Tottenham takeover talk adds new layer of uncertainty at a curious club who only do Spursy

There’s a temptation to succumb to confirmation bias and just conclude that anything connected with Spurs is by definition Spursy.

The good news, though, is that in doing so you will very, very rarely be wrong. Most things Spurs do are Spursy. Even the bright spots from a very Spursy performance in the Champions League on Tuesday night – the performances of young lamb-to the-slaughter midfield duo Oliver Skipp and Pape Matar Sarr – were Spursy if you look closely enough. They were only playing because a youth-averse, stubborn manager was forced to pick them.

Their displays skewered the ‘Conte must know best, he sees them in training!’ argument and left everyone wondering what might have happened if he’d just considered maybe even trying Djed Spence in a game or two here and there.

See? Even good news can always be Spursy if you look hard enough. They managed to beat Manchester City again yet find a significant downside because of the Arsenal-assisting nature of the result. Spursy, Spursy, Spursy.

Spursy when they win, Spursy when they lose, Spursy when there’s good news, Spursy when there’s bad news. In summary, then: Spursy.

But we should still take care. Is everything actually Spursy? It is always possible that something might occasionally come along connected with Spurs but not actually Spursy. We must always remain vigilant. Especially if it’s about something we don’t really understand, like football takeovers or pretty much anything to do with the business side of the game. Far too complicated.

This Spurs takeover talk, though. Feels kinda Spursy. First of all, we’re not remotely sure from reading the Financial Times report about the apparent interest of the Iranian-American billionaire Jahm Najafi whether it’s adding debt to the club or taking it away.

The $3.75bn offer ‘would value the club’s equity at approximately $3bn before adding about $750mn of debt on the club’s books,’ it says here. Does that mean Glazer-style debt leveraging of $750m, or wiping out the club’s existing debt?

See, we don’t write about this stuff for the same reason the FT doesn’t write about football. Our contribution to the financial side of this conversation would be as cogent as the football-explaining bits in the FT’s article, which include such gems as ‘Like Chelsea, Spurs is seen as a member of the so-called Big Six group of clubs — including Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City and Manchester United — that regularly…