• 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

New takeover rumours

Gutter Boy said:
Isn't that what everyone in 00s cycling did to try and compete with Lance Armstrong?

British cycling proved that if you play the long game, you can beat the dopers with integrity.
Click to expand...

they didn't beat the dopers with integrity, they won when the (serious organised) dopers weren't there anymore
 
milo said:
Did we outspend Man U or just break the transfer record more frequently than them during this period? I have not been able to find any reliable information on the cost of each team.

The important thing for me, if you are trying to draw parallels between the modern oligarchs and Spurs spending in the early sixties, is that we would have to have grossly outspent our rivals and spent far higher than our income for there to be any similarities. I do not see that you have been able to demonstrate this.
Click to expand...


mufcinfo.com claims a comprehensive record of Man United transfers, although fees are often not known. Here are the pages for 1950-59 and 1960-69. There are lists for Spurs on several fan sites including THFC6061's transfer page.

While not complete, hopefully the expensive ones have comparable coverage, so a quick (far from foolproof) count for the 1960s gives purchases of £867k for Spurs and £614k for United. It looks like Spurs spent more but in the same order of magnitude, not as if funded by a sugardaddy. The numbers are rough and I didn't check net transfer amounts. United sold a fair amount (~300k) but the Spurs list has a lot of undiscloseds and only includes transfers out of players we bought (presumably we sold some home grown players). I would suggest this confirms we were big spenders but not in a different ball-park to other big clubs.

For revenues, the average league attendances for the decade were 45.1k for United and 43.8k for Spurs. Again not so different. It would be nice to know ticket prices, but a small London premium would give Spurs higher revenues. We also had some decent cup runs in that decade, although United.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Qatar will try and find a safe place for their money with all that is going on out there, I wonder if they will look at us again.......
 
Bump

Some "ITK" from Hotspur88 over at SC:

Been told the club are close to being sold for around 4.5b.

As A&C has mentioned, been here before so nothing to get too excited about but the source is fairly confident. Can't mention who yet but it isn't stateside.

These things come and go from time to time but it's certainly interesting none the less.
 
Last edited:
Denmark Spur said:
Bump

Some "ITK" from Hotspur88 over at SC:

Been told the club are close to being sold for around 4.5b.

As A&C has mentioned, been here before so nothing to get too excited about but the source is fairly confident. Can't mention who yet but it isn't stateside.

These things come and go from time to time but it's certainly interesting none the less.
Click to expand...

Close to being but nothing to get excited about? Ambiguously brick as always
 
Baleforce said:
Who would get excited?

Different owners would almost certainly be a disaster.
Click to expand...
The only way is down, esp with FFP starting to bite.

Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Chelsea's recent turns towards comeuppances will have been a warning to all but the most savage of asset strippers
 
Baleforce said:
Who would get excited?

Different owners would almost certainly be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Especially at this moment in time, where we have a rock solid platform, and everyone seems to be pulling in the same direction. We have a bit of momentum now, and a change of ownership would, more likely than not, get us off the course we currently have.

And honestly, I seriously doubt ENIC would want to sell at this particular time.
 
Silly question but with FFP or whatever it is called now, How could we actually benefit from bottomless oil money owners now I mean, You can't spend silly on players now, We can't really improve the stadium or training ground. What would be the upside? Could it be something to do with building the clubs commercial income through sponsorship or something?
 
dingdongo said:
Silly question but with FFP or whatever it is called now, How could we actually benefit from bottomless oil money owners now I mean, You can't spend silly on players now, We can't really improve the stadium or training ground. What would be the upside? Could it be something to do with building the clubs commercial income through sponsorship or something?
Click to expand...

The hotel is the only real area for growth not being exploited at the moment. That and the housing on the spare sites from the stadium build (Goods Yard, Depot and Printworks)

But you don't buy a £5b football club just to build an IBIS and 800 houses in one of the poorest places in Europe.
 
dingdongo said:
Silly question but with FFP or whatever it is called now, How could we actually benefit from bottomless oil money owners now I mean, You can't spend silly on players now, We can't really improve the stadium or training ground. What would be the upside? Could it be something to do with building the clubs commercial income through sponsorship or something?
Click to expand...
Slightly inflated sponsorships from your completely-unconnected-cousin's company etc.
Maybe remove the small interest payments.
Maybe serve Novichok tea at the next Prem manager's forum*.






















*Don't forget your bone saw.
 
dingdongo said:
Silly question but with FFP or whatever it is called now, How could we actually benefit from bottomless oil money owners now I mean, You can't spend silly on players now, We can't really improve the stadium or training ground. What would be the upside? Could it be something to do with building the clubs commercial income through sponsorship or something?
Click to expand...

Well, a few ways. People have already pointed out the non-football real estate, but to me that is more a benefit for the owners, not the club. For the club -

On the football infrastructure side of things, the training infrastructure could actually be upgraded - City have multiple mini-stadiums in and around their training pitches for their youth and women's teams, for instance, a level we don't quite have. There's room for an upgrade there.

Then there's sponsorship as you say - a rich owner could just sponsor us and the stadium, and although he or she would have to convince the Prem it would be fair value, I don't doubt a dual shirt and stadium deal could easily be worth 100m a season given our location, brand new stadium, NFL, etc. That would give us 100m of spending room basically instantly.

There's multi-club ownership - a rich owner could build a network of clubs akin to City and Chelsea to seed our youth talent around and also grab the best of theirs.

There's also just the backstop of having a rich and ambitious owner - right now we operate at under 50% of our revenue on football operations, far under the permitted 70-75%. An ambitious owner would get us up to the permissible spending amount since he/she has the financial backing to backstop us. That immediately means we can buy a higher quality of player, match bids for the market's best, compete.

So, it could still be quite transformative.
 
DubaiSpur said:
There's multi-club ownership - a rich owner could build a network of clubs akin to City and Chelsea to seed our youth talent around and also grab the best of theirs.
Click to expand...

The thought of it makes me feel sick. One of the biggest problems in modern football. Also ironic because ENIC had to sell some (all?) of their shares in Slavia Prague to take over Spurs IIRC.
 
tommysvr said:
The thought of it makes me feel sick. One of the biggest problems in modern football. Also ironic because ENIC had to sell some (all?) of their shares in Slavia Prague to take over Spurs IIRC.
Click to expand...
True. ENIC, like usual, actually were among the first to implement the idea - they owned bits of Rangers, Slavia Prague and us at one point, if I recall.

Also as usual, they were outdone by other clubs with more shrewd operators and bigger pockets, but that's another story. You can feel how you want about it mate, all valid - just pointing out it would be beneficial to the club, and something a rich owner would probably look to do.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Well, a few ways. People have already pointed out the non-football real estate, but to me that is more a benefit for the owners, not the club. For the club -

On the football infrastructure side of things, the training infrastructure could actually be upgraded - City have multiple mini-stadiums in and around their training pitches for their youth and women's teams, for instance, a level we don't quite have. There's room for an upgrade there.

Then there's sponsorship as you say - a rich owner could just sponsor us and the stadium, and although he or she would have to convince the Prem it would be fair value, I don't doubt a dual shirt and stadium deal could easily be worth 100m a season given our location, brand new stadium, NFL, etc. That would give us 100m of spending room basically instantly.

There's multi-club ownership - a rich owner could build a network of clubs akin to City and Chelsea to seed our youth talent around and also grab the best of theirs.

There's also just the backstop of having a rich and ambitious owner - right now we operate at under 50% of our revenue on football operations, far under the permitted 70-75%. An ambitious owner would get us up to the permissible spending amount since he/she has the financial backing to backstop us. That immediately means we can buy a higher quality of player, match bids for the market's best, compete.

So, it could still be quite transformative.
Click to expand...
City’s mini stadiums are weird
They struggle to fill their own stadium which they still don’t own
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back