Daniel Levy's Transfer Policy Revealed

[Crawley]

I'm not 'against' Levy - I have no idea where you read that or where I actually posted it or why you need to polarise everything in pro- or anti- takes. In fact, my first post on the subject today clearly outlined my strong appreciation of his efforts toward the club in general

I simply feel some of his transfer decisions/overall strategy can be questioned (different to his overall chairman doings) and find it increasingly bizarre the turmoil such heresy generates.

Keeping to our own rules, I am not allowed to play the man rather than the ball. BUT...........the bolded bit is a reflection of exactly what you have been doing in recent posts.
Hell, you even refered to the pro and anti factions today. Across many threads.

 

[ArcspacE]

I can only imagine you didn't read my earlier posts - either that or this is about something else.

But to summarise (for the last time) - questioning certain aspect of his transfer policy does not mean I want him gone and neither do a few other posters who have expressed similar concerns.

 

[Crawley]

I can only imagine you didn't read my earlier posts - either that or this is about something else.

But to summarise (for the last time) - questioning certain aspect of his transfer policy does not mean I want him gone and neither do a few other posters who have expressed similar concerns.

Nothing at all to do with anything else. Just saying it as it is. And I know I'm not alone in this viewpoint.

 

[ArcspacE]

At no point did I suggest he's a bad chairman or that he must leave

 

[thfcsteff]

Of course not.

But let me ask you a question. Do you believe that it is mere coincidence or accident that Levy so often leaves deals until the last minute?

And if your answer to that question is no, do you believe that he sees good reason for leaving deals until the last minute?

As a fan, I find it frustrating when we don't sign players or when we sign them later than I feel we should sign them.

But as someone with a little understanding of business, I appreciate that a clever and thorough man like Levy will have very good reasons for doing what he does. Reasons based on intimate knowledge, understanding and experience of the transfer market - all of which we lack.

Superb post.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Probably the most ridiculous thing is the belief that Levy has full control of the money. He DOES in a sense, but it is not HIS money. And the only way we will get a SERIOUS cash injection without selling Modric for 32 mill and Bale for 50, is Joe Lewis. The relationship it might be worth looking at, is the one between Levy and Lewis!!!!!! And finally, again, we come back to 36,000 seats, sorry, 36, 081...on that basis, and taking into account the wage increases across the board that someone like the Spanish Crouch would cost, if he manages to get in a player of that calibre without selling, we will either be the recipients of a miracle or a hand-out. Finally, for those asking for better scouting...agreed...but how many whingers would there be if a 'scouted diamond in the rough' came to us before we'd seen him polished up?

 

[milo]

Superb post.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Probably the most ridiculous thing is the belief that Levy has full control of the money. He DOES in a sense, but it is not HIS money. And the only way we will get a SERIOUS cash injection without selling Modric for 32 mill and Bale for 50, is Joe Lewis. The relationship it might be worth looking at, is the one between Levy and Lewis!!!!!! And finally, again, we come back to 36,000 seats, sorry, 36, 081...on that basis, and taking into account the wage increases across the board that someone like the Spanish Crouch would cost, if he manages to get in a player of that calibre without selling, we will either be the recipients of a miracle or a hand-out. Finally, for those asking for better scouting...agreed...but how many whingers would there be if a 'scouted diamond in the rough' came to us before we'd seen him polished up?

Lewis and Levy bought Spurs through ENIC not because of a deep love of the club or football, they bought it as an investment.

When we were a listed company there were massive restrictions on what they could put into the company. Now that we have been de-listed there are less but I still don't think that Lewis is going to put his hand in his pocket unless they thought that it would result in an experiential rise in their investment.

 

[Papercut]

I get the feeling that some posters on here think that Levy is the only businessman involved in deals?? You do realise that other clubs have their businessmen right? It s a game of chess and I imagineucLevy tries to do the best for the club. Add to that the agents! ouch

 

[billyiddo]

it is certainly frustrating at times but i back Levy and the way he does his business

i think the striker situation is a tough one to handle, we managed to secure Adebayor after he had a fantastic season with us on loan, no doubt meaning we had to re jig our wage structure somewhat but Levy got the deal done for what is, despite his form this season, a top striker (not quite top top) - so credit is certainly due to him for that piece of business.

it may have been a relatively small transfer fee but Adebayor is a big asset in terms of wages, we aren't a club that can afford to write that kind of player off because of a poor run of form - we can't afford to go out and buy a player of his level or above to replace him in the side as we can't add another earner of those wages to the squad (as well as the transfer fee that level of player would potentially command) so our options are very limited, IMV.

personally im just about happy with waiting till the summer and re assessing the situation with Adebayor or trying for a loan deal. Im not so keen on signing a Defoe level forward just to throw in to the mix, it has to either be a better player than the two here OR a young player with potential - neither being in plentiful supply id imagine

 

[jimmyb]

How do you know it would have been wastage if it meant next round qualification?

What is proper negotiation?

Err......you were suggesting a hypothetical scenario so I countered with one of my own in which next round qualification was achieved without the need to hurry through the Holtby deal by paying more than we needed to.

Proper negotiation - well, for starters, not quickly caving in to the other party's demands because you lack patience or the confidence to walk away from a deal if it doesn't suit you.

 

[jimmyb]

Jimmy - in fact, don't bother answering those - it is becoming increasingly clear to your mind Levy can do no wrong and every deal is blessed with extreme precision, proper negotiations and utmost commitment to extracting the best value possible, while in turn scrutinizing every small detail. And we cannot question anything he does because we haven't managed a Premier League club ourselves or signed a professional player so there we have it. If that's how you really feel - fair enough

Sorry....is there something wrong with pointing out the evident truth that Levy has experience in the transfer market and a reason for adopting the strategies that he does?

 

[jimmyb]

I'm not 'against' Levy - I have no idea where you read that or where I actually posted it or why you need to polarise everything in pro- or anti- takes. In fact, my first post on the subject today clearly outlined my strong appreciation of his efforts toward the club in general

I simply feel some of his transfer decisions/overall strategy can be questioned (different to his overall chairman doings) and find it increasingly bizarre the turmoil such heresy generates.

Once again, no one here is accusing you of heresy. No one here is a Levy apologist. No one is peddling propaganda.

It's just that many others happen not to share your opinion. So enough of the paranoia.

 

[jimmyb]

I get the feeling that some posters on here think that Levy is the only businessman involved in deals?? You do realise that other clubs have their businessmen right? It s a game of chess and I imagineucLevy tries to do the best for the club. Add to that the agents! ouch

Absolutely.

It's extraordinary how many people seem to believe that Levy is operating in a vacuum and that he is unilaterally deciding to complicate and to draw deals out over a long period.

It is indeed a game. A game of chess. But also a game of who blinks first.

If deals are there to be done quickly, Levy will do them. But they rarely are.

 

[ArcspacE]

Sorry....is there something wrong with pointing out the evident truth that Levy has experience in the transfer market and a reason for adopting the strategies that he does?

The evident truth?

Is it even possible to suggest not everything he does in the transfer market is the best possible approach?

 

[jimmyb]

The evident truth?

Is it even possible to suggest not everything he does in the transfer market is the best possible approach?

Mate, you're doing yourself no favours if you're not going to carefully and properly read what I've written.

At no point did I caim that Levy's strategy is "the best possible".

I merely pointed out that Levy has experience in the transfer market. That is an evident truth, is it not?

I subsequently postulated that he will have a very good reason for adopting the strategy that he employs. Now that, I concede, is opinion - but not exactly a controversial one given what we know about Levy. He is not someone who appears to be prone to random or impulsive behaviour - especially where money is concerned. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Jordinho]

Weird, every other club seems to getting busy as well now that window is about to close.

Inter have sold two players in order to bring Paulinho in, except it now turns out Paulinho doesn't want to move until the summer. Imagine if Levy did something like that.

 

[indianspur]

just look what Levy, and other clubs NOT bankrolled by billionaires, are up against

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2269599/Manchester-Uniteds-incredible-list-sponsors-helping-3billion-super-club.html

 

[jimmyb]

just look what Levy, and other clubs NOT bankrolled by billionaires, are up against

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2269599/Manchester-Uniteds-incredible-list-sponsors-helping-3billion-super-club.html

And that's why any move to curtail the right of other clubs to benefit from outside investment is wrong - however galling it might be for us to witness clubs like Chelsea and City overtaking us.

If clubs are only ever allowed to generate money that they spend, then the likes of Utd and Real Madrid will get ever bigger and the rest will fall ever further behind. We're a big club with a decent global profile. But we couldn't hope to earn a tenth of what Utd will earn from commercial deals. And, as the article makes clear, that is a source of revenue that offers huge scope for growth. Utd have barely scratched the surface thus far.

 

[screen nayim]

Re: Andre Villas-Boas - Head Coach

fudge's sake, fella. You've been around long enough.

You surely don't have to have to whole concept of amortisation explained to you again?

I'd be very interested to hear you explain it.

 

[screen nayim]

Re: Andre Villas-Boas - Head Coach

Amortisation refers specifically to intangible assets and is defined* as the deduction of capital expenses over a certain period - usually the life of any intangible asset.

Player registrations are deemed by accountants to be intangible assets. Their value is amortised over the duration of the initial contracts with the club. So, for example, if a player is bought for £10 million and on a four year contract, his expense would be recorded as £2.5 million per annum for each of the four years of his initial contract.

So if players X, Y and Z were bought in 2009 for a combined £50 million in transfer fees, each on five year contracts, Spurs would still, as far as the accounts are concerned, be paying a combined £10 million per annum for them in 2013.

So regardless of the fact that we might, on the face of it, only have spent £8 million on Parker and Coulibaly in the last financial year, we still had significant player trading costs carried forward from previous transfer windows. The money spent on Parker and Coulibaly, in fact, will have accounted for only a small proportion of the whole because their registrations too are subject to amortisation.

Amortisation also complicates the accounting of the sale of players. If we sell five players for a total of £50 million, it doesn't mean that we have made a £50 million profit. The amount of profit depends upon the valuation of the players' registrations in the accounts (and the valuation of the players' registrations is, itself, determined by how many years remain on each of the initial contracts). If player X is sold for £10 million but his valuation in the accounts is £5 million, then we have made a profit of £5 million - not £10 million. In the example that you use, I imagine that we actually made a rather big loss on the sale of Robbie Keane and only small profits on some of the others.

So this £27 million profit that you claim Spurs to have made on player trading is pure fiction.

* Amortisation can also be defined as the paying off of a debt on an intangible asset over a certain period.

There is a lot of confusion between cashflows and the P&L impact in the above.

The asterix bit is rubbish though, amortisation is a recognition in the P&L of the amount of the value of the contract 'used up' in the year. It has nothing to do with the 'paying off' of any debt.

 

[jimmyb]

Re: Andre Villas-Boas - Head Coach

There is a lot of confusion between cashflows and the P&L impact in the above.

The asterix bit is rubbish though, amortisation is a recognition in the P&L of the amount of the value of the contract 'used up' in the year. It has nothing to do with the 'paying off' of any debt.

I beg to differ and refer you to any reputable definition of amortisation. It also refers to the reduction of debt through regular payments.

Look it up, if you doubt me.

And, no, there isn't any confusion between cash-flow and effect on P&L - other than, perhaps, that you might have misunderstood what I wrote?