Tottenham is up for sale, and an investor will have to go through the ordeal of negotiating with Daniel Levy.
Sir Alex Ferguson once said that haggling with the Spurs chairman and co-owner “is more painful than my hip replacement”.
But while it can be challenging for rival managers and directors, Levy’s taste has brought the ultimate price in negotiations, whether players or industry deals.
But with Spurs as an investment, as Levy demonstrated in the club’s accounts in April, the 62-year-old would arguably be the toughest of them all.
Levy himself owns around 25 per cent of the club, with the rest taken care of by the family of former owner Joe Lewis.
As reported by The Times, Spurs are valued at £3. 75 billion.
While there are no concrete main points on exactly how they are willing to opt out, the figure is cautioned to likely be around 10 percent.
Levy promised that new capital would be invested in transfers and the construction of a new hotel in the club’s stadium with a capacity of 62,850 spectators, an undisputed triumph of the ENIC era.
To find out what the news means for Spurs fans, TBR spoke exclusively with Kieran Maguire, professor of football finance at the University of Liverpool and Price of Football.
When Chelsea was acquired through Todd Boehly two summers ago, the club was the most beloved club in the world.
Headlines reported the purchase was £4. 25 billion, but the actual price was slightly more than that figure.
Given that Spurs’ self-confident investors would be willing to negotiate a value of up to £3. 75 billion, it would make the north London club the most valuable club in the world.
“Chelsea is worth £2. 5bn and is a distressed asset,” Maguire said.
“If you look at Chelsea and Spurs, it’s a bit like buying a house.
“If I look at two houses facing and one wants a new kitchen, updated windows, etc. , while the other has been completely renovated by the owner, this moment seems more appealing.
“For the Spurs, the infrastructure commitment has already been made through the owners, whether it’s in terms of the stadium or the facilities.
“With Chelsea there are still doubts about it. They cannot stand still if they need to be competitive in the Premier League.
“They have to move to a new one or do a very significant reconstruction of Stamford Bridge.
“The challenge is that in Chelsea, the location of the land means we’ll be dealing with millionaire homeowners who would like the concept of building paints for two or three years. This would be a very contentious and confusing agreement.
“All of this makes Spurs very attractive. “
Sir Jim Ratcliffe paid £1. 2bn for around 27 per cent of Man United earlier this year, meaning the valuations of the two clubs are no different.
Given that it would be difficult to argue that Spurs’ global logo is as established as United’s, can they realistically claim it is worth £3. 75bn?
“Instinctively, £3. 75 billion is high. But Spurs are the most successful club in Premier League history. From a natural investment standpoint, this makes them attractive.
“His ability to monetize the stadium on non-game days is spectacular.
“The minority stake recently sold through FSG valued the club at around £3 billion, suggesting that Spurs are too high in their valuation.
“But then you realise that Spurs make more money according to the price than Liverpool, they have the London bonus, so it’s not unrealistic.
“And remember, investors don’t care about winning trophies, they need to make money. “
Levy has been criticized by some Spurs fans for what they see as a hesitant and conservative recruiting strategy.
Ange Postecoglou has reinforced his squad this summer with 3 18-year-olds: Min-hyeok Yang, Lucas Bergvall and Archie Gray.
However, according to Maguire, it is not the movement strategy that wants to replace the amount Spurs are willing to spend on player wages.
“If you look at spending, Spurs have spent £136m, £110m, £160m and £152m in the last 4 years.
“And in 3 of those 4 years the net spending on moves has been over £100m, so the handbrake has been taken off due to the move to the new stadium.
“It all comes down to the question of whether to spend cash or not spend it correctly.
“The challenge with Spurs is the wage bill. At £251m, that is particularly lower than the similar organization they should belong to.
“Manchester City are worth over £400m, as is Chelsea. Manchester United and Liverpool are worth over £300m, so there is a gap.
“They would want the new owner to fill that void to attract talent. Football is a cash game and footballers stick to that money.
As the public face of Tottenham, it is hard to believe at the club without Levy at the wheel.
And, Maguire says, the 62-year-old will most likely stay put regardless of the ownership situation.
“I don’t think Levy wants to sell.
The big challenge is the Joe Lewis trust. They own a little less than three-quarters of the club. If they were to sell, there would be smart reasons to divest completely, leaving Levy as a minority shareholder.
“The challenge is that he has a clause in his contract whereby he will keep his position as president. “
Amid questions over the club’s long-term ownership, Spurs have recently found themselves on a pre-season jaunt to East Asia.
Tomorrow they will face Team K League in South Korea, home of captain Son Heung-min.
The publicity impact of individual players from a specific territory can often be exaggerated, however, Son has single-handedly made Spurs the most supported club in South Korea over the last decade.
Spurs have now signed Min-hyeok Yang from Gangwon, and many suspect the publicity motive was at least partly the transfer.
“South Korean enthusiasts are Son enthusiasts, Spurs enthusiasts,” Maguire said.
“Fan fluidity is Spurs’ biggest concern, which is what happens when Son leaves?
“That’s the reason they hired the new young man. This is largely a planned strategy.
“It’s also a logical strategy. South Korea has a thriving population.
“You have to go through the stadium to see that the relationship with Son is wonderful for the fans, but also for monetization.
“Why reflect that, preferably with a successor within the ranks? »