• 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

ENIC

Finney Is Back said:
No. Our problems now are not a sudden thing. They have been the result of many poor decisions taken since we commenced building our new stadium. Levy made a vast majority of those decisions.

If ENIC sell Spurs then I would like completely new owners.
Click to expand...

Yep. Levy was also schooled by Lewis for 30+ years. They think and operate the same way. It was never a case of Lewis running the show in the background. Levy was just doing exactly what Joe would have done if he was younger, more energetic and not already a multi billionaire having fun. Even been suggestions of Lewis viewing Levy more like a son and liking him more than his actual kids.
 
robp135 said:
Yep. Levy was also schooled by Lewis for 30+ years. They think and operate the same way. It was never a case of Lewis running the show in the background. Levy was just doing exactly what Joe would have done if he was younger, more energetic and not already a multi billionaire having fun. Even been suggestions of Lewis viewing Levy more like a son and liking him more than his actual kids.
Click to expand...

Thats ok to a point, but Levy has been effectively sacked and is rumoured to be taking the club down a legal route, so there is an argument to say his control was only to a level and ultimately he worked under the guidance and within the framework of the Lewis family.
 
Bishop said:
I wonder if at all ENIC are thinking it would have been wise to sell to the recent offerings considering the potential decrease in value from current situation.
Click to expand...
I believe they will be thinking that, I dont think our value will reach as high for while as it has been in recent years.

We need a new squad
Not in Europe
17th last season
Potential relegation this

Lots of outlay/loss of earnings for a potential buyer
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Thats ok to a point, but Levy has been effectively sacked and is rumoured to be taking the club down a legal route, so there is an argument to say his control was only to a level and ultimately he worked under the guidance and within the framework of the Lewis family.
Click to expand...
True. But it must have been a framework with which he fundamentally agreed. You don’t keep a near 30% investment in an investment company if you disagree with its investment strategy.
Yes we know he went with the begging bowl to Lewis on at least one occasion, possibly more, but he was still generally in accord with the sustainable growth route. (And I say this as someone who was generally supportive of Levy).
 
Glenda's Legs said:
True. But it must have been a framework with which he fundamentally agreed. You don’t keep a near 30% investment in an investment company if you disagree with its investment strategy.
Yes we know he went with the begging bowl to Lewis on at least one occasion, possibly more, but he was still generally in accord with the sustainable growth route. (And I say this as someone who was generally supportive of Levy).
Click to expand...

No of course not, but Levy would have only had so much freedom, I mean there was no real freedom to spend, it wasn't his money. Lewis (dad) was happy to keep Daniel there as long as his investment grew.

My point being that given the ultimately power was shown to remove DL, that act alone was a show of who really controlled things at Spurs, when I talk control I mean the real power to turn on taps that made season altering change.

The wages v income./outcome formula wasn't one that DL was implementing alone, absolutely no chance
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
MartyFunkhouser said:
Thats ok to a point, but Levy has been effectively sacked and is rumoured to be taking the club down a legal route, so there is an argument to say his control was only to a level and ultimately he worked under the guidance and within the framework of the Lewis family.
Click to expand...

Simon Jordan said he spoke with Levy this week and he said the story of taking legal action is completley false.

I also tend to suspect that at it relates to this, Joe Lewis and the Children are seperate entities.
 
Last edited:
robp135 said:
Simon Jordan said he spoke with Levy this week and he said the story of taking legal action completley false.

I also tend to suspect that at it relates to this, Joe Lewis and the Children are seperate entities.
Click to expand...

Ok but that doesn't change the fact he was still removed, if he was the all controlling power that would have never happened, it still proves a massive point on who is in control

There is no way Joe Lewis hands over the reigns to his children if he is not taken to court in the US, I doubt very much his fingerprints are not all over whats happening still, the Lewis family are all the same thing.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Ok but that doesn't change the fact he was still removed, if he was the all controlling power that would have never happened, it still proves a massive point on who is in control

There is no way Joe Lewis hands over the reigns to his children if he is not taken to court in the US, I doubt very much his fingerprints are not all over whats happening still, the Lewis family are all the same thing.
Click to expand...

He did go to court in the US though.

I accept what I’m saying is speculation. But there have been no shortage of stories over the years of the children and Joe not getting along and him being more fond of Daniel Levy.
 
robp135 said:
He did go to court in the US though.
Click to expand...

That's my point, he only handed over the club to make sure the family were not asset stripped if the ruling called for it, the children have the club on a technicality to avoid legalities further down the line

robp135 said:
I accept what I’m saying is speculation. But there have been no shortage of stories over the years of the children and Joe not getting along and him being more fond of Daniel Levy.
Click to expand...

So why hand the club to them? Why not sign it over to DL, the son he never had, who already had 30% of Enic and was one of the major reasons he had raised so much for his investment?
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
That's my point, he only handed over the club to make sure the family were not asset stripped if the ruling called for it, the children have the club on a technicality to avoid legalities further down the line


So why hand the club to them? Why not sign it over to DL, the son he never had, who already had 30% of Enic and was one of the major reasons he had raised so much for his investment?
Click to expand...

The club and other assets were almost certainly moved from already existing “revocable” trusts into an “irrevocable” trusts when the legal issue came about. Because it was a rush job, Joe could have named the children as the trustee without knowing their intention for the club.

When you set these type of trusts you have theee parties.
  • Grantor (Joe Lewis) cannot change, revoke, or directly control the assets anymore.
  • Beneficiaries (Lewis children) do not have control but can profit from and often use the trust as an asset to borrow money against.
  • Trustees (Can be a beneficiary or a third party) has control of the assets.
In a revocable trust the Grantor can also be the Trustee. So they still control the assets so courts and creditors can argue that the assets are effectively still theirs and go after them. The trust help with estate tax planning and asset protection against a civil lawsuit.

In the irrevocable trust the prosecutor can no longer go after those assets as they no longer owned and controlled by the person they have the case against.
 
robp135 said:
The club and other assets were almost certainly moved from already existing “revocable” trusts into an “irrevocable” trusts when the legal issue came about. Because it was a rush job, Joe could have named the children as the trustee without knowing their intention for the club.

When you set these type of trusts you have theee parties.
  • Grantor (Joe Lewis) cannot change, revoke, or directly control the assets anymore.
  • Beneficiaries (Lewis children) do not have control but can profit from and often use the trust as an asset to borrow money against.
  • Trustees (Can be a beneficiary or a third party) has control of the assets.
In a revocable trust the Grantor can also be the Trustee. So they still control the assets so courts and creditors can argue that the assets are effectively still theirs and go after them. The trust help with estate tax planning and asset protection against a civil lawsuit.

In the irrevocable trust the prosecutor can no longer go after those assets as they no longer owned and controlled by the person they have the case against.
Click to expand...

We all know why what happened.....happened, no one is silly here

Ultimately the Lewis family, be it Joe or the kids have always been the ones in ultimately control of Spurs
 
Last edited:
MartyFunkhouser said:
We all know why what happened.....happened, no one is silly here

Ultimately the Lewis family, be it Joe or the kids have always been the ones in ultimately control of Spurs
Click to expand...

Your prior questioned why he did not hand the club over to Levy. My suggestion is that he moved the club, or ownership company of the club, into an existing trust because it was a rush job to evade the prosecutions ability to seize the asset,

Agree with the last part. But I question how aligned Joe is with the kids. He’s also almost 90 years old and might just have no clue what’s going on anymore.
 
robp135 said:
Your prior questioned why he did not hand the club over to Levy. My suggestion is that he moved the club, or ownership company of the club, into an existing trust because it was a rush job to evade the prosecutions ability to seize the asset,
Click to expand...
I was making a wider point about it being about the Lewis family and not Joe and DL TBH

robp135 said:
Agree with the last part. But I question how aligned Joe is with the kids. He’s also almost 90 years old and might just have no clue what’s going on anymore.
Click to expand...

Sure but the club remains as it always has, in the control of the Lewis family, has always been the case. .
 
Kane said:
Yep, and from a distance it appeared to be a somewhat hostile takeover at that(?).
Certainly the timing of it, mid-season, was shocking too.
Click to expand...

On reflection it seemed like they did it after the transfer window so they didn’t have to back up the claims of backing the team in the transfer market. They probably assumed the club would be in a safe position so there would be less pressure in Jan. So they would go 9 months before the fans begin to question them.
 
DTA said:
What am I missing? No cross?
Click to expand...

The others have religious and cultural symbolism. Sad the club don’t acknowledge it as a religous holiday but even then put the same level of effort in and stick a bunny rabbit and an egg on it. Even Chinese New Year gets a proper edit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back