• 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

Levy's Plan

Bishop said:
Progress is indeed progress but I was talking about when people compare Levy's era and talk about CL qualification in comparison to the past, it's not an apples to apples comparison. You didn't get anything for finishing 4th in the 90s. Hell we didn't even qualify for Europe despite finishing 3rd in 87, so when people talk about the financial achievements there is a caveat that the landscape was quite different and that does need to be taken into account.

Just like the landscape for ENIC 2.0 is different to the earlier version due to the 5 places in the CL and the changed league phase. All of these things make a difference and it's disingenuous to pretend that isn't the case.

Finishing 5th today is worth than finishing 5th in 05/06. It makes you more money relatively speaking and has widened the scale of what is seen as successful or not. 5th in 88 was just 5thz 5th in 2026 is a successful season and gets you a rub at the biggest competition in football the next year. These are not the situations.
Click to expand...

I don't think people use 'CL qualification' the way you interpret it - i think it is used as shorthand for finishing as one one of the best teams in the league. I think everyone here is smart enough to know that the CL in it's modern format allows for 4 or 5 places in the league vs 1 maybe 2 previously.
 
Lemonade Money said:
Giving the CEO 3 years to make his mark is reasonable. It’s the still blaming Levy for brick I was questioning.
Click to expand...
So you think that when a new CEO comes in they should immediately be responsible for, and take the blame for, their predecessors bad decisions?

If Vinai does a bad job and is sacked in 3 years' time then I would also give his replacement 3 years.

I will say though that I'm quite pleased with Vinai's performance so far, though I appreciate that it is still early days.
 
Finney Is Back said:
So you think that when a new CEO comes in they should immediately be responsible for, and take the blame for, their predecessors bad decisions?

If Vinai does a bad job and is sacked in 3 years' time then I would also give his replacement 3 years.

I will say though that I'm quite pleased with Vinai's performance so far, though I appreciate that it is still early days.
Click to expand...
I agree with Levy made mistakes, but let's but kid ourselves, the people with the power that overrode Levy are still there.

The only reason we spent this summer is we were a lot closer to being relegated. Let's not demonize only Levy. The real owners are still part of the mess
 
parj said:
I agree with Levy made mistakes, but let's but kid ourselves, the people with the power that overrode Levy are still there.

The only reason we spent this summer is we were a lot closer to being relegated. Let's not demonize only Levy. The real owners are still part of the mess
Click to expand...
Don't waste your breath.
Levy = bad
No Levy = good
Some of the comments about how much better it is without him are laughable. Let's just see how it plays out.
 
Lemonade Money said:
No. But i would like to know how long has to pass until they own it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you keep on ignoring the same answer that I keep on giving?

I'm giving the 'new' decision makers 3 years. 3 years is long enough to transform an organisation. After 3 years if things are going well then it will be because the new decision makers have made good decisions and implemented them well. If after 3 years things are going badly it will be because they have made bad decisions and/or not implemented them well.
 
Lemonade Money said:
Based on what?
Click to expand...
1. Extending junior concessions throughout the stadium.
2. Turning up to the Fan Advisory Board sessions and the Fans Forum and Supporter Trust sessions and participating in direct Q&A sessions.
3. Sanctioning big money deals in terms of transfer fees and wages for the first team manager's first choice signings (this might be as simple as setting a wage and transfer budget and letting the DoF execute against that in partnership with the manager - but it is clear to me that our transfer strategy and execution is different this summer to our previous summers).
4. Poached Lewingdon and Moersen from Emirates Marketing Project (we typically used take 'cheap' people for these roles as opposed to getting those who were renowned as being some of the best operators at the biggest clubs).
 
parj said:
I agree with Levy made mistakes, but let's but kid ourselves, the people with the power that overrode Levy are still there.

The only reason we spent this summer is we were a lot closer to being relegated. Let's not demonize only Levy. The real owners are still part of the mess
Click to expand...
I know some on here disagree but I think Levy had ultimate power at Spurs and made all of the decisions. I see absolutely no reason why he would've been removed if he was merely implementing the 'new' owners' decisions. Why would any owner get rid of a chief exec who is carrying out their wishes? Surely if that was the case the owners would've kept Levy in place as a buffer between them and the fans (i.e. somebody to carry the flack if and when things went wrong)?

If we look back to what happened at Spurs these past couple of years, the owners carried out an operational review and then completely changed the make up of the board of directors (taking decision making away from what was essentially one person) before they finally removed that person altogether (with many reports saying that Levy didn't want to go). Typically an organisation chooses to change its chief exec when it wants to go in a new direction and the existing chief exec doesn't share the vision for the new direction, I wonder whether Levy didn't want to risk the asset value of his 25% ownership of THFC?
 
Finney Is Back said:
I know some on here disagree but I think Levy had ultimate power at Spurs and made all of the decisions. I see absolutely no reason why he would've been removed if he was merely implementing the 'new' owners' decisions. Why would any owner get rid of a chief exec who is carrying out their wishes? Surely if that was the case the owners would've kept Levy in place as a buffer between them and the fans (i.e. somebody to carry the flack if and when things went wrong)?

If we look back to what happened at Spurs these past couple of years, the owners carried out an operational review and then completely changed the make up of the board of directors (taking decision making away from what was essentially one person) before they finally removed that person altogether (with many reports saying that Levy didn't want to go). Typically an organisation chooses to change its chief exec when it wants to go in a new direction and the existing chief exec doesn't share the vision for the new direction, I wonder whether Levy didn't want to risk the asset value of his 25% ownership of THFC?
Click to expand...

Levy was the sacrifice in my opinion. It got so bad under Ange that not even a trophy glossed over finishing 17th.

If Levy was the one in charge, why wait so long to get rid off him?

Remember, Levy was only 25%. The real money was the backing from Lewis family. Now the "kids" get to become heroes. All of a sudden they want to get involved.
 
parj said:
If Levy was the one in charge, why wait so long to get rid off him?
Click to expand...

The answer is probably COVID to be fair. That extended Levy's tenure as we needed a financial focus and he was the right guy. As we came out of COVID, we needed a football ops guy and Levy was given one cycle to see if he could perform.
 
parj said:
Levy was the sacrifice in my opinion. It got so bad under Ange that not even a trophy glossed over finishing 17th.

If Levy was the one in charge, why wait so long to get rid off him?

Remember, Levy was only 25%. The real money was the backing from Lewis family. Now the "kids" get to become heroes. All of a sudden they want to get involved.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Though I would still argue that a chief exec of a company carrying out the wishes of the owners of a company would remain in place.

I don't think they waited that long at all. Power transferred from Lewis to the kids via the trust around 4 years ago. I wouldn't expect immediate change. People will always want a look at the present before they decide what the future should look like. First Tavistock's restructuring guy (Charrington) was brought in (I suspect to perform a more detailed review and make some recommendations), then the nature of the board was changed to effectively remove Levy's de-facto control (the yes men and women were replaced with Lewis appointments) and finally Levy was removed. Of course it could've been a performative stunt, I wouldn't totally rule that out, but I think more likely that he didn't subscribe to the new ambitions (and, if the new ambitions involve taking a bigger gamble financially, perhaps reducing the value of the asset if they don't pay off, then I can understand Levy not being 100% on board with that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back