Completely unsubstantiated collusion rumour

[hellava_tough]

Well, the dotcom bubble, wasn't much about moral accountability which caused the issue, same as all the others.

That was just bad business (unlucky in some cases).

Morality in business comes a long way off from the priority, which is dealing with number 1 first and foremost.

Are you saying that's a fact, or the way it should be?

Or both?

 

[Shanks]

Are you saying that's a fact, or the way it should be?

Or both?

Probably a bit of both in all fairness.

At the end of the day, all that matters to any business, is that the finances are making profit (well those that are there to make money of course).

Whilst on the face of those businesses, it will stress, that all services provided, are there for the client/customer, and that any service needed the client/customer comes first, is in actual fact complete bollocks.

So, whilst I agree that companies have a moral obligation on the face of it, in the board room, figures do the talking.

For football business, it has to consider a few other things, figures come first, because without them, the club wouldn't be where it was. Secondly, it needs money to provide a better quality player, but it also needs to keep the fans happy, because they bring in a pretty decent chunk of the cash by watching what ever drivel they happen to support.

Although, from a personal opinion, I believe companies should have moral obligations to provide what ever service they are providing, but in the board room, its money that does the talking, feelings and moral obligations don't count for shit.

 

[leffe186]

Without making any comment on the article itself, the Guardian sports pages have in my view been broadly pro-Arsenal and anti-Spurs for some time now.

 

[Wiener]

The club should publish the exact details of the recent transfer deals between Spurs and Pompey, going back to the Defoe and Kaboul deals, asap.

Redknapp, Storrie, McKay and Allardyce all feature heavily in the Stevens Inquiry, so journalists will ask questions. This is legitimate.

Also, not Pompey related, but let's look at Chimbonda, a client of Willie McKay. We sold him to Sunderland in the summer of 2008. Then we bought him back in January 2009. He hardly played. Then we sold him to Blackburn (managed by Allardyce) in August 2009.

Agent and player will presumably have made a lot of money in commssion on those deals.

It's entirely reasonable for an investigative journalist to ask questions about these moves - even, if, until proven otherwise, the deals must be assumed to be entirely legal.

This is all wildly speculative. Journalists can and should ask questions, but they need to back their conclusions with substance (ie evidence).

My working assumption is that Levy runs a very tight financial ship, and ensures things are entirely proper and correct.

Having said that, large club loans from Icelandic banks which, entirely predictably, collapsed, are of some concern.

So you are saying that every company/person that borrowed money from Icelandic banks should be under suspicion.

Also, former board member Paul Zeital Kemsley's property company has gone into administration:
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?storycode=3141899

So, PZK, like his mate Mike Ashley, is hardly a Master of the Universe wheeler dealer.

We are in the midst of a deep recession. Anyhow, how does this company going into administration have anything to do with THFC?

 

[Wiener]

There is no moral accountability within business.

Generally speaking, the business world is governed by law and ethics and morality refers to an individual's set of values/rules. They are often in conflict and overlap massively as morals apply to individuals and ethics apply to the systems within which individuals operate.

 

[yanno]

Re: Rock Investment.

We are in the midst of a deep recession. Anyhow, how does this company going into administration have anything to do with THFC?

The quotes below are from a 2006 article - in The Guardian again fwiw. ENIC and Rock were most certainly connected.

"Apart from Spurs," he said, "the main interest now is property investment."

Levy, Lewis and Tottenham's vice-chairman, Paul Kemsley, are involved in a property development company, Rock Investment Holdings, which has acquired a spread of commercial and residential sites around England. Lewis holds his 50% stake in Rock via a holding company, Rapallo, of which Levy is the sole director. In the year to December 2004, Levy was paid £240,000 by Rapallo; in the year to June 2005, he was also paid £525,000 by Enic for his work as Tottenham's chairman. Rapallo, like Enic, is ultimately owned by Lewis via a company incorporated in the Bahamas.

Kemsley is also involved in a profit-sharing deal with the club itself, partly relating to Spurs' long search for a bigger ground. Tottenham have agreed to pay Kemsley 15% of any profits the club makes from its property investments, a deal some fans have raised objections to, but which Levy defends as a fair return for the work Kemsley will do. Piecemeal, land around White Hart Lane has been bought to create a larger footprint for the stadium, but the club insists it will not expand its current ground unless the project forms part of wider regeneration, involving public money, of the rundown area of Haringey around it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/sep/27/sport.comment

 

[Wiener]

Re: Rock Investment.



The quotes below are from a 2006 article - in The Guardian again fwiw. ENIC and Rock were most certainly connected.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/sep/27/sport.comment

All very tenuous. Levy clearly has many different interests being wealthy and pro-active businessman. As far as I can see there is no direct link between THFC and Rock, other than Levy's involvement as Director and shareholder in both.

I still don't understand your point. Companies go into administration, especially in the middle of a recession.

What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[markiespurs]

Sounds like the Guardian are trying to stir up a major story that simply is'nt there.

We've brought Portsmouth players because of a few key reasons imo:

1] Harry Knows the players he's buying, he knows what they can do and just as important he knows the attitude and character of these players.

2] We obviously have a good relationship with Portsmouth, which has been benificial to both clubs over the last couple of years.

3] Portsmouth simply needed the money to keep going, by the sounds of things they had to sell players or go out of business on several occassions.

 

[yanno]

All very tenuous. Levy clearly has many different interests being wealthy and pro-active businessman. As far as I can see there is no direct link between THFC and Rock, other than Levy's involvement as Director and shareholder in both.

And the involvement of Joe Lewis.

And the involvement of ENIC.

And the fact that Kemsley was on 15% commission for any profits that THFC, or is that ENIC?, or is that Rock?, made from "property investment".

"All very tenuous"? Joe Lewis owned 50% of Rock, and Levy was the sole director of the holding company that legally owned that investment. Joe Lewis is the owner and majority shareholder of ENIC.

As for Iceland, see here:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=50058&highlight=Kaupthing

In that thread, norflondon wrote:

It's a method of raising finance that became pretty commonplace during the recent years of excess. Lewis and Levy are not unusual in taking advantage of it, however I'm not a fan and think it defines the lack of prudence taken by banks and wealthy individuals. It's methods like this that caused the contagion that precipitated the crunch.

The bank loans Joe €68m and takes a slug of THFC shares as security (much like the mortgage company takes a house as security). The problem is that if the economy collapses and Joe Lewis is no longer good for the money, the chances are that his shares are also no longer worth €68m so the bank has a shortfall and goes bust. The administrators then come in, take ownership of the 20-odd percent of THFC and the Club is now hamstrung by having a significant shareholder whose sole interest is to maximise its own short-term return. Not a good place to be for either the Bank or the Club.

It wasn't unusual, but it clearly was not in the best interests of the Club and for that reason I think it highlights poor judgement from our owners.

 

[Woody10]

Sounds like the Chris Moyles show and dave's tidious link with that article!!

Steve Bruce goes to his old club and gets Cattermole. (prior to this he took, Kapo, Melchiot and Palacious(although indirectly) from Birmingham City to Wigan)

Roy Keane goes to his former club and gets Carlos Edwards and Grant Leadbitter.

Harry Redknapp goes to his former club for Crouch, Krancjar and Defoe.

Ok, a couple of players go the other way aswell but honestly its no biggie, all transfers made sense (as regards, Krancjar was a good move for him and spurs), it isn't as though the transfers that we have made with pompey are wierd ones that people have thought why has he gone there!!

Isn't football all about doing "deals"?!

 

[Wiener]

And the involvement of Joe Lewis.

And the involvement of ENIC.

And the fact that Kemsley was on 15% commission for any profits that THFC, or is that ENIC?, or is that Rock?, made from "property investment".

"All very tenuous"? Joe Lewis owned 50% of Rock, and Levy was the sole director of the holding company that legally owned that investment. Joe Lewis is the owner and majority shareholder of ENIC.

As for Iceland, see here:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=50058&highlight=Kaupthing

In that thread, norflondon wrote:

My question to you is what are you trying to say? What exactly is your point?

Are you concerned about the Levy's ethics? Are you worried THFC is about to be investigated by the authorities? Do you think the club is being run badly?

Regarding all the ties between Lewis, Levy, Kelmsley and various banks, I think you will find most businessmen have their fingers in many different pies. Not one of the issues you bring up actually points to any wrong doing. Personally I think you worry too much and I still don't know what you are trying to say.

The Guardian article is another example of lazy and poor journalism and it all amounts to nothing.

 

[yanno]

Wiener - big English football clubs are owned by a rum lot. Newcastle, West Ham and Pompey have been brought to their news by dodgy owners. Man Utd's profit on turnover is swallowed up in paying the interest on the debt the Glazers took out to purchase the club. Chelsea are owned by a Russian oligarch who defrauded the ordinary people of Russia.

To date, Spurs appear to have been perhaps the best run club financially in the PL.

Good on ENIC. I hope it continues that way. I hope our accounts are bomb-proof and the loans taken from Icelandic banks don't affect our financial health.

I also trust and hope that our transfer dealings are all above board.

However, when Levy accused Liverpool of tapping up Keane last summer, and accepted a charity payment, he was throwing down the gauntlet to other chairmen and to journalists, who are just waiting for the opportunity to see if we are really whiter than white, and never tap up players.

So, it looks as if we settled Sevilla's allegation that we'd tapped up Ramos out of court, as part of the Zokora deal.

Meanwhile, Storrie pretty much accused Redknapp of tapping up Crouch and then backed away. See thread here:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=50490&highlight=storrie&page=3

We then did several other deals with Pompey, involving the likes of Kranjcar, Boateng (who we were having great difficulty offlloading) and O'Hara.

I look at some of our transfer other dealings - eg the multiple Chimbonda deals, involving four men who were at the centre of the Stevens Inquiry - and again have to trust Levy knows this history and therefore ensured that everything was done 100% by the book.

Because you'd better believe journalists will be digging into this stuff.

 

[joffmeister]

I've heard this 'journalist' Matt Scott on the Guardian football podcast - comes across as a tabloid hack.

No idea why they employ him, his stuff's rubbish.

 

[SpurSince57]

The world and his wife (or at least anyone taking an interest in these things) knew that Pompey were on the skids financially. Back in January the Guardian itself ran an article based on a report which gave Pompey a credit rating of zero. Of course Harry would know better than most how deeply in the shit they were (and possibly still are), and it would be ridiculously naive to believe he wouldn't use that knowledge to secure a few good deals.

 

[Ironskull]

It's the job of journalists to ask questions. All the club has to do is publish precise details of recent money flows/transfers, and presumably Spurs will come out looking clean and smelling fragrant.

It may well be their job to ask questions, but it isn't their job to publish the questions without the answers, nor to insinuate answers they haven't uncovered. Furthermore, if they are asking questions, they might inform us why the questions are significant, and explain why and how one answer or another might have implications, and what the implications are.

 

[hybridsoldier]

ridiculous, just all gone on some hunch. whats wrong with a manager going in for his old players? And to sweeten the deal we offer them players on loan/they may have been interested on boateng.

I think they are maybe referring to the mendes, pamarot and davis deal but we did a similar deal with sunderland for tainio, malbranque and chimbomba

 

[Alfieconnman]

I would imagine that after the close run situation with Venables and the subsequent legal action between Sugar and Venables the Spurs board would make every effort to be "whiter than white". DL is nobody's fool and would never allow any sort of dubious financial dealings to be done for obvious reasons and no doubt this policy has been firmly stamped on HR's head. The Grauniad hate all forms of capitalism and this is merely a sad lefty journo trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[norflondon]

Probably a bit of both in all fairness.

At the end of the day, all that matters to any business, is that the finances are making profit (well those that are there to make money of course).

Whilst on the face of those businesses, it will stress, that all services provided, are there for the client/customer, and that any service needed the client/customer comes first, is in actual fact complete bollocks.

So, whilst I agree that companies have a moral obligation on the face of it, in the board room, figures do the talking.

For football business, it has to consider a few other things, figures come first, because without them, the club wouldn't be where it was. Secondly, it needs money to provide a better quality player, but it also needs to keep the fans happy, because they bring in a pretty decent chunk of the cash by watching what ever drivel they happen to support.

Although, from a personal opinion, I believe companies should have moral obligations to provide what ever service they are providing, but in the board room, its money that does the talking, feelings and moral obligations don't count for shit.

I'd argue that you're putting the cart before the horse here. For businesses to be successful, they have to provide goods or service that people want to buy. Thus, I'd argue that customer service is paramount - keep the customer happy and he will return to purchase again. If that happens, profit will follow. How do you keep the customer happy? By having good staff who believe in what they are doing. If the staff do not agree with the moral or ethical stance taken by a company, they can't be giving their all and the business will not provide as good a service as it could, the customer is not as happy as he could be, and doesn't return as often as possible.

Clearly, I'm being slightly extreme but the point is valid. Doing business the 'right' way and treating people the 'right' way will ensure thelongevity of a business and its continued profitability.

Back to Spurs - I sincerely hope that people are ading 2+2 to get 5, but the fact that there are sufficient facts and/or rumour to enable questions to be aired is sufficent to highlight that the communication policy at the Club is not as open as it should be to deter such articles being written. I hope that is a shortcoming that can be addressed rather than a necessity forced by all not being above board.

I'm not suggesting the Club lifts its skirt and shares every piece of information discussed at Board level, but clearly more needs to be shared to keep more customers happy and the tills ringing.

 

[Samson]

Matt Scott is a Goon but this is the downside of Redknapp, isn't it? Even if there is no fire.

 

[remember91]

This is lazy journalism with a tenous link. There are other reasons why there are so many transfers between the two clubs.

Portsmouth are geographically close, yet not another London club, so players can move without too much upheaval and without the complications of dealing with a rival such as West Ham. A number of the players involved such as Davis, Crouch, Defoe and O'Hara are londoners, so working in Portsmouth would mean that they are closer to friends, family and in Defoes case, nightclubs, than a move to the west midlands, north west or northeast.

Portsmouth are probably one rung lower than us in the premiership heirarchy, therefore for a player to come to us if they've done well at pompey (Defoe, Crouch, Krankjar) is a step forward in there career, and to go to pompey if they have not had a great spell with us (Kaboul, Mendes, Boateng) is not too much of a humiliation as they are still playing premiership football.

Finally Tottenham have been, since ENIC came in, a trading club with high player turnover. Along with Portsmouths boom and bust financial situation, this has meant a lot of business being done. When Portsmouth came into the premiership they thought they had money, and tried to buy there place, much like another club we've done a lot of business with - Sunderland, are doing now. This meant they purchased a number of players who had premiership experience but were deemed surplus to our requirements. Now, due to poor management at the top, they are nearly bankrupt and at a state of footballing collapse as they're best players want out. We have taken full advantage of this to get a number of they're players for good prices. This is not nice, but its not illegal.

We have had a lot of business with pompey over the last three years, but there are many more logical explanations than some unexplained illegal goings on. Tottenham Hotspur football club are a PLC and as such one of the most financially transparent clubs in the PL. If this gooner journalist wants to find a real dirty story, maybe looking at the financial goings on at the highbury redevelopment would prove to be much more fruitful.