Tottenham Takeover Talk

[danielneeds]

The vast majority of most fan bases do. It's the vocal minority you notice and that's why it seems like they are all crazy. United have more fans so the numbers of those fans are going to be higher, but the % won't be much different from team to team.

Nah, I disagree. There's a particular element to United fans who can't deal with the fact they're not top dogs anymore after so long under Fergie. It's only natural really. That level of domination has seldom been seen.

 

[Hotspur88]

*some fans don’t give a shit who the owners are.

I do. I’m not comfortable having owners who have no interest in the club other than to use as part sports washing project to wash their public image of values that are quite frankly medieval and barbaric. But hey if you’re comfortable with owners who persecute gay people, restrict women’s rights, or dismember journalists that speak out against their practices, just so your can see spurs win a couple trophies, that’s on you. What I want to know, where is the line with all this? Would fans be happy with convicted peadophiles as owners if they promised to spend silly money? Where is line of morality? Or are football fans so tribal that morals are secondary?

This is not all directed at you personally by the way. I just find it astounding that fans are willing to dismiss all sorts disgusting behaviour just because it doesn’t personally affect their day to day life, and it means they can banter rival mates if we become successful. It could never be me.

I don't take it personally because I am neither for or against investment. If we can be successful under the current model then amazing, but the likelihood is we would have a far greater chance of success with investment. Would I prefer this didn't come from a certain country, of course I would because everything you outlined I'm in complete agreement with and hope that those points weren't aimed at me.

I don't care about the 'banter' from rival fans, I've had it my whole life and find it quite boring. Most of my close friends support clubs who have been very successful over the years, but even if we had investment and started winning, I'm certainly not someone who then goes and rubs it in rival fans faces.

To summarise, I do not care if we do or do not have investment. But if we are to receive investment, I would be very much in favour of it coming from someone/a group who don't have some truly horrific views/opinions/beliefs/actions.

 

[Westmorlandspur]

I don't take it personally because I am neither for or against investment. If we can be successful under the current model then amazing, but the likelihood is we would have a far greater chance of success with investment. Would I prefer this didn't come from a certain country, of course I would because everything you outlined I'm in complete agreement with and hope that those points weren't aimed at me.

I don't care about the 'banter' from rival fans, I've had it my whole life and find it quite boring. Most of my close friends support clubs who have been very successful over the years, but even if we had investment and started winning, I'm certainly not someone who then goes and rubs it in rival fans faces.

To summarise, I do not care if we do or do not have investment. But if we are to receive investment, I would be very much in favour of it coming from someone/a group who don't have some truly horrific views/opinions/beliefs/actions.

I agree but lots of British companies have Saudi investment. The British government have been selling billions of pounds worth of arms to the Saudis for years. Boris used his influence to push through the sale of Newcastle Utd.
with what’s going on in the Middle East at the moment we are better steering clear of it all.
I have always thought that if we sell up, it will be to the USA. With the NFL etc it’s geared towards that country. Anybody who buys us will just have to carry the debt and put some money into the team. Everything else is sorted. No leaking roofs here.

 

[Guernman]

The fact that sovereign wealth funds or agents have been allowed to own football clubs in this country is profoundly depressing. But I am also deeply sceptical of private equity money which will only ever be looking to maximise their return, including potentially borrowing against the club's own revenue streams to fund their own stake.

I really do take pride in the fact that we are sustainable, funded by our own revenues as a football club and that we have always done things the right way. It is just incredible frustrating that the game has been allowed to keep moving the goal posts, so that we are now unable to compete sustainably against the likes of City or Ambrovich's Chelsea and likely even Newcastle soon enough.

If, and it's a BIG if, Levy would really keep out of his own way and delegate the football side to footballing people, the ENIC model suits me fine. I'd hate to be stuck with a Glazers' like situation where the club is just used to leverage other peoples' wealth.

On the other hand, I do understand the appeal of sovereign wealth, and the Qatar rumours for example, as their objective isn't to make money off the club, but simply throw money at it. It should never have been allowed to happen, but now that it has, I understand those who would welcome we jump on the band wagon, else risk getting left behind.

Honestly, I'm like a yoyo on this so can't take any moral high ground.

One thing I would say is that the clubs who have really found sustainable success have had the single most important magic incredient. A visionary given both time and financial support.

The classic examples are of course Ferguson at United, thanks to the sliding doors moment of that FA cup win when he was about to be sacked, and Wenger at Arsenal. While the Chelsea model of throwing enough money at short term managers has delivered success, we are clearly not going to do that under ENIC. But what Ferguson and Wenger have shown is that one man can truly transform the trajectory of a club, and the fact that both clubs have failed miserably to sustain the legacies of either manager indicates just how important that one figurehead is.

We had the oppportunity with Pochettino to try and replicate this, but we didn't or perhaps couldn't back him financially at the right time. His eye for a player was also not one of his strengths, unlike both Ferguson and Wenger.

Well, we have another chance, thanks to pure dumb luck. Postecoglou is special and his vision is quite unique. The question is can we see this through and really let him build his legacy here, meaning supporting him when it gets tough, not just through this seemingly miraculous honeymoon period.

I hope so. And I would fear that any change of ownership may rock the boat, and bring in changes that we don't want or need right now. Look at Boehly or indeed how the Qataris have gone about things with PSG. Ange is the perfect fit for the ENIC model and I don't think he would particulary crave the transformative approach or pressure of unlimited wealth. Perhaps I'm wrong. But those writing huge cheques tend to want a big say in where the money goes, and right now the only voice that should be heeded is Postecoglou's.

Whatever we do moving forward, let's please not kill our goose who is currently laying these golden eggs...

 

[piedpiper]

There was a notable resistance to the Qataris when this first reared it’s ugly head last January, when we were playing poorly, Conte was starting to lose the squad, and people were saying it was all Levy’s fault. Yet loads of us were still very very vocal in not wanting blood money.

The poll doesn't back up your claims.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Ange is the perfect fit for the ENIC model and I don't think he would particulary crave the transformative approach or pressure of unlimited wealth. Perhaps I'm wrong. But whose writing huge cheques tend to want a big say in where the money goes, and right now the only voice that should be heeded is Postecoglou's.

Interestingly - both Munn and Ange come from the City Football Group...

 

[Tucker]

The poll doesn't back up your claims.

You need to learn the difference between a majority what I said. I genuinely can’t believe two people have been thick enough to try and call me out on this in the space of one day.

 

[piedpiper]

You need to learn the difference between a majority what I said. I genuinely can’t believe two people have been thick enough to try and call me out on this in the space of one day.

Let me quote what you said.

" There was a notable resistance to the Qataris when this first reared it’s ugly head last January,"

the poll indicates a overwhelming majority favoured a QSI take over. there wasn't a notable resistance. ... now you and your insults can do one... that old adage...never argue with a fool.... comes to mind for me.

I once had you on ignore... I now remember why.

 

[Tucker]

Let me quote what you said.

" There was a notable resistance to the Qataris when this first reared it’s ugly head last January,"

the poll indicates a overwhelming majority favoured a QSI take over. there wasn't a notable resistance. ... now you and your insults can do one... that old adage...never argue with a fool.... comes to mind for me.

I once had you on ignore... I now remember why.

Like I said, you’re unable to comprehend the difference between a majority in a straw poll, and the fact that many people were strongly opposed to the Qatari’s buying the club.

I‘d stick to the crayons in the future, Einstein.

 

[grittyspur1]

*some fans don’t give a shit who the owners are.

I do. I’m not comfortable having owners who have no interest in the club other than to use it as part of a sports washing project to wash their public image of values that are quite frankly medieval and barbaric. But hey if you’re comfortable with owners who persecute gay people, restrict women’s rights, or dismember journalists that speak out against their practices, just so your can see spurs win a couple trophies, that’s on you. What I want to know, where is the line with all this? Would fans be happy with convicted peadophiles as owners if they promised to spend silly money? Where is the line of morality? Or are football fans so tribal that morals are secondary?

This is not all directed at you personally by the way. I just find it astounding that fans are willing to dismiss all sorts of disgusting behaviour just because it doesn’t personally affect their day to day life, and it means they can banter rival mates if we become successful. It could never be me.

Dude, the current owners of Spurs are hardly boy scouts!

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Ok - lets all roll back the personal attacks just a bit.

Agree to disagree, and move on.

 

[Col_M]

Ok - lets all roll back the personal attacks just a bit.

Agree to disagree, and move on.

 

[SpainSpur85]

Let me quote what you said.

" There was a notable resistance to the Qataris when this first reared it’s ugly head last January,"

the poll indicates a overwhelming majority favoured a QSI take over. there wasn't a notable resistance. ... now you and your insults can do one... that old adage...never argue with a fool.... comes to mind for me.

I once had you on ignore... I now remember why.

The poll actually indicates that 655 people were in favour of selling a 25% stake. That's neither a take over nor a majority of people on this site

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Dude, the current owners of Spurs are hardly boy scouts!

No wealthy owners are clean. There are clearly levels to it though - it goes without saying.

 

[kd2000]

My own personal opinion is I couldn't give a flying fk who owns the club. I, like many, watch football to escape from the real world of working and personal stresses.

I guess it comes down to would you rather be morally downbeat if we won nothing, or immorally ecstatic if we did??

Give me ecstacy every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[longtimespur]

My own personal opinion is I couldn't give a flying fk who owns the club. I, like many, watch football to escape from the real world of working and personal stresses.

I guess it comes down to would you rather be morally downbeat if we won nothing, or immorally ecstatic if we did??

Give me ecstacy every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Is that still around????????
Used to take that back in the 60's

 

[piedpiper]

The poll actually indicates that 655 people were in favour of selling a 25% stake. That's neither a take over nor a majority of people on this site

That's nice.

 

[VancouverSpur]

I find the debate fascinating about Qatari or owners of similar ilk. Particularly when trying to take a moral high ground.

The UK imports billions of pounds of fossil fuels from Qatar for example. We all use petroleum based products in our every day lives derived from the very nations we don’t want any where near Spurs. We all indirectly fund these nations one way or another merely by living our lives.

Where does one draw the line. Sports washing has transformed the game we all love to the point people are prepared to turn a blind eye in order to enjoy success on the pitch. However we also all essentially turn a blind eye to these middle eastern countries when we fill up our car or turn on the lights.

I believe the issue is far more complex than just saying no to Qatari owners although that would be a start.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

You need to learn the difference between a majority what I said. I genuinely can’t believe two people have been thick enough to try and call me out on this in the space of one day.

Mate you’re on one today, go have a cold one tonight and come back fresh tomorrow 🩵

 

[Snarfalicious]

At what % share do we become sports washed? 50%? 40%? Maybe do a % right under whatever the defining line is.