Tottenham Takeover Talk

[Albertbarich]

Think the ones calling for an ENIC sale need to wrap their head around the fact that whoever buys the club, as a minority stake or full takeover, won't be anyone nice.
It's highly likely we're looking at either American investors or Middle Eastern ones, and neither particularly fills me with joy even if it'll mean more money into the club.

I say that as someone who wouldn't mind new owners. You rarely become a billionaire by being nice or ethical. It's unfortunately just what the world is like.

Indeed when and if this investment comes I expect it to open up a whole new set of arguments.

 

[Wheeler Dealer]

Indeed when and if this investment comes I expect it to open up a whole new set of arguments.

I don’t think that the a minority stake is too appealing to the potential investors with serious cash.. I expect this whole saga to rumble on for the long term, because Levy and Lewis are in no desperate rush to get things done.

 

[Albertbarich]

I don’t think that the a minority stake is too appealing to the potential investors with serious cash.. I expect this whole saga to rumble on for the long term, because Levy and Lewis are in no desperate rush to get things done.

I think it is. A chance to own part of a premier league club is one thing, one in London is then more appealing, then you add on a stadium that is a license to print money and plenty more property deals to come and it’s a huge opportunity for someone.

There is a reason ENIC don’t want to sell, they have built the business side up to be a machine.

 

[Gb160]

Think the ones calling for an ENIC sale need to wrap their head around the fact that whoever buys the club, as a minority stake or full takeover, won't be anyone nice.

I think the majority of fans who want a takeover have accepted that.
I'm willing to dance with the devil...I've heard that dude can boogie.

 

[Gb160]

Indeed when and if this investment comes I expect it to open up a whole new set of arguments.

We've already had had those arguments. We don't fuck around on SC.

 

[eppingyid]

https://www.newcastleworld.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/amanda-staveley-spotted-at-tottenham-hotspur-stadium-after-newcastle-united-exit-investment-talks-4814011

 

[ukdy]

Watching the draw the NFL has and a non-tottenham event, should put pound signs in their eyes and take a share of Uncle Joe's Trust's stake in the club.

Funding will acquire a stake, but then what extra investment is earmarked to complete the capital projects Daniel has talked about will be interesting to see.

Fans need to understand however, that buying a stake for £650m will not mean £650m for transfers.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

https://www.newcastleworld.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/amanda-staveley-spotted-at-tottenham-hotspur-stadium-after-newcastle-united-exit-investment-talks-4814011

Extremely old story, must be the international break.

 

[Yiddo100]

Extremely old story, must be the international break.

That’s pretty new, is it not? Can’t get much newer than yesterday. Nothing groundbreaking but I wouldn’t call it old.

 

[Colonel Dax]

Extremely old story, must be the international break.

The article says Staveley and her husband were at the NFL match yesterday. That's new info.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

The article says Staveley and her husband were at the NFL match yesterday. That's new info.

True , they go anywhere for a freebie, they were at Stamford Bridge last week. It's the quote that's old , think you can trace it back to July and the photo in the article was from a two or three weeks ago.

“Mehrdad and I are keen to be hands-on. We’re hard-working people, I love to be very busy and to engage and I love football"

If they want to be hands on we can give her a trowel him a bricklayers hod and they can help build the hotel.

 

[Booney]

Anyone with more understanding know if the Man City legal ruling today might be significant? To my eyes looks like a rich new owner hoping to inject significant funds (eg through stadium sponsorship) might now have more scope than previously.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Anyone with more understanding know if the Man City legal ruling today might be significant? To my eyes looks like a rich new owner hoping to inject significant funds (eg through stadium sponsorship) might now have more scope than previously.

Think you need to be a barrister to understand it all but in the BBC report it says the majority of APT rules are lawful so you would think that inflated sponsorship will still not be allowed, looks like M City did get the verdict on a couple of points though.

Simon Leaf, partner and head of sport at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told BBC Sport: "Whilst the decision will be embarrassing for the Premier League, because in a couple of narrow areas their rules have been found to be unlawful, generally speaking the decision confirms that the vast majority of the APT rules are indeed lawful.

"Therefore whilst we can expect to see some changes to the rules going forwards, on the whole this isn’t a resounding victory for Manchester City by any stretch of the imagination."

 

[Wine Gum]

Taken from The Athletic.

A key part of Monday’s ruling related to the issue of shareholder loans.

The tribunal decided that as well as sponsorship deals, shareholder loans should also be taken into account by the APT rules. Many of these loans are interest-free, which benefits the club because they will subsequently owe a smaller amount. Arsenal, for example, have borrowed more than £200million ($262m) in shareholder loans, as of the end of 2022-23.

Historically, interest-free shareholder loans have been excluded from the APT rules, which City claimed was unfair. Their argument is that this distorts the profitability and sustainability (PSR) calculations because an interest-free loan cannot be a fair market value. The tribunal agreed with them.

In theory, this means that if interest-free shareholder loans are included within PSR, many clubs will have to rebalance their books in order to avoid a breach.

 

[Trent Crimm]

Hypothetically if our one and only goal was to win everything and we were owned by a Saudi investment fund and kept Levy at the helm. How do you think we would do?

I think we’d be one of the most successful clubs in footballing history.

Interested to hear others opinions

levy is the problem. I’d want him gone along with his collection of ID bracelets.

 

[MR_BEN]

Levy could only advise, he won’t have any say in what the Lewis Trust does.

Levy only cares about making money anyway. This belief that he will only do what’s best for the club as he has a moral compass is naive. He will simply do what’s best for his investment.

That isn’t necessarily the case.

Often, actually probably more often than not - shareholders will have contractual agreement in place that shares cannot be sold without consent of other shareholders.

This is to protect both parties. Would be amazed if this wasn’t the case

 

[absolute bobbins]

Watching the draw the NFL has and a non-tottenham event, should put pound signs in their eyes and take a share of Uncle Joe's Trust's stake in the club.

Funding will acquire a stake, but then what extra investment is earmarked to complete the capital projects Daniel has talked about will be interesting to see.

Fans need to understand however, that buying a stake for £650m will not mean £650m for transfers.

Let’s be real, fans will never understand this. Explaining it is like smashing your head against a wall repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. They see a £650m stake and think it’s a shopping spree, when in reality, it’s nothing of the sort.

 

[Westmorlandspur]

Taken from The Athletic.

A key part of Monday’s ruling related to the issue of shareholder loans.

The tribunal decided that as well as sponsorship deals, shareholder loans should also be taken into account by the APT rules. Many of these loans are interest-free, which benefits the club because they will subsequently owe a smaller amount. Arsenal, for example, have borrowed more than £200million ($262m) in shareholder loans, as of the end of 2022-23.

Historically, interest-free shareholder loans have been excluded from the APT rules, which City claimed was unfair. Their argument is that this distorts the profitability and sustainability (PSR) calculations because an interest-free loan cannot be a fair market value. The tribunal agreed with them.

In theory, this means that if interest-free shareholder loans are included within PSR, many clubs will have to rebalance their books in order to avoid a breach.

Turn it into equity

 

[MR_BEN]

Turn it into equity

Only works if the loans come in equal parts from all shareholders.

Otherwise it will dilute the shares of those who haven’t provided the loans, which many wouldn’t be happy with.

 

[TC18]

Let’s be real, fans will never understand this. Explaining it is like smashing your head against a wall repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. They see a £650m stake and think it’s a shopping spree, when in reality, it’s nothing of the sort.

I’d hope it would mean that who ever it was would be in charge of the football side and leave levy to do what he does best with growing the club and commercial aspect.

However, I can’t see that happening, he is clearly married into the club and it would be difficult for all involved. Where does the football end and the commercial side begin?