The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - RETRO Edition 14th September 2020

[NHAndy]

They were the names that were given due to Jose knowing levy would never pay for the people he actually wanted. Due to budget constraints he had to plump for the cheaper options. Whether they are up to it time will tell. We need so much. Its a disgrace that they aren't in yet.

What names? I didnt read that Mourinho had supplied a list of names Or that they’d been rejected because of budgetary constraints. Must have missed that.

 

[Joshua]

Tbh I take exception to that too, and have remarked as such before (over deaf ears... or blind eyes... whatever the reading equivalent is) - personal attacks based on people you don't know is churlish at the best of times. In this case, it seems like people are having some sort of cathartic moment by jumping on about DC on the basis of, well, a few throwaway insults with not a lot of context.

And that’s fair enough pal. I’ve got no strong feelings either way tbh. Just pointing out that since Levy gets dogs abuse it shouldn’t be too much of a shock to see another board member getting it as well. Regardless of gender.

 

[Chirpystheman]

Vinny Jannsen might be evidence in the contrary.

At least he put himself about. Instrumental in our come back at Swansea I believe and could take a pen. Id rather him up top than say Alli

 

[Chirpystheman]

What names? I didnt read that Mourinho had supplied a list of names Or that they’d been rejected because of budgetary constraints. Must have missed that.

All the ITK stated on multiple times Jose understands the financial constraints and presented a list accordingly. Do you honestly believe Jose came in and thought yep Hojbjerg, Doherty and sorlorth are the 3 to win us the league. You have to read between the lines a little. My understanding was he was told a rough budget and was working accordingly.

 

[sausage]

And that’s fair enough pal. I’ve got no strong feelings either way tbh. Just pointing out that since Levy gets dogs abuse it shouldn’t be too much of a shock to see another board member getting it as well. Regardless of gender.

Of course. People should know better either way though. It tends to annoy me generally as it's seen as perfectly fine, but the same people will no doubt hark about sensitivity over mental health issues. If there's things you generally can do very little about in life it's your physical appearance, and it's a huge driver for a lot of mental health problems in people, so I'd rather see people picking their camp and setting up their tent, rather than hypocrisy.
If people have to resort to below-the-belt insults in order to make a point, there's obvious very little rationality in their argument. Even if we agree that the direct subjects are too busy to be insulted by such things, it must be hurtful if a family member saw it. Sam Allardyce (for example) said as much in his book, as his Mrs used to read the forums and get upset about how vitriolic football fans can be.
Just consider that there are probably grandparents on here acting that way. It's like a "throwback" to the 60s in here.

 

[MotspurHotspur]

I can’t do another 3 weeks. To quote Dan the one trophy man “ it is so hard “.

Lol to the tune of I am the music man...

I'm Dan one trophy man
I come from Hotspur way
And I won't pa-ay
He won't pa-ay
??

 

[eddiev14]

I’ll caveat this by saying Lewis should have invested his own money at the right moments, which likely would have seen more progression on the pitch.

However, I will say this... I think we’ve been a bit unlucky these past 2 years.

6-7 years ago when we were less established as a regular in the top 4 you literally couldn’t move in this forum without bumping into the view that ‘I want our club to do things the right way, not by just buying trophies’, which is what City and Chelsea had done.

A big part of doing that we all agreed was getting the new stadium built.

My understanding is that the year we went without signing a player was done by Levy to produce a very healthy balance sheet which would then be able to secure the loan/refinancing terms on the stadium which we could pay off very easily each year without affecting much of the football operation. If we’d spent heavily on transfers that year we’d be paying back a much larger sum each year over the future. Finance Folk, please do correct me if I’m wrong about that but I heard a guest involved in finance and close to the club explicitly state this on the Spurs Show circa 1 year ago, and even I (I think Levy and the club are really poor in the transfer market) couldn’t really argue with this.

The result was supposed to be, in short, that the cash cow we’d built would indeed be able to fund big transfers, bigger wages and we’d start competing very quickly (ie from this summer).

However this whole thing relies on being able to milk that cash cow, and the impact Covid-19 has had on our ability to do that has been devastating. Matches, hospitality, concerts, NFL - all gone and no idea when it’s coming back.

We’ll never know if Levy would have started pushing the boat out this summer but the signs were there last year with the purchases of Tanguy and Lo Celso.

I’m disappointed we did zero succession planning between 16-17 and now, and I absolutely blame the club for that, but I do think we need to consider these points.

 

[freeeki]

Ah, a load of people drearily white knighting because it’s okay to insult a man’s appearance, but if we do it to a woman it’s misogynistic.

Imagine thinking that women in exec level roles are feeble and in need of your internet protection.

Seems pretty sexist to me...

 

[Hoopspur]

Minge faced old trout!!;

Sounds fishy

 

[Philly Yid]

Ah, a load of people drearily white knighting because it’s okay to insult a man’s appearance, but if we do it to a woman it’s misogynistic.

Imagine thinking that women in exec level roles are feeble and in need of your internet protection.

Seems pretty sexist to me...

And would it be white knighting if Levy were LGBTQ+ and this group focused on calling him a queen rather than focusing on the real reason he's a shit chairman? Would that make me a homophobe for sticking up for him? Cmon man, be better.

 

[SecretLemonadeDrinker]

Zero investment from a billionaire owner was my point and still stands.

No, it wasn’t. And no, it doesn’t.

Your point, explicitly, was that the owner had taken £40m out of the club. You deliberately failed to mention that the owner had previously put in £40m. Because that didn’t suit your purpose.

We have enough reasons to criticise Levy and ENIC without resorting to fallacies of omission, don’t we?

 

[freeeki]

And would it be white knighting if Levy were LGBTQ+ and this group focused on calling him a queen rather than focusing on the real reason he's a shit chairman? Would that make me a homophobe for sticking up for him? Cmon man, be better.

Depends what you’re insulting.

If Levy were gay (he’d struggle very much to be L, I think) and you insulted his appearance, that would not be homophobic, as far as I’m concerned.

Likewise Donna Cullen being female doesn’t make her exempt from the same ribbing we’d give Levy or any of the other directors based solely on her sex.

That you think it should, would imply you’re the one singling her out for that particular characteristic, not anyone else...

 

[Nerine]

I don’t know what Donna Cullen looks like, but it seems more than ok when Karen Brady is mentioned.
Possibly some double standards going on.

 

[wadewill]

I value the information that you post and am grateful that you choose to share it with us; but that is an absolutely disgusting comment that should have no place on this or any other internet forum.

lighten up

 

[Trotter]

I’ll caveat this by saying Lewis should have invested his own money at the right moments, which likely would have seen more progression on the pitch.

However, I will say this... I think we’ve been a bit unlucky these past 2 years.

6-7 years ago when we were less established as a regular in the top 4 you literally couldn’t move in this forum without bumping into the view that ‘I want our club to do things the right way, not by just buying trophies’, which is what City and Chelsea had done.

A big part of doing that we all agreed was getting the new stadium built.

My understanding is that the year we went without signing a player was done by Levy to produce a very healthy balance sheet which would then be able to secure the loan/refinancing terms on the stadium which we could pay off very easily each year without affecting much of the football operation. If we’d spent heavily on transfers that year we’d be paying back a much larger sum each year over the future. Finance Folk, please do correct me if I’m wrong about that but I heard a guest involved in finance and close to the club explicitly state this on the Spurs Show circa 1 year ago, and even I (I think Levy and the club are really poor in the transfer market) couldn’t really argue with this.

The result was supposed to be, in short, that the cash cow we’d built would indeed be able to fund big transfers, bigger wages and we’d start competing very quickly (ie from this summer).

However this whole thing relies on being able to milk that cash cow, and the impact Covid-19 has had on our ability to do that has been devastating. Matches, hospitality, concerts, NFL - all gone and no idea when it’s coming back.

We’ll never know if Levy would have started pushing the boat out this summer but the signs were there last year with the purchases of Tanguy and Lo Celso.

I’m disappointed we did zero succession planning between 16-17 and now, and I absolutely blame the club for that, but I do think we need to consider these points.

Whilst I understand this is a big part of his reasoning.

2 questions

1. Does this not fly totally in the face of him saying (and it being documented) on numerous occasions that the stadium would not affect the players and acquisitions budget ?
2. Do you really believe we would have started pushing the boat out this summer ?, or do you think we would have spent just enough to give decent chance of Top 4 and started building the hotel, museum and flats to increase the asset ? I know which option I think is infinitely more likely

 

[The Scarecrow]

Can we lay off Donna Cullen, specifically attacks on her looks? Smash her on decision making if you've got a gripe but the nasty comments about her today really smack of typical internet misogyny.

This really applies to Levy as well. He gets mocked for his height and lack of hair on here on a daily basis, and it's so needless and unoriginal.

 

[Deleted member 27995]

Fucking hell.

Seriously.

Fucking hell.

 

[Metalhead]

Of course. People should know better either way though. It tends to annoy me generally as it's seen as perfectly fine, but the same people will no doubt hark about sensitivity over mental health issues. If there's things you generally can do very little about in life it's your physical appearance, and it's a huge driver for a lot of mental health problems in people, so I'd rather see people picking their camp and setting up their tent, rather than hypocrisy.
If people have to resort to below-the-belt insults in order to make a point, there's obvious very little rationality in their argument. Even if we agree that the direct subjects are too busy to be insulted by such things, it must be hurtful if a family member saw it. Sam Allardyce (for example) said as much in his book, as his Mrs used to read the forums and get upset about how vitriolic football fans can be.
Just consider that there are probably grandparents on here acting that way. It's like a "throwback" to the 60s in here.

I think that’s a fair point.

 

[tony0379]

Can anyone just make up some bullshit feel good ITK please.

 

[wadewill]

Some serious wetties in here tonight.

If that genuinely offends you, you must have one sad little life

I’d be sure that Donna doesn’t give a fuck about what people write on the internet about her, so I don’t think her hero over there should either.

It would be different if it was constant or a thread about her, it was a throw away comment in jest. Don’t be so naive