Arsenal
Aston Villa
Chelsea
Crystal Palace
Everton
Fulham
Leeds United
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Newcastle United
Nottingham Forest
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
West Ham United
Wolverhampton Wanderers
News
Deleted Tottenham Tweet speaks volumes about the problem with Daniel Levy’s £3.75bn masterplan
Technically, Daniel Levy is only a minority investor in Tottenham. But make no mistake, the chairman’s fingerprints are on every strategic decision made in N17.
Through ENIC Sports, Levy and the family trust of former Spurs owner Joe Lewis own just under 87 per cent of Spurs. That equity is split roughly 70-30 between the Lewis trust and Levy.
With Tottenham currently looking for minority investment via the Rothschild bank, one or both of those parties could soon be in for a huge payday.
Notably, Amanda Staveley, former director and shareholder of Newcastle United, is interested in a deal.
However, the very fact that Levy and ENIC are not looking for a full takeover is evidence that they are confident there is more upside to be achieved – a lot more.
That is saying some thing. After all, Levy values Spurs at around £3.75bn, and if they were to fetch that price, it would represent a staggering 4000% markup on the £94m they initially paid for the club.
But, as football finance expert Kieran Maguire told TBR Football earlier this year, the feeling within the industry is that price would represent solid value for any would-be investor.
Spurs’ revenue is soaring year-on-year and, most importantly of all, their cost control – that’s the restraint they have shown in the wage and transfer outlay – is among the best in the Premier League.
Understandably, however, restraint in the recruitment and retention market does not exactly inspire fans who have grown frustrated at Spurs’ emphasis on commercial growth in recent years.
Therein lies the problem that has consumed Spurs in recent years and, judging by recent developments, will continue to do so under the current regime.
And a now-deleted Tweet from Spurs’ official X account is emblematic of the split between the fans and board at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.
- READ MORE: NFL make historic £1bn investment move as Amanda Staveley and Daniel Levy on high alert at Tottenham
Tottenham delete logo rebrand post
Spurs caused a storm on social media when they unveiled their new ‘brand identity’ two weeks ago.
Apart from the fact that very little about their badge appears to have changed besides the removal of text underneath the famous cockerel, the timing of the announcement was questioned by some fans.
It came after Spurs had just lost to Ipswich Town and Galatasaray in consecutive matches and slipping away in the race for Champions League football.
The backlash to the rebrand – which centred on what fans think is the club’s focus on commercial appeal over on-pitch results – was seemingly enough for them to delete the original post on X, formerly Twitter.
The subsequent thread that unveiled the rest of Spurs refreshed ‘brand identity’ such as the new club font and the revival of their monogram has remained live on their account.
The saga is the split between supporters and the board in microcosm.
The stripped back logo is thought to be the club’s attempt to position itself as a lifestyle brand – a vehicle to sell products and services, in layman’s terms.
Levy thinks this is where Spurs untapped value in terms of their appeal to investors lies, but it is also exactly the kind of corporate trajectory that fans are worried about.
Why are Spurs so focused on commercial income?
Spurs response to those questioning their commercial focus is generally to point out that they want to run a self-sufficient business.
AKA, more money from sponsorship, merchandise and events equates to more money for Ange Postecoglou and Johan Lange’s budget.
There is merit to that argument, and Spurs growth since the move to the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in 2019 has been nothing short of extraordinary.
However, revenue is now rising faster than Tottenham’s spending on wages and amortisation.
Spurs have ample headroom in terms of PSR (Profit and Sustainability Rules) and the liquidity to push the envelope in the transfer market.