.
'I don't think there is any way BT or Sky can commit to that kind of money. OK, you can put on more live games, and we've seen that trend already, but ultimately dilutes the product.
'I suspect we are heading towards a European Super League where the new breed of owners, many of them from North America, can organise the type of league they know and understand: fixed squads, salary caps, big TV events.
'That is when I think the likes of Amazon, Google and Facebook would get interested in football rights.'
Bell added: 'The EPL was formed to gain increased monies from broadcasting. There is nothing to stop the top six or seven clubs breaking away and joining forces with other top clubs from Italy, Spain, Germany etc, forming a European Super League and negotiating a Europe-wide or even global TV deal for many, many billions of pounds.'
The Premier League has been asked for its response to the survey.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-report.html?ICO=most_read_module&mrn_rm=als1
Premier League clubs are hurtling towards bankruptcy due to chronic overspending, according to a new report by financial analysts Vysyble.
The report also claims the long-term implications of those losses could be a breakaway by the league's biggest clubs and the creation of a European Super League.
Titled 'We're so Rich it's Unbelievable', the document is based on the accounts of all Premier League clubs between 2008/09 and 2015/16, the last season for which data is available.
Based on the principle of 'economic profit' - the difference between revenue and costs, including the so-called 'opportunity of cost' of not doing something else with your money - the report claims Premier League clubs lost £2billion in eight years.
One of the report's co-authors, Roger Bell, said: 'Financially, football is failing. Britain's biggest football clubs are spending much, much more than they are making.
'The Premier League, and its executive chairman Richard Scudamore, should be very worried.
'Our analysis shows clubs are losing a record £876,700 every single day. Despite TV bringing in huge amounts of cash every year, it does not meet the many millions spent on players' wages.
'Clubs needs to face reality about their dire financial situation before they can't afford to pay the bills and some go to the wall.'
This stark warning runs counter to most recent analyses of the Premier League's financial health, with many experts pointing to restrictions on excessive spending introduced after Portsmouth's collapse in 2012 and the gravity-defying rise in broadcast revenues.
But Vysyble's John Purcell told Press Association Sport he and Bell disagree with the view that football clubs are better run now than they were a decade ago.
'Most of them are spending a lot more than they're taking in,' said Purcell.
'Across the league, clubs are losing £8.80 for every £100 they bring in, and that's based on 2015-16. I suspect it will be more like £12-13 now. The game is facing massive financial and structural risk.'
Purcell said only five clubs made an economic profit in 2015/16, the worst performance since 2012/13, with Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project accounting for more than half of the league's total losses over the report's eight-year period.
The report's findings, however, will raise eyebrows among many fans, as it ranks relegated Norwich City ahead of champions Leicester City in its 'Profitability Index' for 2015/16 and notes that Blackpool managed five straight years in profit as they plummeted down the league pyramid.
The report does, though, commend Burnley for their sustainable approach, point out that Leicester managed the rare feat of making a profit while winning the league and say Spurs are the most profitable club since 2008.
The real crunch for the Premier League, according to Bell and Purcell, will come when the 70 per cent three-yearly increases in domestic TV rights dry up.
Purcell said: 'We're getting to the point where the cycle of ever bigger domestic TV deals is unsustainable.
'I think we've had seven renewals since 1991 and they work to a formula - if we follow the trend, the next deal will have to clear £8billion.
'I don't think there is any way BT or Sky can commit to that kind of money. OK, you can put on more live games, and we've seen that trend already, but ultimately dilutes the product.
'I suspect we are heading towards a European Super League where the new breed of owners, many of them from North America, can organise the type of league they know and understand: fixed squads, salary caps, big TV events.
'That is when I think the likes of Amazon, Google and Facebook would get interested in football rights.'
Bell added: 'The EPL was formed to gain increased monies from broadcasting. There is nothing to stop the top six or seven clubs breaking away and joining forces with other top clubs from Italy, Spain, Germany etc, forming a European Super League and negotiating a Europe-wide or even global TV deal for many, many billions of pounds.'
The Premier League has been asked for its response to the survey.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-report.html?ICO=most_read_module&mrn_rm=als1
Whilst I dont disagree that football clubs are extremely precarious financially, I've never heard of the group of financial analysts before (and given the nature of my work, I would have done had they been credible) - this smacks of someone writing something to get their name into the papers
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
Hopefully this won't happen, or at least I hope Spurs aren't part of it.
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
Or someone writing it to convince us we need a European Super League to save us.
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
So we can discount all of this from the report then.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
fudge no. Top teams fudge off, we might actually have a chance of winning the damn league more than once every fifty years.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
It would be the death knell of football
Interest in the CL/EL has been waning for several seasons, and the game across the continent is far too partisan to have 'super' teams that other fans would associate with.
The thinking comes from the franchise system in America where for example Birmingham, Wolves and West Brom fans would happily support Villa in the super league, whereas here it would be 'anyone but' our rival English sides. Portsmouth and Southampton fans still scrap between themselves on England away trips
http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/ne...y-looking-to-buy-tottenham-in-1-billion-deal/
Whatsapp Lane is too good an opportunity to miss!
Whatsapp Lane is too good an opportunity to miss!
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
Eh. He's probably not as bad as some dictator with a burning desire for a penis extension/money-laundering vehicle, but he's another one of those 'speculator' types who will sit around and leave the club as a self-sustaining asset. I suppose it's the lesser evil, since Zuckerberg hasn't done anything horrible (many questionable things, but within the rule of law and conventional conceptions of civility for the most part). Still, the ideal would be the the fans miraculously coughing up the money to buy a controlling stake in the club - second to that would be some jolly billionaire who made his money as ethically as possible (maybe selling candy to orphanages or something) and wants to be equally charitable with Tottenham Hotspur.
I wouldn't trust our fans run a table at a boot sale