Levy/ENIC Discussion in here!

[Stamford]

Me too. In chat & transfer forum?

weirdly just this and the Thomas frank thread

 

[robotsonic]

Very surprised to hear Jordan come out saying what he has in that video above.

The club have done well with the PR these last 10-14 days, but we have to match our actions to the words.

Interesting that he also refers to covenants restricting our spending as has been mooted here before.

It all adds to the building picture that we really do spend everything that we can afford on the team currently without outside investment that we have more than obviously been twerking for in the past couple of years. We still run at a loss and our sugar daddy doesn't pick up the phone like those of other clubs. We prioritise transfer spend and incentivised contracts over base salary as a business model, and that offering more big salaries would only see us turn over fewer players because we're maxing out what we are allowed to lose per year.

If we can't get the investment I do hope that we are eventually sold (not to complete arseholes) as imo Lewis is more of the issue holding the club back than Levy is who is administrating the budget that he has to run the club with, which has to be sustainably as the man with the bags won't put in.

 

[SirNiNyHotspur]

Our net transfer spend over the past ten years suggests that there has been a significant uptick to be fair, immediately after increasing those revenue streams:

15/16: + 16.25m
16/17: 31.2m
17/18: 17.2m
18/19: +5.35
19/20: 86m
20/21: 97.2m
21/22: 61.28m
22/23: 141.15m
23/24: 151.4m
24/25: 130.05m

lol we were excused as the lowest net spenders because of the stadium for many years, now the same people are using that as a metric to compare too, lol, of course it would come up after, could hardly go down.

Wages and type of signing (top players in their prime) is the true indicator if our ambitions have changed. There has been no significant ambition change since the stadium, the speculative buy low sell on market Levy liked to dip into is just much more expensive than it used to be.

 

[robotsonic]

lol we were excused as the lowest net spenders because of the stadium for many years, now the same people are using that as a metric to compare too, lol, of course it would come up after, could hardly go down.

Wages and type of signing (top players in their prime) is the true indicator if our ambitions have changed. There has been no significant ambition change since the stadium, the speculative buy low sell on market Levy liked to dip into is just much more expensive than it used to be.

"Of course it would come up after"...we've spent the third most in the Prem in the past 5 years, £555m, after United and then Chelsea who have spent nearly a billion. More than the scum, City, and Liverpool. The only club that we actually turnover more than of those is Chelsea and their massively bent operation, so we have outstripped out spend/turnover (if you will) versus those clubs at the sacrifice of wage spend as is the model.

I'm not sure of the players we could have otherwise signed but didn't due to wage demands only. Examples of realistic ones, in all seriousness?

I resent the "same people" shit. It's not an argument and we're not on two sides of something. I really don't get why anyone trying to even discuss the reality of a situation here gets immediately shit on or laughed at. It's like this thread wants to be its own little pit of misery only. Yet again I suppose I'll take my reason elsewhere.

 

[KingNick]

Doesn't Jordan still have involvement at Palace? If so perhaps there's certain things in it which may not sit easily with Palace fans i.e if we're after a couple of their players?

Just putting it out there; not everything has to be DL is some sort of evil imp... not aimed at you but there's been some really nasty distasteful stuff posted about him in places and it's really not right, have a go about how he runs the club is fair game but the vile personal attacks I've seen has no place anywhere.

And no I'm no longer a fan of his, I would be if he could leave certain aspects of the club alone.

People hark on about him saying the stadium would be a game changer, he made those comments in a very different economic climate, when he I truly believe felt UEFA/FIFA/EPL were truly going to enforce FFP (naïve perhaps, evil or with an eye on his own pockets? nah sorry I don’t believe that about him)

I've said before but I’m sure the stadium loan worked out around the club not making one £30-35 million signing each summer (which should be fine so long as we were in Europe preferably CL each season and that the academy could pick up a bit of slack. Obviously someone smarter than I can adjust that for interest over the years.
The biggest flaw in the above would be DL's hiring and firing of bad manager choices and the compensation that’s cost and it’s the one area I think the compensation should have come from DL's pocket or bonuses.

Just my opinion.

No, Jordan has absolutely nothing to do with Palace. And he truly can’t stand Steve Parrish.

 

[McFlash]

"Of course it would come up after"...we've spent the third most in the Prem in the past 5 years, £555m, after United and then Chelsea who have spent nearly a billion. More than the scum, City, and Liverpool. The only club that we actually turnover more than of those is Chelsea and their massively bent operation, so we have outstripped out spend/turnover (if you will) versus those clubs at the sacrifice of wage spend as is the model.

I'm not sure of the players we could have otherwise signed but didn't due to wage demands only. Examples of realistic ones, in all seriousness?

I resent the "same people" shit. It's not an argument and we're not on two sides of something. I really don't get why anyone trying to even discuss the reality of a situation here gets immediately shit on or laughed at. It's like this thread wants to be its own little pit of misery only. Yet again I suppose I'll take my reason elsewhere.

Nope, keep it here mate because your last couple of posts especially have been interesting and well written.

As you say, the whole "them and us" thing has become far too common on this site recently and it's daft really.
We're all here because of one thing and one thing only and while we may sometimes disagree on certain aspects, we should all take the time to remember while we all spend so much time here in the first place.

 

[alfie103]

I'm not sure that you can really take those figures as gospel as they're not based on facts. The latest data we actually have shows the 19/20 wage spend higher than that at £106.380m, and 23/24 at £131.950m. We've naturally lost Kane and Ndombele from that now so I wouldn't be surprised if it's come down from that all time high, but not by £25m, especially adding in new signings and new contracts.

I'm not sure though that there is a compelling argument to be had thought that our transfer spend hasn't increased dramatically. In those final years at WHL our net was £6.7m/year average. In the years since £111m+/year, and at least 130m/year in the past 3 years. It's pretty stark.

The spending has increased because the general level of spending in the PL has gone up significantly and so has the money PL clubs receive. We haven't made a conscious effort to spend more, it is just general PL 'inflation'.

 

[Grey Fox]

"Of course it would come up after"...we've spent the third most in the Prem in the past 5 years, £555m, after United and then Chelsea who have spent nearly a billion. More than the scum, City, and Liverpool. The only club that we actually turnover more than of those is Chelsea and their massively bent operation, so we have outstripped out spend/turnover (if you will) versus those clubs at the sacrifice of wage spend as is the model.

I'm not sure of the players we could have otherwise signed but didn't due to wage demands only. Examples of realistic ones, in all seriousness?

I resent the "same people" shit. It's not an argument and we're not on two sides of something. I really don't get why anyone trying to even discuss the reality of a situation here gets immediately shit on or laughed at. It's like this thread wants to be its own little pit of misery only. Yet again I suppose I'll take my reason elsewhere.

Our met spend is partly down to not being able to sell players for decent mullah and faffing about by those in charge.

 

[alfie103]

"Of course it would come up after"...we've spent the third most in the Prem in the past 5 years, £555m, after United and then Chelsea who have spent nearly a billion. More than the scum, City, and Liverpool. The only club that we actually turnover more than of those is Chelsea and their massively bent operation, so we have outstripped out spend/turnover (if you will) versus those clubs at the sacrifice of wage spend as is the model.

I'm not sure of the players we could have otherwise signed but didn't due to wage demands only. Examples of realistic ones, in all seriousness?

I resent the "same people" shit. It's not an argument and we're not on two sides of something. I really don't get why anyone trying to even discuss the reality of a situation here gets immediately shit on or laughed at. It's like this thread wants to be its own little pit of misery only. Yet again I suppose I'll take my reason elsewhere.

We might have but this is down to Levy's 'buy cheap, buy twice' policy where he has consistently gone for players with mid level transfer fees and who will accept mid level wages. Funnily enough, these players turn out to be average and when it is decided we need to replace them, Levy just does the same thing and the cycle repeats itself.

We can't then shift these players as we pay them higher wages than they get at smaller clubs who would want to buy them and Levy won't take any hit on them so they end going for nothing. This has happened for six years and we have bought a lot of players with this method so it adds up.

We could have signed many players if we pay the wages but players and agents know we won't so they won't bother negotiating with us. Look at Manchester City in 2010/11, they managed to get Tevez who turned down Man Utd at their peak because they paid him the wages. Pay the wages and the players will come.

 

[alfie103]

Interesting that he also refers to covenants restricting our spending as has been mooted here before.

It all adds to the building picture that we really do spend everything that we can afford on the team currently without outside investment that we have more than obviously been twerking for in the past couple of years. We still run at a loss and our sugar daddy doesn't pick up the phone like those of other clubs. We prioritise transfer spend and incentivised contracts over base salary as a business model, and that offering more big salaries would only see us turn over fewer players because we're maxing out what we are allowed to lose per year.

If we can't get the investment I do hope that we are eventually sold (not to complete arseholes) as imo Lewis is more of the issue holding the club back than Levy is who is administrating the budget that he has to run the club with, which has to be sustainably as the man with the bags won't put in.

I would say this makes Levy look worse. If we could only get the funding for the stadium with these covenants restricting our football spending to a level where it wouldn't be 'game-changing', why take on the large debts and build the stadium? How does this benefit the football club in any way?

 

[Marty]

We might have but this is down to Levy's 'buy cheap, buy twice' policy where he has consistently gone for players with mid level transfer fees and who will accept mid level wages. Funnily enough, these players turn out to be average and when it is decided we need to replace them, Levy just does the same thing and the cycle repeats itself.

We can't then shift these players as we pay them higher wages than they get at smaller clubs who would want to buy them and Levy won't take any hit on them so they end going for nothing. This has happened for six years and we have bought a lot of players with this method so it adds up.

We could have signed many players if we pay the wages but players and agents know we won't so they won't bother negotiating with us. Look at Manchester City in 2010/11, they managed to get Tevez who turned down Man Utd at their peak because they paid him the wages. Pay the wages and the players will come.

But there is a balance to be had, if we paid wages indiscriminately we'd have ended up in a Man United situation with Rashford, de Gea, Pogba, Casemiro (I know not all of those overlapped) all on £300k plus a week, which isn't sustainable.

Buy cheap, buy twice is absolutely a real problem, we've also fucked around with the stupid loans for players like Danjuma and Werner that have ended up costing a lot more in total over three years than a proper signing in that position would have done, but that doesn't mean we cave in to the demands of every player we might want.

Levy has got the balance wrong, no argument there, but overcorrecting the other way isn't the answer.

 

[alfie103]

But there is a balance to be had, if we paid wages indiscriminately we'd have ended up in a Man United situation with Rashford, de Gea, Pogba, Casemiro (I know not all of those overlapped) all on £300k plus a week, which isn't sustainable.

Buy cheap, buy twice is absolutely a real problem, we've also fucked around with the stupid loans for players like Danjuma and Werner that have ended up costing a lot more in total over three years than a proper signing in that position would have done, but that doesn't mean we cave in to the demands of every player we might want.

Levy has got the balance wrong, no argument there, but overcorrecting the other way isn't the answer.

I don't think anyone is saying we do what United have done but there is a mid way. Look at what Arsenal and Liverpool do. We have similar revenues to them.

 

[thebenjamin]

I wonder how many offers of investment that would have pushed the football team forwards have been rebuffed over the years.

 

[alfie103]

"Of course it would come up after"...we've spent the third most in the Prem in the past 5 years, £555m, after United and then Chelsea who have spent nearly a billion. More than the scum, City, and Liverpool. The only club that we actually turnover more than of those is Chelsea and their massively bent operation, so we have outstripped out spend/turnover (if you will) versus those clubs at the sacrifice of wage spend as is the model.

I'm not sure of the players we could have otherwise signed but didn't due to wage demands only. Examples of realistic ones, in all seriousness?

I resent the "same people" shit. It's not an argument and we're not on two sides of something. I really don't get why anyone trying to even discuss the reality of a situation here gets immediately shit on or laughed at. It's like this thread wants to be its own little pit of misery only. Yet again I suppose I'll take my reason elsewhere.

We have people who are pro-Levy doing similar things (funnily enough they don't offer a rebuttal though). To your credit, you are providing a response but it isn't one way traffic.

Also, don't claim your argument is the side of 'reason' or is the 'reality' of the situation. If anything, you are defending the bloke mugging the spurs fans off.

 

[Marty]

I don't think anyone is saying we do what United have done but there is a mid way. Look at what Arsenal and Liverpool do. We have similar revenues to them.

Of course but you said pay the wages and the players will come, which in and of itself isn't good business practice.

We absolutely should be following Liverpool's lead on how to run a club, they've been damn near exemplary over the last decade.

 

[alfie103]

Of course but you said pay the wages and the players will come, which in and of itself isn't good business practice.

Sorry I mean players who are judged to be worth their wages. Not to every single player.

My point of 'pay the wages and the players will come' is more of a general point that wages are the biggest determining factor of where a player chooses to move to.

 

[aliyid]

Sorry I mean players who are judged to be worth their wages. Not to every single player.

My point of 'pay the wages and the players will come' is more of a general point that wages are the biggest determining factor of where a player chooses to move to.

Agent fees are also a big big hidden driver. I'm often unsure how much is decided by the player vs influenced by the agent (no coincidence we end up with so many players from CAA Base)

 

[Albertbarich]

There is definitely a double edged argument to Levy’s time.

Yes the investment and the wage one is probably the biggest one but I’d say over the past few years especially and before that in my opinion he makes bad football decisions that have hurt the club.

For a club with limited funds we rarely sell at the right time , we have too often brought a cheap option that we can’t move on and we have far far too often left managers with incomplete squads .

I think on paper he has made some sensible decision these past few months. The alleged review of all footballing matters , bringing the new CEO in , picking the most sensible managerial choice and letting him start to change fan engagement even before he officially started but the proof of if he has learnt some harsh lessons will come real soon.

We need the business done in good time. Frank has a short time to implement his style of play and tactics before we hit two games a week so approaching deadline day trying to get last minute deals in will hurt the team. Also Levy has just made a statement saying he wants to win the league. Ok , well we’re going to find out real soon about how much he means that. To show intent we have to bring in some real quality that have shown they can do it, I am doubtful we will but let’s see.

The best thing about that interview is that he has backed himself into a corner. We don’t have to wait. We’re going to find out in the next six weeks or so just how many of those words he meant.

 

[robotsonic]

We have people who are pro-Levy doing similar things (funnily enough they don't offer a rebuttal though). To your credit, you are providing a response but it isn't one way traffic.

Also, don't claim your argument is the side of 'reason' or is the 'reality' of the situation. If anything, you are defending the bloke mugging the spurs fans off.

And here lies half of the problem. I'm seen as "defending" one side of a made-up problem by literally posting facts that have happened.

 

[robotsonic]

I would say this makes Levy look worse. If we could only get the funding for the stadium with these covenants restricting our football spending to a level where it wouldn't be 'game-changing', why take on the large debts and build the stadium? How does this benefit the football club in any way?

Because it has, demonstrably, allowed us to spend a lot more money on the playing squad than we were doing at WHL.