ENIC...

[thebenjamin]

Would assume it would benefit ENIC as they would be selling part of their stake in the club, whether anyone would be appointed to the board from QSI is another matter. You have to hand it to Levy & ENIC though , anyone who can get a boxing promoter to promote a sell out boxing event in the open air in a British winter in December deserves applause.

27% of West Ham was sold to a billionaire , hasn't done them much good so far has it.

West Ham: Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky completes deal for 27 per cent stake in Premier League club

Daniel Kretinsky owns the Czech top-flight side Sparta Prague and has big stakes in Royal Mail and J Sainsbury; West Ham vice-chair Karren Brady: We are always looking to continue to progress and Daniels involvement brings investment which strengthens the clubs position

www.skysports.com

Didn't they spend £200M in the summer?

 

[razor1981]

Does this actually benefit the club in any way, or just line the pockets of ENIC?

The obvious question to ask is - what would be the motivation for QSI behind any investment in the club?

I assume they wouldn't be doing it primarily hoping for a financial return on their stake, they don't really need the money. Far more likely they're solely interested in benefitting from the positive association of their involvement in helping the club become more successful.

 

[djhotspur]

The obvious question to ask is - what would be the motivation for QSI behind any investment in the club?

I assume they wouldn't be doing it primarily hoping for a financial return on their stake, they don't really need the money. Far more likely they're solely interested in benefitting from the positive association of their involvement in helping the club become more successful.

Havent they done the same at Braga though without putting any extra money into the club?

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Didn't they spend £200M in the summer?

Not according to transfermarket , WHU spent £161 mill on 7 players , so average £23 mil per player, Spurs spent £150 mill on 5 players so average £30 mill per player , just shows you can do anything with statistics.

 

[razor1981]

Havent they done the same at Braga though without putting any extra money into the club?

They only invested in Braga 3 months ago (10th October 2022), I don't think we can draw too many conclusions about their intentions there just yet.

 

[TheAmerican]

The latter most likely. Even if they gave Levy a transfer war chest he'd interfere in how it would (or wouldn't) be spent. As I said earlier DL is the problem you could throw unlimited money at him and he'd still act the same way.

There won't be investment without some control received in reciprocation.

 

[djhotspur]

Yeah. Would just be nice if we could all of a sudden in the summer spend 240m on 3 truly quality first choice targets to truly elevate us

There won't be investment without some control received in reciprocation.

 

[Aay_Jay_Dee]

They will never get rid of PSG anyway so I dont think there is much 'game changing' going on here

 

[Frozen_Waffles]

Just finished catching up (50+ pages)

The turn from Levy and Enic out, to the outrage of Qatar investment to the acceptance that really humans (and their rights) are not quite as important as kicking a pigs bladder into a net better than someone else was quite impressive.

I think it took about 3 pages for the majority to get on board with that. My favourite argument was that England did some bad stuff a couple of centuries ago, so why not.

My only thoughts regarding the whole thing (apart from the majority of you are stealing air) is that if Levy manages to get a billion from the Qataris, he will be able to pay off the stadium and all our debts.

Making us probably the most profitable club in the world. If that happens he will go down as one of the greatest business men ever.

Levy owns 30% of spurs, even if he dilutes that he will still have a value of a billion with a company that makes ridiculous sums of money.

Ok, watching the football may be akin to staying at butlins (my favourite post) but think of those profits, I mean we could have a team of Joe Rodons.

 

[JayB]

Would assume it would benefit ENIC as they would be selling part of their stake in the club, whether anyone would be appointed to the board from QSI is another matter. You have to hand it to Levy & ENIC though , anyone who can get a boxing promoter to promote a sell out boxing event in the open air in a British winter in December deserves applause.

27% of West Ham was sold to a billionaire , hasn't done them much good so far has it.

West Ham: Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky completes deal for 27 per cent stake in Premier League club

Daniel Kretinsky owns the Czech top-flight side Sparta Prague and has big stakes in Royal Mail and J Sainsbury; West Ham vice-chair Karren Brady: We are always looking to continue to progress and Daniels involvement brings investment which strengthens the clubs position

www.skysports.com

Virtually every PL club competing in Europe, aside from Arsenal who had an easy run through their EL group and were able to rotate heavily, struggled mightily with the insane fixture congestion of the first half of the season.

West Ham had a very ambitious summer transfer window, bringing in highly touted signings such as Scamacca and Lucas Paqueta, players who likely would never have come before they started spending lavishly. I think most around Spurs would be thrilled if we started recruiting players who are currently considered beyond our reach.

It's premature to say that Ham won't benefit over the long run from the investment and the way it changed the way they could approach the transfer market.

 

[Dov67]

Just finished catching up (50+ pages)

The turn from Levy and Enic out, to the outrage of Qatar investment to the acceptance that really humans (and their rights) are not quite as important as kicking a pigs bladder into a net better than someone else was quite impressive.

I think it took about 3 pages for the majority to get on board with that. My favourite argument was that England did some bad stuff a couple of centuries ago, so why not.

My only thoughts regarding the whole thing (apart from the majority of you are stealing air) is that if Levy manages to get a billion from the Qataris, he will be able to pay off the stadium and all our debts.

Making us probably the most profitable club in the world. If that happens he will go down as one of the greatest business men ever.

Levy owns 30% of spurs, even if he dilutes that he will still have a value of a billion with a company that makes ridiculous sums of money.

Ok, watching the football may be akin to staying at butlins (my favourite post) but think of those profits, I mean we could have a team of Joe Rodons.

If Qatar "invest" £1 billion or £50 billion on a 25% stake, the club get ZERO pennies - all that money goes to ENIC for the purchase of the shares/25% stake.

What Qatar choose to do should they get that 25% stake is another matter, I simply don't know. Any capital injection by way of equity will dilute further ENIC's remaining shareholding so not sure that will happen. They could go down the low interest rate debt issuance route or they could sponsor the stadium for a commercially unrealistic sum (see the Etihad). But even if this happens and that's a big if, it does not necessarily mean our stadium debt is paid off or that Mbappe is coming.

As for the moral arguments re financial doping and Qatar itself, that's been done to death in this tread already

 

[Locotoro]

I'd like to play devil's advocate here and ask a question that would be asked from a Middle Eastern perspective.

Why do we in the UK believe we are the ideal societal model that Qatar should be looking to emulate?

This isnt a trolling question - i have my own reasons for having a dislike of "Qatari officials" and that is bourne out of my personal dealings with them - i don't dislike the people or the country. Having said that I don't understand why we think it's ok to present Qatari investment as some sort of blood money when we're owned by Joe Lewis?

For context, there is a reason why Joe Lewis lives on a boat and has a small army of security and it's because there have been attempts on his life. As a gambling man who made a lot of money at a time when hundreds of thousands of people worldwide were suffering financially and losing their livelihoods there is also suggestions that he actively worked to create the financial trouble that were experienced worldwide so any change of ownership in my opinion would be from the devil you know to the devil you don't.

Again, this is not me expressing my preference for one over the other but i'm curious to understand those that think Joe Lewis is a better option ethically because of the cultural difference of potentially middle eastern owners

 

[arthurgrimsdell]

If Qatar "invest" £1 billion or £50 billion on a 25% stake, the club get ZERO pennies - all that money goes to ENIC for the purchase of the shares/25% stake.

What Qatar choose to do should they get that 25% stake is another matter, I simply don't know. Any capital injection by way of equity will dilute further ENIC's remaining shareholding so not sure that will happen. They could go down the low interest rate debt issuance route or they could sponsor the stadium for a commercially unrealistic sum (see the Etihad). But even if this happens and that's a big if, it does not necessarily mean our stadium debt is paid off or that Mbappe is coming.

As for the moral arguments re financial doping and Qatar itself, that's been done to death in this tread already

Not if it involves new shares.

 

[Tucker]

I'd like to play devil's advocate here and ask a question that would be asked from a Middle Eastern perspective.

Why do we in the UK believe we are the ideal societal model that Qatar should be looking to emulate?

This isnt a trolling question - i have my own reasons for having a dislike of "Qatari officials" and that is bourne out of my personal dealings with them - i don't dislike the people or the country. Having said that I don't understand why we think it's ok to present Qatari investment as some sort of blood money when we're owned by Joe Lewis?

For context, there is a reason why Joe Lewis lives on a boat and has a small army of security and it's because there have been attempts on his life. As a gambling man who made a lot of money at a time when hundreds of thousands of people worldwide were suffering financially and losing their livelihoods there is also suggestions that he actively worked to create the financial trouble that were experienced worldwide so any change of ownership in my opinion would be from the devil you know to the devil you don't.

Again, this is not me expressing my preference for one over the other but i'm curious to understand those that think Joe Lewis is a better option ethically because of the cultural difference of potentially middle eastern owners

Read the thread. Your question has been asked and answered at least ten times by ten different people.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

OK there's the same discussion going on in two threads which is pointless so one or the other is going to get locked.

And for now, it's this one

But worry thee not, this thread will be back pretty soon, bigger and more exciting than ever. Well, maybe not more exciting. Or bigger for that matter. But there'll be cake. Honest.