- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
Is he basically saying that Spurs aren't for sale ?
Maybe after the new stadium is built that may change but maybe so will the valuation.
It's the Mirror. Unless you see quotes I wouldn't believe it.
Is he basically saying that Spurs aren't for sale ?
Maybe after the new stadium is built that may change but maybe so will the valuation.
That was kind of my point.You mean like to ENIC?
If we were to be bought out but an oil Baron or similar how would FFP rules affect us?
Would we be able to do a City and Chelsea and just pay over the odds for marquee signings or has that boat sailed? Say for example Neymar became available, would we be able to offer whatever it took to land him? Or would we still be stuck with offering the same figure we offered for Lamela/Soldado because of the level of profit we currently make
Not that I am advocating that path, for all the success Chelsea have had they are still a despicable club.
From what I've heard, this is true. My second cousin's oldest daughter has some degree in economics, and has been working for Lewis. Her job was (or likely still is, but I don't really know) to seek out places where rich people go, and discretely look for potential buyers. The asking price I was told was £700m, though.
Anyone who thinks Levy/Lewis can't get a cool billion for Spurs should ask Florentino Perez if he thinks we could sell something for above market value.
So actually having a billionaire owner wouldn't be that different to how things are now? Yes I know Joe Lewis is a billionaire but compared to Abramovich and how he invests it isn't the same.
Doesn't it kind of produce a stalemate? The clubs that spent heavily before FFP to get big name players to achieve constant champion league spots will stay there as they have the CL money, the TV revenue that brings, extra match day tickets and a bigger exposure worldwide to keep them there whilst the smaller clubs will be unable to keep/buy the elite players to make them competitive?
So actually having a billionaire owner wouldn't be that different to how things are now? Yes I know Joe Lewis is a billionaire but compared to Abramovich and how he invests it isn't the same.
Doesn't it kind of produce a stalemate? The clubs that spent heavily before FFP to get big name players to achieve constant champion league spots will stay there as they have the CL money, the TV revenue that brings, extra match day tickets and a bigger exposure worldwide to keep them there whilst the smaller clubs will be unable to keep/buy the elite players to make them competitive?
Almost like the teams at the top of the tree wanted to safeguard the elite and block any other teams having a fair crack at them isn't it
As I said in the other post we could potentially spend about £250m without breaking UEFA FFP.
FFP is done over 3 years and is about wages+transfers=Turnover. You are allowed to make a £35m loss and an owner is allowed a one off investment of £40m that has to be converted into shares.
Our net spend on transfers over the last 3 years has been roughly £0.
Our wages have been roughly £90m and our turnover around £150m. (a difference of £60m a season or £180m over 3 years).
So £180m + £40m + £35m = £255m. That a new owner could spend on players.
As I said in the other post we could potentially spend about £250m without breaking UEFA FFP.
FFP is done over 3 years and is about wages+transfers=Turnover. You are allowed to make a £35m loss and an owner is allowed a one off investment of £40m that has to be converted into shares.
Our net spend on transfers over the last 3 years has been roughly £0.
Our wages have been roughly £90m and our turnover around £150m. (a difference of £60m a season or £180m over 3 years).
So £180m + £40m + £35m = £255m. That a new owner could spend on players.
But we'd only get away with that for one season right? We'd have to start balancing the books a bit in the seasons that followed to offset the one spree (without the benefit of the 2 seasons previous)?
Is that right?