Daniel Levy - Chairman

[Raziel]

Approximately three quarters of these 2000 billionaires are American or Chinese. Would you be happy with a US or Chinese owner?

Obviously having 2b is probably not sufficient. Anyone with less than 5b to their name (cheapos) is unlikely to frivolously spend half their money on a play thing. So the pool of billionaires is probably smaller still.

There are only a handful of English individuals who could fit your criteria. Jim Ratcliffe is the only one I know of who fits the bill. But I’m not sure a savvy business man would spend the amounts needed knowing the money will never come back. To really spunk away billions, having 10b is maybe not enough unless you’re a Spurs fan. Therefore, a consortium, an investment group, a national wealth fund, Saudis or other oiled vehicles are far more likely than the ‘ethical billionaire’.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

the problem is so far the true big spend (needed for that 2B+ number) seems to fall into two categories
- PR project for bad people/places
- Money laundering

neither of those are particularly ethical.

Funny people talk about Bill Gates, it would someone like Ballmer (ex-CEO) who bought a NBA franchise for about $2B and has lots more to spend.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Approximately three quarters of these 2000 billionaires are American or Chinese. Would you be happy with a US or Chinese owner?

Obviously having 2b is probably not sufficient. Anyone with less than 5b to their name (cheapos) is unlikely to frivolously spend half their money on a play thing. So the pool of billionaires is probably smaller still.

There are only a handful of English individuals who could fit your criteria. Jim Ratcliffe is the only one I know of who fits the bill. But I’m not sure a savvy business man would spend the amounts needed knowing the money will never come back. To really spunk away billions, having 10b is maybe not enough unless you’re a Spurs fan. Therefore, a consortium, an investment group, a national wealth fund, Saudis or other oiled vehicles are far more likely than the ‘ethical billionaire’.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Not overly fussed what nationality they are. As long as they run the club properly, are willing to spend a healthily and competitively compared to clubs around and with regards to the wages to turnover ratio.

Seems we are only presented with two options:

1. Stick with ENIC
2. ENIC sell the club to foreign ownership who have appalling an human rights record and/or are incorrigibly corrupt.

It’s not a multiple choice question in an exam. I think people get we would be taking risk, but it may pay off. That doesn’t seem to acknowledged here. Probably a sign of the times. Nuance seems to be a bit of a dying concept in this day and age. People talk in absolutes.

 

[Lilbaz]

Not overly fussed what nationality they are. As long as they run the club properly, are willing to spend a healthily and competitively compared to clubs around and with regards to the wages to turnover ratio.

Seems we are only presented with two options:

1. Stick with ENIC
2. ENIC sell the club to foreign ownership who have appalling an human rights record and/or are incorrigibly corrupt.

It’s not a multiple choice question in an exam. I think people get we would be taking risk, but it may pay off. That doesn’t seem to acknowledged here. Probably a sign of the times. Nuance seems to be a bit of a dying concept in this day and age. People talk in absolutes.

At the end of the day nobody has made an offer. So we only have 1 option. Stick with enic. Whether people like it or not.

 

[billyiddo]

I'd like to know who these people are that don't recognise a change in owner could see an improvement - if City replaced Guardiola they could see an improvement, if we sold Kane we could be better off - there's always a chance

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I'd like to know who these people are that don't recognise a change in owner could see an improvement - if City replaced Guardiola they could see an improvement, if we sold Kane we could be better off - there's always a chance

Why would City let Pep go? He's not put a foot wrong. Why would we sell Kane? He is quite clearly one of the best in the world.

ENIC are not infallible, they have made some very obvious mistakes, and it is not clear they know exactly how to get us back to where we were a couple of years ago. It's not at all obvious that they are absolutely the best we can do. Particularly if the preference of some people was to really push on from here over a shorter timeline.

Richer people exist. Owners that have also delivered progress for their club exist.

 

[Lilbaz]

I'd like to know who these people are that don't recognise a change in owner could see an improvement - if City replaced Guardiola they could see an improvement, if we sold Kane we could be better off - there's always a chance

We'd have to wait for an offer to come in then judge it on it's own merit. Even then it would be a while before we knew if it was a good or bad move.

 

[billyiddo]

Why would City let Pep go? He's not put a foot wrong. Why would we sell Kane? He is quite clearly one of the best in the world.

ENIC are not infallible, they have made some very obvious mistakes, and it is not clear they know exactly how to get us back to where we were a couple of years ago. It's not at all obvious that they are absolutely the best we can do. Particularly if the preference of some people was to really push on from here over a shorter timeline.

Richer people exist. Owners that have also delivered progress for their club exist.

I'm just saying that no matter how good a job someone is doing there's always a chance someone out there could do better - i don't think even Levy’s biggest fans think he is doing a job that couldn't be improved on, as Jurgen had repeatedly implied is the case over the last week or so.

As I've shown previously with the numbers regarding trophies won by non top 4 + City clubs vs the amount of clubs that have got close and fallen away the evidence shows quite clearly the likelihood of improving on what we have done the last 20 years is low, i mean it could happen of course but you'd have to say odds are against it.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I'd like to know who these people are that don't recognise a change in owner could see an improvement - if City replaced Guardiola they could see an improvement, if we sold Kane we could be better off - there's always a chance

Really? I think it’s quite clear who they are but each to their own.

I’ve said many times I’d prefer ENIC stay but make some changes which I think most people would agree need to happen.

I appreciate ENIC for the job they have done off the pitch, but I have no great affection towards them. Just like I don’t have any affection for Bill Gates or Tim Cook.

I’d be interested to know what the safe word is for ENIC’s biggest supporters. What is the one thing they could do which would make them say “STOP”?

 

[Baleforce]

Really? I think it’s quite clear who they are but each to their own.

I’ve said many times I’d prefer ENIC stay but make some changes which I think most people would agree need to happen.

I appreciate ENIC for the job they have done off the pitch, but I have no great affection towards them. Just like I don’t have any affection for Bill Gates or Tim Cook.

I’d be interested to know what the safe word is for ENIC’s biggest supporters. What is the one thing they could do which would make them say “STOP”?

Take financial risks.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I'm just saying that no matter how good a job someone is doing there's always a chance someone out there could do better - i don't think even Levy’s biggest fans think he is doing a job that couldn't be improved on, as Jurgen had repeatedly implied is the case over the last week or so.

As I've shown previously with the numbers regarding trophies won by non top 4 + City clubs vs the amount of clubs that have got close and fallen away the evidence shows quite clearly the likelihood of improving on what we have done the last 20 years is low, i mean it could happen of course but you'd have to say odds are against it.

Well...of course. But the thrust of the debate seems to be around does something need to change, or can we do better. It's one thing to look at the last 20 years, when we were competing with WHL. It's another thing to say, what does the future hold? Now we have our stadium? Is more of the same, ENIC slow and steady the way to go? Could we do better? My risk tolerance has definitely changed, and I think that's a reasonable debate to have.

There seems to be this assumption that because things have been this way for a while, there can't possibly be a world where things get better, done differently.

 

[billyiddo]

Really? I think it’s quite clear who they are but each to their own.

I’ve said many times I’d prefer ENIC stay but make some changes which I think most people would agree need to happen.

I appreciate ENIC for the job they have done off the pitch, but I have no great affection towards them. Just like I don’t have any affection for Bill Gates or Tim Cook.

I’d be interested to know what the safe word is for ENIC’s biggest supporters. What is the one thing they could do which would make them say “STOP”?

From where I'm sitting you seem to be happy enough for Levy to stay and want an improvement on Hitchens in the DoF area to identify better targets - that's generally how i would sum up the pro Levy train of thought yet you seem to spend most time in here disagreeing with those people and siding with those who want Levy out asap - seems strange to me

 

[billyiddo]

Well...of course. But the thrust of the debate seems to be around does something need to change, or can we do better. It's one thing to look at the last 20 years, when we were competing with WHL. It's another thing to say, what does the future hold? Now we have our stadium? Is more of the same, ENIC slow and steady the way to go? Could we do better? My risk tolerance has definitely changed, and I think that's a reasonable debate to have.

There seems to be this assumption that because things have been this way for a while, there can't possibly be a world where things get better, done differently.

I'd divide their time in charge up in to 3 eras, pre stadium, stadium build, and post stadium - post stadium era is 2 years young and no one can convince me that's enough time to judge how we are going to fare long term in our new standing as a top club (financially) ? i know you are smart enough to know that's not fair either. Based solely on these 2 years of course it's easy to say different owners would fare better as in these 2 years we have stagnated/gone backwards, i don't think anyone would disagree

 

[SpurMeUp]

Not overly fussed what nationality they are. As long as they run the club properly, are willing to spend a healthily and competitively compared to clubs around and with regards to the wages to turnover ratio.

Seems we are only presented with two options:

1. Stick with ENIC
2. ENIC sell the club to foreign ownership who have appalling an human rights record and/or are incorrigibly corrupt.

It’s not a multiple choice question in an exam. I think people get we would be taking risk, but it may pay off. That doesn’t seem to acknowledged here. Probably a sign of the times. Nuance seems to be a bit of a dying concept in this day and age. People talk in absolutes.

Since you're critiquing... why are you making out we have a say in this? We don't have two options at all, we have no option

There are nuances: it is that should ENIC sell, looking other club owners or what is logical, there isn't a huge chance of Spurs being bought by the type of owner you outline. A stupidly rich, smart benefactor who is able to throw lots of money at Spurs and buy success, is unlikely. On paper Valencia's owner should press your buttons. But in reality, he's been a disaster. He's put his own money in, but its a plaything, not a serious concern. Valencia's future is at the whim of a non-dom who has no ties to the city and no doubt has many other distractions. He's spent millions, but that does not guarantee better leadership or results. How is that for a nuanced outlook?

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I'd divide their time in charge up in to 3 eras, pre stadium, stadium build, and post stadium - post stadium era is 2 years young and no one can convince me that's enough time to judge how we are going to fare long term in our new standing as a top club (financially) ? i know you are smart enough to know that's not fair either. Based solely on these 2 years of course it's easy to say different owners would fare better as in these 2 years we have stagnated/gone backwards, i don't think anyone would disagree

I know. I think you are being very fair, and we end up going round in circles on the debate. I then go back to really disagreeing on football decisions, and not really believing in ENIC's capability. Back to being somewhat concerned at our Manager targets, which I think are very telling, and back to the decision to let Poch go for Jose, which crystalized that this was all about Levy's plan, and we weren't going to alter it if someone presented a better way.

I think it all comes down to how much ENIC are willing to invest. I think if the post stadium era was genuinely going to bring us closer to the spending power of the clubs we need to compete with, I think we wouldn't have made the Poch / Jose switch and we wouldn't be looking at a quite underwhelming manager shortlist. Our spending power has definitely increased, but I don't think we actually intend to spend as much as we need to be regular title contenders.

I don't blame ENIC. That is their right. And I appreciate you think we will get closer with them in this new era. I am just happy to agree to disagree with it.

 

[billyiddo]

I know. I think you are being very fair, and we end up going round in circles on the debate. I then go back to really disagreeing on football decisions, and not really believing in ENIC's capability. Back to being somewhat concerned at our Manager targets, which I think are very telling, and back to the decision to let Poch go for Jose, which crystalized that this was all about Levy's plan, and we weren't going to alter it if someone presented a better way.

I think it all comes down to how much ENIC are willing to invest. I think if the post stadium era was genuinely going to bring us closer to the spending power of the clubs we need to compete with, I think we wouldn't have made the Poch / Jose switch and we wouldn't be looking at a quite underwhelming manager shortlist. Our spending power has definitely increased, but I don't think we actually intend to spend as much as we need to be regular title contenders.

I don't blame ENIC. That is their right. And I appreciate you think we will get closer with them in this new era. I am just happy to agree to disagree with it.

I know, and i know you know - which makes it funny

Ultimately you don't fall back/regress without there being questionable football related decisions over a medium term time frame - so for me the question isn't have we made mistakes (of course we have) it's what we going to do to get out if it. Every other top 6 club (bar City?) Have fallen out if the top 4 at some point of the last 10 years, some even further than that - we can't expect not to do the same, that's part of what makes the league in England what it is...

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I know. I think you are being very fair, and we end up going round in circles on the debate. I then go back to really disagreeing on football decisions, and not really believing in ENIC's capability. Back to being somewhat concerned at our Manager targets, which I think are very telling, and back to the decision to let Poch go for Jose, which crystalized that this was all about Levy's plan, and we weren't going to alter it if someone presented a better way.

I think it all comes down to how much ENIC are willing to invest. I think if the post stadium era was genuinely going to bring us closer to the spending power of the clubs we need to compete with, I think we wouldn't have made the Poch / Jose switch and we wouldn't be looking at a quite underwhelming manager shortlist. Our spending power has definitely increased, but I don't think we actually intend to spend as much as we need to be regular title contenders.

I don't blame ENIC. That is their right. And I appreciate you think we will get closer with them in this new era. I am just happy to agree to disagree with it.

Where is the money coming from for them to invest in your model?

 

[Jurgen the German]

From where I'm sitting you seem to be happy enough for Levy to stay and want an improvement on Hitchens in the DoF area to identify better targets - that's generally how i would sum up the pro Levy train of thought yet you seem to spend most time in here disagreeing with those people and siding with those who want Levy out asap - seems strange to me

I think partly it’s because you get certain pro ENIC posters telling others who disagree with them to go and support another club and we can’t possibly do better than Levy. I get this is not the norm and most posters here are more respectful and reasonable, but at the same time it tends to be the more vocal critics of ENIC who push back against this type of reaction and not so much the pro ENIC posters. I guess I am just more sympathetic to people who are willing to engage and debate rather than be shouted down.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Since you're critiquing... why are you making out we have a say in this? We don't have two options at all, we have no option

There are nuances: it is that should ENIC sell, looking other club owners or what is logical, there isn't a huge chance of Spurs being bought by the type of owner you outline. A stupidly rich, smart benefactor who is able to throw lots of money at Spurs and buy success, is unlikely. On paper Valencia's owner should press your buttons. But in reality, he's been a disaster. He's put his own money in, but its a plaything, not a serious concern. Valencia's future is at the whim of a non-dom who has no ties to the city and no doubt has many other distractions. He's spent millions, but that does not guarantee better leadership or results. How is that for a nuanced outlook?

Yeah, I get it. ENIC aren’t going anywhere. Some are happy with everything they doing. Some want them to stay but do better in certain areas. Some want them to sell the club to owners more willing to put their own money in. I’m in the second camp, but I’d be open to new ownership if it was the right thing for the club, and I get it’s a purely hypothetical conversation.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Where is the money coming from for them to invest in your model?

Joe Lewis?

I'm not saying i think it's likely to happen, but that in effect is why I'd quite like to see if there are new owners out there.

 

[billyiddo]

I think partly it’s because you get certain pro ENIC posters telling others who disagree with them to go and support another club and we can’t possibly do better than Levy. I get this is not the norm and most posters here are more respectful and reasonable, but at the same time it tends to be the more vocal critics of ENIC who push back against this type of reaction and not so much the pro ENIC posters. I guess I am just more sympathetic to people who are willing to engage and debate rather than be shouted down.

Strange, I've read a lot of the debate on here over the last week or so and there's been some really good discussions across the Levy/New Manager and ESL threads, don't see cause for complaint on this but then i guess we all see things differently.

Compared to what I've seen in a couple of FB groups and TFC forum this place couldn't be any more civilised on this particular topic...