• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Daniel Levy - Chairman

Finney Is Back said:
As I said before, I think we are fcked financially. I would imagine Liverpool’s owners have agreed to cover their shortfall. I doubt Uncle Joe is up for doing the same thing for us.
Click to expand...

It's unlikely, but imo, doesn't really matter, mate. If that's really the case, cut back, dip into the cash reserves we've built up - do your bit. West Brom's directors and senior staff have taken pay cuts of 100% to keep their ordinary staff fully paid.

I deeply dislike Joe Lewis - a more utterly , comprehensively useless owner, I could not imagine, and he's no saint. I don't expect anything from him. But there are still ways to do the right thing - if the club want to.
 
DubaiSpur said:
.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1247238005997346821

I sincerely hope the club has enough moral fibre to admit when it's wrong, and do right by its staff.
Click to expand...
What a pile of clams.

WTF do they know about large scale business finance? What I can tell you is that, if we don't make changes, our club runs out if cash in a fairly short time. This is not a decision we'll have taken lightly and it's not one we'd have taken if we didn't have to. You think Levy is unaware of the reputational damage this kind of thing would cause?

Liverpool, in contrast, were clearly not in a position where they had to do this and did it anyway.
 
DubaiSpur said:
It's unlikely, but imo, doesn't really matter, mate. If that's really the case, cut back, dip into the cash reserves we've built up - do your bit. West Brom's directors and senior staff have taken pay cuts of 400% to keep their ordinary staff fully paid.

I deeply dislike Joe Lewis - a more utterly , comprehensively useless owner, I could not imagine, and he's no saint. I don't expect anything from him. But there are still ways to do the right thing - if the club want to.
Click to expand...
Lol.

Have you read our accounts? Take our expenses and divide them by 12. Then take our short term debt liabilities and do the same. Add the two together and divide our cash by that number.

How many months does our club survive for without making cuts to expenses?
 
Last edited:
It's what I don't get about the PFA stance. They talk about players accepting the need to help out society, but clearly haven't got a fudge for the financial health of the clubs. The reason players need to take pay cuts is to show solidarity with those who are in financial pain, but more important, to stop the clubs going bust.
 
lurker of old said:
It's what I don't get about the PFA stance. They talk about players accepting the need to help out society, but clearly haven't got a fudge for the financial health of the clubs. The reason players need to take pay cuts is to show solidarity with those who are in financial pain, but more important, to stop the clubs going bust.
Click to expand...
But players don’t care
They walk away to a new club don’t they
 
There's still time for the club to do the right thing and not be a source of shame for this morally bankrupt crap. I hope it does.

Just don't get your point of view, Dubai: there isn't a magic money tree. We will be leaking costs with no matchday income and the prospect of no broadcasting income, no concert and rugby income etc etc. Until the PFA pull their weight and reduce the burden of the players' wages, the club needs to do everything it can to reduce its costs. Football fans never want their clubs to live in the real world financially, so find it easy to target Daniel Levy.
 
scaramanga said:
Lol.

Have you read our accounts? Take our expenses and divide them by 12. Then take our short term debt liabilities and do the same. Add the two together and divide our cash by that number.

How many months does our club survive for without making cuts to expenses?
Click to expand...

Yep and thats what Levy is alluding too, no one knows how long this is going to be and Levy want to safe guard the future of the club, thats his first thought
 
lurker of old said:
It's what I don't get about the PFA stance. They talk about players accepting the need to help out society, but clearly haven't got a fudge for the financial health of the clubs. The reason players need to take pay cuts is to show solidarity with those who are in financial pain, but more important, to stop the clubs going bust.
Click to expand...

Have the PFA not said they would accept a pay cut after looking at the club's finances?

I have to say, I'm not particularly angry with the stance of any party here. People are always so keen to go for black and white opinions.

--For Levy, let's be honest. We are HUGELY in debt, with a £650 million debt that kind of assumed we'd be using a 60k football stadium for a lot of non football events over the next few years. We can discuss the optics of that, whether there used to be a football club over there etc etc afterwards. That' the reality of the situation and I imagine our financial situation is not amazingly healthy. I can understand why levy took the decision he did, though I'd be disappointed if we aren't topping up 20% and I'd also be disappointed if Levy and the directors continue to take a salary during this time. I'm sure Levy wants the players to take a cut.

--For some fans, I can understand that they are disappointed about the optics and also disappointed that the club isn't some kind of family led, local institution. That just isn't real life anymore though.

--For the players, I can also understand it. They've become weird spacegoats again, even though, imo, they deserve every fudging cent. They're the ones that people want to watch, not Mourinho or Levy, not OGS and Woodward, not Lampard and Roman. Why should the money clubs make not mostly go to them rather than the owners? And why should they be spacegoated...while the likes of Lewis for example sits in his tax haven? I also sympathise with the thought they pay more in tax at full salary and can help more in that way.


Difficult situation.
 
lurker of old said:
There's still time for the club to do the right thing and not be a source of shame for this morally bankrupt crap. I hope it does.

Just don't get your point of view, Dubai: there isn't a magic money tree. We will be leaking costs with no matchday income and the prospect of no broadcasting income, no concert and rugby income etc etc. Until the PFA pull their weight and reduce the burden of the players' wages, the club needs to do everything it can to reduce its costs. Football fans never want their clubs to live in the real world financially, so find it easy to target Daniel Levy.
Click to expand...

He needs no excuse to have a dig at Levy, just look at his posting history.
 
Hootnow said:
--For Levy, let's be honest. We are HUGELY in debt, with a £650 million debt that kind of assumed we'd be using a 60k football stadium for a lot of non football events over the next few years. We can discuss the optics of that, whether there used to be a football club over there etc etc afterwards. That' the reality of the situation and I imagine our financial situation is not amazingly healthy. I can understand why levy took the decision he did, though I'd be disappointed if we aren't topping up 20% and I'd also be disappointed if Levy and the directors continue to take a salary during this time. I'm sure Levy wants the players to take a cut.
Click to expand...

That's an understandable position to take when basing it purely on the likely financial security of the individuals in the different roles.

However at the same time, you seem to be saying that you want furloughed staff paid at 100% while not having to work, but want the directors to retain the fair (and stressful) workload that I'd imagine will be required to steer the club through an unprecedented crisis, and do so for free.

I'm not sure that stacks up.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
There I’ll always be someone who wants them and someone who will pay them
That’s the issue
Teams can offer money they can’t actually afford in reality
Click to expand...

That's the way it's been for a good while now. There's no guarantee it will stay that way, especially if clubs start going to the wall.
 
I would hope that some of the higher paid members of the squad would offer to subsidise the salary of the non playing staff.
How much of the non playing staffs total wages would be covered by the whole squad giving up one weeks wage?
 
Really interesting reading here, I'd like to add another fact or two to the table

- Barca, Atleti and Espanol are reducing the pay of staff and players by 70% (reduction of 70%, so pay is now 30%)
- They are allowed to do that because Spanish law has "an extraordinary circumstances" clause
- Likely the only reason EPL clubs haven't hit the players salary is there is no "non-voluntary" legal way to do it.

The idea of Spurs and the players giving up cash for the "cause" is nice, but we should think about it carefully
- Why not leverage the taxes we have paid to the government to keep the employees paid and minimize financial impact to club?
- Why are the players special? are bankers, celebrities or anyone else in a high paid bracket being pressured to give up their income?
- Will the same fans who demand we pay the staff with zero income demand we spend money on new players when the window reopens?
- No one knows if this will last 3 months, 6 months, a year or more before games can be played in front of full crowds again

The PR and optics on this are not pretty, and I can see the romance of the idea of club/players "giving" back

- However, as with many decisions Levy makes, he shows he's a leader, he is doing what he believes he needs to protect the club and it's long term interests, acted early and decisively regardless of what anyone's opinion of the decision is.

I work for a significant multi-national company (a lot bigger than Spurs) and in 2009 the company laid off a lot of people (with no partial pay) and if this plays out as it looks I expect it will happen again. None of the top earners in my company will get any public pressure to take some % of their salary to help the affected, nor will the company get more than a 2 day grumble in the press/media/social feedback. Why do we think Spurs and Players are different and have some burden beyond other industries?
 
Last edited:
glasgowspur said:
I would hope that some of the higher paid members of the squad would offer to subsidise the salary of the non playing staff.
How much of the non playing staffs total wages would be covered by the whole squad giving up one weeks wage?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be fair to be a whole squad thing, we have a few players in the squad at the minute earning relatively fudge all I should imagine, Austin and Cirkin for example.
 
Raziel said:
Really interesting reading here, I'd like to add another fact or two to the table

- Barca, Atleti and Espanol are reducing the pay of staff and players by 70% (reduction of 70%, so pay is now 30%)
- They are allowed to do that because Spanish law has "an extraordinary circumstances" clause
- Likely the only reason EPL clubs haven't hit the players salary is their is no "non-voluntary" legal way to do it.

The idea of Spurs and the players giving up cash for the "cause" is nice, but we should think about it carefully
- Why not leverage the taxes we have paid to the government to keep the employees paid and minimize financial impact to club?
- Why are the players special? are bankers, celebrities or anyone else in a high paid bracket being pressured to give up their income?
- Will the same fans who demand we pay the staff with zero income demand we spend money on new players when the window reopens?
- No one knows if this will last 3 months, 6 months, a year or more before games can be played in front of full crowds again

The PR and optics on this are not pretty, and I can see the romance of the idea of club/players "giving" back

- However, as with many decisions Levy makes, he shows he's a leader, he is doing what he believes he needs to protect the club and it's long term interests, acted early and decisively regardless of what anyone's opinion of the decision is.

I work for a significant multi-national company (a lot bigger than Spurs) and in 2009 the company laid off a lot of people (with no partial pay) and if this plays out as it looks I expect it will happen again. None of the top earners in my company will get any public pressure to take some % of their salary to help the affected, nor will the company get more than a 2 day grumble in the press/media/social feedback. Why do we think Spurs and Players are different and have some burden beyond other industries?
Click to expand...
The list of companies using the process is massive and not exhaustive
Some are huge airlines who turnover more than us and make more money by quite a significant way
Lots are restaurants who actually lose money although McDonalds make a LOT of money
And then you have retail for example

If I hadn’t moved to an inside IR35 contract I’d be struggling massively and I will also likely lose my other business (and £100k) and my business partner will lose his house and about a quarter of a mill too

the world right now in £££ terms is a mess and very volatile

A football club is still a still a business and that’s where peoples emotions take over and forget that
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yep and thats what Levy is alluding too, no one knows how long this is going to be and Levy want to safe guard the future of the club, thats his first thought
Click to expand...

Uncle Joe might have to dip his hands into his pocket then.

But that’s not going to happen is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back