Taken from Bloomberg
Over the past 18 months, investors including US billionaires and private equity funds have all begun discussions to buy a stake in #Tottenham, with the end goal being full control.
But talks break down over Levy’s high valuation and because he wants to remain either as a significant investor or in charge of sporting decisions via a lucrative contract, the people said.
Tottenham declined to comment on any sales talks. The future role for Levy is not fundamental to any deal discussions, according to one person familiar with the situation.
Investors have held talks with representatives of the Lewis family. However, discussions have consistently failed over confusion about who would control the club following any deal, and struggles to navigate the club’s ownership structure, the people familiar with the discussions said.
Qatari investors, QSI, are currently not interested in a deal, according to people familiar with the situation despite talks with the club in 2023.
-------------------
Doesn't look like anything is going to change soon.
Levy and investors
posted on 27/2/25
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 16 hours, 4 minutes ago
We all it was bullshiiiit just to dampen the protests. Any investment we do get is likely to be US based given the shift in commercial direction in recent years. It’s primed and ready for anyone with an interest in NFL, likely American, and ultimately an eye on major profit, which is the opposite of what we’re looking for. The decisions Levy has made has ultimately narrowed the investment options we can get to those with specific commercial interests rather than any Middle Eastern investor with truly deep pockets that’s only interested in good PR and therefore success.
Even the insistence on being called Tottenham Hotspur rather than Tottenham is an attempt to lean in to vernacular the US will understand. The association with cowboy spurs will go some way to massage the egos of US investors looking to find the ‘right fit’ which frankly would be a disaster. If it’s US investors or Levy, I’d rather keep Levy. We’d be moving from profit hungry but very competent to profit hungry but extremely incompetent with little understanding of the game. If they want profits just like ENIC, what’s the fecking point.
Not sure we’ll ever get what we want. Joke of a club we really are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, I think you have hit the nail on the head with everything you said.
posted on 27/2/25
Levy will sell to the highest bidder and to the new sugar daddy who ticks all of his boxes.
Saw this elsewhere and it sums it all up, Levy is basically selling a house at a high price and is insisting on staying there after the sale.
It will never work.
posted on 27/2/25
comment by Father Luka Bosh Brasi (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
Levy will sell to the highest bidder and to the new sugar daddy who ticks all of his boxes.
Saw this elsewhere and it sums it all up, Levy is basically selling a house at a high price and is insisting on staying there after the sale.
It will never work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous analogy.
Its nothing like selling a house. If anything its more like remortgaging your house, exchanging equity for money, and then using that money to improve the house and increase the value of the asset, whereby everyone gains.
What is weird is the United situation where a minority ownership seems to have almost total control over football and financial matters, including laying off the tea lady, while the majority owners sit, watch and do nothing.
Fortunately for Spurs, whatever you think of Levy, ENIC are far better owners than the Glazers and have moved the club forward significantly while United have gone down the pan and require massive investment to catch up.
posted on 27/2/25
you wouldn't remortgage and then have the lender/investor telling you what colour to paint the living room and what kitchen fittings to have. You, as majority owner and occupier, would want to retain control over those decisions.
posted on 27/2/25
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 17 hours, 53 minutes ago
We all it was bullshiiiit just to dampen the protests. Any investment we do get is likely to be US based given the shift in commercial direction in recent years. It’s primed and ready for anyone with an interest in NFL, likely American, and ultimately an eye on major profit, which is the opposite of what we’re looking for. The decisions Levy has made has ultimately narrowed the investment options we can get to those with specific commercial interests rather than any Middle Eastern investor with truly deep pockets that’s only interested in good PR and therefore success.
Even the insistence on being called Tottenham Hotspur rather than Tottenham is an attempt to lean in to vernacular the US will understand. The association with cowboy spurs will go some way to massage the egos of US investors looking to find the ‘right fit’ which frankly would be a disaster. If it’s US investors or Levy, I’d rather keep Levy. We’d be moving from profit hungry but very competent to profit hungry but extremely incompetent with little understanding of the game. If they want profits just like ENIC, what’s the fecking point.
Not sure we’ll ever get what we want. Joke of a club we really are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very odd take.
What our owners have done is create a massive revenue generating business, that has put us in a financially strong position, a position far stronger than the likes of Saudi owned Newcastle and Egyptian owned Villa. Our revenues are almost as large as these 2 clubs combined. Consequently the club is valued very highly, and rightly so.
I am not sure what it is you want that you "sadly" think we'll never get, but the fact is wishing for a deep pocketed owner pumping money into the club is a ship that has sailed for everyone.
Modern football is about revenue. Even City after their initial splurge under Mansour switched to driving up revenues (fairly or not) and now these can afford their massive wages and transfer fees.
Like NUFC, having an owner worth 100s of billions means nothing, other than for infrastructure development (which we have done) and may be some associated sponsorship deals (which is where may be we could gain).
If you look at the big take overs in the league, they have been opportunism. FSG paid £300m for LFC, Glazers paid £800m for United, Saudis paid £300m for NUFC, Mansour paid £265m for City.
Chelsea were bought for £2.5bn with a commitment to spend £1.75bn (although note that such a commitment is not the same as investing your own money), but effectively Chelsea was a forced sale and bought at well under market value, which gave them headroom to invest while retaining a significant return.
Spurs are a different prospect. One cannot add the value that these other investments have. ENIC are the ones who have maximised the value . A new buyer or investor can add value but through far more limited means, not the massive multi-billion gains in value the likes of these other owners have seen.
The biggest potential is through NFL. In the short term it adds decent revenues to the club. The potential though is massive, If a franchise ever came to be it would be worth masses to Spurs. The associated advertising tie ups would be huge.
It may never come to be but we are best laced to take advantage in the UK.
This potential is far greater than any other investor could add. If a US investor came in with a genuine ambition to achieve an NFL franchise or just to develop this link further, it would be a uniquely massive opportunity.
This doesn't preclude us from selling in part or whole to someone else. To suggest we only appeal to a US investor is nonsense and over simple.
What i believe limits our appeal to the middle eastern money is 1) a part sale of the club; and, 2) the high value and thus the more limited scale of returns.
What has been obvious over the sugar daddy era is that while it may have looked like these buyers were just throwing money around with no concern about return, a billionaire play-thing, what has actually occurred is that they threw money around and have seen the massive increase in the value of their asset, well beyond the level of their investment. SO it wasn't a play thing, it was always a true investment strategy with the aim of increasing asset value, not reaping annual profits (other than the Glazers).
Spurs are uniquely placed. It will be a difficult market unless Levy softens his valuation, and it is made harder by the fact that few billionaire investors would want to come on board and have a largely silent interest. But then again, what billionaire owner would want to sell part and relinquish control to a minority stakeholder.
posted on 27/2/25
What a ridiculous analogy.
-------------
No one really knows what Levy is selling. Is it the football side? Is he looking for investment in the property construction of the hotel, cinema ect?
I suspect a combination of both but either as pointed out in the Bloomsberg article Levy wants to remain. And this is the a sticking point.
So it's pretty accurate and if anyone is ridiculous, it's you with your longarse comments.
posted on 27/2/25
comment by Father Luka Bosh Brasi (U22178)
posted 11 minutes ago
What a ridiculous analogy.
-------------
No one really knows what Levy is selling. Is it the football side? Is he looking for investment in the property construction of the hotel, cinema ect?
I suspect a combination of both but either as pointed out in the Bloomsberg article Levy wants to remain. And this is the a sticking point.
So it's pretty accurate and if anyone is ridiculous, it's you with your longarse comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AT least my longarse comments make sense.
Selling part of a business is like selling a house...couldnt be any more feckin different.
As for Levy's intentions, he's already stated:
"To capitalise on our long-term potential, to continue to invest in the teams and undertake future capital projects, the Club requires a significant increase in its equity base".
"Long term potential" - that's through generating new revenues
"Future capital projects" - is the development around the stadium which they clearly want to control, and generate these new revenues, rather than just selling.
"invest in the teams " - increased revenues providing greater spending power.
"requires a significant increase in its equity base" - achieving these things cannot be achieved through more borrowing. Investors money is required.
As said above, Revenue is king and we need investment to be able to exploit these other revenue opportunities.
posted on 27/2/25
Doesn't matter what you say. Levy wants to sell but still remain part of the furniture.
Never gonna happen.
posted on 27/2/25
comment by Father Luka Bosh Brasi (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Doesn't matter what you say. Levy wants to sell but still remain part of the furniture.
Never gonna happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you say so boss !
posted on 27/2/25
Are the potential investors good at imprisoning and torturing dissidents though? That's important if you want to be a Premier League owner these days. It's even part of the fit and proper persons test.