ENIC...

[Delboy75]

It’s interesting ENIC we’re prepared to take a £1.2bn gamble on the stadium but not on the pitch. Ok you could say a stadium is less of a gamble and it’s something I guess Lewis/Tavistock are familiar with in regards to property. But I’m sure some other owners would view it as a big gamble. Look at Liverpool adding £80m bits to stadium. ENIC have viewed this way to increase their investment, but you could argue Abramovich investment is only just over £1.2bn and he has increased the value of Chelsea with success on the pitch and everything that’s followed from that. It’s surprising ENIC can’t actually see the financial rewards of having a highly successful team.

 

[ShelfWatcher]

That's because ENIC don't see football success as success for them it's about brand building .

Exactly, so many people don't get this. Currently ENIC are sitting on a 2000 per cent plus profit on their investment. He's doing a fantastic job for the shareholders. As long as we stay in the Prem, the asset value is pretty much shock proof.

 

[Spurs_1981]

It’s interesting ENIC we’re prepared to take a £1.2bn gamble on the stadium but not on the pitch. Ok you could say a stadium is less of a gamble and it’s something I guess Lewis/Tavistock are familiar with in regards to property. But I’m sure some other owners would view it as a big gamble. Look at Liverpool adding £80m bits to stadium. ENIC have viewed this way to increase their investment, but you could argue Abramovich investment is only just over £1.2bn and he has increased the value of Chelsea with success on the pitch and everything that’s followed from that. It’s surprising ENIC can’t actually see the financial rewards of having a highly successful team.

Really interesting way of looking at it. I assume the obvious counter point is investment into the team is extremely volatile, as we've seen over the last few years investment hasn't been low but it has been poorly executed.

I suppose it does come back to the argument that Levy is a great chairmen in terms of infrastructure and sustainabilty of the club which are all things we should celebrate but in terms of the on-field project he needs to be completely hands off as over 20 years as chairmen albeit some good moments it feels like he gets it wrong too often and at key moments.

 

[SUIYHA]

The difference was that Liverpool actually backed their manager at a critical time, and in doing so jumped way ahead of us during the crucial 2018 period.

Not sure of statistic but I think we had finished above them in 7 out of the previous 9 seasons prior to that (or something like that??). Can anyone honestly say when we will next finish above them?

Klopp and/or their recruitment "committee" identified two transformative players and they waited and then paid the price to get those two players - not the cheaper, 2nd and 3rd choice options. Then they won the champions league and premier league.

the big difference is Liverpool knew what was necessary to push them over the line and they went out and did it. When we were in a similar position not only did we not do it, we didn't sign anyone for 518 days!

That's the way Levy runs this club and I don't see that changing. The fact that Newcastle are now the richest club in the premier, means that Levy is even less likely to do what is necessary to get us over the line because its an even bigger gamble now.

I am so bored of this argument that Liverpool's owners are savvy and backed their manager at crucial times whereas ours are stingy and have never helped. ENIC are not exactly in my good books at the moment but it's tiring hearing this crap again and again.

FSG and ENIC's business models are nearly identical.

I'll repeat that - there has been almost no difference at all in the way that they've operated in the time that they have run their respective clubs. Both are focused on the bottom line and making a profit and only ever spend big when they receive a windfall of cash. In our case - when we sold Carrick, Berbatov or Bale and reached the CL final. In their case, when they sold Suarez and in 2018 when they sold Coutinho for double what he was worth and reached the CL final in the same year.

Did FSG "back" Klopp in his first full season in charge, despite reaching two cup finals in his first season? Only with money received from player sales (negative net spend).

But Arsenal flopped and they qualified for the Champions League. Now they had the cash to bring in Salah and Oxlade-Chamberlain. But they wouldn't push the boat out all the way - Van Dijk proved to be too expensive so they missed out on that transfer and he stayed at Southampton. Only when Barca had come in with a stupid offer for Coutinho could they now pay what Southampton wanted - if he'd stayed then Van Dijk would have gone to Man City instead of Laporte.

Then in summer 2018 they had a big pot to play with - money left over from the Coutinho deal and the money from reaching the CL final - that's when they bought Alisson and Fabinho.

But then after their strongest title challenge in a decade in 2019 where they fell short by a single point - FSG "backed" Klopp with......a reserve goalkeeper and a couple of teenagers for the youth team. Luckily for him the squad was already good enough to win the league.

What have they done since winning that first elusive title to cement their position at the top? Backed Klopp with big funds to rebuild and keep them going right? Not really - Jota and Konate are their only two signings of note (above £20m) in three transfer windows since. Salah, Mane, Firmino, Van Dijk, Henderson, Thiago, Matip and Milner will all be the wrong side of 30 by the start of next season - they are definitely leaving themselves with a lot to do.

There is no fundamental difference at all between FSG and ENIC - neither are in it for the love of the game, both have re-invested windfalls but only when they receive those windfalls. The difference between the two clubs is Klopp. Because he has re-invested funds effectively, whereas when we got our last windfall in 2019 then Pochettino signed Ndombele, Lo Celso, Sessegnon and Clarke. Liverpool are a far bigger club than us and the fact that they went almost the entirety of the 2010s behind us (under FSG and ENIC respectively) is pathetically bad management as far as I'm concerned.

This annoying thing is that if Barcelona had looked past the fact that Coutinho was a flair Brazilian player with a cool name that looked good on Match of the Day, and had instead done their scouting properly and offered us £120m for Eriksen, who was by every metric you can think of a more effective player in the same position, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because Liverpool wouldn't have had the success they've had and we would have spent more under Pochettino. Although people would still criticise ENIC for being unambitious in selling our star player and most likely spunking the money up the wall.

 

[Spurs_1981]

I am so bored of this argument that Liverpool's owners are savvy and backed their manager at crucial times whereas ours are stingy and have never helped. ENIC are not exactly in my good books at the moment but it's tiring hearing this crap again and again.

FSG and ENIC's business models are nearly identical.

I'll repeat that - there has been almost no difference at all in the way that they've operated in the time that they have run their respective clubs. Both are focused on the bottom line and making a profit and only ever spend big when they receive a windfall of cash. In our case - when we sold Carrick, Berbatov or Bale and reached the CL final. In their case, when they sold Suarez and in 2018 when they sold Coutinho for double what he was worth and reached the CL final in the same year.

Did FSG "back" Klopp in his first full season in charge, despite reaching two cup finals in his first season? Only with money received from player sales (negative net spend).

But Arsenal flopped and they qualified for the Champions League. Now they had the cash to bring in Salah and Oxlade-Chamberlain. But they wouldn't push the boat out all the way - Van Dijk proved to be too expensive so they missed out on that transfer and he stayed at Southampton. Only when Barca had come in with a stupid offer for Coutinho could they now pay what Southampton wanted - if he'd stayed then Van Dijk would have gone to Man City instead of Laporte.

Then in summer 2018 they had a big pot to play with - money left over from the Coutinho deal and the money from reaching the CL final - that's when they bought Alisson and Fabinho.

But then after their strongest title challenge in a decade in 2019 where they fell short by a single point - FSG "backed" Klopp with......a reserve goalkeeper and a couple of teenagers for the youth team. Luckily for him the squad was already good enough to win the league.

What have they done since winning that first elusive title to cement their position at the top? Backed Klopp with big funds to rebuild and keep them going right? Not really - Jota and Konate are their only two signings of note (above £20m) in three transfer windows since. Salah, Mane, Firmino, Van Dijk, Henderson, Thiago, Matip and Milner will all be the wrong side of 30 by the start of next season - they are definitely leaving themselves with a lot to do.

There is no fundamental difference at all between FSG and ENIC - neither are in it for the love of the game, both have re-invested windfalls but only when they receive those windfalls. The difference between the two clubs is Klopp. Because he has re-invested funds effectively, whereas when we got our last windfall in 2019 then Pochettino signed Ndombele, Lo Celso, Sessegnon and Clarke. Liverpool are a far bigger club than us and the fact that they went almost the entirety of the 2010s behind us (under FSG and ENIC respectively) is pathetically bad management as far as I'm concerned.

This annoying thing is that if Barcelona had looked past the fact that Coutinho was a flair Brazilian player with a cool name that looked good on Match of the Day, and had instead done their scouting properly and offered us £120m for Eriksen, who was by every metric you can think of a more effective player in the same position, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because Liverpool wouldn't have had the success they've had and we would have spent more under Pochettino. Although people would still criticise ENIC for being unambitious in selling our star player and most likely spunking the money up the wall.

It's the effect of people only seeing outcomes and not processes. My view is that Enic have provided a platform for sucess but in key moments it hasn't fallen our way where as it did fall Liverpools way.

(This is in no way suggesting Enic haven't made many, many mistakes along the way)

 

[vegassd]

It’s interesting ENIC we’re prepared to take a £1.2bn gamble on the stadium but not on the pitch.

I think that this misses a crucial part of the jigsaw which is where the money has come from. The club didn't have £1.2bn sat around waiting to be spent. That money has been borrowed. And the people lending the money are only going to do so if it's being spent on something that can relatively easily be reclaimed should things go pear shaped. They wouldn't lend £1.2bn for player spending.

Now I can definitely see the argument that if we hadn't built the stadium we could have spent more on players which should be the priority. But would that extra money have been enough to make the sizeable difference we all want to see? If a rough figure of £300m has been spent by the club (i.e. not borrowed) on the stadium over 10 years, would an extra £30m per year on players have been worth it?

Maybe it would have done and we would have won the league, champs league and domestic cups. But also, maybe it wouldn't. The only sure thing would be we are here in 2021 still playing at WHL and probably being even more baffled as to how we can compete with the oil clubs.

I would say that the reasoning behind the stadium is that we can use other people's money initially to build the means that the £30m per year can be transformed into something more like £100m per year. There will be repayments on the borrowed money to factor in, but it at least seemed like ENIC bringing the thing they do very well into play for the club. If they can now do much less of the things they do badly (trading players) and let football people get on with that, hopefully we get the best of both worlds... just after a very long slog!

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

I am so bored of this argument that Liverpool's owners are savvy and backed their manager at crucial times whereas ours are stingy and have never helped. ENIC are not exactly in my good books at the moment but it's tiring hearing this crap again and again.

FSG and ENIC's business models are nearly identical.

I'll repeat that - there has been almost no difference at all in the way that they've operated in the time that they have run their respective clubs. Both are focused on the bottom line and making a profit and only ever spend big when they receive a windfall of cash. In our case - when we sold Carrick, Berbatov or Bale and reached the CL final. In their case, when they sold Suarez and in 2018 when they sold Coutinho for double what he was worth and reached the CL final in the same year.

Did FSG "back" Klopp in his first full season in charge, despite reaching two cup finals in his first season? Only with money received from player sales (negative net spend).

But Arsenal flopped and they qualified for the Champions League. Now they had the cash to bring in Salah and Oxlade-Chamberlain. But they wouldn't push the boat out all the way - Van Dijk proved to be too expensive so they missed out on that transfer and he stayed at Southampton. Only when Barca had come in with a stupid offer for Coutinho could they now pay what Southampton wanted - if he'd stayed then Van Dijk would have gone to Man City instead of Laporte.

Then in summer 2018 they had a big pot to play with - money left over from the Coutinho deal and the money from reaching the CL final - that's when they bought Alisson and Fabinho.

But then after their strongest title challenge in a decade in 2019 where they fell short by a single point - FSG "backed" Klopp with......a reserve goalkeeper and a couple of teenagers for the youth team. Luckily for him the squad was already good enough to win the league.

What have they done since winning that first elusive title to cement their position at the top? Backed Klopp with big funds to rebuild and keep them going right? Not really - Jota and Konate are their only two signings of note (above £20m) in three transfer windows since. Salah, Mane, Firmino, Van Dijk, Henderson, Thiago, Matip and Milner will all be the wrong side of 30 by the start of next season - they are definitely leaving themselves with a lot to do.

There is no fundamental difference at all between FSG and ENIC - neither are in it for the love of the game, both have re-invested windfalls but only when they receive those windfalls. The difference between the two clubs is Klopp. Because he has re-invested funds effectively, whereas when we got our last windfall in 2019 then Pochettino signed Ndombele, Lo Celso, Sessegnon and Clarke. Liverpool are a far bigger club than us and the fact that they went almost the entirety of the 2010s behind us (under FSG and ENIC respectively) is pathetically bad management as far as I'm concerned.

This annoying thing is that if Barcelona had looked past the fact that Coutinho was a flair Brazilian player with a cool name that looked good on Match of the Day, and had instead done their scouting properly and offered us £120m for Eriksen, who was by every metric you can think of a more effective player in the same position, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because Liverpool wouldn't have had the success they've had and we would have spent more under Pochettino. Although people would still criticise ENIC for being unambitious in selling our star player and most likely spunking the money up the wall.

At last the Voice of Reason , same at The Woolwich, club runs on the income it generates, no input from Kroenke another billionaire he's there to make a profit.

 

[SUIYHA]

It's the effect of people only seeing outcomes and not processes. My view is that Enic have provided a platform for sucess but in key moments it hasn't fallen our way where as it did fall Liverpools way.

(This is in no way suggesting Enic haven't made many, many mistakes along the way)

Imagine if we'd been given a dodgy penalty against them in the first minute of the CL final and had gone on to win. All the talk would be about how Klopp was a bottlejob with six final defeats in a row (or however many it was), Salah needs to leave to win trophies etc. Whereas Levy would be hailed as some sort of genius by their fan base.

 

[spursfan77]

I'm sure Levy works very hard and makes long hours. Given his paygrade however, that should be par for the course.
Results are what execs at his level should be judged upon - and in the Football industry that translates into success on the field. In that department, Levy is distinctly unsuccesful...

Of course. That goes without saying.

 

[spursfan77]

It’s interesting ENIC we’re prepared to take a £1.2bn gamble on the stadium but not on the pitch. Ok you could say a stadium is less of a gamble and it’s something I guess Lewis/Tavistock are familiar with in regards to property. But I’m sure some other owners would view it as a big gamble. Look at Liverpool adding £80m bits to stadium. ENIC have viewed this way to increase their investment, but you could argue Abramovich investment is only just over £1.2bn and he has increased the value of Chelsea with success on the pitch and everything that’s followed from that. It’s surprising ENIC can’t actually see the financial rewards of having a highly successful team.

It’s how the Liverpool owners have done it in America, it is cheaper. Plus after the problems Hicks and Gillette had with building a new stadium up there I suspect they were put off. We couldn’t do that though could we, the plans to redevelop the west stand, for example, were never pressed on with under Sugar. One difference though is that FSG are paying for it themselves.

 

[vegassd]

It’s how the Liverpool owners have done it in America, it is cheaper. Plus after the problems Hicks and Gillette had with building a new stadium up there I suspect they were put off. We couldn’t do that though could we, the plans to redevelop the west stand, for example, were never pressed on with under Sugar. One difference though is that FSG are paying for it themselves.

I believe FSG have been providing the money via a 0% loan.

Fair play to them for putting up the money, but it's the club that are paying for it.

 

[skiba]

It’s interesting ENIC we’re prepared to take a £1.2bn gamble on the stadium but not on the pitch. Ok you could say a stadium is less of a gamble and it’s something I guess Lewis/Tavistock are familiar with in regards to property. But I’m sure some other owners would view it as a big gamble. Look at Liverpool adding £80m bits to stadium. ENIC have viewed this way to increase their investment, but you could argue Abramovich investment is only just over £1.2bn and he has increased the value of Chelsea with success on the pitch and everything that’s followed from that. It’s surprising ENIC can’t actually see the financial rewards of having a highly successful team.

ENIC haven't really gambled anything at all. Abramovic invested his own money whereas the £1.2bn stadium has been financed through external loans and club profits. The club could have invested those profits in the team but there is no way a bank would lend a football club over £800m to buy footballers. Much in the same way that the guy on the street can borrow hundreds of thousands to buy a house but not to pay for a lavish lifestyle.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Old article but if correct Liverpool owed £99m to FSG so FSG are not some sort of sugar daddy. Pretty sure if you go through Spurs accounts there was a loan available from ENIC for something like £50m I think it was something to do with the stadium outlay , all these stories about owners putting their own money into clubs might be true but they want it back it ain't free.

Premier League finances: the full club-by-club breakdown and verdict

Club accounts for 2017-18 show Manchester United spent the most on wages while champions Manchester City had the third-highest bill

www.theguardian.com

 

[Metalhead]

It’s interesting ENIC we’re prepared to take a £1.2bn gamble on the stadium but not on the pitch. Ok you could say a stadium is less of a gamble and it’s something I guess Lewis/Tavistock are familiar with in regards to property. But I’m sure some other owners would view it as a big gamble. Look at Liverpool adding £80m bits to stadium. ENIC have viewed this way to increase their investment, but you could argue Abramovich investment is only just over £1.2bn and he has increased the value of Chelsea with success on the pitch and everything that’s followed from that. It’s surprising ENIC can’t actually see the financial rewards of having a highly successful team.

Leeds did it that way around and it ended up going tits up.

 

[jimbo]

To think that Levy was going to reveal to THST any secretive dealings he was having with the other co-conspirators is a bit naive methinks, bit like asking Boris Johnson to tell the truth.

Nobody suggested that he would, this is kind of a straw man. But there are consequences to everything.

My straw man in response is: essentially it’s all the Trusts fault, they shouldn’t expect Levy to tell them the truth about anything, they shouldn’t dare to question him, and they absolutely shouldn’t ever take a position on anything ever?

 

[jimbo]

For the trust to be taken seriously they need a balanced approach to his stewardship, not just an aggressive anti-Enic stance.

They have taken a balanced approach, so much so they’ve been criticised for being pro-ENIC. Have you ever actually listened to them talk about their engagement with the board, or read the minutes from the meetings, or are you doing the equivalent of judging a player from his YouTube highlight reel?

If you are familiar with a decent subset of their engagement I’m surprised you find them aggressively anti-ENIC - though there are plenty of trust members who are very much in that bracket, all the outreach/engagement has been balanced - criticise the bad, applaud the good. It’s just unfortunate that a lot of the recent episodes the board has subjected us to have been predominantly bad.

 

[DogsOfWar]

They have taken a balanced approach, so much so they’ve been criticised for being pro-ENIC. Have you ever actually listened to them talk about their engagement with the board, or read the minutes from the meetings, or are you doing the equivalent of judging a player from his YouTube highlight reel?

If you are familiar with a decent subset of their engagement I’m surprised you find them aggressively anti-ENIC - though there are plenty of trust members who are very much in that bracket, all the outreach/engagement has been balanced - criticise the bad, applaud the good. It’s just unfortunate that a lot of the recent episodes the board has subjected us to have been predominantly bad.

They have in the past which has seen them co-exist happily enough with Levy etc.
But the list of recent questions published above has thrown that approach out of the window and has resulted in the board not wanting a recorded meeting to discuss them, with the THST then turning that down.

My view on the published questions were just they sounded like a load of angry, ranty fans just having a go at Levy than a group of rational supporters trying to discuss the many issues a modern football club has.

 

[jimbo]

They have in the past which has seen them co-exist happily enough with Levy etc.
But the list of recent questions published above has thrown that approach out of the window and has resulted in the board not wanting a recorded meeting to discuss them, with the THST then turning that down.

My view on the published questions were just they sounded like a load of angry, ranty fans just having a go at Levy than a group of rational supporters trying to discuss the many issues a modern football club has.

That’s fair enough on the opinion side, I would never say the Trust are perfect or get everything right - I just think it’s unfair when they’re coated off through a load of hasty judgements without context/not entirely factual.

Just for the record, I think you have the timeline a little off. The Trust requested a meeting about the ESL - the board said they would meet but no minutes - the Trust turned that opportunity down. Rightly in my opinion, given the secretive closed shop conspiratorial nature of that dirty little saga.

This new set of questions comes after that, following the fairly inconsistent managerial hunt/DNA statement/Nuno hire etc. The questions being published because the board didn’t want to meet - if they had agreed to meet then I’m sure the agenda would have been tweaked collaboratively as usually happens with these kind of meetings in my experience.

In the end it probably comes down to whether people feel Levy should be left to run it all the way he wants without engagement (which he largely does anyway) or if you feel there should be some kind of engagement, even if it’s effectively lip service which is all we’re ever likely to get without something significant coming along in terms of regulation/fan representation.

 

[RosieFTL]

Because of one metric they are the worst?

Maybe you should have written "they are the worst for this one metric" not "because they charge top ticket prices (perhaps the highest on earth) when you divide number of trophies by amount spent on tickets they are the worst football owners in the country and perhaps beyond."

They have taken a balanced approach, so much so they’ve been criticised for being pro-ENIC. Have you ever actually listened to them talk about their engagement with the board, or read the minutes from the meetings, or are you doing the equivalent of judging a player from his YouTube highlight reel?

If you are familiar with a decent subset of their engagement I’m surprised you find them aggressively anti-ENIC - though there are plenty of trust members who are very much in that bracket, all the outreach/engagement has been balanced - criticise the bad, applaud the good. It’s just unfortunate that a lot of the recent episodes the board has subjected us to have been predominantly bad.

I know both Trust co-chairs and they are very decent people. One is an author and has written many a good book on the Club. As an organisation they have fought for many fan led initiatives including ticket prices, allocations, games included in season tickets, food and drink available in the ground and so forth. They led nationally on securing the £30 cap on Premier League away tickets (something that our Chairman disagreed with) and on scrapping the additional pay per view costs during lockdown last season.

Over the years they have always maintained a cordial and dignified relationship with ENIC despite the fact that on multiple occasions ENIC ignored their very reasonable fan related questions. Having met many of the Club Directors many times (including Mr Levy) I'm not sure I could have reacted with such restraint if approaching them about important topics for supporters. (Most of the time I've just had a "hi, how are you?" conversation).

The straw that broke the camel's back was the fact that the Trust felt they were lied to about the European Super League and since then they've taken a more hardened approach. Many including me would perhaps feel that this should have happened some time ago.

 

[sidford]

Inside Tottenham's Civil War: Why the club and its largest fans' group are at each other's throats

Growing rift between Spurs and Supporters' Trust can be traced back to club’s involvement in European Super League plot

www.telegraph.co.uk

The worst it's ever been': How relationship between Tottenham board and fan group hit rock bottom
Growing rift between Spurs and Supporters' Trust can be traced back to club’s involvement in European Super League plot

By
Matt Law,
FOOTBALL NEWS CORRESPONDENT
15 October 2021 • 7:00am
Daniel Levy
On the same day that the grey cloud was lifted from over the heads of Newcastle United supporters, the relationship between Tottenham Hotspur’s largest fans group and the club’s board hit an all-time low.

The Newcastle fans who had witnessed two relegations from the Premier League and the effect of years of neglect under Mike Ashley had probably wondered what all the fuss was about when reading about dissatisfaction among the Spurs supporters, who were in Madrid for a Champions League final only a couple of years ago.

But the Toon Army might just feel a little more sympathetic when they officially toast the end of the Ashley era on Sunday with the visit of Tottenham to St James’ Park.

The level of discontent may be nowhere near as widespread or deep-rooted as that of Newcastle fans under Ashley, but Spurs chairman Daniel Levy has recently taken a leaf out of the non-communication handbook of the Sports Direct billionaire.

As Newcastle fans prepared for the announcement of their Saudi Arabia takeover last week, Levy and the Tottenham board turned down a request to meet with the club’s Supporters’ Trust over concerns shared by thousands of fans following two years of decay since that night in Madrid.

The Trust has a membership of around 25,000 and while it does not represent the feeling of all fans, many of whom are still grateful to Levy for the transformation the club has undergone off the pitch with the training ground and stadium, it is the largest voice of the Spurs supporters.

A total of 8,358 fans responded to a Trust survey that was carried out during the summer in which 75 per cent said they felt the running of the club had declined over the past year, with only five per cent confident in the long-term strategy of ENIC, the company that owns Spurs.

The Trust passed the findings of the survey to the club, but have never heard anything back on it and, in the words of co-chairs, Katrina Law and Martin Cloake, last week’s refusal to meet demonstrated a pulling up of the drawbridge by Levy and the Tottenham board.

“This has to be the worst the relationship has ever been, simply because there is currently no line of communication at board level between the club and the Trust,” said Law.

The breakdown in the relationship between Tottenham and its biggest and most active supporter group can be traced back to the club’s involvement in the European Super League plot, which prompted a call for Levy and the executive board to resign.

Tottenham fans held up a banner protesting against Daniel Levy earlier this month
Tottenham fans held up a banner protesting against Daniel Levy earlier this month CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
Having sought assurances on a number of occasions that Spurs would not be part of any European breakaway without consulting supporters, the Trust felt the basis on which they had conducted conversations with the club had been undermined.

“How could we convince our members that what we were being told in those meetings was genuine?,” said Cloake. “The call for the executive board to resign was never personal. But we felt that those responsible should be accountable for their actions. With the punishments being discussed, including points deductions, a European ban and heavy fine, we also felt it would be the best way to try to mitigate some of the impact felt by the club.”

One of the questions the Trust wanted to ask in the meeting Tottenham last week declined was who paid the £3.6 million fine the club incurred for their part in the Super League plot. Did it come out of club funds or has it been covered by owner Joe Lewis or Levy himself? So far, nobody knows.

Traditionally, the Trust board has met with the Tottenham board at least twice a year to discuss both strategic, financial and policy matters alongside ticketing, travel and catering issues. But there is currently no prospect of those going ahead.

The Trust remain in contact with departmental heads at Spurs and even received praise from the club for their part in challenging an attempt to stop fans from entering the centre of Rennes for the Europa Conference League tie, but access to the decision makers has been denied.

There have been accusations that the latest request to meet was a knee-jerk reaction to three straight defeats, but performances on the pitch have rarely been at the top of the Trust’s agenda.


“The two biggest subjects that our members have approached us on, probably in the history of the Trust, was the furlough scheme and the European Super League. These are the two issues we had more letters and emails on than anything else,” said Cloake.

Law added: “They are also two of the main issues that have represented how important fan engagement is because the reaction to both resulted in the club’s decision to furlough staff and the ESL being reversed.”

Some of the questions the Trust this week made public do touch on the football side of the business, but the majority, such as a request for an update on the naming rights for the not-so-new stadium, date back much further than a north London derby defeat or a Harry Kane transfer saga.

The Trust themselves turned down the opportunity to meet Levy and the Spurs board in the immediate aftermath of the ESL debacle, refusing to agree to the suggested terms that all talks should be kept private from their members and instead offering the club the opportunity to provide a written statement to a meeting of their members, which the board declined.

There was a meeting in May over attempting to find a constructive path forward after which Levy told supporters: “It has never been because we don’t care about or respect you, our fans – nothing could be further from the truth.”

But in-house interviews, such as the one released with managing director of football Fabio Paratici the day before it was revealed Tottenham had rejected the chance to meet the Trust, have replaced real engagement and Newcastle fans know better than most what it feels like to be cut off.

“We’ll probably have to wait now for the findings of the fan-led review into football governance and see where that takes us,” said Law. “The board always like to say they do everything in the best interests of the club. Well, the Trust really does try to work in the best interests of both the fans and the club.”