New Premiership Super Powers

sundula

On average over the last few seasons the top for teams in the premiership (not in any order) Have been Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool. Now with Man City being linked with a takeover that means the following clubs have all recently acquired mega rich owners

West Ham, Liverpool, Aston Villa and potentially Newcastle and Man City.

Are these takeovers good for the Prem overall? By next season there could be a clear rich/poor divide.

Can Villa and Westham break into the top four in a serious way ? Will Man U and Arsenal struggle to complete financially with Chelsea, and mega rich West Ham, Villa and Liverpool?

kinaldo

I didn't write the following (Newcastle fan Delima did a couple of weeks ago) but I thought it was a decent read overall and contained some good points and also some that I don't agree with at all with so don't slate me!

With so many takeover news on so many teams recently, I can't help but ask myself - What would the Premiership look like in the long term future? Which clubs will come up top, and which clubs will sink? Which (potential) takeover would prove successful, and which will prove disastrous?

The following are my thoughts.

Chelsea - Taken over by Abramovich, a born again geuine football fan who has long term plan and ambition. As long as his fortune is untouched by Russian authority then I forsee the continuos dominance of Chelsea for a long while.

Manchester United - Taken over by Glazer family. So far still seem to be pretty supportive of the manager (Carrick, Hargreaves). Man U won't be able to challenge the dominance of Chelsea but they are still very likely to remain in the top tier, as long as they choose the right manager to succeed Ferguson. However in Queroz they know they have a safe pair of hand in the queue.

Liverpool - Constant takeover rumours. The club urgently needs new investment to fund the new stadium and to support the manager. In Benitez they can afford not to worry for a long time. But where would the club find money to fund Benitez's purchses in transfer market in order to stay in touch with Chelsea? Still, in Rick Perry and Rafael Benitez, the club won't go wrong. Liely to stay in top albeit inconsistencies.

Aston Villa - Taken over by American billionaire Lerner. Managed by Martin O'Neill. Lerner's pass records does not impress. But O'Neill's does. However, can O'Neill prove to be a capable long term candidate to challenge the top clubs? I doubt so. 5 years in Celtic, spent heavily there and yet still couldn't totally overpower Rangers managed by McLeish. My opinions have swayed following Villa's current form. But can O'Neill really become one of the elite managers? Verdict: Mid to top table

Portsmouth - Taken over by France-Russia-Israele trinational Gaydamak. Managed by Redknapp and Adam. The board seems to be supportive of the manager, and the club has been revitalised consequently. How far can they go before they sink? Gaydamak's father owns a club in Israel, but his record does not impress. However, wit them in charge you know they won't be relegated. Verdict: Midtable.

West Ham - Taken over by the Icelandic businessman. They have vowed to make Parddew's seat safe. I think the new owner is a noble man with noble intentions. But their first mistakes is to promise the safety of Pardew. Despite having 2 much coveted Argentinians and few highly rated English futures in the squad, Pardew's West Ham is still ****. Pardew is simply not up to scratch if they were to resume the glory past. By promising so uch so early, they will come to regret it. Verdict: Mid to bottom table, unless they have a change of manager.

Arsenal - Not taken over or anything. But they have the best board and manager partnership in the premier league in David Dein and Wenger. With the new stadium, needless to say they will easily remain in the top tier. They don't need too muchmoney to compete with other clubs, because they have the best academy system in the world.

Tottenham - Have a good and ambitious owner who has done almost all the right things to date. With Comolli as DOF the club looks more and more like Arsenal everyday. I doubt Martin Jol is the right manager to guide them to challenge other elites, but he is decent enough to put them in mid to top table every year.

Wigan - Have an amicable pair of chairman and manager. Not starved of money, but how far can they go? Or how long can they stay before they al again? They are still a minnow club. And Whelan's pocket is not bottomless. Verdict: Midtable.

Everton - Do not have a rich chairman, but have a good manager who buys and manage wisely. Midtable, simply they can't compete with the others financially.

Middlesbrough - Have an excellent chairman, and a series of crap manager, due to the noble intentions of the manager. His insistence to stick with Englishman, plus the current draught of excellent English manager, means that his club won't break into the elite club. Verdict: Mid to bottom table, but the club can only become stronger and stronger. One day, eventually, they are going to challenge for the title.

Manchester City - No money. No good manager. No hopers. Perennial relegation candidate, unless they strike gold with a new manger.

Fulham - Unsupportive board, but a decent young manager who can only improve. Mid to bottom table.

Bolton Wanderers - There won't be life after Sam allrdyce.

Charlton - There won't be life after Alan Curbishley.

Blackburn Rovers - There might not be life after Mark Hughes. But I think they have some fund left by their previous chairman. Maybe there is life after all.

Reading - Midtable. Decent manager.

Watford - There won't be life after Aidy Boothroyd.

---

Now here comes the reason why I wrote this post.

Newcastle United - **** board with poor managers. Shepherd is a poor millionaire who pretends to be a fat cat. His money is our money, and he borrows money to fund the manager. What is the long term future of Newcastle United with Freaky ****bird in charge? How can we compete with Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, Aston Villa and Wigan in the long term?

Ok we might get lucky with our next manager, but how much confidence do you have in FFS? We are in debt, only the TV money can save us. But everyone else will get the TV money too. We have spent loads of money on nothing. How would we fair if we spend nothing?

Pray tell the Belgravia takeover goes through. A consistent top club requires a consistent top board and top manager. Only with the change of ownership we can have a new sense of direction, and only then a trully top manager will come to manage us.

gustavo

They are good for it in the extent that it will keep firing money into the league so they will be able to get top players from other countries that previously wouldnt have come to that league or club

sundula

Subtract Newcastle and Man City from that list in the order it is in then the bottom 9/10 clubs are out in the cold financially.

Is imposing salary and transfer limits on clubs the only way to balance things ?

PHB

I think a cap on wages, not individually but on a team, is the best way to go as a whole.

yom 1

sundula wrote:

Is imposing salary and transfer limits on clubs the only way to balance things ?

Even this wouldn't balance things out completely as it would be based on the clubs turnover. The big four would still be able to afford higher valued players for more wages as their turnover would be greater(and in sum cases far greater) than the smaller clubs.

sundula

Yeah a cap on the team - of € X and then a transfer budget of € Y for a 12 month period. With violations of the rules leading to points deduction. If such a system were in place then after a couple of years then i think there would be a leveling of the playing field so to speak.

sundula

yom 1 wrote:

Even this wouldn't balance things out completely as it would be based on the clubs turnover. The big four would still be able to afford higher valued players for more wages as their turnover would be greater(and in sum cases far greater) than the smaller clubs.

Dont think i would put a cap based on a % of turn over. I would just set a limit of lets say € 20 million for the a 12 month period for everyone. There would naturally be huge resistance to this by the players and the system would have to be phased in and brought in right across Europe

Fratton Fred

It is becoming a playground for the mega rich, but who cares. As long as the “Normal” fans don’t get pushed out to make way for new fan, who wouldn’t know the off side law if it jumped up and nicked the rocket out of their prawn sandwich.

I count myself as being lucky, I’ve seen Pompey play in every division of the football league, not being able to compete with the Man United’s and the Chelsea’s is not a problem for me, I'll support Portsmouth regardless.

I feel sorry for the new found Chelsea fans that may this season have to suffer the indignation of finishing second in the league. When you’ve only ever known success, all you have to look forward to is failure. Anyway, how many “Just Enough” performances can you stomach.

Paul Tergat

PHB wrote:

I think a cap on wages, not individually but on a team, is the best way to go as a whole.

I really like the system employed on rugby league...

it's capped wages but based on income, so a percentage of their gate receipts is allocated towards the years wages.

the playing field is slightly in favour of those with higher attendances but the competition as a whole has benefited, with different winners of the competition every year


also, over the past 2 years clubs have been docked points for exceeding those limits!

Fratton Fred

p_larkin99 wrote:

I really like the system employed on rugby league...

it's capped wages but based on income, so a percentage of their gate receipts is allocated towards the years wages.

the playing field is slightly in favour of those with higher attendances but the competition as a whole has benefited, with different winners of the competition every year


also, over the past 2 years clubs have been docked points for exceeding those limits!

but that would still make Arsenal and Man U wealthy and Portsmouth, Fulhm and Blackburn poor.

Clubs would just up ticket prices to increase their gate receipts and it would drive away normal fans.

Teams like Watford would have no chance of competing in their first season in the Premiership because their gound is small.

PHB

Clubs would just up ticket prices to increase their gate receipts and it would drive away normal fans.

That would result in teams losing money, because eventually they'd have no people going at all.
I also like the rugby league system for a couple of reason:

Prices would be kept low due to the need to ensure attendences
Since wages would be contingent on gate reciepts, a massive amount of attacking football would be encouraged
Most importantly, It would level the playing field out between clubs, and give the likes of Spurs et al a chance to challenge at the title.

WhiteWashMan

Fratton Fred wrote:

Anyway, how many “Just Enough” performances can you stomach.

its probably a lot better as a supporter than 'just not enough'.


anyway, how can anyone take that seriously. apparently boro are going to challeneg for the title eventually.

now unless there is actually unlimited amounts of time in that.....

Xavi6

Fratton Fred wrote:

It is becoming a playground for the mega rich, but who cares. As long as the “Normal” fans don’t get pushed out to make way for new fan, who wouldn’t know the off side law if it jumped up and nicked the rocket out of their prawn sandwich.

I count myself as being lucky, I’ve seen Pompey play in every division of the football league, not being able to compete with the Man United’s and the Chelsea’s is not a problem for me, I'll support Portsmouth regardless.

I feel sorry for the new found Chelsea fans that may this season have to suffer the indignation of finishing second in the league. When you’ve only ever known success, all you have to look forward to is failure. Anyway, how many “Just Enough” performances can you stomach.

I think that's the thing we shouldnt to lose sight of. I went to see City play Lincoln in Division 2 when we were down there and the feeling of seeing my team win in the flesh was just as good as when I saw them beat Villa in the cup last year. I'd much rather be part of a see-saw team then get bored of winning. Although having said that, this latest news of us getting an investor is still quite pleasing!

Bounty Hunter

Clubs need to be very cautious picking investors though if Roman Abramovich had not assured them that he was long term, he would be currently making them uneconomically viale for almost anyone else to run.

I Personally think that fan friendly owner of his own credit card company Randy Lerner was a good choice especially along side MON.

Gaydamak (Sp) still to me seems slightly dodgy and its hard to know what fees he can afford, might suit Harry tho

The Glaziers seem fairly decent but still have to solve 2 questions, Fergies eventual replacement? and the Debt question.

Liverpool have someone even richer than Abramovich coming apparently but unlike the Russian i doubt he will be uprooting from Dubai to Merseyside.

Man City, Newcastle ect that are in the rumours now for Takeovers if you get the right people you and everyone else wont mind seing it otherwise foreign investors owning Clubs as an issue will really take center stage IMO.

MrJoeSoap

I wouldn't mind a Russian sugar-daddy at Shels right now to be honest. Or at least someone to pay the electricity bills.

Fratton Fred

PHB wrote:

That would result in teams losing money, because eventually they'd have no people going at all.
I also like the rugby league system for a couple of reason:

Prices would be kept low due to the need to ensure attendences
Since wages would be contingent on gate reciepts, a massive amount of attacking football would be encouraged
Most importantly, It would level the playing field out between clubs, and give the likes of Spurs et al a chance to challenge at the title.

this is my arguement.

The cheapest tickets at Chelsea are £48, with a £2 booking fee, yet they sell out every week. Chelsea have a hardcore of around 20,000 fans who have supported them for eve and turn up everyweek regardless. The other 22,000 that go are made up of johnny come latelys, tourists or local sloane rangers who go because it is trendy. Chelsea could put another £5 on the price of ticket and they would still sell out.

Tickets at fratton Park are £36 and although the crowd is 75% season ticket holders, the number of season ticket holders is dropping because it is a less affluent, working class city with very much a local fan base. putting £5 on the price of a ticket would have serious consequences for the club as people would not be able to afford to go.

If Man Unted put the price of season tickets up 25%, it would upset a lot of fans and they would not be able to renew, but there will always be someone there willing to take their place. be they from London, Belfast, Dublin, Helsinki or Tokyo.

I agree in principal with wage capping, but I don't see how it could work, the rich clubs will still always get richer and the gulf looks like it will continue to grow.

sundula

Out of all the recent Prem investors are the Glazers the only ones who seemed concerned to run their club as a business and make profits and assure future stability of the Club?

This is not Romans plan, he seems to treat Chelsea like a toy - if he was to pull out of the club they would to broke beyond any levels ever scene before. Just look at the massive hits they take on transfer deals - Veron, Duff, Crespo and SWP if sold will probably only get half what they paid for him. Reckless spending has got to worry fans and the Premier League.

sofireland

The FA, and Fifa don't have the political will to do this.

Its worked in Rugby League, because the governing body enforces it rigidly, Bradford Bulls were deducted points afaik

Savman

sundula wrote:

Out of all the recent Prem investors are the Glazers the only ones who seemed concerned to run their club as a business and make profits and assure future stability of the Club?

Have you been following events at Villa Park or do you assume Utd are doing everything better than everyone else? There are good cases also for Pompey, Wigan, Spurs, Arsenal etc. The Glazers took over a hugely successful club with seemingly questionable plans regarding debts. How would you suggest they are the only club from 20 that care about long term stability?!? Madness.

The whole reason the Premier League was formed was because the top clubs wanted to find ways of generating extra income, that seems to have paid off ten times over. Now some clubs are facing financial difficulties, it's an inevitable side effect to a booming industry. Have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Premier_League it's quite an interesting read.

wiki wrote:

As a result of the increasingly lucrative television deals, player wages rose sharply following the formation of the Premier League. In the first Premier League season the average player wage was £75,000 per year,[34] but subsequently rose by an average 20% per year for a decade,[35] peaking in the 2003-04 season, when the annual salary of the average Premier League player was £900,000.

Perhaps wage caps are the way forward, but if that does happen don't be surprised if many of the bigger players turn their back on England.

Personally I can't see it happening, if the FA push the Premier League enough, the League would probably just breakaway and operate independently.

patmac

sundula wrote:

Is imposing salary and transfer limits on clubs the only way to balance things ?

In the seasonal words of Ken Bates will turkeys vote for Christmas, football clubs are businesses with shareholders to answer to there is no way the powerful clubs will allow this to happen they personally don't give two fecks about the poorer clubs, which is why the Champions League is the mess it is now after the threatened breakaway league by G14 who are also backing the court cases involving compensation for internationals, these actions alone show that it's all about the money, which is why we spend hundreds a year on Sky, travelling to matches, jerseys etc to help pay the likes of John O'Shea his yearly salary of £900,000, ffs are we mad?

sundula

I was quite clearly talking abot NEW takevoers so that pretty much rules out Wigan, Arsenal. Spurs. As for pompey the setup remains to be seen but they have thrown in alot of money abd made some pretty average signings.

As you said Spurs, Arsenal, Wigan all seem to be well run - no arguements from me because i wasnt talking about ANY of them.

The Galzers are sucessful business people and all though the manner in which they purchased the club was questionable they seem to have cut out costs - Players on loan, selling off fringe players, changes to hospitality etc, etc, - this hasnt effect Man U. They are top of the Prem, progressing in Europe. Their transfer policy seems to have balanced out (possible exception of Carrick) and they recently got one of the biggest sponsorship deals in football history.

So no i didnt suggest they are the only club in the league who are trying to run a good shop.

United continue to be profitable and a sucessful world wide brand, one of the most well known. I am not a Man U fan and have been classed as an ABU on this forum previously

But buying one of the worlds biggest clubs which was already profitable and using your business acumen to try and make it generator more cash is not as big a gamble as buying a loss making club, with low support, no european exposure, attracting average players on top wages and having to pay over the odds to bring in bigger names because of your lower reputation and then hoping you can break the power 4 to get into Europe and start making decent profits to pay back the huge sums invested.

What they do at Villa and Pompy remains to be seen but they have to spend a lot of money to put structures in place to break into the top a consistent rate. Everyone knows Chelsea dont seem concerned about profits or how they are going to make to club sustainable if Roman ups sticks. When these people with the possible exception of Roman invest money they want returns - everyone cant win the league.

thebaz

I think the takeovers are good, as long as investor really wants to develop there new club , unlike that lunatic that runs Hearts , who actually wants to manage the football end of the club. More money means better facilities and better quality player , i remember the days before the Premiership, when the best British players (Rush, Hughes, Lineker etc.) went abroad , and exotic talent was some Scandanavian international - i've enjoyed Cantona, Klinsman , Gullit, Bergkamp, Zola etc even Arteta at Goodison -- theyve brought quality to the English league and raised the overall football standards -- we (Everton) actually got some investment ourselves from the Planet Hollywood mogul, so beware !

Fratton Fred

sundula wrote:

What they do at Villa and Pompy remains to be seen but they have to spend a lot of money to put structures in place to break into the top a consistent rate. Everyone knows Chelsea dont seem concerned about profits or how they are going to make to club sustainable if Roman ups sticks. When these people with the possible exception of Roman invest money they want returns - everyone cant win the league.

I can't really comment on the others, but Pompey has seen a lot of investment from the previous owner, Milan Mandaric, who took the club from receivership to making an annual profit for the first time in 25 years. That was the first step.

Sacha Gaydemak, our new owner seems intent on taking us further, but there is still a lot of infrastructure that needs sorting, for example we do not have our own training ground, we lease one from a local college. Land has been purchased for a new training centre and youth academy which is massive move for us.

BTW, we haven't actually spent big, £4.5m is our record signing to date, but the likes of Kanu, James and Campbell don;t come cheap salery wise. I wouldn't call any of them "Average" either.

sundula

Pompey havent spent big, and it could be aruged that the guys that came in for free or nominal amounts or doing better than some of their "big" money buys. What do you think are their plans for the future ? I assume Uefa quailification would be a considered a brilliant season as it would be for Villa?
Are Pompey just a hobby for thier new owner or do you think they are putting in the foundations to ensure they will be always competing in the Prem?

sundula

Fratton Fred wrote:

BTW, we haven't actually spent big, £4.5m is our record signing to date, but the likes of Kanu, James and Campbell don;t come cheap salery wise. I wouldn't call any of them "Average" either.

Sorry average is not the right word -

Savman

sundula wrote:

assume Uefa quailification would be a considered a brilliant season as it would be for Villa?

Considering the squad is virtually the same as last season (Petrov the notable exception, Sutton & Agathe are decent fringe players) I'd be feckin happy with anywhere in the Top 10. We've a nightmare run coming up that will make or break the season. If we get thru til the end of Jan I think we'll push for that UEFA spot.

Villa's upcoming fixtures include United three times in a month :rolleyes:, Chelsea, Spurs, Bolton and Newcastle.

We're a long way off being a premiership "super power" but right now we'll happily take the "draw specialists" tag as the club is still in transition.

Fratton Fred

sundula wrote:

Pompey havent spent big, and it could be aruged that the guys that came in for free or nominal amounts or doing better than some of their "big" money buys. What do you think are their plans for the future ? I assume Uefa quailification would be a considered a brilliant season as it would be for Villa?
Are Pompey just a hobby for thier new owner or do you think they are putting in the foundations to ensure they will be always competing in the Prem?

Being safe by Easter would be a good season for us!!

UEFA would be amazing but tbh, establishing ourselves as an upper mid table team will be good for now. Hopefully that will help attract bigger and better players.

Gaydemak’s plans are unknown. He has shelved plans for the re-development of the ground and is reportedly looking at an entirely new ground on the edge of the city (Portsmouth is an island and it is also one of the most densely populated cities in Europe, so land in the city itself is hard to find).

One thing’s for certain, if he is happy to get his cheque book out, Redknapp will be only too willing to help him spend his money.

sundula

Is there in effect two breeds to the these new owners - The Investor who is looking for a good return on investment a good business and a what he would deem a fair profit and then the Philanthropist type who has cash to burn and wants a club to worship him?

Abramovich vs Glazer

And which would you sooner have at your club?

Savman

sundula wrote:

Is there in effect two breeds to the these new owners - The Investor who is looking for a good return on investment a good business and a what he would deem a fair profit and then the Philanthropist type who has cash to burn and wants a club to worship him?

Abramovich vs Glazer

And which would you sooner have at your club?

I have to disagree with ye there,based on my own observations of Randy Lerner to date. While he would be in the "Investor who is looking for a good return on investment" so far he has been appeasing the fans with long overdue improvements to the club (Holte Hotel redevelopment, statue to honour Euro '82 cup winning team, ceremony to Ron Saunders 20 odd years after he left). He's clearly not after short-term financial gain nor is he an egotistical chairman who wants to hog the limelight (a la Freddy Shepherd) in fact Lerner rarely does interviews and likes to leave the day-to-day running of the club to his trusted Directors and Managers. MON has even stated that Lerner does not interfere with how he does things. Of course he's looking for a return in the long term but that's not the sole purpose of his agenda, the fans worship him already so nothing that can be done about that.

I think the difference between us Villans and the likes of Wigan, Pompey etc. is that we've had a bit of success in the past, along with some glorious nights of European football at Villa Park which is a 42,000 capacity stadium. It's a fallen giant looking to regain status of some sort (any sort in fact). I mean no disrespect to Pompey or Wigan, but they are doing superb with the resources available to them. Both Fratton Park and the JJB are small enough stadiums (less than 25,000 each iirc) so I think teams in this position have such a long way to go to achieve the "super power" status. In truth they could be closer than Villa, all I'm saying is that at the very least, Villa already have the foundation we just need that kick up the arse.

This is also interesting:

wiki wrote:

Seven clubs have been members of the Premiership for every season (15) since its inception. This elite group includes Arsenal, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United, and Tottenham Hotspur. Newcastle United has next longest streak at 14 seasons, since being promoted to the Premier League in 1993.

There's your nucleus of the teams with a stronghold in the Premiership, surely their experience in the 38-game season counts for something?

sundula

But broadly Lerner falls into the investor catergory - Im not saying this catergory is evil or wrong as its has many advantages. I dont mean or see Investors of his sort as souless profit hungary guys who just want cash - but basically these people are after sound investments and some return.

Chucky the tree

kinaldo wrote:

Lerner's pass records does not impress.

what's his past record? I know you didnt right this kinaldo. but does anyone know? Surely his past business record must be pretty impressive if he could afford to buy Villa.

kinaldo

Chucky the tree wrote:

what's his past record? I know you didnt right this kinaldo. but does anyone know? Surely his past business record must be pretty impressive if he could afford to buy Villa.

Since arriving at Cleveland, Lerner has not waved a magic wand to solve their on-the-field problems - they have not managed to win more than half of their games in any of the last three seasons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/aston_villa/4790967.stm

kinaldo

Liverpool, Manchester City, Newcastle, Spurs, Reading, Fulham and Everton are next in line as foreign owners continue to buy into the Premiership

Special report by Nick Harris
Published: 08 December 2006

Foreign ownership of English football's Premiership clubs is almost certain to increase over the next 12 months, an Independent investigation has revealed. Chelsea, Manchester United, Portsmouth, Aston Villa and West Ham are already owned by overseas buyers, but at least another seven clubs could soon join them. Liverpool look likely to be bought by the billionaire ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, while Newcastle United have been in takeover talks, most recently with the Jersey-based Belgravia Group.

Manchester City yesterday became the latest club to disclose they are involved in talks with a potential investor, and it is understood the club are available lock, stock and barrel, for an initial investment of around £75m. The club's chairman, John Wardle, said "talks are at a very early stage" with an unnamed potential investor.

Perhaps the most surprising revelation in The Independent's investigation is that the tycoons who own Tottenham Hotspur would consider selling * but it would take an eye-popping £300m for them to do so. Another London club, Fulham, who are £160m in the red, mostly to their benefactor-chairman, Mohamed al-Fayed, would probably be available to anyone wanting to assume that debt.

And there are two more clubs susceptible to takeovers in the near future: Reading's owner, John Madejski, has gone on record as a potential seller and Everton might consider offers * there is a possibility of a majority of Premiership clubs soon being owned by newcomer speculators.

Today's Independent investigation also reveals, for the first time, guide prices to all 20 Premiership clubs and the likelihood of each one being sold.

It shows that the Premiership's 20 clubs are worth £3.3bn combined. The most valuable club according to our "guide prices" are Manchester United, who would cost upwards of £923m to buy today. Arsenal, at £569m, are rated as the next most valuable, followed by Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle and Tottenham.

Manchester City's share price values the club at shy of £13m. Their debts are £51m, made up of "external debt" of £32.3m plus £19m owed in private loans to Wardle and his business partner, David Makin, who between them own 30 per cent of the club.

It is thought that both men, as well as the next largest shareholder, Mark Bowler, with 18 per cent, would happily walk away if a new investor was willing to spend £75m to buy all the club's equity (for £36m, probably less), pay off private loans (£19m), promise about £20m for squad investment, and take on the external debt on top. Wardle, Makin, Bowler and others paid up to four times the current value for their shares.

"John Wardle is City through and through," a source said. " But he has made no secret that he has always been a reluctant chairman, and as long as it's in the club's interest, if someone comes in with serious and credible investment, he would sell."

On paper, Spurs, a plc, are worth around £90m, which equates to the value of their ordinary shares plus the value of an additional £30m of preference shares. Given the recent sale of West Ham (for £85m plus the assumption of £23m debt, for an "enterprise cost" of £108m) Spurs' relative price should be about £120m.

Allowing for a whopping premium on top for their shareholders * the largest stake, 30 per cent, is held by ENIC, whose managing director, Daniel Levy, is the Spurs chairman * and the price might rise to £200m-plus. But in today's sellers' market, insiders at White Hart Lane feel that they could achieve more.

The current shareholders paid up to twice the current value for their stock. Tens of millions of pounds have been spent in recent years, and the club also ownplayers with big price tags who are not listed on the balance sheet; Aaron Lennon and Ledley King foremost among them.

On a like-for-like basis against Manchester United, sold for £790m last year, insiders insist Spurs are worth £200m-plus, at least. When rated by EBIT potential (earnings before tax and income), Spurs, a debt-free club, are worth £12.8m per year against £46m for United using the most recent financial figures. On that basis, Spurs' value would equate to £221m.

"You can't justify a £300m price tag on paper, but if you buy a sports franchise you don't pay what it's worth in a traditional sense these days, but what it could be worth," one source said.

Arguably one of the less likely clubs to be sold is Fulham, if only because most investors would baulk at assuming such huge debts on a small club. But while Fulham are not being hawked around, it seems they are for sale. " The chairman [Fayed] has never said he wants to sell, and considers it as a family business with a long-term goal of breaking even," a spokeswoman said. "But it would be naïve to think that if he got a substantial offer, sufficient to recoup 100 per cent of his investment, that he would not consider it."

http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/premiership/article2055522.ece