- Feb 1, 2005
- 55,659
- 205,658
- Admin
- #5,181
David Webb, wasn't that Jason Bourne's real name?
A really interesting snippet via Talksport just now (11.30 onwards).
Interview with David Webb who was part of the Spurs recruitment setup when Poch was there.
Some interesting comments from him when questioned by Simon Jordan (in an attempt to validate his own defence of Daniel Levy).
* Levy had an opinion on players and whether they should or shouldn't be signed
*He would always get involved as the process evolved towards signing a player
*Poch had last say on signings however with Levy they didn't always get over the line.
*There were players that we had in the building that would have helped Poch moving forward but for whatever reasons we didn't get them done.
Felt he had more to say re Levy and it did make Jordan look abit silly in his defense.
Worth a listen.
Yep agree. There is the problem. Levy just can't let go. How the fuck does he think with an accountancy background he can identify which player is needed. Completely baffling
That aligns with ITK on Levy meddling with deals and this is the exactly kind of thing that keeps holding us back, our fans have realised this now and are demanding change and rightly so.A really interesting snippet via Talksport just now (11.30 onwards).
Interview with David Webb who was part of the Spurs recruitment setup when Poch was there.
Some interesting comments from him when questioned by Simon Jordan (in an attempt to validate his own defence of Daniel Levy).
* Levy had an opinion on players and whether they should or shouldn't be signed
*He would always get involved as the process evolved towards signing a player
*Poch had last say on signings however with Levy they didn't always get over the line.
*There were players that we had in the building that would have helped Poch moving forward but for whatever reasons we didn't get them done.
Felt he had more to say re Levy and it did make Jordan look abit silly in his defense.
Worth a listen.
We know he's a multi-billionaire tax exile. That is absolutely enough to make a moral judgement on him,.I agree with you that I don't see why anyone would need so much money. However I don't think it helps to make a moral judgement on this matter. For a start you know very little about him. He is very private. Much of what is written about him is speculation. We don't know what he is worth and what he does with his money.
So? We're not talking about his legal right to own the club, we're talking about his morality. The fact that he's legally allowed to hoard so much money (which, again, he has no use for) doesn't change the morality of it.All that aside he seems to be operating within the law.
I am completely comfortable with feeling morally superior to a multi-billionaire tax exile. I agree that you can argue the toss about where to draw the line on acceptable levels of wealth, but it is absolutely straightforward to say that a billion pounds is the wrong side of the line. Earning the average UK wage, you'll earn a million pounds in a little under 40 years. Earning the average UK wage, it would take you closer to 40,000 years to become a billionaire. You can argue about scale all you want, but there is no reasonable argument for anyone having a billion pounds. It is immoral to be a billionaire and keep that money for yourself, regardless of legality, tax implications etc.It's very difficult, but not impossible, to legislate on this matter without infringing on an individuals right to privacy and general freedoms. Deciding what is an "acceptable level of wealth" is not as straightforward as you might think. I for one don't think it can thought of like that. I am all for a progressive tax system (wealth tax, inheritance tax etc) but it must be done carefully and certainly not with any sense of moral superiority.
Politicians answer there, ‘main’ responsibility so does Lewis have any responsibility, or to be more precise a large part of the responsibility?I am afraid I disagree. The main responsibility for that disaster lies with the UK government of the time.
I think at this stage if you believe Levy will change you’re getting to this point…If we are going to be honest, i dont feel confident Levy ever changing even with the appointment of Munn who i believe is just another layer and a distraction tool. Obviously i hope i am wrong.
Politicians answer there, ‘main’ responsibility so does Lewis have any responsibility, or to be more precise a large part of the responsibility?
I think at this stage if you believe Levy will change you’re getting to this point…
When our resident ITKs tell us that Levy is no longer interfering with the DOF and Manager's choices.Just out of interest, what is it going to take for people to acknowledge that Levy is/has stepped aside from the football decision making (if and when that should ever happen)? What would you want to see in order to be assured that this has happened?
Him not flying to meet people with Scott Munn would be a good start and letting him go on his own.Just out of interest, what is it going to take for people to acknowledge that Levy is/has stepped aside from the football decision making (if and when that should ever happen)? What would you want to see in order to be assured that this has happened?
And the ex Southend and Chelsea manager who was linked with us in the early 90s.David Webb, wasn't that Jason Bourne's real name?
Good luck to him.You old enough to remember Black Wednesday? Lewis helped cause that by shorting the pound & that's where he made a substantial amount of this fortune.
Good point that- there’s too much evidence of him sticking his oar in, photographic, anecdotal, whatever.Him not flying to meet people with Scott Munn would be a good start and letting him go on his own.
When our resident ITKs tell us that Levy is no longer interfering with the DOF and Manager's choices.
When we sign the players that the manager actually wants, in the right positions and that fit the planned tactics.Just out of interest, what is it going to take for people to acknowledge that Levy is/has stepped aside from the football decision making (if and when that should ever happen)? What would you want to see in order to be assured that this has happened?
Without having to frame it in moral terms you could make the argument that it is not economically and politically desirable and start from there. All the time bearing in mind the notion of individual freedom. That is just the start of it. Many great minds have thought about this and there are no easy answer. Unless of course you take the moral high ground which makes the whole thing pretty straightforward.We know he's a multi-billionaire tax exile. That is absolutely enough to make a moral judgement on him,.
So? We're not talking about his legal right to own the club, we're talking about his morality. The fact that he's legally allowed to hoard so much money (which, again, he has no use for) doesn't change the morality of it.
I am completely comfortable with feeling morally superior to a multi-billionaire tax exile. I agree that you can argue the toss about where to draw the line on acceptable levels of wealth, but it is absolutely straightforward to say that a billion pounds is the wrong side of the line. Earning the average UK wage, you'll earn a million pounds in a little under 40 years. Earning the average UK wage, it would take you closer to 40,000 years to become a billionaire. You can argue about scale all you want, but there is no reasonable argument for anyone having a billion pounds. It is immoral to be a billionaire and keep that money for yourself, regardless of legality, tax implications etc.
With the greatest of respect, whether you are correct or not, unless you've been a billionaire then your opinion is entirely one-sided and therefore prejudice. I would suspect that someone who is/was a billionaire would not agree with your opinion.We know he's a multi-billionaire tax exile. That is absolutely enough to make a moral judgement on him,.
So? We're not talking about his legal right to own the club, we're talking about his morality. The fact that he's legally allowed to hoard so much money (which, again, he has no use for) doesn't change the morality of it.
I am completely comfortable with feeling morally superior to a multi-billionaire tax exile. I agree that you can argue the toss about where to draw the line on acceptable levels of wealth, but it is absolutely straightforward to say that a billion pounds is the wrong side of the line. Earning the average UK wage, you'll earn a million pounds in a little under 40 years. Earning the average UK wage, it would take you closer to 40,000 years to become a billionaire. You can argue about scale all you want, but there is no reasonable argument for anyone having a billion pounds. It is immoral to be a billionaire and keep that money for yourself, regardless of legality, tax implications etc.
Obviously you’re not wrongIf we are going to be honest, i dont feel confident Levy ever changing even with the appointment of Munn who i believe is just another layer and a distraction tool. Obviously i hope i am wrong.
another genuinely curious question - do we have knowledge of why they were there and where they were going? Or are we speculating.Him not flying to meet people with Scott Munn would be a good start and letting him go on his own.