Battle of White Hart Lane

Although the club made a £7.1m loss in its latest accounts, this deficit was effectively an accounting loss because of the write-offs on players like Sergei Rebrov and Ben Thatcher. The club made an operating profit of £11m last year, indicating the business was in a strong position in comparison to nearly all its rivals.

But rather than increase the bank debt, Levy wanted greater flexibility in the club's finances and he believed the bond provided that.

The bond scheme was to be open equally to all existing shareholders ranging from Levy's company Enic, who hold 29.8 per cent, to individual fans with a sentimental stake.

Enic would have underwritten the bonds which means they would have to buy any of the surplus not taken up, providing the cash input.

What was needed to carry the plan was unanimity on the board but that was not forthcoming despite several weeks of heated discussion.

The bulk of the opposition to the plan came from non-executive director Howard Shore. Having made a fortune through his investment banking boutique Shore Capital, Shore is regarded as a big hitter on the six-man Spurs board. He also holds a one per cent shareholding in the club. Levy argued what he was doing was in the best interests of the club. But Shore, who refused to comment on his position despite several calls to his office, argued that the deal was detrimental to small shareholders.

He thought it unlikely they would take up the offer because it could ultimately dilute their stake. The only shareholder obliged to buy the shares is Enic and this could ultimately give them greater control.

There was also heated debate over whether Spurs should move from a full Stock Market listing to the Alternative Investments Market (AIM). This has certain tax advantages to small shareholders and is probably a better environment for a company like Spurs, with a market capitalisation of just £26m. It has been denied that this was just a precursor to take the company private.

Nevertheless Shore's opposition to the AIM move was implacable and he began to find an unlikely ally in former finance director Paul Viner.

He is thought to have expressed doubts over some aspects of the plan and had also angered Levy in relation to an internal issue relating to the club's bankers, Lloyds.

Clearly unhappy with his finance director, the matter came to a head and Viner resigned last week. He also refused to comment.

As well as the damaging rows with Shore and others, Levy's ability to plough on with the scheme has been hampered by a share price that has risen noticeably.

Spurs shares have gone from a year low of 17p in June to hit a year high of 28p last week, outperforming even the general Stock Market recovery.

This unpredictable trading of shares and the shifting value of the club has made it more difficult to set a price for the convertible bond, delaying matters still further.

Viner's resignation also had an unwelcome and slightly unexpected reaction for Spurs. It sparked headlines about financial problems at the club and forced the boardroom row into the public domain.

Spurs sources insist the impact on the managerial situation remains unaffected by Levy's decision to abandon the scheme for the moment. He has apparently made it clear to the board that unless he has unanimous backing it will not happen, stressing that he believes the decision is detrimental to the long term future of Spurs.

It is hoped that once the board sort out their problems the raising of money can be reactivated.

With Levy delivering what is effectively an ultimatum, it would appear that Shore's opposition has won the day for the moment.

But insiders say the battle is far from over. Levy also refused to comment last night.