Yeah, doesn't actually look that credible. I'd be taking a hard look at whether him and the consortium actually have $4.5bn.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Management ENIC
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Do people in the UK take The Sun seriously?
I thought they were a Murdoch rag linked to the cretins that hacked phones.
I thought they were a Murdoch rag linked to the cretins that hacked phones.
That’s a very old photo, things have changed a lot.
No , but the journalist is normally good for Spurs stuff and is a Spurs fan
I don’t think the money would be hard to raise. Chelsea’s is heavily Saudi via Clearlake Capital. They could tap up funds all over the place, question is more would they be good owners, give the money to grow and let Vinai get on with it or would they do a Eghbali at Chelsea and look to play football manager.
Having owners with actual cash allows us to grow in a way we couldn’t under ENIC but it won’t work if they are unprofessional and start to micro manage the club. We now have a good football structure, it just needs a bit of cash to grow into what it needs to be.
To put Chelsea into perspective they have spent £1.2bn of their new owners money and arguably don’t have a better or much better squad than us. That is the power of owners running the gaff with no clue.
In short
Cash rich owners who trust the football experts = very good
Cash rich owners who want to play football manager = very bad
Last edited:
12 man consortium. Yeah I’m sure that would work out well! 
View: https://x.com/chriscowlin/status/1971307693106397555?s=61&t=lOJ_HDnbTWvSuVGs5km_Hg
View: https://x.com/chriscowlin/status/1971307693106397555?s=61&t=lOJ_HDnbTWvSuVGs5km_Hg
As if the proposed timeline, emphasis on headline-grabbing and supporter-stirring numbers for transfer spending which are irrelevant to any sale, and public trumpeting in the Sun did not make it obvious enough, Brooklyn Earick is not a serious guy
Where collapsed takeover plan leaves Maserati MSG Formula E team
Plans for the Maserati MSG Formula E team to be acquired by a new owner have collapsed in recent days, leaving the team in a delicate position
www.the-race.com
If it happens, we will hear about it from all the legitimate sources all at once because it's already done.
This is more believable than the Lewis family all of a sudden have fallen in love with spurs and want to spend loads of money on players ....This is the reason they said it to squeeze more money out of the deal.
My gut is they want a bidding war, something like this is great for them, maybe flush out all the other interested parties.
The one positive that those hoping for the club to be sold can take from recent events is that there can be no doubt that interested parties are circling.
There's a lot of money out there interested in owning a big European football club, and we're in the front of that shop window atm.
Team Lewis may be exactly as uninterested in handing over majority control as they say they are, but that won't stop the phone from ringing.
12 man consortium. Yeah I’m sure that would work out well!
Exactly - which one is going to want to be a sub
As an aside I thought this was an interesting and frank discussion of club ownership
www.nytimes.com
Why are NFL franchises more valuable than football clubs? – The BookKeeper’s mailbag
The BookKeeper answers your finance questions, including how much of Brighton's transfer spend in their history has been covered by Chelsea
www.nytimes.com
How is it possible that NFL franchises are commonly cited as the most valuable in sport when Real Madrid, Liverpool, Barcelona and Manchester United surely have far bigger brands/ global reach and play far more games? Are U.S. teams simply better at fleecing their fans? And is this what is heading our way with the American ownership in the Premier League? — Dan I.
There are quite a few answers to this, and I won’t pretend to suggest I’ve covered them all here. But let’s give some of the big ones airtime.
The most obvious point is the relative lack of downside risk in the NFL. There are 32 teams in professional American football’s top flight, and the competition’s format means none of them can be relegated at the end of a season, no matter how badly they perform. That, from a financial perspective, provides an earnings floor that simply doesn’t exist in football/soccer.
We don’t get much insight into the finances of the NFL other than from the annual accounts of the league’s only publicly owned franchise, the Green Bay Packers, but even those help make clear why its franchises have such value placed on them. In the year to March 31, 2025, covering the 2024 season, the Packers received $432.6million (£328.8m) in national revenues — an equal share that all 32 teams receive. That is just the equally distributed amount; teams make more on top from local revenues, some of them substantially so.
NFL teams also share part of ticketing revenue equally, and merchandise and licensing deals are also organised centrally. It all adds up to one thing that investors love: stability. The NFL’s broadcast deals are huge in their own right but a big attraction to would-be team owners is the fact that they’re also long-term. The NFL’s current agreement runs to 2033, meaning its franchises can model revenues way down the line. Such long-term deals don’t exist (yet?) in football.
Alongside that earnings floor is a cost ceiling: the NFL’s (hard) salary cap. That is rising steadily but is pegged to the league’s revenue growth. In the 2024 season, the salary cap was $255.4million (£194.1m), or just 59 per cent of each team’s share of national revenues. There are many other costs besides player salaries, but the league’s financial model is clearly pointed toward limiting expenditure and making teams profitable.
There are quite a few answers to this, and I won’t pretend to suggest I’ve covered them all here. But let’s give some of the big ones airtime.
The most obvious point is the relative lack of downside risk in the NFL. There are 32 teams in professional American football’s top flight, and the competition’s format means none of them can be relegated at the end of a season, no matter how badly they perform. That, from a financial perspective, provides an earnings floor that simply doesn’t exist in football/soccer.
We don’t get much insight into the finances of the NFL other than from the annual accounts of the league’s only publicly owned franchise, the Green Bay Packers, but even those help make clear why its franchises have such value placed on them. In the year to March 31, 2025, covering the 2024 season, the Packers received $432.6million (£328.8m) in national revenues — an equal share that all 32 teams receive. That is just the equally distributed amount; teams make more on top from local revenues, some of them substantially so.
NFL teams also share part of ticketing revenue equally, and merchandise and licensing deals are also organised centrally. It all adds up to one thing that investors love: stability. The NFL’s broadcast deals are huge in their own right but a big attraction to would-be team owners is the fact that they’re also long-term. The NFL’s current agreement runs to 2033, meaning its franchises can model revenues way down the line. Such long-term deals don’t exist (yet?) in football.
Alongside that earnings floor is a cost ceiling: the NFL’s (hard) salary cap. That is rising steadily but is pegged to the league’s revenue growth. In the 2024 season, the salary cap was $255.4million (£194.1m), or just 59 per cent of each team’s share of national revenues. There are many other costs besides player salaries, but the league’s financial model is clearly pointed toward limiting expenditure and making teams profitable.
There's loads of checks that Ensure the buying party has the resources to buy a club. It's why the 777 Everton deal didn't go through.
So if it passes their checks, they absolutely have the money. The consortium are allegedly involved in NFL and NBA which are more expensive than football too. So I'd say the likelihood of them having the money is fairly high.
Cash poor owners who want to play football manager and make club signings - awful
£1.2B to spend in January
What are we gonna do buy La Liga?
What are we gonna do buy La Liga?