Daniel Levy - Former Chairman

[spurspinter1]

I think if we had stayed we would be experiencing severe boning by PSR in the way that Aston Villa are.

At least it seems that our financial constraints are club/ownership directives (possibly with rules from some banks linked to the borrowing) rather than from the governing organisations of the game

We'll never know as I say, but I think we were closer to being something special at that particular time. A few key signings and no Wembley stint could have been a much better era than what we have seen. The argument will be that we'll be in a better position now for sustainable success, but then that does eventually have to happen for it to be an accurate prediction.

The key is under Levy he has led the club to a Europa league title so that can never be taken away. We've spent a fudge tonne of money but not all of it has been spent well, particularly on higher value transfers.

 

[DTA]

20 years ago we were finishing 8th/9th. Last season we finished 17th...

A bit harsh i know. Off the field infrastructure we have certainly improved and are listed amongst Delloite lists etc and that is certainly down to Levy.

Yes yes, take the one season where we had an abysmal league form over all the times we finished in the top four got to semi’s and finals and became one of the big 5/6 rather than the lower mid table team often flirting with relegation we were when he took over.

Completely honest and correct viewpoint there.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Seems rather obvious that no one is claiming otherwise.

One poster in particular is.

 

[Jurgen the German]

We weren’t even playing the same sport as those clubs when Levy took over! Now we’re at least in the same conversation.

And that’s fair. It would be more accurate to say we’ve pulled clear of Villa and Everton who are/were clubs of similar stature to us. But to claim nobody has been better run as the poster did isn’t true.

 

[glasgowspur]

Think there will be a Tifo in recognition of him at some point?

 

[glorygloryeze]

Yes yes, take the one season where we had an abysmal league form over all the times we finished in the top four got to semi’s and finals and became one of the big 5/6 rather than the lower mid table team often flirting with relegation we were when he took over.

Completely honest and correct viewpoint there.

Yes i was being slight facetious...just like it's a bit facetious to constantly talk about infrastructure and not talk about actually winning and competing for the trophies that make a big club. After all, the big fan base the club has is because of trophies it had won and competed for historically than how great our stadium and building infrastructure is.

My responses elsewhere say my view in more detail so...

 

[DTA]

Yes i was being slight facetious...just like it's a bit facetious to constantly talk about infrastructure and not talk about actually winning and competing for the trophies that make a big club. After all, the big fan base the club has is because of trophies it had won and competed for historically than how great our stadium and building infrastructure is.

My responses elsewhere say my view in more detail so...

We didn’t win enough trophies in his time but it’s disingenuous to same that we didn’t compete for them. Because we absolutely did.

 

[glorygloryeze]

We didn’t win enough trophies in his time but it’s disingenuous to same that we didn’t compete for them. Because we absolutely did.

We didn't compete as much as a big club should.

We were more focused on top 4, understandable for much of that time, but sacking Jose before that cup final told us what the default was

 

[Gazza]

Think there will be a Tifo in recognition of him at some point?

Will never happen

 

[Gazza]

We didn’t win enough trophies in his time but it’s disingenuous to same that we didn’t compete for them. Because we absolutely did.

I think it’s easy to say that we were competing for them … we were never favourites. We had many chances to push on with matters on the pitch and ultimately we didn’t invest in top players but I suppose that wasn’t the market we were in

 

[Mosquito_Coasting]

We'll never know as I say, but I think we were closer to being something special at that particular time. A few key signings and no Wembley stint could have been a much better era than what we have seen. The argument will be that we'll be in a better position now for sustainable success, but then that does eventually have to happen for it to be an accurate prediction.

The key is under Levy he has led the club to a Europa league title so that can never be taken away. We've spent a fudge tonne of money but not all of it has been spent well, particularly on higher value transfers.

I always talk about that Wembley move saying we left WHL with a record of 17 wins 2 draws (iirc). The Wembley move really fudged our momentum.

 

[DTA]

We didn't compete as much as a big club should.

We were more focused on top 4, understandable for much of that time, but sacking Jose before a cu final told us what the default was

Right…how many semis and finals where we in, in Levy’s Tenure?

apart from Man U, Arse and Liverpool which non doped club competed more (we’re in as many semis and finals?

In fact apart from those 3, all much bigger and more successful than us in every metric when Levy took over and the Doped clubs, who is the closest team to us in terms of semis and finals and how many?

 

[DTA]

I think it’s easy to say that we were competing for them … we were never favourites. We had many chances to push on with matters on the pitch and ultimately we didn’t invest in top players but I suppose that wasn’t the market we were in

If you are in Semis and finals I think it’s fair to say you were competing for those trophies.

No weren’t favourites, but that depends a lot on the luck…

 

[Spur of the moment]

The irony being arsenal certainly haven't done it and the trophy haul for Liverpool in comparison to their heyday isn't that great.
City and Chelsea have changed the landscape so much that even powerhouse clubs like Liverpool and utd are struggling to win the big trophies.
If you had said during Ferguson and wenger eras that over the next decade arsenal, utd and Liverpool would win two titles between them over the next decade you'd have been laughed at.

This is a massive point that's conveniently queezed out by the media.

Prior to the arrival of the oligarch at Cheatski and the sports-washing oil magnates at City, those three clubs had already established something approaching a monopoly of the trophies available. Meanwhile we were fighting from below to break through an ever thickening glass ceiling as we continued our recovery from the miserable mediocrity of the 90s.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

I always talk about that Wembley move saying we left WHL with a record of 17 wins 2 draws (iirc). The Wembley move really fudged our momentum.

I hated going to Wembley, I suppose it was our only real alternative but it never had the atmosphere of a home ground to me and rarely seemed to intimidate our opponents, quite the reverse in some cases.

 

[JerusalemMan]

I remember the 90s (somewhat).

Year after year of the season being essentially over and meaningless at some point late winter with the occasional season where it mattered because of the threat of relegation.

Last season was a familiar feeling in that regard, luckily with the exception of the EL run and win.

What was the norm and deeply disappointing has become a rare once in a while occurrence. Despite working against the forces of financial polarisation (CL, "top 4" teams) and financial doping.

I remember shortly before I went to university there was a season where we really looked like we were going down and had to win against Wimbledon to ensure safety.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I think it’s easy to say that we were competing for them … we were never favourites. We had many chances to push on with matters on the pitch and ultimately we didn’t invest in top players but I suppose that wasn’t the market we were in

You still have to occasionally win trophies as a big club even if you’re not favourites for the final. Crystal Palace and Saudi Sportswashing Machine just won their first trophies in forever while beating Emirates Marketing Project and Liverpool. Arsenal beat City and Chelsea on the way to winning FA cups on more than one occasion.

 

[billyiddo]

You still have to occasionally win trophies as a big club even if you’re not favourites for the final. Crystal Palace and Saudi Sportswashing Machine just won their first trophies in forever while beating Emirates Marketing Project and Liverpool. Arsenal beat City and Chelsea on the way to winning FA cups on more than one occasion.

So if smaller clubs can win trophies against the odds against stronger richer teams where does that leave us with the 'Levy left our managers short" argument regarding why we never turned our multiple final/semi final appearances in to trophy wins?

 

[Mikey10]

Ultimately I think Levy was a victim of three things:

A) many people somehow not understanding that building a £1bn stadium means you have less money to spend on players.

B) many people ignoring the fact that since we’ve built the stadium, we’ve spent a LOT of money on players.

C) his own success - being compared to the ‘big five’ just because we managed to get closer to them under his reign than any other club has come close to. We’ve had more success on the pitch than every single one of those other clubs, which is who we should be compared to.

There is a scenario in which he is not the 'victim' of anything.

He did his job off the field very well, building the club's profile worldwide, increasing revenue streams, and delivering a stadium which is the envy of most clubs in the world.

He has created generational wealth for his family - he is now a very rich man, and his family will enjoy that wealth too for decades to come. He has done very well personally out of Tottenham.

It would seem that on-field performances have not more consistently matched the ambition of the club's major shareholders (there are of course various arguments as to why this might be - some involving the major shareholders themselves) and so they feel change is necessary.

It is unusual for successful companies to have a CEO at the top for 25 years. Change is often necessary for all sorts of reasons. To have survived for a quarter of a century is quite a feat.

In short, the world spins on. Companies and businesses evolve and their approaches shift.

 

[Lilbaz]

Surprising to hear him say he thinks Lewis was pulling the strings, I always had the opinion he was very hands off. Harry seems to think otherwise.

Lewis was the one that sacked hkm. As levys mum had just died.