Levy's Plan

[Bishop]

The post i was responding to was you saying other clubs don't turn a profit because they spend it on players - which was the point i was making by showing we aren't turning a profit (where do you think the money goes...?)

Your moving the conversation. Bedford was talking about the past when the club could have paid a dividend.

 

[billyiddo]

Your moving the conversation. Bedford was talking about the past when the club could have paid a dividend.

I was responding to the comment in the post i quoted. If you wasn't implying that we don't spend what we can on players like other clubs then all good, i misunderstood

 

[Finney Is Back]

I think ultimately it frames well the club we were TBH. The Cup wins in our history are ABSOLUTELY iconic and we have had those truly glory glory nights, but we have never ever sustained a consistent league campaign in batches, its really odd given the players we have had and our history. I think the closest we can to building a mini dynasty was the 80s when we made some fabulous signings but we never managed to keep the band together and in doing so also saw about our financial woes later in the decade. History full of sliding door moments in truth

So now we have debunked the AI/human mistakes, we can see that since becoming a club that has spent 99% of it’s time in the top division (less than 25% prior to 1950) Levy’s Tottenham were marginally less successful in terms of top 4 finishes (1 in every 3.571 under Levy to one in every 3.125 in the 50 years before him.

However, Levy’s Tottenham were hugely less successful in terms of major trophy wins (1 every 12.5 years under Levy versus 1 every 4.167 years in the 50 years before him).

It is also worth pointing out that the league cup didn’t start until 1960, also fewer clubs qualified for European football prior to the last 25 years and we also had English clubs being banned for a period so had fewer chances to win silverware in the 50 years pre Levy/ENIC than we have had since they took over.

*edit* I should say Lewis and Levy’s Tottenham here as I’m aware that Levy was the minority partner in terms of ownership (though I think he had absolute control of running the club).

 

[Finney Is Back]

Let's hope that not only do they want to bring success on the pitch but they also know how to oversee the realising of that goal.

Worth noting that in order to do so, first and foremost a club needs to be of a certain size and stature off the pitch to be able to facilitate it - which the club certainly is now.

We had the 5th biggest turnover in England when Levy took over and the 4th highest number of fans.

We still have the 5th highest turnover and we now have the 6th highest number of fans.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

So now we have debunked the AI/human mistakes, we can see that since becoming a club that has spent 99% of it’s time in the top division (less than 25% prior to 1950) Levy’s Tottenham were marginally less successful in terms of top 4 finishes (1 in every 3.571 under Levy to one in every 3.125 in the 50 years before him.

However, Levy’s Tottenham were hugely less successful in terms of major trophy wins (1 every 12.5 years under Levy versus 1 every 4.167 years in the 50 years before him).

It is also worth pointing out that fewer clubs qualified for European football prior to the last 25 years and we also had English clubs being banned for a period so had fewer chances to win silverware pre Levy/ENIC

*edit* I should say Lewis and Levy’s Tottenham here as I’m aware that Levy was the minority partner in terms of ownership (though I think he had absolute control of running the club).

Sentiment of my original post stands IMO. One league win, never to be repeated and since the 60s we never sustained a period like 09-21 in the league. Loads of finishing 3rd followed up with 10ths or 13ths. We also sustained that healthy level of league performances whilst transforming the club off the pitch

Some might not be able to give credit where due, some can, all part of being irational football fans I suppose

 

[billyiddo]

We had the 5th biggest turnover in England when Levy took over and the 4th highest number of fans.

That's right.

We were also a club that averaged 12th in the table over the ten years previous, having not finished in the top half for 7 years in a vastly different football landscape.

Edit : the financial gap between ourselves and the richest clubs in the league has reduced significantly in this period. In 2001 we had 35% of the turnover of United, the richest, despite having the 5th highest turnover in the league. In 24/25 that shifted to about 85%. The gap has shortened between ourselves and the richest clubs, which is why we are now in such a good position to compete at the top level despite still being 5th in the revenue standings in 24/25.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Sentiment of my original post stands IMO. One league win, never to be repeated and since the 60s we never sustained a period like 09-21 in the league. We also sustained that healthy level of league performances whilst transforming the club off the pitch.

Some might not be able to give credit where due, some can, all part of being irational football fans I suppose

We’ve won the league twice mate, not once.

And you and DTA were trying to show how Levy’s period was so much better for top 4 finishes while using incorrect stats when the reality is that it was basically exactly the same (actually a little bit worse) than the 50 years prior to him, as well as being a lot worse for trophy wins.

We’ve gone from 5th highest turnover and 4th most supporters to 5th highest turnover and 6th most supporters under the reign of Levy. Zero debt when he took over as well.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

We’ve won the league twice mate, not once.

I know but you keep not wanting to include pre 60s because it stuffs loads of you "average of trophy wins" stats

And you and DTA were trying to show how Levy’s period was so much better for top 4 finishes while using incorrect stats

In fairness I actually said the stats didn't look right at the time but was writing on the hoof, but again, I maintain the sentiment. The 60s aside in which we never followed up on dominance the period under Levy was the most sustained at the top level in the league, its not even comparable if you take the batch of years

Outside the 60s we never had a sustained period of league performances like the below in a cluster that signified being a better side week in week out. That should along with trophies be the aim for any side.

I was sick to death of being humped in the 90s by Coventrys, Sheffield Uniteds, Newcastles, Chelseas and QPRs

when the reality is that it was basically exactly the same (actually a little bit worse) than the 50 years prior to him, as well as being a lot worse for trophy wins.

We’ve gone from 5th highest turnover and 4th most supporters to 5th highest turnover and 6th most supporters under the reign of Levy. Zero debt when he took over as well.

So you want to ignore the bigger picture of what this debt means for the future once its paid off and how the club is now set up for the next 50 years because of the commercial and infrastructure off the pitch? Even you ain't that disingenuous mate

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

That's right.

We were also a club that averaged 12th in the table over the ten years previous, having not finished in the top half for 7 years in a vastly different football landscape.

Edit : the financial gap between ourselves and the richest clubs in the league has reduced significantly in this period. In 2001 we were 35% of the turnover of United, the richest club in the league in 24/25 that was about 85%. The gap has shortened between ourselves and the richest clubs, which is why we are now in such a good position to compete at that level.

People won't acknowledge the work needed to be done from the 90s to where we are now, its a mental block that the refuse to over come. The goalposts just continue to move. Net Spend is zero, then we spend, then its lack of wages, then its Silverware is key, we win a cup then its the league position is key (despite arguing against it for a decade).

At the end of the day, stats aside, Levy has been a force for good at Spurs and he left at the right time.

 

[Finney Is Back]

I know but you keep not wanting to include pre 60s because it stuffs loads of you "average of trophy wins" stats


In fairness I actually said the stats didn't look right at the time but was writing on the hoof, but again, I maintain the sentiment. The 60s aside in which we never followed up on dominance the period under Levy was the most sustained at the top level in the league, its not even comparable if you take the batch of years



So you want to ignore the bigger picture of what this debt means for the future once its paid off and how the club is now set up for the next 50 years because of the commercial and infrastructure off the pitch? Even you ain't that disingenuous mate

No, I have always used the 50 year period pre ENIC that includes the 50s. 1950 was the year that we effectively became a top division club (sustained for all but 1 season since then, versus less than 25% of years prior to that).

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

No, I have always used the 50 year period pre ENIC that includes the 50s. 1950 was the year that we effectively became a top division club (sustained for all but 1 season since then, versus less than 25% of years prior to that).

Apologies, its was the first 60 years of the clubs history people expunge in previous debates

 

[Lemonade Money]

So now we have debunked the AI/human mistakes, we can see that since becoming a club that has spent 99% of it’s time in the top division (less than 25% prior to 1950) Levy’s Tottenham were marginally less successful in terms of top 4 finishes (1 in every 3.571 under Levy to one in every 3.125 in the 50 years before him.

However, Levy’s Tottenham were hugely less successful in terms of major trophy wins (1 every 12.5 years under Levy versus 1 every 4.167 years in the 50 years before him).

It is also worth pointing out that the league cup didn’t start until 1960, also fewer clubs qualified for European football prior to the last 25 years and we also had English clubs being banned for a period so had fewer chances to win silverware in the 50 years pre Levy/ENIC than we have had since they took over.

*edit* I should say Lewis and Levy’s Tottenham here as I’m aware that Levy was the minority partner in terms of ownership (though I think he had absolute control of running the club).

Levy was here 25 years? How about compare to the previous 25 years. That would be fair, no?

You keep using the 50s/60s to win the stats, but that ownership must've been pretty bad to fudge up our standing as the best (and richest?) team in England, after lucking out on Bill Nicholson.

 

[billyiddo]

People won't acknowledge the work needed to be done from the 90s to where we are now, its a mental block that the refuse to over come. The goalposts just continue to move. Net Spend is zero, then we spend, then its lack of wages, then its Silverware is key, we win a cup then its the league position is key (despite arguing against it for a decade).

At the end of the day, stats aside, Levy has been a force for good at Spurs and he left at the right time.

I remember when we were trying to break in to the top 4 under Jol - the financial disparity was huge between ourselves and the clubs we were trying to compete with in the top 4. Our turnover at the time was less than what they were spending on wages, dramatically so in terms of the highest placed clubs. Our turnover was actually closer to the clubs at the bottom of the league than the club one place above us in the table.

That disparity was huge, as was breaking past it.

 

[metalgear]

What was Levy's salary? £3 million is equivalent to £60k a week, so he'd be far from highest paid at the club. In business it's more normal for the people running the business to be on the highest salaries. The same argument could be made for the managers being underpaid.

On the other hand, compared to his peers he has run a club that is underperforming on the football field. Yet, and I'm running out of hands, he was successful at the business level, growing revenues and making profits.

ok the best comparison would be arsenal ceo who built a stadium and then went on to win the league without beyonce

 

[billyiddo]

ok the best comparison would be arsenal ceo who built a stadium and then went on to win the league without beyonce

The people in charge at Arsenal when they built the stadium and the ones in charge now are not the same. Try again

 

[Finney Is Back]

Levy was here 25 years? How about compare to the previous 25 years. That would be fair, no?

You keep using the 50s/60s to win the stats, but that ownership must've been pretty bad to fudge up our standing as the best (and richest?) team in England, after lucking out on Bill Nicholson.

OK then. 5 x top 4 finishes versus 7. A top 4 finish every 5 years versus every 3.6 years.

5 trophies versus 2 trophies. A trophy every 5 years versus every 12.5 years.

That from a position of taking over a club with no debt , the 5th biggest turnover and the 4th best supported club. In England.

Thoroughly unremarkable.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Ahhhh the days of the 4th best supported club having to watch their side finish 10th or worse for the majority of the decade. Bunch of good the turnover did us too.

 

[Lemonade Money]

OK then. 5 x top 4 finishes versus 7. A top 4 finish every 5 years versus every 3.6 years.

5 trophies versus 2 trophies. A trophy every 5 years versus every 12.5 years.

That from a position of taking over a club with no debt , the 5th biggest turnover and the 4th best supported club. In England.

Thoroughly unremarkable.

So par for the course, yet still managed to build the best stadium in the country while he was at it.

 

[jts1882]

Success for Lewis and Levy absolutely was turning a £50 odd million investment into a £3 billion asset… and fair play to them they succeeded in that.

Now I could be wrong (and only time will tell) but my first impressions of the new folks in charge are that they have a different view of what defines success.

Inheriting a billion pound asset probably does that. Let's see if they can deliver.

We had the 5th biggest turnover in England when Levy took over and the 4th highest number of fans.

We still have the 5th highest turnover and we now have the 6th highest number of fans.

The financial injections at Chelsea and City shouldn't be ignored.

I remember when we were trying to break in to the top 4 under Jol - the financial disparity was huge between ourselves and the clubs we were trying to compete with in the top 4. Our turnover at the time was less than what they were spending on wages, dramatically so in terms of the highest placed clubs. Our turnover was actually closer to the clubs at the bottom of the league than the club one place above us in the table.

That disparity was huge, as was breaking past it.

Didn't Arsenal (4th) have about twice our (5th) revenue?

So par for the course, yet still managed to build the best stadium in the country while he was at it.

Very unfortunate timing. Poch had that team ready for big things and could have done with more support; his success justified the low spend in the context of building a new stadium. On the other hand, Poch coming in after the stadium move could have been so different.

 

[billyiddo]

Inheriting a billion pound asset probably does that. Let's see if they can deliver.



The financial injections at Chelsea and City shouldn't be ignored.


Didn't Arsenal (4th) have about twice our (5th) revenue?

Yeah more or less. The clubs above them even more so. We're now punching much more closer to the same level as those clubs, i think in a good year with CL football we're higher than a couple of them.

Which of course the statement 'joined when 5th highest turnover, left with 5th highest turnover' conveniently leaves out of the picture.