Daniel Levy - Chairman

[braineclipse]

"Good points made". Points made explained why the decision might have been made.

"Decision is inexplicable".

Right...

 

[Grays_1890]

I'm talking about why this Club has become absolutely pathetic since the mid 80s and since then only won one trophy of note.

The issue is selling our best players which we have done constantly over the last 32 years.

That is the reason why we have one fa cup to our name in 32 years.

The list is endless and if we actually had some ambition and a backbone from 85 onwards we would have likely won a few league titles, some more fa cups and a European cup/CL.

But instead we have a small club mentality that has resulted in an absolutely pathetic trophy haul in the last 32 years.

But don't worry I've got this bought for 9m and sold for 59m thing to hang onto and also a lot of people on here keep saying 'onwards and upwards'.

So when their all bragging about their trophies I will firstly quote the 9m/59m thing and if that doesn't work I will hit them with the 'onwards and upwards'.

Cheers

Such short sighted crap, if we kept our best players against their will we would have a very unhappy club, if you have been anywhere near the business end of a football club you know its not something you can do, even the BIGGEST clubs have their poachers. Secondly if we did not go into that mode of buy for 9m and sell for 59m we would not be punching in the top 4 in a stadium with unbelievably bad revenue outlets, also buying cheap and young and selling HIGH has allowed us to reinvest in the team and push on to where we are now, unlike say West Ham and the Carrick, Rio, Lampard and Cole days when they sold young and high and did what with the money? Got old 32 year old marque players on their way down the scale, and what are they doing on? EXACTLY THE SAME.

Also what you fail to see is the last couple of years are beyond our dreams as a club in the current climate, the game of money men ploughing in huge dosh and us being run like a real club and we are STILL pushing the big guys and finally can you not see or believe that although the project has not shown fruit we are not are the relative start of the project and it will? I believe that everyone starts at 0 and goes from there and the last 32 years is improving and the last two is the springboard to trophies.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

All very good points made by the above people and I'm aware of the context. I also see the light at the end of the tunnel with the stadium etc.

But my frustration isn't solely down to this inexplicable decision to sell a world class rwb to a direct rival. My frustration is that it is a continuation of senseless decisions taken by the club since the mid 80s, which has undoubtedly led to our pathetic trophy haul since that time.

Hoddle, Waddle, Allen, Gazza, Linekar, Klinsmann, Sheringham, Keane, Berbatov, Modric, VDV, Defoe, Bale, Walker.

I maintain that putting OUR clubs interest first and not the players, not the agent, not the players wife or any other bollox, means we should have kept all these players.

Now Walker has gone to a direct rival and I'm totally sick about it.

What happens next summer when Danny Rose is fit again? We know he's got a bit of a chip on his shoulder. What happens if he deliberately falls out with Poch. Do we flog him to Man Utd or Emirates Marketing Project? What about Dier? Could it be that he wants to go to Man Utd? What's happens if they bid 65m next summer? What happens when Madrid bid 160m for Kane. What happens when Barca bid 89m for Eriksen? What happens when Emirates Marketing Project bid 140m for dele.

And all the above I'm talking about in future years when we are bedded into the new stadium with massive revenues.

Will this trend since the mid 80s simply continue and mean we still win nothing or will Levy be the first custodian of this Club since the mid 80s to change and say 'NO this club comes first'?

I'm not convinced, I think Levy needs to go around 2020.

Fallacy.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

@DubaiSpur - I cannot rationalise in my head your argument. I think you said that the German model is the one that you would like our club to adopt. That german model prevents clubs from spending above their means, and having wages that are out of control. The premise being is that the club spends its own dime.

Then you say the next best alternative is a billionaire that doesn't give a crap about return and just spends his own money (not the clubs) to effectively buy trophies. Aren't these two models completely at odds with each other?

And here is my main point of confusion. Levy and Lewis have pretty much established the german model here (just without the fan ownership of 51%.

Now, I for one dislike talk of the German model as if it is some sort of utopia because we are looking at it with rose tinted glasses. Fan ownership can mean a complete balls up, and here are a few examples:

1. Eintracht Frankfurt have twice been docked points for financial misdeeds;

2. The same for Kaiserslautern, who were in such a mess they mortgaged their star player, Miroslav Klose, to the state lottery;

3. TSV Munich 1860 were forced to sell their half of the AllianzArena to Bayern Munich to stay afloat;

4. Schalke 04 had debts of £248m not so long ago.

5. Hamburg have to give the first 20 per cent of all monies earned to a company in perpetuity (!!) for financing their new stadium, the name of which has changed multiple times.

6. Borussia Dortmund came so close to going under that they were only saved by a significant loan from Bayern Munich!

Lewis and Levy have been beneficial to this club. Facts speak for themselves. We are in a better place than we were when they purchased us. No club has overtaken us really except for Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project. They had owners prepared to spend big, but we as fans have no right to ask owners to dip into their own pockets for substantial sums of money. Apart from Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea, there is no other club that you would realistically trade places with and none that have shown consistent relative success.

We are a well run club that is self-sufficient, with one of the best first XIs in the league, one of the best training facilities in the league and about to have one of the best stadia. All in the space of less than two decades.

Where we were, was a mid-table laughing stock, with average facilities and average stadium.

 

[nayenezgani]

I think we all know by now that @DubaiSpur simply enjoys ranting and moaning.. He especially enjoys long winded, drawn out painful tirades.

Just read through many of the transfer threads. It's the same Levy-bashing, whining nonsense over and over.. It'd be infuriating if it wasn't so entertaining in it's fickleness.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I think we all know by now that @DubaiSpur simply enjoys ranting and moaning.. He especially enjoys long winded, drawn out painful tirades.

Just read through many of the transfer threads. It's the same Levy-bashing, whining nonsense over and over.. It'd be infuriating if it wasn't so entertaining in it's fickleness.

Exactly. After a while, the context of what someone is saying is overtaken by the context of the person saying it.

As long as you accept what that is.....it's all good.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

@DubaiSpur - I cannot rationalise in my head your argument. I think you said that the German model is the one that you would like our club to adopt. That german model prevents clubs from spending above their means, and having wages that are out of control. The premise being is that the club spends its own dime.

Then you say the next best alternative is a billionaire that doesn't give a crap about return and just spends his own money (not the clubs) to effectively buy trophies. Aren't these two models completely at odds with each other?

And here is my main point of confusion. Levy and Lewis have pretty much established the german model here (just without the fan ownership of 51%.

Now, I for one dislike talk of the German model as if it is some sort of utopia because we are looking at it with rose tinted glasses. Fan ownership can mean a complete balls up, and here are a few examples:

1. Eintracht Frankfurt have twice been docked points for financial misdeeds;

2. The same for Kaiserslautern, who were in such a mess they mortgaged their star player, Miroslav Klose, to the state lottery;

3. TSV Munich 1860 were forced to sell their half of the AllianzArena to Bayern Munich to stay afloat;

4. Schalke 04 had debts of £248m not so long ago.

5. Hamburg have to give the first 20 per cent of all monies earned to a company in perpetuity (!!) for financing their new stadium, the name of which has changed multiple times.

6. Borussia Dortmund came so close to going under that they were only saved by a significant loan from Bayern Munich!

Lewis and Levy have been beneficial to this club. Facts speak for themselves. We are in a better place than we were when they purchased us. No club has overtaken us really except for Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project. They had owners prepared to spend big, but we as fans have no right to ask owners to dip into their own pockets for substantial sums of money. Apart from Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea, there is no other club that you would realistically trade places with and none that have shown consistent relative success.

We are a well run club that is self-sufficient, with one of the best first XIs in the league, one of the best training facilities in the league and about to have one of the best stadia. All in the space of less than two decades.

Where we were, was a mid-table laughing stock, with average facilities and average stadium.

Another measure of success is to compare yourself to your peers, and i cannot think of one club that is punching their way to the top like we are.

And even if you can (Dortmund, A.Madrid?) it's a pretty exclusive club and the road is littered with failures. I just can't see the negatives.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Was chatting to an ardent life-long City fan the other day (he's now early 40s) who said he genuinely envies Spurs. Yes he is happy that City are doing well, he just wishes they could have achieved their success our way. Says he knows other City fans who feel the same way as him. They admire the team we have and our style of play.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Exactly. After a while, the context of what someone is saying is overtaken by the context of the person saying it.

Custard?

 

[90291Spur]

Custard?

Yes please. With a dollop of jam in the middle.

 

[parklane1]

Was chatting to an ardent life-long City fan the other day (he's now early 40s) who said he genuinely envies Spurs. Yes he is happy that City are doing well, he just wishes they could have achieved their success our way. Says he knows other City fans who feel the same way as him. They admire the team we have and our style of play.

Funny you should say that, i have a mate who has supported City since the 60's ( he lived in Manchester) and over the years he stood by them even when Utd were winning everything and you can imagine the tinkle taking he had to put up with during that time.

He is over the moon ( blue one of course) about them now but he thinks we are doing it the right way and envys us.

 

[DubaiSpur]

@DubaiSpur - I cannot rationalise in my head your argument. I think you said that the German model is the one that you would like our club to adopt. That german model prevents clubs from spending above their means, and having wages that are out of control. The premise being is that the club spends its own dime.

Then you say the next best alternative is a billionaire that doesn't give a crap about return and just spends his own money (not the clubs) to effectively buy trophies. Aren't these two models completely at odds with each other?

Not particularly, to my mind - since I'm not talking about the ideal method of operation, but about the ideal ownership structure. If we were owned by the fans, you're 100% right that we would have to adopt a German model of ownership - but the point is that it would be our choice as a fanbase (which we would have made by taking ownership of the club in the first place), and it would truly be our own struggle on our own terms.

That, to my mind, is where building ourselves up without outside help is the most morally fulfilling way. But I just don't see the equivalent moral satisfaction in ENIC, a billionaire's investment vehicle, owning us and imposing that ownership model on us when there are clearly more successful alternatives in terms of billionaire ownership in the Premier League itself. The decision to build on our own absent any major support by Joe Lewis was made by Joe Lewis - given that the club isn't owned by the fans but by this somewhat stingy billionaire, the *need* for that approach relative to what the norm is for billionaire ownership just doesn't exist - and, *in my opinion*, the moral satisfaction of building our own way doesn't really exist either, since it isn't really our choice as much as it is the choice of our particularly recalcitrant billionaire, and very much in contrast to the general norm of billionaire ownership elsewhere.

@DubaiSpur
Now, I for one dislike talk of the German model as if it is some sort of utopia because we are looking at it with rose tinted glasses. Fan ownership can mean a complete balls up, and here are a few examples:

1. Eintracht Frankfurt have twice been docked points for financial misdeeds;

And non-fan owned clubs have never been docked points for the same offence?

2. The same for Kaiserslautern, who were in such a mess they mortgaged their star player, Miroslav Klose, to the state lottery;

And millionaire/billonaire-owned clubs haven't done the same?

3. TSV Munich 1860 were forced to sell their half of the AllianzArena to Bayern Munich to stay afloat;

Again, this isn't a risk exclusive to the fan ownership model by any means.

4. Schalke 04 had debts of £248m not so long ago.

I'm fairly certain that this was down to the Veltins-Arena being built - not sure you'd call us a horribly managed club when we go into the new stadium with 400m worth of debt.

5. Hamburg have to give the first 20 per cent of all monies earned to a company in perpetuity (!!) for financing their new stadium, the name of which has changed multiple times.

6. Borussia Dortmund came so close to going under that they were only saved by a significant loan from Bayern Munich!

Fan ownership is certainly no panacea that saves you from financial mismanagement. It is, I would argue, a better guarantor against it because it makes financial mismanagement *less likely*. Every club in the 1, 2 and 3 Bundesliga save for Leipzig, Hoffenheim, Wolfsburg and Leverkusen are fan-owned - yet your examples are pretty much the biggest instances of mismanagement I can immediately recall. Compare that to England, where you can count the number of fan-owned clubs on one hand, and yet would need many more to count the instances of financial mismanagement or gross incompetence clubs across the Prem and the Football League have been subjected to.

Lewis and Levy have been beneficial to this club. Facts speak for themselves. We are in a better place than we were when they purchased us. No club has overtaken us really except for Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project. They had owners prepared to spend big, but we as fans have no right to ask owners to dip into their own pockets for substantial sums of money. Apart from Emirates Marketing Project and Chelsea, there is no other club that you would realistically trade places with and none that have shown consistent relative success.

*Levy* has been beneficial to this club. I've conceded that point many times over the course of this debate with other people. He has run us fairly well, albeit on our own finances, and, although the trophy cabinet lies bare, he's gradually built us up to a level where we could challenge for honors in the near future.

But Lewis, I'd argue, has not been beneficial as an owner, apart from perhaps tangentially in that he installed Levy as chairman and let him get on with it. He hasn't been actively harmful by any means - hasn't taken money out of the club, or otherwise tampered with our operating model in any way. But he hasn't been actively beneficial either - his ownership is basically a neutral affair.

I don't think we have a *right* to expect owners to put their hands into their pockets, no. But given that we're largely powerless as the club is traded between various billionaires, I don't see why hoping that the owner is one willing to invest into the club for whatever reason is such an outre idea. We can't own the club ourselves, and likely will never be able to unless the political winds change or the bubble bursts. Why not hope for the best-case scenario when we do change hands? Better than another owner who is barely seen and barely felt, after all.

We are a well run club that is self-sufficient, with one of the best first XIs in the league, one of the best training facilities in the league and about to have one of the best stadia. All in the space of less than two decades.

Less than two decades is a bit much, given that oil and gas-rich clubs did the same thing in a quarter of the time, and our facilities and stadium will be (and have been) matched by them without a sweat, eroding whatever competitive advantages we could have hoped for. But otherwise, I agree - not saying we're not doing well now, and I never did say that, despite what some other posters here like to smugly imply.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I think we all know by now that @DubaiSpur simply enjoys ranting and moaning.. He especially enjoys long winded, drawn out painful tirades.

Just read through many of the transfer threads. It's the same Levy-bashing, whining nonsense over and over.. It'd be infuriating if it wasn't so entertaining in it's fickleness.

Eh. I'll be honest, mate - I've spent long enough on the caricatured 'opposite' side of the majority of the forum on this issue that I've come to realize that nuance is pointless to some people, because they get their kicks with an asinine sense of superiority and a delusion that mindless snark makes up for good faith attempts at discussion.

I genuinely enjoy talking to people who take the time to read what I have to say, and I afford the same courtesy to most posters here in good faith. For folks who find that too taxing, or folks like you - jog on, mate. I've heard far worse, from far better, more interesting posters. Not like your opinion or mine matters that much in the scheme of things, anyway - this is an internet forum, not a Cabinet meeting.

Exactly. After a while, the context of what someone is saying is overtaken by the context of the person saying it.

As long as you accept what that is.....it's all good.

I think it was you, @ricky2tricky4city , who said a while back that although I apparently 'squared my reasoning' well enough, you still found it disingenuous.

It makes very little sense trying to argue against that from any angle, because it's pointless given that you've made up your mind, and truthfully had been set in your opinion long before we even started talking.

I realize that's par for the course. And believe me, I assume that too - I think a lot of people are pretty damn disingenuous in their reasoning with regards to the owners because they feel comfortable going with the zeitgeist. But that's how it is.

So, ultimately I state my opinions and defend them when called on to do so. Can't really expect to change minds, so believe me, I don't try. As for whatever context you believe that puts me in - believe what you like, mate.

 

[Gazzasrightboot]

Not particularly, to my mind - since I'm not talking about the ideal method of operation, but about the ideal ownership structure. If we were owned by the fans, you're 100% right that we would have to adopt a German model of ownership - but the point is that it would be our choice as a fanbase (which we would have made by taking ownership of the club in the first place), and it would truly be our own struggle on our own terms.

That, to my mind, is where building ourselves up without outside help is the most morally fulfilling way. But I just don't see the equivalent moral satisfaction in ENIC, a billionaire's investment vehicle, owning us and imposing that ownership model on us when there are clearly more successful alternatives in terms of billionaire ownership in the Premier League itself. The decision to build on our own absent any major support by Joe Lewis was made by Joe Lewis - given that the club isn't owned by the fans but by this somewhat stingy billionaire, the *need* for that approach relative to what the norm is for billionaire ownership just doesn't exist - and, *in my opinion*, the moral satisfaction of building our own way doesn't really exist either, since it isn't really our choice as much as it is the choice of our particularly recalcitrant billionaire, and very much in contrast to the general norm of billionaire ownership elsewhere.

So unless you get the purest form of moral fulfillment, it's not worth it and so the next best option is to go to the other extreme of extremely generous multi-billionaire? And just on that point, there have probably been 3 very generous billionaires in world football that have achieved success (Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea, PSG). Out of all of the other billionaires (Liverpool with Hicks, Portsmouth, Saudi Sportswashing Machine etc....) I would say that Lewis has done all right.

And non-fan owned clubs have never been docked points for the same offence?

Besides the point. I'm just saying the german model doesn't seem much better because they still have the same issues. It seems a romantic notion because the fans own the club, but in reality, this bunch of fans on this forum cannot seem to make up their minds, so what makes you think that a larger sample would? Yes you would have a management team, but that management team would answer to the majority owners. It's actually quite sly, because yes, the fans own 51%, but the reality is that the fans are not one block of voters. So what you have is concentrated shareholding needing fewer votes i.e. fans don't really have the power.

And millionaire/billonaire-owned clubs haven't done the same?

Again besides the point. I'm just trying to understand why the notion of fans owning 51% of the club leads to better outcomes?

Again, this isn't a risk exclusive to the fan ownership model by any means.

I'm fairly certain that this was down to the Veltins-Arena being built - not sure you'd call us a horribly managed club when we go into the new stadium with 400m worth of debt.

They almost came close to bankruptcy. They took a bond and spent some of it on the stadium and some of it on player transfers. http://swissramble.blogspot.com.ng/2011/01/grounds-for-concern-at-schalke.html

Fan ownership is certainly no panacea that saves you from financial mismanagement. It is, I would argue, a better guarantor against it because it makes financial mismanagement *less likely*. Every club in the 1, 2 and 3 Bundesliga save for Leipzig, Hoffenheim, Wolfsburg and Leverkusen are fan-owned - yet your examples are pretty much the biggest instances of mismanagement I can immediately recall. Compare that to England, where you can count the number of fan-owned clubs on one hand, and yet would need many more to count the instances of financial mismanagement or gross incompetence clubs across the Prem and the Football League have been subjected to.

It certainly isn't, and therefore when people say that German clubs are more "stable" than the british equivalent, I think that is unfair. Were it not for a loan from a rival club, Borussia would have gone under. My major point with this is that adopting a german model would be no more beneficial for us than having Levy and Lewis. So, therefore, why bother?

*Levy* has been beneficial to this club. I've conceded that point many times over the course of this debate with other people. He has run us fairly well, albeit on our own finances, and, although the trophy cabinet lies bare, he's gradually built us up to a level where we could challenge for honors in the near future.

But Lewis, I'd argue, has not been beneficial as an owner, apart from perhaps tangentially in that he installed Levy as chairman and let him get on with it. He hasn't been actively harmful by any means - hasn't taken money out of the club, or otherwise tampered with our operating model in any way. But he hasn't been actively beneficial either - his ownership is basically a neutral affair.

I don't think we have a *right* to expect owners to put their hands into their pockets, no. But given that we're largely powerless as the club is traded between various billionaires, I don't see why hoping that the owner is one willing to invest into the club for whatever reason is such an outre idea. We can't own the club ourselves, and likely will never be able to unless the political winds change or the bubble bursts. Why not hope for the best-case scenario when we do change hands? Better than another owner who is barely seen and barely felt, after all.

Less than two decades is a bit much, given that oil and gas-rich clubs did the same thing in a quarter of the time, and our facilities and stadium will be (and have been) matched by them without a sweat, eroding whatever competitive advantages we could have hoped for. But otherwise, I agree - not saying we're not doing well now, and I never did say that, despite what some other posters here like to smugly imply.

Dude!! Conceded, fairly well? It's like you're almost disappointed in his achievements!

You cannot separate Lewis from Levy. Without Lewis, there would be no Levy. There is no tangential nature to that at all. You say he hasn't taken money out of the club or otherwise tampered with our operating model, without actually commending for him to not do so! Many owners have and completely screwed up their respective clubs! I'm not sure how many fans, if in the same position, would have resisted taking money out.

And here is where I get the comfort that we have great custodians at our club, because that is how they have treated this. They have made us self-sufficient, whilst still remaining competitive. All other things being equal, we are not dependent on them. Our club will last far longer than either of these two individuals, and they know it. Compare that to the Emirates Marketing Project's and Chelsea's of this world and what do they have when Abramovich or the Sheiks leave or die. You think their estate will just write off the investment.

It's a bit like raising children. Do you want to be the rich kid that had everything given to them, but could not survive on their own without the life support of daddy (chelsea or Emirates Marketing Project)? Or would you like to be the rich kid that was abused (Liverpool)? Or the rich kid that got expensive knock offs of the real deal in the pursuit of keeping up with the Jones' (West Ham, Saudi Sportswashing Machine)
Or the rich kid that seemed like they had everything, but their dad went bust and now they are slumming it in the council estate (Leeds, Portsmouth, Blackburn).

Or the rich kid that was not spoilt, was taught to stand on their own two feet, and has been so successful that they are starting to get all the riches and success that could have been given in an instant, all by themselves?

I actually think there is a real sense of entitlement to what you are saying, if a little ungrateful. We have just finished our second consecutive season of qualifying for the champions league and being involved in the title run-in. We have actually consistently challenged for the title. We have an incredible squad, the most impressive training ground and a stadium that will be one of the best in the world. And the most you can bring yourself to say is Levy did fairly well. As if that task was easy. Criticise because Lewis didn't spend more of his own money.

And just on that point, Lewis is worth something like 5 or 6 billion USD. He has probably spent at least £60m on Spurs? His net worth is not all cash. Just what is enough? Would you sink an extra £30m in, only to see it be spent on Sissoko, Rebrov, etc..... I don't think I would. Especially if I had children. It's easy to spend other people's money, but when it is your own, I am not sure that many of the fans that are asking for lots of money to be spent would actually spend that much.

And again, if it is so easy (because they have only done fairly well) why aren't there more examples of clubs/owners that have done much better than us? The fact is there are only two.

 

[parklane1]

.

But Lewis, I'd argue, has not been beneficial as an owner, apart from perhaps tangentially in that he installed Levy as chairman and let him get on with it. He hasn't been actively harmful by any means - hasn't taken money out of the club, or otherwise tampered with our operating model in any way. But he hasn't been actively beneficial either - his ownership is basically a neutral affair.

.

Saying that for the third time in as many weeks and its still gonad*s.

 

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

Cheers mate, I'll remember that one in case next season is the 33rd season to go by with 1 fa cup to our name.

I'll quote it to the fans of the other Clubs who don't constantly sell their best players. Should really silence them when their bragging about the trophies they have won.

Why do you give a flying f*** what other fans think, they probably think we're c**** anyway, and if we did win something they would either deride it or ignore it. Just enjoy the good times.

 

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

Since I was a kid I loved playing football with my mates in the street, playground and park, then my dad took me to Spurs and I love that. I never gave finances any thought and now I see that money does spoil it. Yeah I know people will say that's how it is and we've got to live with it, blah, blah, blah, but unfortunately I might be just an old fashioned idiot but I think I enjoyed it far more when there wasn't all this money in the game.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Why do you give a flying f*** what other fans think, they probably think we're c**** anyway, and if we did win something they would either deride it or ignore it. Just enjoy the good times.

Yeah I never understood why people care what other fans think. Tottenham is the only club for me, I have a soft spot for Brighton but December 13th I will be there hoping we stuff em.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Since I was a kid I loved playing football with my mates in the street, playground and park, then my dad took me to Spurs and I love that. I never gave finances any thought and now I see that money does spoil it. Yeah I know people will say that's how it is and we've got to live with it, blah, blah, blah, but unfortunately I might be just an old fashioned idiot but I think I enjoyed it far more when there wasn't all this money in the game.

Like you say the absurd amounts of money sloshing around in the game sullies everything. It's disappointing that Walker has gone but it would be totally disingenuous to believe he left purely to win trophies. Money talks and barrowloads of it are hard to turn away from. However the boot must presumably be on the other foot when it comes to persuading players to come to us so we can hardly complain

The only way to deal with it is to focus on the footy and forget all the rest. It's not as though we can walk away, it's in our blood, so all we can do is look the other way.

 

[DubaiSpur]

So unless you get the purest form of moral fulfillment, it's not worth it and so the next best option is to go to the other extreme of extremely generous multi-billionaire? And just on that point, there have probably been 3 very generous billionaires in world football that have achieved success (Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea, PSG). Out of all of the other billionaires (Liverpool with Hicks, Portsmouth, Saudi Sportswashing Machine etc....) I would say that Lewis has done all right.

Well, yes. We're talking about ideal scenarios here - my ideal idea of a morally fulfilling climb to greatness is when the fans own the club and slowly build it up as a collective endeavour. Failing that, as I see it, there are three alternative ownership scenarios - we are forced to work up on our own dime by dispassionate billionaire investors, we are owned by a generous billionaire or we are owned by asset strippers. I don't see what's so rigidly controversial about ranking one of those alternative scenarios over the other, since, either way, it isn't our choice what our billionaire does with us, and he owns the club as a plaything or an investment - might as well hope we can get him to fund some trophies or infrastructure instead of just letting us appreciate and selling us off again for a 1000% profit with no involvement on his part.

As for rich owners achieving success, that Emirates Marketing Project/Chelsea/PSG ranking only works if you don't include the likes of Florentino Perez, Dietmar Hoppe, Jack Walker and Silvio Berlusconi in your calculations (because, presumably, they took over already successful clubs and sustained/improved their success, or took over middling clubs and propelled them to success that is below what would be considered successful for us at our current stage of development). Or the influx of Chinese owners that are sweeping into clubs as varied as AC Milan and Wolves, and pumping hundreds of millions into their teams as money-laundering or profile-building exercises - they haven't achieved success yet, of course, so you may be justified there. But that doesn't mean that there is no gap between City/Chelsea/PSG and the likes of Portsmouth, Saudi Sportswashing Machine et al.

Besides the point. I'm just saying the german model doesn't seem much better because they still have the same issues. It seems a romantic notion because the fans own the club, but in reality, this bunch of fans on this forum cannot seem to make up their minds, so what makes you think that a larger sample would? Yes you would have a management team, but that management team would answer to the majority owners. It's actually quite sly, because yes, the fans own 51%, but the reality is that the fans are not one block of voters. So what you have is concentrated shareholding needing fewer votes i.e. fans don't really have the power.

It's not besides the point, it is the point. The German model doesn't seem *much* better, perhaps - but it is definitely better in many, many respects, *including* the prospect of financial stability for the clubs involved. As for the fans running the club, that's not how it works, even in Germany. The footballing business and the fan-facing activities of the club are conducted separately, and managed separately by appointed CEOs and executive staff much like how our clubs are structured. Your average punter owns a stake in the club, but he is not the prime decision-maker on whether to sell Christian Pulisic, or accept an offer by T-Mobile to be the shirt sponsor or something. However, the fact that he owns that stake in the club, along with thousands of other fans, makes it less likely that the club is subject to a capricious investor/owner who overstretches the club's capacities. Note: *Less* likely, not completely impossible.

They almost came close to bankruptcy. They took a bond and spent some of it on the stadium and some of it on player transfers. http://swissramble.blogspot.com.ng/2011/01/grounds-for-concern-at-schalke.html

Yes, and once again, we have taken out loans worth 400 million pounds to fund our stadium, as well as short-term credit arrangements to cover transfers, no doubt. The principle is the same, if not the method. Are we an exemplar of poor management as a result? I certainly don't think so. Schalke's gamble with the Veltins-Arena was that they would generate enough revenue to sustain their simultaneous transfer spending, but that principle was hamstrung by the absence of interest in hosting non-sporting events at the ground and their inability to raise ticket prices. Only the latter has anything to do with fan ownership - and there, Uli Hoeness put it best when he bluntly stated that he could charge 300 pounds instead of 100 for a season ticket, but that the difference would be about 2m quid a season, and that such a sum was nothing in modern football. But to the fans, it is a lot - and Hoeness closed out that statement by asserting that, in Germany, they don't milk the fans like they do in England because football is for everybody.

It certainly isn't, and therefore when people say that German clubs are more "stable" than the british equivalent, I think that is unfair. Were it not for a loan from a rival club, Borussia would have gone under. My major point with this is that adopting a german model would be no more beneficial for us than having Levy and Lewis. So, therefore, why bother?

A) As I said, the German model is more stable on the whole than the English one is - on aggregate. As for 'why bother', Moral fulfillment. As I said, it's my ideal scenario - I'm not saying it's possible, or around the corner, or anything. This is what I see as our perfect situation - owned by the fans, run professionally, making our own way in the world on our own dime. And doing it because it's our way, not because it's a way for Joe Lewis to maximise the value of his investment for minimal cost.

Dude!! Conceded, fairly well? It's like you're almost disappointed in his achievements!

Oh, come off it, mate. I do dislike this sense of tone policing that comes in when people discuss Levy or our ownership - as if every line has to be prefaced with 'but he's done a great job, top-class, praise be to Levy!'. I say 'conceded' because I was once of the opinion that the man could do nothing right, and I have been gradually disabused of that notion - enough to admit that I was wrong. I say 'fairly well', because you know damn well that I compare him to the likes of Hans-Joachim Watzke, Andrea Agnelli and Jean Michel-Aulas, who have won more and (imo) generated better histories for their clubs during their time in charge than Levy has at ours, even if he's done a fine job otherwise. If you want, take out 'fairly' and just put 'well' in - but do lay off the whole 'you aren't praising him 100%, almost like you're disappointed he's done well' shtick.

You cannot separate Lewis from Levy. Without Lewis, there would be no Levy. There is no tangential nature to that at all. You say he hasn't taken money out of the club or otherwise tampered with our operating model, without actually commending for him to not do so! Many owners have and completely screwed up their respective clubs! I'm not sure how many fans, if in the same position, would have resisted taking money out.

Oh, come on. This is the curse of low expectations, more than anything else. *At least* he isn't a Glazer? I'm supposed to be thankful that he hasn't bled the club dry? I already freely admit that he isn't a negative influence on the club - but expecting me to be profoundly grateful he isn't is going a step too far. "At least we don't have a vampire in charge of our club - just a disinterested speculator." Forsooth. As for fans taking money out of the club, I dunno - is that common in Germany? Fans bleeding money out of the clubs they own?