What's new

The ousting of Daniel (COYS)

fishhhandaricecake

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
19,893
49,683
I agree, Levy has got this right, so credit where credit is due.

But he tends be pretty good at this stage of proceedings, when we are building a new and exciting team after a period of relative mediocrity. We have seen it before a few times. Especially the period after Hoddle when Arnesen came in and then again when we rebuilt with Pochettino. (Redknapp in some ways was a bit of an anomaly I think.)

Where things tend to fall down is when we need to make that final push. Levy has tended in the past to let things get stale to the point that we have to return to the drawing board without having fulfilled the potential that the project once promised.

Hopefully with the stadium this time we will be able to make that final push.
All so true and I’d argue/hope that these 2 early January signings in really key areas are part of a ‘final push’ so to speak.

If we can add a top quality CM this Jan then we are now 3-4 signings away next summer from for the first time possibly ever imo having 22 quality players all suited to the managers plan and tactics, if we can get that and let Ange do his thing we will be successful, I have no doubt.

Levy has made mistakes in the past but I’ve never particularly joined in with the narrative that he doesn’t spend enough or big enough, imo he’s spent reasonably throughout ENIC’s tenure and this spend has increased as promised once the new stadium 🏟️ has been up and running.

The 2 areas I’ve always criticised him have been:
1. Being too involved in the football side especially when it comes to the timings of signing and selling players and often leaving managers constantly short in a few areas
2. Not always aligning with the DNA of the club by hiring a number of managers who didn’t play the style of football our club should play and that our fans demand : Santini, Ramos, AVB, Jose, Nuno, Conte etc

He seemingly has now
1. Finally relinquished some control to Fabio, Lange etc and
2. Hired Ange who fits our club perfectly

Both of which allow us to make good football decisions consistently which will enable our Manager to be given the best chance possible to be successful.

That’s all I’ve really wanted Levy to do for years amongst a few other things, it’s taken him about 20 years but I think he’s got there now and for all of his efforts in building the new stadium and training ground etc it would be just rewards if the football team now delivered some trophies and attractive football along the way.

🤞
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,350
57,940
All so true and I’d argue/hope that these 2 early January signings in really key areas are part of a ‘final push’ so to speak.

If we can add a top quality CM this Jan then we are now 3-4 signings away next summer from for the first time possibly ever imo having 22 quality players all suited to the managers plan and tactics, if we can get that and let Ange do his thing we will be successful, I have no doubt.

Levy has made mistakes in the past but I’ve never particularly joined in with the narrative that he doesn’t spend enough or big enough, imo he’s spent reasonably throughout ENIC’s tenure and this spend has increased as promised once the new stadium 🏟️ has been up and running.

The 2 areas I’ve always criticised him have been:
1. Being too involved in the football side especially when it comes to the timings of signing and selling players and often leaving managers constantly short in a few areas
2. Not always aligning with the DNA of the club by hiring a number of managers who didn’t play the style of football our club should play and that our fans demand : Santini, Ramos, AVB, Jose, Nuno, Conte etc

He seemingly has now
1. Finally relinquished some control to Fabio, Lange etc and
2. Hired Ange who fits our club perfectly

Both of which allow us to make good football decisions consistently which will enable our Manager to be given the best chance possible to be successful.

That’s all I’ve really wanted Levy to do for years amongst a few other things, it’s taken him about 20 years but I think he’s got there now and for all of his efforts in building the new stadium and training ground etc it would be just rewards if the football team now delivered some trophies and attractive football along the way.

🤞

In fairness to Levy, I think the penny has finally dropped that he has made some huge blunders on the football side of things. The last one was signing Spence who has once again been shipped out unceremoniously. He brought in Lange to liase with Paratici and we've got deals done early as Ange requested. I can't help but think that Levy would still be quibbling about minor details if he hadn't stepped aside, so that's a big positive, and long may it continue. I also think he's realised that he's hit a bullseye in hiring Ange and is prepared to back him in way that Mourinho and Conte never came close to deserving. When I think of the toxicity towards him less than a year ago, he's done well to dig himself out of that hole, and nobody can accuse him of not backing Ange right now.
 
Last edited:

sidford

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2003
11,560
30,977
New athletic article


If you took a glance at the reaction to the Premier League enforcing its profit and sustainability rules (PSR) this week, you could be forgiven for thinking that they were an act of vandalism. As if some spiteful outsider was gleefully taking a hatchet to our beloved league, destroying its beloved mobility, its beloved competitiveness, out of nothing more than puritanical jealousy.

One of the many remarkable things about the events of recent days has been how the public sphere has been dominated by those voices arguing the PSR system is bad.

Everton have fought their corner after their 10-point ban and subsequent second charge, while we await a campaign on behalf of Nottingham Forest. But the discussion has it seems been led by those associated with Newcastle United, bristling at the realisation they will not be able to turn Saudi Arabia’s state wealth into signed footballers as smoothly as they hoped. To call their complaints prejudiced barely scratches the surface. It is a surprise that so many others with no stake in their success have decided to adopt their self-serving logic.

But it does make you wonder why no one is making the public case for the rules.

In an ideal world, the Premier League itself would be dominating the airwaves, arguing why, in a time of flux and uncertainty, we need our leading clubs to be stable and secure, and protected from their own worst instincts. The Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters should not need to speak to a House of Commons select committee to be heard on this matter.

In an ideal world, the point could be reiterated that the Premier League is a collective endeavour and that these were the rules the clubs signed up to in the first place.

It could be sold as a far-sighted and sensible move to preserve competition and safeguard the future of the English game, if only someone was willing to make that argument in public.



As long as the anti-PSR voices dominate the media, people will be left with the wrong impression: that there is nothing to be said for these rules and that no one in football who supports them. The reality is the opposite.

There is a silent majority of clubs who have played by the rules since their introduction and only spent within their means. These are clubs who have repeatedly faced public pressure to spend more but have decided against it, knowing they would risk unpopularity with their fans and losing their competitive edge by doing so. It has not been an easy position for clubs to take.

There must have been moments for clubs in recent years when they wondered what the point was in playing within the rules. Because if those rules were not enforced — and it is only this season that the Premier League has started seriously punishing teams for breaches — then they were effectively meaningless. You cannot have regulation as something that clubs can choose to opt into. You may as well have a car race with an optional speed limit.

This is why the events of this season are so significant.

If these rules are finally being enforced, then they are no longer something that clubs can opt into. The choice of whether to comply with the speed limit or not has been removed. And if this is now the case — and yes, it may still be too early to tell — then the landscape of English football has changed forever.

We may not hear much from the rule-abiding silent majority this week, but maybe they feel that they do not need to do the talking right now. Because if the landscape has changed, then it has changed in their favour.

Take, for example, Tottenham Hotspur.

They have worked very hard to run themselves sustainably throughout ENIC’s 22-year tenure. They have only spent what they generate, they keep wage costs as a smaller proportion of revenue than anyone else (just 47 per cent in 2021-22) and they do not rely on benefactor largesse to keep up. They have never won the Premier League, but the fact they have stayed competitive near its top end, despite the constraints they face, is a testament to their long-term strategy.

According to Swiss Ramble, the football business blogger, Tottenham were the most profitable team in the league across 10 seasons from 2012-13 to 2021-22. Spurs are nothing if not committed to staying well within the rules.


Moving to the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium has massively boosted the club’s matchday revenue (Mark Leech/Offside via Getty Images)
Central to this strategy is the money brought in by the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, which they moved into in April 2019. This has transformed the club’s matchday revenue. In the 2021-22 season, Tottenham brought in £106m in matchday revenue, second only to Manchester United (£111m). In Spurs’ last season at the old White Hart Lane, 2016-17, they brought in £45.3m.

Tottenham have not yet published their 2022-23 accounts, which are expected next month or in early March, but it would not be a surprise if they have overtaken United and made more matchday revenue than anyone else. And that number will not include the eight-figure sum the club made for staging five sold-out Beyonce concerts in May and June last year. Their overall revenue for 2022-23 could be pushing the £500million mark.

As the money has started to roll in from the new stadium, Tottenham have slowly started to be more ambitious in the transfer market.

When their 2021-22 accounts were published in February last year, a statement on the club website proudly announced Spurs had “invested more than £500million” in first-team players since their new stadium opened, “putting us in the top five of spending in the Premier League”.

Tottenham continued to spend last summer and have done so again this month. The summer of 2018, when they signed no one, feels a long time ago now.

But generating revenue through your stadium could only ever be part of the plan. For a self-sustaining model to work, whether at Tottenham, Brighton & Hove Albion or anywhere else, it needs to exist in a world where all clubs are held to the same rules.



Only then will teams stand or fall by their own revenue and the quality of their decisions. Otherwise, owners will just spend as much as they can and, as sure as night follows day, those with the deepest pockets will win in the end.

It is no surprise, then, that Spurs’ chairman Daniel Levy has repeatedly spoken so positively about PSR and European football governing body UEFA’s equivalents.

Levy’s ‘chairman’s statement’ last February said: “We welcome the changes to the governance of the game, which will compel greater financial sustainability and financial fair play (FFP).” Levy pointed to UEFA’s new sustainability rules and wrote: “Many expect that these new rules will be a game changer for the sport. Even tighter regulations may follow.”

Stay informed on the big story
Details of the charges against Everton and Forest
Why action against Man City is taking much longer
How the rules are impacting the transfer window
When Levy spoke to the Cambridge Union in March last year, he again underlined his belief in the value of spending restrictions.

Discussing the importance of clubs still making investments, Levy said that “the most important thing” was “to not get ourselves in a place where unlimited investment can be made, and it isn’t sustainable when that investment suddenly stops or that owner suddenly goes, and then the club disappears”. He again pointed to the new UEFA rules and predicted they would have “quite a big impact on the financing of football”.

It would not be a surprise if Levy — or anyone else running a club who play within the rules — would be keen on them being enforced or even tightened in future.

Sticking to the rules is self-defeating unless the rules have teeth. For years, the clubs who stick by the rules have seen themselves leapfrogged by the clubs who do not. Robust enforcement could be a silver bullet for those clubs who comply.



It has been tempting in recent years to draw a line between Tottenham’s strategy now and Arsenal’s strategy under Arsene Wenger.

The two situations are not identical but Arsenal made a bet when they moved from Highbury to the Emirates Stadium in 2006 that the increased matchday revenue would transform the position of the club in the financial landscape. But when Manchester City were bought by Abu Dhabi two years later, the landscape moved irreversibly against Arsenal. Wenger was a vocal campaigner for UEFA’s FFP rules, and called for clear rules and clear punishments.

By 2017, with City and Qatar-owned Paris Saint-Germain barely impacted by FFP enforcement, Wenger had effectively lost the argument. Europe’s biggest clubs could spend more or less whatever they wanted.

“Do we have to open the door completely to investments?,” Wenger said in 2017, at the start of his final season as Arsenal manager. “It looks like we have created rules that cannot be respected. Nothing worse than when you create rules that are not respected.” In this environment, where clubs could spend whatever they wanted, the revenue uptick of the Emirates Stadium had effectively been rendered irrelevant.

We now know that the 2010s was a decade of financial permissiveness in the game, a Wild West of spending. Betting on your own intelligence and revenue generation never stood a chance. The question, now that the Premier League is enforcing its rules, is whether that bet has a better shot in the 2020s.
 

wspur

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
868
3,130
While footballing wise there have been huge mistakes which significantly disengaged the fans by the end of last season, Levy is really an outstanding businessman. His vision is becoming more of a reality these days.
 

HodisGawd

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2005
1,751
5,996
Yes, finally an article that actually outlines our long-term strategy.

I hope some of our own fans read it and will finally stop shitting the bed every time we lose a game or don't shell out Gift Orban for £30m. Stick with the plan. Think you know football finances better than Levy??? No, you don't.

This is a long-term plan as we've been saying for years. While nothing is certain in football, Levy's plan will almost certainly bear fruit.
 

newbie

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2004
6,213
6,605
New athletic article


If you took a glance at the reaction to the Premier League enforcing its profit and sustainability rules (PSR) this week, you could be forgiven for thinking that they were an act of vandalism. As if some spiteful outsider was gleefully taking a hatchet to our beloved league, destroying its beloved mobility, its beloved competitiveness, out of nothing more than puritanical jealousy.

One of the many remarkable things about the events of recent days has been how the public sphere has been dominated by those voices arguing the PSR system is bad.

Everton have fought their corner after their 10-point ban and subsequent second charge, while we await a campaign on behalf of Nottingham Forest. But the discussion has it seems been led by those associated with Newcastle United, bristling at the realisation they will not be able to turn Saudi Arabia’s state wealth into signed footballers as smoothly as they hoped. To call their complaints prejudiced barely scratches the surface. It is a surprise that so many others with no stake in their success have decided to adopt their self-serving logic.

But it does make you wonder why no one is making the public case for the rules.

In an ideal world, the Premier League itself would be dominating the airwaves, arguing why, in a time of flux and uncertainty, we need our leading clubs to be stable and secure, and protected from their own worst instincts. The Premier League’s chief executive Richard Masters should not need to speak to a House of Commons select committee to be heard on this matter.

In an ideal world, the point could be reiterated that the Premier League is a collective endeavour and that these were the rules the clubs signed up to in the first place.

It could be sold as a far-sighted and sensible move to preserve competition and safeguard the future of the English game, if only someone was willing to make that argument in public.



As long as the anti-PSR voices dominate the media, people will be left with the wrong impression: that there is nothing to be said for these rules and that no one in football who supports them. The reality is the opposite.

There is a silent majority of clubs who have played by the rules since their introduction and only spent within their means. These are clubs who have repeatedly faced public pressure to spend more but have decided against it, knowing they would risk unpopularity with their fans and losing their competitive edge by doing so. It has not been an easy position for clubs to take.

There must have been moments for clubs in recent years when they wondered what the point was in playing within the rules. Because if those rules were not enforced — and it is only this season that the Premier League has started seriously punishing teams for breaches — then they were effectively meaningless. You cannot have regulation as something that clubs can choose to opt into. You may as well have a car race with an optional speed limit.

This is why the events of this season are so significant.

If these rules are finally being enforced, then they are no longer something that clubs can opt into. The choice of whether to comply with the speed limit or not has been removed. And if this is now the case — and yes, it may still be too early to tell — then the landscape of English football has changed forever.

We may not hear much from the rule-abiding silent majority this week, but maybe they feel that they do not need to do the talking right now. Because if the landscape has changed, then it has changed in their favour.

Take, for example, Tottenham Hotspur.

They have worked very hard to run themselves sustainably throughout ENIC’s 22-year tenure. They have only spent what they generate, they keep wage costs as a smaller proportion of revenue than anyone else (just 47 per cent in 2021-22) and they do not rely on benefactor largesse to keep up. They have never won the Premier League, but the fact they have stayed competitive near its top end, despite the constraints they face, is a testament to their long-term strategy.

According to Swiss Ramble, the football business blogger, Tottenham were the most profitable team in the league across 10 seasons from 2012-13 to 2021-22. Spurs are nothing if not committed to staying well within the rules.


Moving to the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium has massively boosted the club’s matchday revenue (Mark Leech/Offside via Getty Images)
Central to this strategy is the money brought in by the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, which they moved into in April 2019. This has transformed the club’s matchday revenue. In the 2021-22 season, Tottenham brought in £106m in matchday revenue, second only to Manchester United (£111m). In Spurs’ last season at the old White Hart Lane, 2016-17, they brought in £45.3m.

Tottenham have not yet published their 2022-23 accounts, which are expected next month or in early March, but it would not be a surprise if they have overtaken United and made more matchday revenue than anyone else. And that number will not include the eight-figure sum the club made for staging five sold-out Beyonce concerts in May and June last year. Their overall revenue for 2022-23 could be pushing the £500million mark.

As the money has started to roll in from the new stadium, Tottenham have slowly started to be more ambitious in the transfer market.

When their 2021-22 accounts were published in February last year, a statement on the club website proudly announced Spurs had “invested more than £500million” in first-team players since their new stadium opened, “putting us in the top five of spending in the Premier League”.

Tottenham continued to spend last summer and have done so again this month. The summer of 2018, when they signed no one, feels a long time ago now.

But generating revenue through your stadium could only ever be part of the plan. For a self-sustaining model to work, whether at Tottenham, Brighton & Hove Albion or anywhere else, it needs to exist in a world where all clubs are held to the same rules.



Only then will teams stand or fall by their own revenue and the quality of their decisions. Otherwise, owners will just spend as much as they can and, as sure as night follows day, those with the deepest pockets will win in the end.

It is no surprise, then, that Spurs’ chairman Daniel Levy has repeatedly spoken so positively about PSR and European football governing body UEFA’s equivalents.

Levy’s ‘chairman’s statement’ last February said: “We welcome the changes to the governance of the game, which will compel greater financial sustainability and financial fair play (FFP).” Levy pointed to UEFA’s new sustainability rules and wrote: “Many expect that these new rules will be a game changer for the sport. Even tighter regulations may follow.”

Stay informed on the big story
Details of the charges against Everton and Forest
Why action against Man City is taking much longer
How the rules are impacting the transfer window
When Levy spoke to the Cambridge Union in March last year, he again underlined his belief in the value of spending restrictions.

Discussing the importance of clubs still making investments, Levy said that “the most important thing” was “to not get ourselves in a place where unlimited investment can be made, and it isn’t sustainable when that investment suddenly stops or that owner suddenly goes, and then the club disappears”. He again pointed to the new UEFA rules and predicted they would have “quite a big impact on the financing of football”.

It would not be a surprise if Levy — or anyone else running a club who play within the rules — would be keen on them being enforced or even tightened in future.

Sticking to the rules is self-defeating unless the rules have teeth. For years, the clubs who stick by the rules have seen themselves leapfrogged by the clubs who do not. Robust enforcement could be a silver bullet for those clubs who comply.



It has been tempting in recent years to draw a line between Tottenham’s strategy now and Arsenal’s strategy under Arsene Wenger.

The two situations are not identical but Arsenal made a bet when they moved from Highbury to the Emirates Stadium in 2006 that the increased matchday revenue would transform the position of the club in the financial landscape. But when Manchester City were bought by Abu Dhabi two years later, the landscape moved irreversibly against Arsenal. Wenger was a vocal campaigner for UEFA’s FFP rules, and called for clear rules and clear punishments.

By 2017, with City and Qatar-owned Paris Saint-Germain barely impacted by FFP enforcement, Wenger had effectively lost the argument. Europe’s biggest clubs could spend more or less whatever they wanted.

“Do we have to open the door completely to investments?,” Wenger said in 2017, at the start of his final season as Arsenal manager. “It looks like we have created rules that cannot be respected. Nothing worse than when you create rules that are not respected.” In this environment, where clubs could spend whatever they wanted, the revenue uptick of the Emirates Stadium had effectively been rendered irrelevant.

We now know that the 2010s was a decade of financial permissiveness in the game, a Wild West of spending. Betting on your own intelligence and revenue generation never stood a chance. The question, now that the Premier League is enforcing its rules, is whether that bet has a better shot in the 2020s.

if you dont have Finaical FFp

Clubs will go bankrupt and player transfer and wages will go out of control, look at PSG buying Naymar it inflated the whole market., and Barca brought PC for 150 million they rebuilt there team and challenged.

If ffp had been enforce we could well have won a league or cups!

Not to mention Chelsea and City Cheated they where inflating figures / paying off teh books

do i know this for fact no, but how is it no other clubs could spend as much as them with bigger revenues?
 
Last edited:

Trix

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2004
20,241
338,705
Yes, finally an article that actually outlines our long-term strategy.

I hope some of our own fans read it and will finally stop shitting the bed every time we lose a game or don't shell out Gift Orban for £30m. Stick with the plan. Think you know football finances better than Levy??? No, you don't.

This is a long-term plan as we've been saying for years. While nothing is certain in football, Levy's plan will almost certainly bear fruit.
I've been very vocal about Levy over the past few seasons, and all of this coming out hasn't made me think I was wrong one bit. I've never been one who has expected massive spends or started shouting "just pay the asking price" but there is no doubt in my mind there have been times he could and should have done more than he has.

Firstly there have certainly been numerous times we have come out of windows at least a player short imo. A key player in a position where we desperately lack bodies and be it this window or the next it is going to have to be addressed. The answer? Get them now instead of the Summer it will likely make a difference to where we finish THIS season which means increased revenue and hopefully European competition. That player no longer needs to be bought in the next window.

Secondly thinking he knows what is needed on the pitch over the football people at the club. Not spending money on Djed Spence etc allows us maybe to get a player the manager WILL play. You might understand how property will increase in value but you do not understand players.

Thirdly stop listening to everyone around you. You employ a Sporting director, head coach DOF for a reason. If you are at a point where you think you are getting better advice as far as the suitability of players from a financial director, the communications director or the tea lady, you need to change those football people to people you will listen to because the non football bod's know nothing.


All of those points have nothing to do with working within FFP where he has always done an outstanding job. He looks to be getting things very right at the moment but that isn't cause to start saying everyone that was criticising him was wrong to do so. They weren't at that time! If they are still calling him out for every little thing then yes there is clearly an agenda and nothing will change that I guess.

I'd also add he's on the right track, but he's been on the right track before and then suddenly flipped it all on it's head to go in another direction.

He's still got a way to go for me before I start singing his praises as the best chairman in the world but he's going the right way currently for certain.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,396
3,464
Secondly thinking he knows what is needed on the pitch over the football people at the club. Not spending money on Djed Spence etc allows us maybe to get a player the manager WILL play. You might understand how property will increase in value but you do not understand players.

Thirdly stop listening to everyone around you. You employ a Sporting director, head coach DOF for a reason. If you are at a point where you think you are getting better advice as far as the suitability of players from a financial director, the communications director or the tea lady, you need to change those football people to people you will listen to because the non football bod's know nothing.
This has been the factor that has stood out for me as the glaring weakness in Levy's approach. It's taken him this long to find a blend of people he can trust to make the footballing decisions, and it wouldn't surprise me if part of the delay was that he fancied himself to be able to do it all.

I can appreciate that when he started out with the strategy for the infrastructure, he would want to have full control of transfers etc. to make sure that player spending did not impact the long-term plans. And to be fair, that approach has helped put us in this current financial position. But you do feel that he would have done well to find a DOF with the same vision at a much earlier date. Maybe it's not that easy... but still a big weakness imo.

- -

It's funny to see some Newcastle fans now chuntering about us spending "half a billion" in 3 windows, as if that makes us just as bad as the criticism of their owners. As Spurs fans, we can always point to the fact that it was us who had to endure years of frugality to get to this point. It's all been funded by the club, which in reality means it's been funded by the fans - via money, support and varying degrees of patience.

For all Levy's faults, the strategy he followed means this is still our club and any success will be based off the platform we have created ourselves. No sugar daddy required! He doesn't need to be the best chairman in the world - he just needs to make sure that all the support from fans is used for the benefit of the club and local community as a whole.
 

Gassin's finest

C'est diabolique
May 12, 2010
38,379
91,062
As has been said, it always look rosey when we hit on the right approach and are building well (Jol, Redknapp, Poch... now Ange), but when we genuinely get into the position of winning something, Levy either doesn't make the push (the infamous no signings summer of 2018, Ryan Nelsen/Louis Saha), or thinks he knows better and changes the coach (Jol>Ramos, Poch>Jose). His last chance was Conte imo, and he blew that spectacularly. We always live in hope, but I would still prefer someone else running things tbh, and I don't trust Levy to do things differently this time.
 

Bump

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2005
228
647
@newbie - I would quote, but don't want another reference. Might want to edit your post and remove that email address.
 

fishhhandaricecake

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
19,893
49,683
As has been said, it always look rosey when we hit on the right approach and are building well (Jol, Redknapp, Poch... now Ange), but when we genuinely get into the position of winning something, Levy either doesn't make the push (the infamous no signings summer of 2018, Ryan Nelsen/Louis Saha), or thinks he knows better and changes the coach (Jol>Ramos, Poch>Jose). His last chance was Conte imo, and he blew that spectacularly. We always live in hope, but I would still prefer someone else running things tbh, and I don't trust Levy to do things differently this time.
This time does feel very different and aside from Nuno I do see why he tried Jose & Conte and he and the club have learnt from that.

Under Ange Levy has said “We have our Tottenham back”, we have Fabio consulting, we have Lange as DofF and we have got Ange 2 key signings very early in the Jan window so for now all the right moves are being made.

I actually do think this will continue, I just think it took Levy an absolute age to get to this point, much longer than it should have but I think we are ok now and can more or less enjoy things.
 

Flashp

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
793
3,331
if you dont have Finaical FFp

Clubs will go bankrupt and player transfer and wages will go out of control, look at PSG buying [email protected]they inflated the whole market., and Barca brought PC for 150 million they rebuilt there team and challenged.

If ffp had been enforce we could well have won a league or cups!

Not to mention Chelsea and City Cheated they where inflating figures / paying off teh books

do i know this for fact no, but how is it no other clubs could spend as much as them with bigger revenues?
Yeah, especially the George Head 99 transfer was a right kick in the nads for all us rule abiding clubs.

Must say I fear when they make a move for our very own [email protected].
 

BorjeSpurs

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2007
3,461
19,548
Levy has had successes and he has had failures. However, his most important project, our stadium, has been an unbelievable success story.

Just in non Spurs events in a 12 month period, we've sold 88% of seats compared to our last full capacity season at WHL in the Premier League.

THS will benefit us massively for decades and decades going forward, that has to have more weight than 'Do you remember when he bought Saha and Nelsen'?

 

PaulM

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2005
571
2,438
I've been very vocal about Levy over the past few seasons, and all of this coming out hasn't made me think I was wrong one bit. I've never been one who has expected massive spends or started shouting "just pay the asking price" but there is no doubt in my mind there have been times he could and should have done more than he has.

Firstly there have certainly been numerous times we have come out of windows at least a player short imo. A key player in a position where we desperately lack bodies and be it this window or the next it is going to have to be addressed. The answer? Get them now instead of the Summer it will likely make a difference to where we finish THIS season which means increased revenue and hopefully European competition. That player no longer needs to be bought in the next window.

Secondly thinking he knows what is needed on the pitch over the football people at the club. Not spending money on Djed Spence etc allows us maybe to get a player the manager WILL play. You might understand how property will increase in value but you do not understand players.

Thirdly stop listening to everyone around you. You employ a Sporting director, head coach DOF for a reason. If you are at a point where you think you are getting better advice as far as the suitability of players from a financial director, the communications director or the tea lady, you need to change those football people to people you will listen to because the non football bod's know nothing.


All of those points have nothing to do with working within FFP where he has always done an outstanding job. He looks to be getting things very right at the moment but that isn't cause to start saying everyone that was criticising him was wrong to do so. They weren't at that time! If they are still calling him out for every little thing then yes there is clearly an agenda and nothing will change that I guess.

I'd also add he's on the right track, but he's been on the right track before and then suddenly flipped it all on it's head to go in another direction.

He's still got a way to go for me before I start singing his praises as the best chairman in the world but he's going the right way currently for certain.
I think criticism of Levy is fair and some of the points you've outlined certainly have merit. For me, I've always said I thought he had been a brilliant chairman for us but had brought us as far as ENIC's operating model allowed. Two points on that - the parameters now seem to be shifting. As FFP/sustainaibility rules now seem to be getting enforced, that levels the playing field somewhat and may allow us to really compete. Even if it didn't, I always said that perhaps ENIC couldn't take us any further but there were very few owners who could take us to the next level and many who could take us backwards. "ENIC out" with no plan wasn't a valid argument for me.

My other criticism of Levy/ENIC is what we spend on wages. We consistently have the lowest wage:turnover ratio in the league. I don't advocate going all Peter Ridsdale but I did think he could do more on wages to compete for players who could improve us. I think he's been pretty good in terms of transfer spend since the stadium opened but top players won't come here unless they get paid the going rate regardless of the transfer fee.
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,350
57,940
I think criticism of Levy is fair and some of the points you've outlined certainly have merit. For me, I've always said I thought he had been a brilliant chairman for us but had brought us as far as ENIC's operating model allowed. Two points on that - the parameters now seem to be shifting. As FFP/sustainaibility rules now seem to be getting enforced, that levels the playing field somewhat and may allow us to really compete. Even if it didn't, I always said that perhaps ENIC couldn't take us any further but there were very few owners who could take us to the next level and many who could take us backwards. "ENIC out" with no plan wasn't a valid argument for me.

My other criticism of Levy/ENIC is what we spend on wages. We consistently have the lowest wage:turnover ratio in the league. I don't advocate going all Peter Ridsdale but I did think he could do more on wages to compete for players who could improve us. I think he's been pretty good in terms of transfer spend since the stadium opened but top players won't come here unless they get paid the going rate regardless of the transfer fee.


I think we're pretty prudent on the wages front. Our top earners are paid handsomely and there is usually adequate of headroom for improved contracts and renewals. We've fallen foul of paying players too much which makes it nigh on impossible for us to move some players on, and that situation has been worsened by the lack of money in the European leagues.
 

KingNick

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2008
2,179
3,718
Also worth remembering that the stadium project would have progressed significantly quicker had it not been for obstacles such as the Archway Sheet Metal. We lost at least 5 years on planning objections / refusals to sell and could have been in this strong financial position much sooner
 

SirHarryHotspur

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
5,501
8,282
Also worth remembering that the stadium project would have progressed significantly quicker had it not been for obstacles such as the Archway Sheet Metal. We lost at least 5 years on planning objections / refusals to sell and could have been in this strong financial position much sooner
True but without the delay would we have the original planned stadium or what we have now , not sure of the timeline.
 

kmk

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2014
4,351
29,835
How much of the football revenue is used to pay the stadium loan back every year?
 
Top