What's new

Levy plans to stay long term but must consider takeover bids

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2005
9,429
12,382
So I guess we agree that they aren't using Spurs expressly to build a property portfolio then. They bought a business and have used the profitability of that business to grow it - I completely agree with that idea.

It is the same idea as if Lewis were to buy a golf club and use the profits from that golf club to improve it and make it more profitable. Or to do the same with a holiday resort. Or take the profits from a host of office blocks and use them to fund the purchase of a new office block. Spurs are not the only profitable company that man owns, not by a long stretch.

They are choosing to use the money generated by Spurs to build things that will benefit Spurs... and by that same token things that will benefit themselves. They took the view that rather than spend 600m on players it would be better to spend 600m (and the rest probably!!) on the training ground and stadium. A big motivating factor (but not the only one) behind that is that it's a more secure investment that they will see a better ROI on when selling - I completely agree with that as well.

Had you (or a non-Levy-style person) been running the club for the past 18 years we would have spent all that money on player purchases and kept the old stadium and training facilities. We might have won the league a couple of times and a handful of domestic cups as well. We would have been more successful in footballing terms than Levy has been by miles. I concede that.

However, with the emergence of the oil money model of football ownership and then FFP, do you think that we could have sustained that challenge against the likes of Chelsea and City as well as the established clubs? In a 36k stadium could we ever compete on wages long-term? I would say that sustainability is another motivating factor that drives the bricks and mortar investments.

We are fast approaching the point at which there will be nothing left to spend money on but the squad, and there will be no excuses for why we cannot afford 100k+ wages. If Levy fails to invest heavily in the squad during the next 2 seasons I will be side by side with you calling against him.

But does it not seem right to show the owners a bit of trust until that happens? They have transformed the club whilst they have been here, not without hiccups and not as fast as some would have liked, but our development has been trending upwards for years. We are about to move into a stadium that they could have chosen not to build but which Spurs fans will be enjoying long after ENIC are gone. Let's see if they can put that final piece in the jigsaw.

I think you've summed Levy's strategy up pretty well here, although it's a strategy that is heavily focused on making money rather than success on the pitch.

You wouldn't begrudge Levy and Lewis that, because they're businessmen after all and it's their money.

But we also need to acknowledge the reason we don't usually have a postive (or is that negative??) net-spend on transfers; it's because it could have a negative impact of Levy and Lewis' property development plans.

Personally, I think we could have developed the training ground and stadium, AND spent more than we have in transfer windows, but that would result in paying off the infrastructure debt over a longer period of time.

Levy and Lewis don't want to do this, as they're looking for a quicker sale and would probably prefer (I'm guessing) less long-term debt on the books.

Ultimately, all our discussions may be moot; Levy and Lewis could well sell up by the end of the season and their legacy at that point would almost certainly be a very good one (touch wood :cautious:).
 

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2005
9,429
12,382
I can categorically tell you that ENIC are trying to sell the club now, they aren’t waiting 10 years. This isn’t speculation, I personally know some of the people working on the sale, hence why I’m so confident about the £2bn price tag.

Any idea on prospective buyers and how far down the line we are with them?
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
Any idea on prospective buyers and how far down the line we are with them?
Not many takers at that price and not helped by Roman putting Chelsea on the block for pretty much the same price. I only know of one potential buyer but not sure they will pay that price, think US and real estate for that party.
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
So I guess we agree that they aren't using Spurs expressly to build a property portfolio then. They bought a business and have used the profitability of that business to grow it - I completely agree with that idea.

It is the same idea as if Lewis were to buy a golf club and use the profits from that golf club to improve it and make it more profitable. Or to do the same with a holiday resort. Or take the profits from a host of office blocks and use them to fund the purchase of a new office block. Spurs are not the only profitable company that man owns, not by a long stretch.

They are choosing to use the money generated by Spurs to build things that will benefit Spurs... and by that same token things that will benefit themselves. They took the view that rather than spend 600m on players it would be better to spend 600m (and the rest probably!!) on the training ground and stadium. A big motivating factor (but not the only one) behind that is that it's a more secure investment that they will see a better ROI on when selling - I completely agree with that as well.

Had you (or a non-Levy-style person) been running the club for the past 18 years we would have spent all that money on player purchases and kept the old stadium and training facilities. We might have won the league a couple of times and a handful of domestic cups as well. We would have been more successful in footballing terms than Levy has been by miles. I concede that.

However, with the emergence of the oil money model of football ownership and then FFP, do you think that we could have sustained that challenge against the likes of Chelsea and City as well as the established clubs? In a 36k stadium could we ever compete on wages long-term? I would say that sustainability is another motivating factor that drives the bricks and mortar investments.

We are fast approaching the point at which there will be nothing left to spend money on but the squad, and there will be no excuses for why we cannot afford 100k+ wages. If Levy fails to invest heavily in the squad during the next 2 seasons I will be side by side with you calling against him.

But does it not seem right to show the owners a bit of trust until that happens? They have transformed the club whilst they have been here, not without hiccups and not as fast as some would have liked, but our development has been trending upwards for years. We are about to move into a stadium that they could have chosen not to build but which Spurs fans will be enjoying long after ENIC are gone. Let's see if they can put that final piece in the jigsaw.
I don't know who you are but I'm guessing you are either a politician or a journalist because you have a real talent for taking comments that completely disagree with you and then suggest that "I guess we agree". You are also super adept at choosing to draw utterly incorrect inferences "had you been running the club for the past 18 years we would have spent all that money on player purchases". Congrats on both skills, not ones I'd like to have but i have to admire it in people who are so skillful.

Now to the facts.....

Nobody on here that has concerns about ENIC is suggesting we spend all our free cashflow on players and wages. What they are suggesting is that there needs to be a balance between investing in capital assets and investment in the playing staff. Not only does that make sense as fans it also makes economic sense, grow the value of the franchise not just through investment in capital assets but through growing the supporter base through on field success. I think Levy's record in big transfers has made him way too risk averse and he has learnt the wrong lessons. Instead of fixing our scouting network he has taken to a zero net spend policy as the best means of not screwing up. Unfortunately for him the period where that works is coming to an abrupt end in the next 12-24 months as key squad members get too old or their contracts expire. Their will be no sales and replacements will be required. Do you have any confidence given history that ENIC will meet this challenge ?

You ask for trust in the owners, I'm afraid I'm unwilling to show it, not because I don't respect what they've done, as I said in my post to Lighty I think compared to most other owners they have been amazing. I won't show trust because I know they are trying to sell the club which means that de facto they are looking to monetise the increase in the club's physical assets for their own wealth not for the purposes of improving the club. If they came out tomorrow and say the club isn't for sale, cashflow will be a bit tough until they secure a naming rights deal but ultimately they want to use the increased revenues to power the club forward and make it the most valuable sports franchise in the world by making it the most successful football club I'd not only shut up about the last transfer window and previous ones but I'd be the leading member of the BSoDL but until that happens I believe my perspective on their imbalance in using the wealth generated by the club from the fans is spot on.
 

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2005
9,429
12,382
Not many takers at that price and not helped by Roman putting Chelsea on the block for pretty much the same price. I only know of one potential buyer but not sure they will pay that price, think US and real estate for that party.

Would have thought we'd be the more attractive proposition, what with a new stadium and a leaner wage-bill...and Harry Kane, who's a massive transfer asset (not that we'll ever sell him :unsure:)
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
I don't know who you are but I'm guessing you are either a politician or a journalist because you have a real talent for taking comments that completely disagree with you and then suggest that "I guess we agree". You are also super adept at choosing to draw utterly incorrect inferences "had you been running the club for the past 18 years we would have spent all that money on player purchases". Congrats on both skills, not ones I'd like to have but i have to admire it in people who are so skillful.

Now to the facts.....

Nobody on here that has concerns about ENIC is suggesting we spend all our free cashflow on players and wages. What they are suggesting is that there needs to be a balance between investing in capital assets and investment in the playing staff. Not only does that make sense as fans it also makes economic sense, grow the value of the franchise not just through investment in capital assets but through growing the supporter base through on field success. I think Levy's record in big transfers has made him way too risk averse and he has learnt the wrong lessons. Instead of fixing our scouting network he has taken to a zero net spend policy as the best means of not screwing up. Unfortunately for him the period where that works is coming to an abrupt end in the next 12-24 months as key squad members get too old or their contracts expire. Their will be no sales and replacements will be required. Do you have any confidence given history that ENIC will meet this challenge ?

You ask for trust in the owners, I'm afraid I'm unwilling to show it, not because I don't respect what they've done, as I said in my post to Lighty I think compared to most other owners they have been amazing. I won't show trust because I know they are trying to sell the club which means that de facto they are looking to monetise the increase in the club's physical assets for their own wealth not for the purposes of improving the club. If they came out tomorrow and say the club isn't for sale, cashflow will be a bit tough until they secure a naming rights deal but ultimately they want to use the increased revenues to power the club forward and make it the most valuable sports franchise in the world by making it the most successful football club I'd not only shut up about the last transfer window and previous ones but I'd be the leading member of the BSoDL but until that happens I believe my perspective on their imbalance in using the wealth generated by the club from the fans is spot on.
I disagree with you but that is an even-handed, well/expressed point of view and I respect that.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Mar 5, 2018
3,212
8,169
Having said that both you and John Weldon disagreed with my post on previous page. No reasonable person could give that rating. Judicial review that shit. Wednesbury unreasonableness.
 

hakano

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2005
727
1,517
Would have thought we'd be the more attractive proposition, what with a new stadium and a leaner wage-bill...and Harry Kane, who's a massive transfer asset (not that we'll ever sell him :unsure:)

Harry Kane? They have a few decent players themselves.

It goes to show that Roman's approach of going after trophies (with 2 yrs less than ENIC) has had the same affect with the perceived value of both clubs at a similar level. Actually ENIC have overall spent far less in that time. DL and ENIC will see that as a success.

Football first, I think not.
 

Ghost Hardware

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
17,996
61,593
I don't know who you are but I'm guessing you are either a politician or a journalist because you have a real talent for taking comments that completely disagree with you and then suggest that "I guess we agree". You are also super adept at choosing to draw utterly incorrect inferences "had you been running the club for the past 18 years we would have spent all that money on player purchases". Congrats on both skills, not ones I'd like to have but i have to admire it in people who are so skillful.

Now to the facts.....

Nobody on here that has concerns about ENIC is suggesting we spend all our free cashflow on players and wages. What they are suggesting is that there needs to be a balance between investing in capital assets and investment in the playing staff. Not only does that make sense as fans it also makes economic sense, grow the value of the franchise not just through investment in capital assets but through growing the supporter base through on field success. I think Levy's record in big transfers has made him way too risk averse and he has learnt the wrong lessons. Instead of fixing our scouting network he has taken to a zero net spend policy as the best means of not screwing up. Unfortunately for him the period where that works is coming to an abrupt end in the next 12-24 months as key squad members get too old or their contracts expire. Their will be no sales and replacements will be required. Do you have any confidence given history that ENIC will meet this challenge ?

You ask for trust in the owners, I'm afraid I'm unwilling to show it, not because I don't respect what they've done, as I said in my post to Lighty I think compared to most other owners they have been amazing. I won't show trust because I know they are trying to sell the club which means that de facto they are looking to monetise the increase in the club's physical assets for their own wealth not for the purposes of improving the club. If they came out tomorrow and say the club isn't for sale, cashflow will be a bit tough until they secure a naming rights deal but ultimately they want to use the increased revenues to power the club forward and make it the most valuable sports franchise in the world by making it the most successful football club I'd not only shut up about the last transfer window and previous ones but I'd be the leading member of the BSoDL but until that happens I believe my perspective on their imbalance in using the wealth generated by the club from the fans is spot on.
Not disagreeing at all, just curious really. You have mentioned several times that ENIC are looking to sell and the 2b price quoted in the press is correct, Im just wondering if you are making an educated guess on that or you actually know that for a fact?
 

am_yisrael_chai

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2006
6,409
10,931
Not disagreeing at all, just curious really. You have mentioned several times that ENIC are looking to sell and the 2b price quoted in the press is correct, Im just wondering if you are making an educated guess on that or you actually know that for a fact?
Not an educated guess, been told by several people close to the process.
 

thfc1973

Active Member
Apr 29, 2015
565
1,192
Not an educated guess, been told by several people close to the process.

I think its been obvious to many fans for a few years now that the club's been up for sale. It doesn't have to be publicly advertised but its pretty clear to people who have a good understanding of the club that ENIC would sell.
The 2B is fanciful. Much like Levy's dealings. Buy low, sell high.

The reality is, imho, that time is running out for ENIC for various reasons. Simply put though, is that our stock cant get much higher than it currently is. It could get a little higher but not that much more (without real investment in the team, which is something he isn't willing to do imo).
And just like with stocks and anything else JL likes to sell, you better believe he wants to sell before it goes belly up and the price drops and I would hazard a guess that he's actually desperate to sell right now but is just itching to get a sponsorship deal done as soon as the stadium opens. That'll be the cherry on the cake as far as he's concerned, or rather, the bow on the present.

Most realistic time ENIC could sell us is next year. Stadium open. Sponsorship deal done. (if we're really lucky & still in the hunt for a CL spot again). My guess is if he can sell us with those boxes ticked, he could get near 2B. Maybe 1.9B.

Worst possible time would be after this season ends with no stadium sponsor & no CL qualification. Stock would start dropping fairly sharply I would imagine. It could go from 2B to 1.5B-1.8B. Any more delays and that could drop even more.
 

DCSPUR

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2005
3,918
5,415
I think its been obvious to many fans for a few years now that the club's been up for sale. It doesn't have to be publicly advertised but its pretty clear to people who have a good understanding of the club that ENIC would sell.
The 2B is fanciful. Much like Levy's dealings. Buy low, sell high.

The reality is, imho, that time is running out for ENIC for various reasons. Simply put though, is that our stock cant get much higher than it currently is. It could get a little higher but not that much more (without real investment in the team, which is something he isn't willing to do imo).
And just like with stocks and anything else JL likes to sell, you better believe he wants to sell before it goes belly up and the price drops and I would hazard a guess that he's actually desperate to sell right now but is just itching to get a sponsorship deal done as soon as the stadium opens. That'll be the cherry on the cake as far as he's concerned, or rather, the bow on the present.

Most realistic time ENIC could sell us is next year. Stadium open. Sponsorship deal done. (if we're really lucky & still in the hunt for a CL spot again). My guess is if he can sell us with those boxes ticked, he could get near 2B. Maybe 1.9B.

Worst possible time would be after this season ends with no stadium sponsor & no CL qualification. Stock would start dropping fairly sharply I would imagine. It could go from 2B to 1.5B-1.8B. Any more delays and that could drop even more.
And if Poch left the stock would drop further because of the knock on impact on players and fans.
Hugo would go, probably Eriksen, Lamela others possible.
ENIC needs to keep Poch on side if they want to sell
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Not many takers at that price and not helped by Roman putting Chelsea on the block for pretty much the same price. I only know of one potential buyer but not sure they will pay that price, think US and real estate for that party.

so it could take 10yrs
 

thfc1973

Active Member
Apr 29, 2015
565
1,192
And if Poch left the stock would drop further because of the knock on impact on players and fans.
Hugo would go, probably Eriksen, Lamela others possible.
ENIC needs to keep Poch on side if they want to sell

These are exactly the other reasons why I believe the stock could fall - but I didn't want to say them as people would jump on me for 'being negative once again'... However, I'm just a realist and feel I see things happening that others close their eyes to and try not to ever believe could/would happen.

Glad you said that though! ;)
 
Top