• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Carlyle takeover, was Cain Hoy takeover

Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Err...............no, they don't!

I think you're getting confused with the fact that, once an investor's shareholding in a particular company reaches the 30% threshold, he is obliged by Stock Market rules to make a mandatory offer for all remaining shares in the company. That absolutely does NOT mean that the shareholders who own the other 70% of the shares are obliged to accept his offer!

What you're thinking of is a "squeeze out" - when a majority shareholder has enough shares to be able to enforce a compulsory purchase of the remaining shares in the company. And on the London Stock Exchange, that threshold is 90%.

So ENIC (or Abramovich, if he had chosen to buy ENIC's 30%) were 60% short. That's quite a lot. ;)

How easy was it for Enic to reach 85%?
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

That's not the point, though.

The particular histories of Abramovich and Mansour aren't the subject under discussion. The point that some people are making is that they'd rather the club be subject to a leveraged buyout and farmed for money than it be the beneficiary of a billionaire's generosity.

That, to me, seems utterly bizarre!

I'd rather neither and have the Premier League order every club to sell 51% to the fanbase.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

ENIC's total investment into Tottenham is actually £66m (£11m towards the £15m share issue in 2004; all of the £15m raised by share placement in 2009; and a £40m loan earlier this year that will be converted into equity).

Should all this be counted as investment. The share issues also allowed them to extend their ownership. Iirc, the 2004 one in particular, led to a large expansion of total shares through the preference share issue. I've never been quite able to calculate how much. But a simplistic calculation would be that they doubled the total shares when the preference shared were exercised (over 200m now, 93m before). The £11m out of £15m suggests they bought 70% of the new shares (say ~70m), added to 30% of the existing shares (say ~30m). So that £11m allowed they to increase their shareholding from about 30% to 50%. Their 30% share of the offering would have been £4.5m (as pro rata investment), so they seem to have got an extra 20% shares for £6.5m. I could have this wrong, so I'd appreciate it anyone can confirm or reject this calculation. It was difficult to keep track as as they bought addition shares during this period so it wasn't always clear where the additional shareholding came from.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

How easy was it for Enic to reach 85%?

Well, for what it's worth, it took them 8 years to get to that point.

Listen, I'm not suggesting that it would have been impossible for Abramovich to get his hands on 100% of Spurs shares. But it would have been a lot more hassle and quite probably a bit more expensive than getting hold of 100% of Chelsea shares. It's just one of a long list of reasons as to why Chelsea would have been by far the more attractive option.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

I'd rather neither and have the Premier League order every club to sell 51% to the fanbase.

That's a nice fantasy.

But the stated choice was between a wealthy benefactor and a leveraged buyout parasite. And some people chose the latter.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Should all this be counted as investment. The share issues also allowed them to extend their ownership. Iirc, the 2004 one in particular, led to a large expansion of total shares through the preference share issue. I've never been quite able to calculate how much. But a simplistic calculation would be that they doubled the total shares when the preference shared were exercised (over 200m now, 93m before). The £11m out of £15m suggests they bought 70% of the new shares (say ~70m), added to 30% of the existing shares (say ~30m). So that £11m allowed they to increase their shareholding from about 30% to 50%. Their 30% share of the offering would have been £4.5m (as pro rata investment), so they seem to have got an extra 20% shares for £6.5m. I could have this wrong, so I'd appreciate it anyone can confirm or reject this calculation. It was difficult to keep track as as they bought addition shares during this period so it wasn't always clear where the additional shareholding came from.

Absolutely, they got a great deal in return for their investment.

But it was undeniably still investment. In all, it was £66m that the club would otherwise not have had. It can't be rewritten as anything else.

The 2004 CRP share issue increased their shareholding to more than 50%. They subsequently bought Sugar's remaining 12% in 2007 plus a number of other smaller shareholdings. It was the £15m share placement in 2009 that took their shareholding to the 85% mark.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

That's a nice fantasy.

But the stated choice was between a wealthy benefactor and a leveraged buyout parasite. And some people chose the latter.
I'd definitely choose the latter over middle eastern oil money. It's already ruined many of the hotels/restaurants I like, it's ruined Knightsbridge, I'd really like it not to ruin Spurs too.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Should all this be counted as investment. The share issues also allowed them to extend their ownership. Iirc, the 2004 one in particular, led to a large expansion of total shares through the preference share issue. I've never been quite able to calculate how much. But a simplistic calculation would be that they doubled the total shares when the preference shared were exercised (over 200m now, 93m before). The £11m out of £15m suggests they bought 70% of the new shares (say ~70m), added to 30% of the existing shares (say ~30m). So that £11m allowed they to increase their shareholding from about 30% to 50%. Their 30% share of the offering would have been £4.5m (as pro rata investment), so they seem to have got an extra 20% shares for £6.5m. I could have this wrong, so I'd appreciate it anyone can confirm or reject this calculation. It was difficult to keep track as as they bought addition shares during this period so it wasn't always clear where the additional shareholding came from.
Seeing as it's almost entirely their company you have to count at least some of what could have been profit reinvested into players as investment.

ENIC could have kept a £100M profit last summer but invested instead. Just because they don't take it out and put it back, it doesn't mean they're not investing.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

I'd definitely choose the latter over middle eastern oil money. It's already ruined many of the hotels/restaurants I like, it's ruined Knightsbridge, I'd really like it not to ruin Spurs too.

This is classic Scara... The noble rejection of unfair investments followed up by the justification of one to many restaurants ruined in this country. Thought you'd be all up for some middle eastern blood being dripped down to us but seems I was very wrong!


All this Cain Hoy bull **** isn't worth talking about anyway. I doubt they are that serious about making an offer and if they do I don't think it will be the best thing that's happened to Tottenham nor the worst. Chances are we'll be in the exact same position before with the exact same investment company stewardship and still needing regular Champions League football to finance all the fancy stuff we want. The only difference is some Americans will be able to brag to their 'buddies' that they own a football (soccer) club on top off a basketaball team.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

i think there is growing number of Spurs fans who share your view Shelfie, tbf - id hazard a guess that it's probably around 60-40
Hi BY, interesting call. After yesterday's fiasco, I certainly think it's fair to say that the 'pro ENIC' camp will have lost a few more followers.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

I can't believe people actually are pleased that Chelsea became a worldwide phenomenon while we languished in the relative obscurity of upper mid-table. They won trophies and league titles galore, became the first London club to win the CL, and are now recognised as the biggest club in London by a huge number of overseas football supporters.....while we plodded along consolidating our position and winning one League Cup, trying painfully to get a stadium built without the owner spending anything, laughing in glee as we registered net profit after net profit in transfer windows, as our best players left us citing our lack of ambition and their desires to play for 'bigger' clubs, and as manager after manager kept climbing hopefully up to Levy's office and emerging ashen-faced shortly afterwards, their 'transfer shortlists' crumpled up in their fists. And yet, people think this austerity is good and wholesome, like the Byzantine stylites from the days of old who tortured themselves by sitting mostly unclothed on top of windy, often scorching pillars in the desert because they thought it would bring them closer to GHod.

We had a chance to end Chelsea forever: they'd have gone into administration if RA hadn't bought them. We would have become the London club everyone had heard about (well, apart from those clams down the road, anyway). We'd have become the first London club to win the CL, and to win all those PL titles and FA Cups. And if the reply should arise 'well, all those trophies don't count because they weren't won fairly'......in ten, twenty, thirty years, do you really think people would give a damn about how Chelsea won their trophies? Those trophies are etched into their (and football's) history: the circumstances behind those trophies are rarely remembered down the line, and football history has proven this time and again. All people will remember thirty years from now is that Chelsea were the first London club to win the CL. Same logic goes for City, to be honest. And that could have been us.

Like Shelfie says, fair play to those that disagree with this view, but history won't give a damn about us when they portray this period in our history as being the most barren and lifeless one for many, many years: I'm just surprised that so many people are completely accepting and even delighted at that fact.

Excellently put DS.

This will surely be another season where we go ever further into Chelsea's shadow, and indeed Arsenal. If people are happy with that fine.

As I've already said in this thread, I'm confident that new owners such as Cain Hoy will be able to better ENIC's record.

We have a club that pre-ENIC was bigger than Chelsea. Chelsea had had some success under Harding, but were losing their way financially before winning the lottery, and for me we were still a bigger club overall in 2000. ENIC had a chance to push on at that time, but didn't take it.

In the 14 years prior to ENIC (1986-2000) we won more trophies and had two higher lge finishes than we've managed since. In the 14 years prior to that, (late 1972-86) we won even more trophies, 4 in all, and managed one 3rd place and two top 4 finishes, a considerably better haul overall than ENIC's 14 years of tenure.

During those 28 years (1972-2000) our trophy haul was much better than Chelsea's (6-2) and IIRC we had more top 4 finishes as well.

As a club we have been in decline for many years, and we need new owners to break that decline.

As a side note to that decline, it was galling to see Lescott playing so well yesterday. I said in another thread we messed up by not filling our HG quota, how much stronger our squad could have looked with say Welbeck and Lescott in it. Both were obtainble during the summer. Was it ENIC's fault we didn't get them in, or comparable HG quality? I can't answer that, what I can say is the club now have a squad that many fans find it difficult to identify with compared to when we had so many British/Irish players, and to be fair to ENIC they did a lot of very good work in their early years on that score.

We also have a crowd atmosphere that's in a big decline, and a lot of that is definitely ENIC's fault. Their ticketing policies, their managerial mistakes, their missed opportunities in the transfer market, the fact we haven't added one extra person to our seating capacity this century have been various reasons for the terrible atmosphere we get so often at the Lane these days.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Hi BY, interesting call. After yesterday's fiasco, I certainly think it's fair to say that the 'pro ENIC' camp will have lost a few more followers.

Anyone who changes or bases their opinion about ENIC on yesterday's performance really isn't thinking straight.

We were playing against West Brom. At the Lane. West Brom. Bottom of the league. West Brom. A team we should be beating at a canter. West Brom. A team which probably cost a tenth of ours.

Yesterday's defeat had **** all to do with ENIC or underinvestment in the team. It had everything to do with a very bad day at the office for the manager and pretty much all of his players.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Excellently put DS.

This will surely be another season where we go ever further into Chelsea's shadow, and indeed Arsenal. If people are happy with that fine.

As I've already said in this thread, I'm confident that new owners such as Cain Hoy will be able to better ENIC's record.

We have a club that pre-ENIC was bigger than Chelsea. Chelsea had had some success under Harding, but were losing their way financially before winning the lottery, and for me we were still a bigger club overall in 2000. ENIC had a chance to push on at that time, but didn't take it.

In the 14 years prior to ENIC (1986-2000) we won more trophies and had two higher lge finishes than we've managed since. In the 14 years prior to that, (late 1972-86) we won even more trophies, 4 in all, and managed one 3rd place and two top 4 finishes, a considerably better haul overall than ENIC's 14 years of tenure.

During those 28 years (1972-2000) our trophy haul was much better than Chelsea's (6-2) and IIRC we had more top 4 finishes as well.

As a club we have been in decline for many years, and we need new owners to break that decline.

You already posted a very similar post earlier in the thread. So I'll repost my reply to that:

When ENIC inherited Spurs from Sugar, the club was a mid to lower table perennial. It was light years off the top clubs and the gap was growing by the year. It was also comfortably behind the likes of Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Leeds and Aston Villa. By contrast, Cain Hoy would be inheriting a club that is a top six perennial, generally finishing within touching distance (sometimes agonisingly so) of Champions League qualification. Big difference.

Secondly, you can't ignore context when discussing what happened in different eras. 14 years before ENIC took over, there was no Premier League; no Champions League; no Chelsea, no Emirates Marketing Project. Back in 1987, Spurs were one of the original "Big Five". It was (or should have been) far easier for us to win trophies back then. It was far easier for every club. You'll find a far greater variety of cup winners back in the day. Far greater variety of league winners for that matter, too. The huge financial imbalance at the top of the game now has led to trophies being shared around much less.

Additionally, clubs' focus has changed. Previously, if a club wasn't going to win the league, it would focus on the cups. Nowadays, though, it's all about qualifying for the Champions League. Cup competitions are treated as of secondary importance. And it has affected us more than any other club over the past 14 years because we have more often been close (but not quite close enough) to qualifying for the Champions League than any other club.

So comparing what Scholar and Sugar did to what ENIC have done is to compare apples with oranges. It's not like for like.

We also have a crowd atmosphere that's in a big decline, and a lot of that is definitely ENIC's fault. Their ticketing policies, their managerial mistakes, their missed opportunities in the transfer market, the fact we haven't added one extra person to our seating capacity this century have been various reasons for the terrible atmosphere we get so often at the Lane these days.

How about that a depressingly huge proportion of our fans have just become clamy, moaning, booing, know-it-all prats who haven't a clue how to support a team but who have developed a risible sense of entitlement?

It always amazes me that fans (rightly) expect 100% from everyone who works for the club but then, when it comes to supporting the team on the day, don't even give 1% themselves. Sadly, it's symptomatic of our culture these days. Too many people in a hurry to blame everyone but themselves.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

We also have a crowd atmosphere that's in a big decline, and a lot of that is definitely ENIC's fault. Their ticketing policies, their managerial mistakes, their missed opportunities in the transfer market, the fact we haven't added one extra person to our seating capacity this century have been various reasons for the terrible atmosphere we get so often at the Lane these days.

Why do Crystal Palace have such a fantastic home support then, when they've been shat on by their owners for decades?

Just as an experiment I'd be interested to see what would happen if we cancelled STs for three matches and put the whole stadium on general sale. Try and recreate the UEFA cup/away match atmosphere for our home league games
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Why do Crystal Palace have such a fantastic home support then, when they've been shat on by their owners for decades?

Just as an experiment I'd be interested to see what would happen if we cancelled STs for three matches and put the whole stadium on general sale. Try and recreate the UEFA cup/away match atmosphere for our home league games
We had better home support when we were **** and had low expectations.
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

As a lot of Guggenheim's other business is hotels -Travelodge, Days Inn and Ramada are some of their brands, I wonder if there will be a big rethink of the entire stadium site with an attempt to squeeze several of those in as well?
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

"Treat her this Valentine's Day at White Hart Lane Travelodge"


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk
 
Re: Cain Hoy takeover

Why do Crystal Palace have such a fantastic home support then, when they've been shat on by their owners for decades?

Just as an experiment I'd be interested to see what would happen if we cancelled STs for three matches and put the whole stadium on general sale. Try and recreate the UEFA cup/away match atmosphere for our home league games

I can give three reasons straightaway.

1 They don't suffer from the ticketing and pricing policies we suffer from.

2 They have better fans (the ones that go to the ground anyway)

3 The stewarding there doesn't seem to be as zealous as at the Lane.

You yourself allude to our ticketing strategy by suggesting less STs.

Under ENIC we have gathered a typical crowd that consists mainly of STs and tourists. It seems ENIC are happy as long as the cash comes rolling in, and care little about encouraging those of us who like to sing and shout at the games. After years of trying to help create an atmosphere by singing and shouting as loud as I can, and often getting tut tutted at by STs distrurbed from their sleep like state or constant whinging I've given up going. Doubt I'll be back till we get a new owner/stadium, preferably both.
 
Back