What's new

Alan "Childish" Sugar on Twitter

myhartlane

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2004
1,356
1,071
Just seen this added edit.

Even if, as you say, sound arguments can be made for some or all of his managerial appointments, the point is that he still got it badly wrong. He still took a club which was known as one of the big five to being a club that dwelt in mid table or lower and which even, all too routinely, engaged in relegation dogfights.

And yes, the Klinsmann signing was fantastic, incredible, amazing, jaw dropping..........any superlative you like. But it only goes to support my earlier point that Sugar only showed decisive ambition when he felt Spurs' Premier League status to be threatened. The previous season, we had only avoided relegation by the skin of our teeth by beating Oldham away in the penultimate game. Subsequently, in early summer, Spurs were deducted 12 points and excluded from the FA Cup as punishment for transgressions that came to light during the Venables court case. So Sugar knew that something spectacular was needed.

What was far more telling, really, than Klinsmann signing was Klinsmann leaving. After just that one season. He left because there was no vision. There was no concerted ambition to move the club forward from that point. Spoke volumes.

Fair point. I'd love to continue but lunchtime is over!
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,232
57,392
Forgive me for the long rant that follows but this is an old pet hate of mine.

Sugar bought Spurs. That is all, really. It was a brilliant, opportunistic deal for him.

He was a fantastically rich man (worth between £500 million and £1 billion back then) and he bought the club for a song. Yes, THFC was £20 million in debt at the time. But think about that for a moment..................£20 million. There are clubs now that are happily carrying £50 million, £100 million or even £600 million debt. And no one blinks an eyelid.

Sure, football then wasn't what it is now. £20 million probably wasn't far from amounting to our annual turnover. But in a wider business sense, even back then, £20 million was a relatively trifling amount. The crisis in 1990-91 stemmed from the Midland Bank (now HSBC) threatening to foreclose on Spurs' £10 million overdraft. Yet no one who knows truly believes that the Midland would have gone through with such a thing. It would have been a PR catastrophe for them had Spurs gone under. Spurs was (and is) a national sporting institution. Besides, even before Sugar took over, the club's stand in chairman, Nat Solomon, had already renegotiated the terms of Spurs' debt with the Midland. There was no further threat.

So, for starters, let's knock on the head any wild notion that Spurs genuinely came close to going out of business and that it was only Sugar riding in on a white horse that saved us. That simply didn't happen.

So how did this fantastically rich man get Spurs out of debt? With his own money? Some, certainly. But not much and only as part of a wider £7m rights issue. Much of the remaining debt was cleared by the sale of Paul Gascoigne to Lazio for £5.5 million. Thus far, Sugar had done nothing that any wealthy man (let alone fantastically wealthy, as he was) couldn't have done.

So what was Alan Sugar's achievement? Clearing the debt? Balancing the books year on year? Well, yes, he did clear the initial debt. Largely in the ways already outlined above that required little input or expertise on his part. And yet.....and yet the club still had net debt of nigh on £20 million when he handed control of the club to ENIC in 2001. Hmmm. As to balancing the books, that is the absolute, bare minimum that should be expected of any chairman or CEO of a publicly listed company.

In the ten years that Sugar was chairman of THFC, the club lost market share; brand value; new sources of income; competitiveness; and credibility (with potential players, new fans and sponsors). Massively so, in every respect. In any other business sector, such a comprehensive failure to perform would have seen Sugar turfed out long before he eventually did leave. Spurs had been an IBM prior to Sugar's takeover (albeit one that had encountered temporary difficulties). He turned us into an Amstrad.

All Sugar had to do to protect his investment, and watch it grow, was to keep Spurs in the Premier League. That's why his occasional splurges were usually ill considered, knee jerk responses to any threat to our Premier League status. There was no concerted and consistent effort to grow the club. There was no vision, as ENIC have always had. No theme. Sugar was reactive rather than proactive. As the title of this thread says.......childish.

There was a cheapness about the club. A constant management of expectations. A tacit acceptance that Spurs could never compete with the big clubs (never mind that, before Sugar had taken over, Spurs had been one of the big clubs). There was, according to those who worked at the club, a crisis of morale in every department - much of it the responsibility of Sugar's pit bull and club CEO, Claude Littner.

There were huge, lasting changes to football in Sugar's time at the club. There were gaping opportunities. Sugar wasted each and every one of them and let other clubs overtake us and leave us trailing far behind in their wake. Frankly, it's miraculous that we have managed to catch up as much as we have. Even so, it is still an unequal struggle and might ever be so.

That is Sugar's true legacy.

A mate of mine once had an Amstrad amplifier. It went wrong and we took it apart. There was next to nothing inside it but on the outside it looked quite good. Sugar tried the same trick with THFC. His opinion on football is worthless.
 

djee

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2004
624
1,797
He set us back a decade. Not just any old decade. But the most revolutionary decade in the modern history of football. It is a setback from which we may well never fully recover.

This is the key part. We have been playing catch up ever since - as Chelsea and Man C have shown, the only way to expedite this process is to pump a ridiculous amount of money into a club. It is hard to admit, but Arsenal have done it 'the right way' and should be commended for their vision. People may find ENIC frustrating but they are trying to implement a very exciting strategy that will help us compete at the highest level in the next 10 years.
 

jambreck

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2013
3,200
5,879
This is the key part. We have been playing catch up ever since - as Chelsea and Man C have shown, the only way to expedite this process is to pump a ridiculous amount of money into a club. It is hard to admit, but Arsenal have done it 'the right way' and should be commended for their vision. People may find ENIC frustrating but they are trying to implement a very exciting strategy that will help us compete at the highest level in the next 10 years.

Agreed.

Although, to be fair, I don't think there are any but the most committed of Levy haters who doubt that ENIC have done, and are continuing to do, anything other than an outstanding job in incredibly difficult circumstances - having to compete with a group of clubs that were in a virtuous circle of Champions League money and top four qualification and a couple of other clubs that won the oil lottery.
 

CowInAComa

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
7,293
18,237
This is the key part. We have been playing catch up ever since - as Chelsea and Man C have shown, the only way to expedite this process is to pump a ridiculous amount of money into a club. It is hard to admit, but Arsenal have done it 'the right way' and should be commended for their vision. People may find ENIC frustrating but they are trying to implement a very exciting strategy that will help us compete at the highest level in the next 10 years.

Spurs are also doing it the right way.

If you look at the last 10 years the ground we've made up is much more impressive than Arsenal in the equivalent period.
 

djee

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2004
624
1,797
Spurs are also doing it the right way.

If you look at the last 10 years the ground we've made up is much more impressive than Arsenal in the equivalent period.

Yes and no!

We have come a long way since the dark, cold nineties and been very impressive on and off the pitch over the past decade under ENIC/ Levy. Indeed, we should be extremely proud of our achievements when you consider the 'financial doping' of certain other teams and how other big sides such as Everton and Villa are, in my mind, far behind.

Certainly, Arsenal have (fortunately) under performed in this period - especially when you consider the huge success they enjoyed between 96-04. However, despite not bagging silverware in this time they have never finished outside top 4, enjoyed CL adventures each year and crucially, have nearly paid off their (still soulless) stadium that brings in massive revenue. Financially they are in incredible state and in position to really challenge the elite for the best players. Due to their forays in the CL and, to be fair, style of football, they have remained a very prominent club - factors that have ensured they are a huge global football brand. Although it was inevitable the strategy they had followed would reap long-term rewards - it is sobering to think had Spurs/ Harry not screwed up so badly a few years ago (squandering an ridiculous double figure points lead) we would of fudged their timetable an more importantly expedited our progress.

I have every confidence that we are destined for great things - its just irritating we had to suffer so much for 15 odd years as others seized the initiative. For that, Sugar must be held partly responsible.
 

CowInAComa

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
7,293
18,237
Yes and no!

We have come a long way since the dark, cold nineties and been very impressive on and off the pitch over the past decade under ENIC/ Levy. Indeed, we should be extremely proud of our achievements when you consider the 'financial doping' of certain other teams and how other big sides such as Everton and Villa are, in my mind, far behind.

Certainly, Arsenal have (fortunately) under performed in this period - especially when you consider the huge success they enjoyed between 96-04. However, despite not bagging silverware in this time they have never finished outside top 4, enjoyed CL adventures each year and crucially, have nearly paid off their (still soulless) stadium that brings in massive revenue. Financially they are in incredible state and in position to really challenge the elite for the best players. Due to their forays in the CL and, to be fair, style of football, they have remained a very prominent club - factors that have ensured they are a huge global football brand. Although it was inevitable the strategy they had followed would reap long-term rewards - it is sobering to think had Spurs/ Harry not screwed up so badly a few years ago (squandering an ridiculous double figure points lead) we would of fudged their timetable an more importantly expedited our progress.

I have every confidence that we are destined for great things - its just irritating we had to suffer so much for 15 odd years as others seized the initiative. For that, Sugar must be held partly responsible.

nobbing up qualification for the CL certainly was a kick in the teeth. We could really have pushed on, i think levy needs to take a bit of stick there though, we should have struck a bt harder whilst the iron was hot. Saha and Nelson!
ffs.

youve bought it all back now. Im going to have a cry
 

absolute bobbins

Am Yisrael Chai
Feb 12, 2013
11,650
25,962
Always made me laugh that he was lauded as some sort of business genius on that stupid show, those people never followed football did they.
Or business for that matter, failed ventures are longer than my er...well it's long, lets put it that way
 

spursandbarca

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2008
3,972
446
The man rants yet takes his seat in the boardroom on match day..the bloke is a class a twat;had the displeasure of sitting at same table as him at a wedding once.
 

hodsgod

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2012
4,241
3,082
Not sure that you read my post properly.

As I clearly said, the club didn't need saving. Terms had already been renegotiated with the Midland Bank before Sugar took over.

I read your post, and you can say whatever you like quite clearly, it doesn't make it right.

The parent company of the football club was in financial difficulty, with massive debts. You think agreeing more debt replaces the money that Sugar paid to reduce the clubs debt in saving the club? Maybe you think the additional line of credit was the saviour? Or maybe you think Scholar, the man that created the problems, and was rebuked by the stock exchange for his incorrect methods, would turn the club round?

No one believes the club would go out of business, but give Sugar the credit he deserves, because it was one of the few decent things that he did.
 

jambreck

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2013
3,200
5,879
I read your post, and you can say whatever you like quite clearly, it doesn't make it right.

The parent company of the football club was in financial difficulty, with massive debts. You think agreeing more debt replaces the money that Sugar paid to reduce the clubs debt in saving the club? Maybe you think the additional line of credit was the saviour? Or maybe you think Scholar, the man that created the problems, and was rebuked by the stock exchange for his incorrect methods, would turn the club round?

No one believes the club would go out of business, but give Sugar the credit he deserves, because it was one of the few decent things that he did.

The point is that even that rare "decent thing" that Sugar did for Spurs was nothing out of the ordinary; nothing that was especially creditworthy.

As it happens, most of what got the club out of trouble was agreed before he took the club over. At the Midland's insistence, a new chairman (Nat Solomon) had been appointed and agreement had been reached that Paul Gascoigne would be sold.

As to the money that Sugar "paid", it amounted to about £3.5 million - his contribution, as 50% shareholder, to the £7m rights issue. He didn't give any money to the club. He bought shares. He raised money through equity finance. All good, obviously, but nothing remarkable, brilliant or philanthropic.

Contrary to your claim, there are plenty of people who do believe that the club would have gone out of business had Sugar not ridden in on his lilywhite horse. And many of them use that to forgive almost everything that followed.

So it's not that I want to deny Sugar this rare "decent thing". I just want to provide some perspective on it. Some facts. He didn't save the club. He didn't do anything remarkable or brilliant. He didn't pay off the debt with his own money. He just did the job that any competent businessman would have done in his position.
 
Last edited:

Tott66

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
358
400
Sugar and amstrad dishes now theirs another story.just a year before it's a whole new ball game...sky.
Met him once players lounge we had just beaten Wimbledon away to go third near Christmas 95.
Politely asked him to invest in a certain position for the benefit of. The team the troll tried to have me removed after screaming for security but failed too many witnesses so he stormed off
 

parklane1

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2012
4,390
4,053
I read your post, and you can say whatever you like quite clearly, it doesn't make it right.

The parent company of the football club was in financial difficulty, with massive debts. You think agreeing more debt replaces the money that Sugar paid to reduce the clubs debt in saving the club? Maybe you think the additional line of credit was the saviour? Or maybe you think Scholar, the man that created the problems, and was rebuked by the stock exchange for his incorrect methods, would turn the club round?

No one believes the club would go out of business, but give Sugar the credit he deserves, because it was one of the few decent things that he did.

Indeed the only other choice was letting Maxwell get his grubby fingers on us and god knows where we would be now if that had heppened.
 

TheChosenOne

A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
Dec 13, 2005
47,877
49,713
From the day he appeared on the horizon calling the club "Tottenham Hotspurs" I knew he was a wrong 'un.

I grew up a few pitch lengths from his old school but I think he was only in it for the money (MY OPINION)

The risky £7-8 million put up as purchase funds and guarantees would have been small potatoes, he got the keys to the door and installed family members onto the payroll, all the free lunches and tickets etc.

He - and they got the benefit of many years at the top table and he also enjoyed a nice little pay-off
when he sold out for a total of £47 million in two tranches.

Nice profit. Easy now.
 
Top