Qatari Government linked with £1billion takeover of Tottenham

Hollister11

Tottenham could be the subject of a £1billion takeover by the Qatari government.
The Arab nation's sports minister has told the Associated Press that they want to add a Premier League club to their expanding portfolio, though the club aren't named directly.
Investment from the Qatar government has turned Paris Saint-Germain into formidable players on the European stage and Salah bin Ghanem bin Nasser al-Ali told the paper that the same would happen at Spurs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/qatari-government-linked-with-1billion-takeover-of-tottenham-9930307.html

Ridiculous if it's going to happen

magma69

Ugh

Donnielighto

Shouldn't both be allowed in the same completion if that is the case. Player transfers would have to be monitored.

GLaDOS

They'd just end up wasting it anyway

byronbay2

Didn't do Man City any harm!

5starpool

Their 'Yid Army' chant would take on interesting connotations if this happened.

magma69

byronbay2 wrote: »

Didn't do Man City any harm!

It did the sport harm.

Harry Palmr

These petro-chemical cowboys really need dealing with.

Francie Barrett

5starpool wrote: »

Their 'Yid Army' chant would take on interesting connotations if this happened.

Especially considering that the Arabs made Real Madrid remove the cross from their crest.

anncoates

A club being part of an "expanding portfolio" sums up modern top level football quite nicely.

Neamhshuntasach

magma69 wrote: »

It did the sport harm.

Man City seem to have a good model though. They had to splash the cash initially in order to become more attractive. But their overall plan is to be very much self sustained. Chelsea appear to be more smart with their transfers now too. Without the initial heavy investment the same old teams would have been winning the league.

noodler

I always felt football clubs were bad investments.

SantryRed

noodler wrote: »

I always felt football clubs were bad investments.

I bet the Glaziers disagree.

Outkast_IRE

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

Man City seem to have a good model though. They had to splash the cash initially in order to become more attractive. But their overall plan is to be very much self sustained. Chelsea appear to be more smart with their transfers now too. Without the initial heavy investment the same old teams would have been winning the league.

Self sustained with sponsorship deals from other companies in the portfolio for money well above market rates ?

eyescreamcone

SantryRed wrote: »

I bet the Glaziers disagree.

Dermot Desmond and JP also made a killing out of Man U

RayCon

Still won't make the Champions League :pac:

rob316

£1bn for Spurs? Sounds a lot for a tin pot club.

Harry Palmr

rob316 wrote: »

£1bn for Spurs? Sounds a lot for a tin pot club.

Presumably their value will be enhanced by the new stadium.

CSF

If it was a British 1 billion investor would people have the same problem? Genuine question.

Neil3030

CSF wrote: »

If it was a British 1 billion investor would people have the same problem? Genuine question.

Bit different. This is a government pissing away state assets on a vanity project while living conditions are not exactly marvellous for a lot of its citizens.

goddevil

Neil3030 wrote: »

Bit different. This is a government pissing away state assets on a vanity project while living conditions are not exactly marvellous for a lot of its citizens.

Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world and it's citizens are among the more affluent. Its the Qatari migrant labours that are being screwed over.

Oat23

Neil3030 wrote: »

Bit different. This is a government pissing away state assets on a vanity project while living conditions are not exactly marvellous for a lot of its citizens.

They are spending $200b on the World Cup. They can afford it.

Living conditions are pretty good as well for citizens.

wandatowell

Spurs will still appoint the wrong manager so the money wont help them one bit.

CSF

Neil3030 wrote: »

Bit different. This is a government pissing away state assets on a vanity project while living conditions are not exactly marvellous for a lot of its citizens.

I'm only asking the question in an English football sense, not delving into the implications for Qatar.

davycc

rob316 wrote: »

£1bn for Spurs? Sounds a lot for a tin pot club.

Well if they spent 100 million they should be winning the league ;-)

WesternZulu

Bet 'Arry wishes he was still there now if it comes to pass.

Richard Hillman

Neil3030 wrote: »

Bit different. This is a government pissing away state assets on a vanity project while living conditions are not exactly marvellous for a lot of its citizens.

Nobody including yourself from a footballing point of view gives a rats ass about the people of Qatar and how their government spend their money. Don't pretend that your opposition is related to that.

Gavlor

They could buy Everton for 150 million, build a new stadium and feel right at home with the level of poverty in the greater merseyside area.

Make it happen bill!

Giggsy11

This is against UEFA law isn't it? Same person cannot own 2 clubs, so QATAR government already owns PSG so they can't buy another club in Europe.

RobertKK

If I was a Spurs fan I would rather my club went bankrupt rather than have Qatar owning it.

Slave labour.
Links to the state in funding terrorism.
questionable how it got the world cup.

They shouldn't pass the fit to own a club rule, can't remember the exact name of that rule.

ArmaniJeanss

Giggsy11 wrote: »

This is against UEFA law isn't it? Same person cannot own 2 clubs, so QATAR government already owns PSG so they can't buy another club in Europe.

Not strictly true, it only becomes against UEFA rules if both teams are in the same competition. Theres nothing wrong per se with owning a club in the English league and the French League.
But seeing as presumably Spurs would become CL qualifiers on a more regular basis then it could become a problem. I'd guess it'll be relatively easy to split the ownership in such a way that theres no crossover, even if its as simple as SheikA owns one club and SheikB the other.

death1234567

magma69 wrote: »

It did the sport harm.

How? It just meant a new club was buying the title instead of the usual suspects buying the title.

eyescreamcone

death1234567 wrote: »

How? It just meant a new club was buying the title instead of the usual suspects buying the title.

But But But ...Man U never bought the title!!!

Kirby

It's hilarious when that argument get's brought up. "We spent 217 million assembling our squad and paying them. You spent 485! You bought the title!" That's not a parody....some fans actually believe that nonsense.

Every team that has ever won the premier league has "bought the title". They pay their players. They buy players. Every team in the league does it.

There is no moral high ground when the high ground and the low ground are paved and built with stacks of cash.

CSF

Kirby wrote: »

It's hilarious when that argument get's brought up. "We spent 217 million assembling our squad and paying them. You spent 485! You bought the title!" That's not a parody....some fans actually believe that nonsense.

Every team that has ever won the premier league has "bought the title". They pay their players. They buy players. Every team in the league does it.

There is no moral high ground when the high ground and the low ground are paved and built with stacks of cash.

The issue people have, and it stinks to me as equally hypocritical, is that people have to seem this horrible issue with a football club being funded heavily by 1 foreign individual, but its perfectly ok when they're funded heavily by thousands of foreign individuals.

That it is ok to spend loads of money if you've made loads of money by being an excellent capitalist (and trust me I've no problem with capitalism, I'm not one of those, I'm just using the term for comparison purposes) commercial behemoth around the world, but somehow it is dirty and sullied, to spend loads of money if you've made loads of money by means of an equally capitalist high net worth investor.

Where is the logic there?

cj maxx

Every team that has ever won the premier league has "bought the title". They pay their players. They buy players. Every team in the league does it.

There is no moral high ground when the high ground and the low ground are paved and built with stacks of cash.[/quote]

Does anyone remember jack walker and blackburn . 'Bought' the title .
Thats how you win leagues is by buying the best teams , to do that in a professional game you probably need to pay the best wages .
The nostalgia of a club's moral soul being sold is ludicrous in a professional game

gandalf

Hmmm is this an attempt by the Qataris at buying off the English FA considering their opposition to the WC being held in Qatar in 2022?

It's going to be very interesting to see how the Arabs deal with a club that has a very strong Jewish support base?

Harry Palmr

The difference between buying the title and having a vast sugar daddy is obviously that some clubs built their way to success and others (Blackburn, City, Chelsea) got an "unnatural" unearned income rocket boost.

CSF

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The difference between buying the title and having a vast sugar daddy is obviously that some clubs built their way to success and others (Blackburn, City, Chelsea) got an "unnatural" unearned income rocket boost.

Built their way to success largely by being commercially viable to millions of foreign investors, rather than one really though, no?

death1234567

gandalf wrote: »

It's going to be very interesting to see how the Arabs deal with a club that has a very strong Jewish support base?

Do they really have a strong Jewish support? I thought they were just founded by a Jewish guy (Harry Hotspur) and hence their Jewish/Yid Army tradition/chanting.

ArmaniJeanss

death1234567 wrote: »

Do they really have a strong Jewish support? I thought they were just founded by a Jewish guy (Harry Hotspur) and hence their Jewish/Yid Army tradition/chanting.

Harry Hotspur wasn't Jewish and he died about 500 years before the creation of the club!

Banjaxed82

Tottenham support originally where from a predominantly Jewish area, as is White Hart Lane itself, but it's definitely diluted considerably over the years.

There's still a huge tradition of having Jewish business men pulling the strings at spurs though. Right now being the case.

gosplan

With that kind of investment, Spurs could buy around 63 reasonable quality £15 million players.

Richard Hillman

gosplan wrote: »

With that kind of investment, Spurs could buy around 63 reasonable quality £15 million players.

Predominantly midfielders

gosplan

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Predominantly midfielders

Nothing could stop them in their relentless persuit of sixth.

dreamers75

death1234567 wrote: »

How? It just meant a new club was buying the title instead of the usual suspects buying the title.

Big difference between buying titles with money earned and buying titles with money invested by someone playing FM in real life.

When United/Arsenal etc bought the league it was with money earned as a club/company there was a profit and loss.

City Chelsea PSG etc dont have those limitations. Which ruins the transfer market as players being bought for stupid amounts of money that the club could never make back.