The ousting of Daniel (COYS)

[vegassd]

We're in over a £500m positive position with FFP. If managing it well for over a decade doesn't allow you to progress on the pitch, what's the point? At some stage it just becomes an excuse rather than a reason. At least we won't "do a Leeds"

I'm not sure the £500m thing is true. I have a feeling that's going back to a £400m figure being popularly "reported" before the stadium was open.

The club has posted a loss in the last two years (£80m and £50m I believe) and since FFP is all about financials over a 3 year period, I very much doubt we could spend £500m on players and "be fine for FFP", which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I know there is some nuance into the types of spending that contribute to FFP, but even if we take a fairly cynical view of things I doubt a figure of £500m comes close to being accurate. If somebody does have firm numbers to demonstrate that £500m I'm happy to be wrong.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

I'm not sure the £500m thing is true. I have a feeling that's going back to a £400m figure being popularly "reported" before the stadium was open.

The club has posted a loss in the last two years (£80m and £50m I believe) and since FFP is all about financials over a 3 year period, I very much doubt we could spend £500m on players and "be fine for FFP", which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I know there is some nuance into the types of spending that contribute to FFP, but even if we take a fairly cynical view of things I doubt a figure of £500m comes close to being accurate. If somebody does have firm numbers to demonstrate that £500m I'm happy to be wrong.

Actually a loss in last three
2020 £63.9 million
2021 £83.8 million
2022 £50.1 million
I have no idea how that effects FFP.


PS. This is from a Guardian article on the Everton case so I assume we have to tread carefully as we have exceeded the losses allowed but would need a FFP expert to explain it all..

Under Premier League rules, clubs are allowed to lose a maximum of £105m over three years – and clubs who break its profitability and sustainability rules can be fined or deducted points.

 

[Wheeler Dealer]

Thank you for your post, perhaps Donna is partly responsible for the ticket prices and I appreciate your opinion.
However the times I have had to deal
with Mrs Cullen on a personal basis in regards to my tickets with the club, she has been phenomenal and as this is a open social media, I wanted to mention this.
As far as Daniel goes, yes we are in a better place right now, so hopefully he does not make the same horrible mistakes as In the past, here’s hoping.
COYS.

DCSpurs64- Is the DC for Donna Cullen in any way?

 

[Scot-Spur]

We are progressing on the pitch.

Chelsea keep spending and are regressing.

I think the proof will be in potentially 2 years time when we need 2/3 top level players. If we will bring them in or not, but like how Liverpool were with VVD and the GK.

 

[dvdhopeful]

Never thought Rob would become chief cheerleader in this thread....

 

[vegassd]

Actually a loss in last three
2020 £63.9 million
2021 £83.8 million
2022 £50.1 million
I have no idea how that effects FFP.


PS. This is from a Guardian article on the Everton case so I assume we have to tread carefully as we have exceeded the losses allowed but would need a FFP expert to explain it all..

Under Premier League rules, clubs are allowed to lose a maximum of £105m over three years – and clubs who break its profitability and sustainability rules can be fined or deducted points.

I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of allowances due to the impact of the pandemic. No idea how a club would actually go about proving what is or isn't pandemic-related... I imagine there is a bunch of small print in there.

The idea of FFP "headroom" shouldn't really be used as an indicator for how much we should be spending on players (in my opinion), which is what I think a lot of fans view it as. Spending all our profits before player trading on the squad/playing setup should be the expectation. Then Levy can focus on increasing the profits however he wants. As long as it's getting spent on improving the playing staff.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of allowances due to the impact of the pandemic. No idea how a club would actually go about proving what is or isn't pandemic-related... I imagine there is a bunch of small print in there.

The idea of FFP "headroom" shouldn't really be used as an indicator for how much we should be spending on players (in my opinion), which is what I think a lot of fans view it as. Spending all our profits before player trading on the squad/playing setup should be the expectation. Then Levy can focus on increasing the profits however he wants. As long as it's getting spent on improving the playing staff.

I think that was where the PL charged Everton, I believe they posted pandemic losses out of proportion to everyone else.

Anyway direct from the Boss at the recent FAB meeting..

DL summarised: significant investment has been made, building for the future both on and off the pitch. Club revenues were only those that the Club operations generated, Financial Fair Play needed to be properly enforced to be effective and the focus now was on optimising revenues and ensuring that the Club’s funding strategy is long-term and sustainable. The Club is doing everything possible to maximise revenue to go back into the First Team.

 

[hakano]

Strange. I feel quite confident about footballing success right now. I feel the club is moving in the right direction. Success is never guaranteed, all you can do is try to do the right things, and it appears w

No, I think it's the right thing to do whether it's pie-in-the-sky or not.

Are you suggesting we should just ignore FFP, spend spend spend, break the rules and accept getting banned later on down the line?

I think we should set an example, push for more regulation and if others want to continue to transgress then that's up to them.

It's what us, the fans, want. You can't complain about clubs being dopedl and at the same time complain when your club tries to push back on it.

I have no problem with Levy in this regard. We should be proud of our position on this relative to other clubs. Football needs more regulation, not for us to just meekly give up.

Given the lack of footballing success and on pitch ambition shown over the last 23 years, do you think he deserves to be the highest paid exec in Football and do you think Spurs fans should pay highest ticket prices in football?

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Given the lack of footballing success and on pitch ambition shown over the last 23 years, do you think he deserves to be the highest paid exec in Football and do you think Spurs fans should pay highest ticket prices in football?

Do you think reaching a Champions League final is a success ?

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Given the lack of footballing success and on pitch ambition shown over the last 23 years, do you think he deserves to be the highest paid exec in Football and do you think Spurs fans should pay highest ticket prices in football?

Really - that is a question for the managing director at ENIC to answer...

 

[DJS]

For those who currently want Levy out completely (as opposed to maybe just stepping aside for the "football people" to do their thing) - what would it take for him to redeem himself in your eyes? Would that even be possible?

Because of his poor running of football side, we dropped off from competing and lost Kane.

He blew it big time.

Yeah we have Ange now but who knows if he’ll continue backing him and just for costing us Kane he cannot be forgiven.

 

[HodisGawd]

Given the lack of footballing success and on pitch ambition shown over the last 23 years, do you think he deserves to be the highest paid exec in Football and do you think Spurs fans should pay highest ticket prices in football?

I really couldn't care less how much Levy earns. I'm not going to fixate on something irrelevant.

Also, we don't have the highest prices in football.

 

[DogsOfWar]

My 46 odd years supporting Spurs have been roughly 50/50 without Levy/with Levy.

My favourite eras in order are Burkenshaw, Poch, Redknap, and Jol.
My least favourite eras were 1977 relegation, most of the 90's, Nuno/Mourinho/Conte.

So, for me, the majority of the good times have been under Levy and the majority of bad times not under Levy.

 

[Ribble]

Given the lack of footballing success and on pitch ambition shown over the last 23 years, do you think he deserves to be the highest paid exec in Football and do you think Spurs fans should pay highest ticket prices in football?

23 years ago we were a mediocre fallen giant languishing in mid-table, there's been a lot of footballing success in that time even if the trophies have been limited.

 

[Snarfalicious]

We need to decouple our view of Levy from whatever our current form happens to be.

Are we now happy with him just because we’ve won a few games? Or do all the criticisms still stand? Were some too harsh just because we were playing shit?

I know what my view is.

This is probably as far as I’d go to a thumbs up, and I don’t see that ever really changing. For me, the success would always be in spite of him, and it’ll always be hard to look past the missed opportunities.

 

[skiba]

I'm not sure the £500m thing is true. I have a feeling that's going back to a £400m figure being popularly "reported" before the stadium was open.

The club has posted a loss in the last two years (£80m and £50m I believe) and since FFP is all about financials over a 3 year period, I very much doubt we could spend £500m on players and "be fine for FFP", which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I know there is some nuance into the types of spending that contribute to FFP, but even if we take a fairly cynical view of things I doubt a figure of £500m comes close to being accurate. If somebody does have firm numbers to demonstrate that £500m I'm happy to be wrong.

The figure of £500m is correct but it is somewhat of a red herring.

our record profits were accumulated over a period when we were constructing the stadium and that expenditure doesn’t hit the profit and loss account or count towards FFP.

Essentially the £500m was never there in cash terms for spending on players as it had gone into the stadium.

 

[Rob]

Essentially the £500m was never there in cash terms for spending on players as it had gone into the stadium.

Sorry, of course I'm not saying we have half a billion to spend!

The discussion was what our FFP allowance was and it's close to £500m. That doesn't mean we have £500m to spend, it means we shouldn't be use FFP as an excuse not to spend what we do have.

 

[vegassd]

The figure of £500m is correct but it is somewhat of a red herring.

our record profits were accumulated over a period when we were constructing the stadium and that expenditure doesn’t hit the profit and loss account or count towards FFP.

Essentially the £500m was never there in cash terms for spending on players as it had gone into the stadium.

Yeah, I agree with that. My point was more along the lines of it being a somewhat historical number, and FFP calculations would only be done over the last 3 years anyway. So if that was a ballpark figure pre-stadium that it wouldn't really apply now anyway. But like I say, if somebody has a full explanation of £500m I'm happy to be wrong. Just seems odd we could have that much wiggle room if we have been posting losses.

Regardless of the number though, I think it's still a pretty passive move by Levy if we are waiting for FFP to bite other clubs. I personally like the idea of us having a sustainable model, and I think some sort of FFP would be a good thing, but it also feels a bit naive to think that the dozens of clubs being pumped with money are all going to fall in line and the playing field will level itself. Time will tell I suppose.

 

[Rob]

Yeah, I agree with that. My point was more along the lines of it being a somewhat historical number, and FFP calculations would only be done over the last 3 years anyway. So if that was a ballpark figure pre-stadium that it wouldn't really apply now anyway. But like I say, if somebody has a full explanation of £500m I'm happy to be wrong. Just seems odd we could have that much wiggle room if we have been posting losses.

Regardless of the number though, I think it's still a pretty passive move by Levy if we are waiting for FFP to bite other clubs. I personally like the idea of us having a sustainable model, and I think some sort of FFP would be a good thing, but it also feels a bit naive to think that the dozens of clubs being pumped with money are all going to fall in line and the playing field will level itself. Time will tell I suppose.

It was £400m last year and we sold Kane.

 

[HodisGawd]

23 years ago we were a mediocre fallen giant languishing in mid-table, there's been a lot of footballing success in that time even if the trophies have been limited.

Exactly.

I will add to this. Footballing success is dependent on how you measure it. The last 23 years are the era of the doped clubs and our silverware haul has gone down. It has been harder to win trophies.

But the amount of games we've won, goals we've scored and great players we've had have gone up. In terms of winning football games and finishes in the league, this is most successful period in period in our history.

Footballing success for me is winning games, not silverware. Trophies are a lovely bonus, but what I really want is to rock up on a Saturday and see great players power us to a win. Like this Saturday just gone. So by my yardstick, Levy has delivered success - not as much as I'd hoped, of course but it hasn't been the failure people make it out to be.