Daniel Levy - Chairman

[Baleforce]

I just want to get away from this 'we offered him the job, he said no' idea. Because that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is, we want a progressive, attack minded coach who can work with young players. He should be a top candidate in that regard. Even if you don't want to accept me met him, at least give me that we should at least meet him, at some point. In the same vein as Poch didn't turn down an offer from Madrid, because they never actually offered him the job, he still made it so he didn't go. If Poch wanted Madrid, he would have gone. And I think if ETH wanted us, he would have made it happen.

I am sure that what happened is that we met him, we set out our vision for the role, and he set out his expectations around what we needed. And what I am curious / slightly concerned about, is that the vision we are setting out is not a strong enough pitch to convince Ajax's manager to leave. I am sure they both came to the conclusion that their visions were incompatible, and I am concerned as to why that might be. Would ETH be demanding City money? Probably not? Would he be demanding a weekly supply of 10 cigars, each rolled on the thigh of a Cuban virgin? Did he just absolutely, really not want to live in London, because the culture was just so wildly different from Amsterdam?

I am concerned that we don't have a project that the Ajax manager wouldn't be jumping all over. And I firmly believe if we are now in the stadium and ready to really reap the benefits and make a real push into the top echelons of the European game, ETH and many other managers would be stupid not to take it. Compete in the PL. Work with Kane. Great stadium, training ground, academy. Pretty deep squad. Probably double or treble his salary.

Sorry, I don't want to seem like I'm ragging on you.

For me, without any facts I can't draw conclusions, without conclusions, I can have no concerns. In time we'll find out some of what happened, we'll get some facts and can work from there.

Personally, I think it's obvious what happened too ( ), we've already given the job to Rodgers, it was done within hours of sacking Jose.

 

[Baleforce]

Their fans would probably stage a protest against the heritage of their historical ground being pulled down.

Liverpool have redeveloped recently but it’s probably a fine line in terms of what they’d gain for the cost with their current capacities and lower ticket prices in general up tNorth. For us it would be reasonable to expect doubled matchday income but the it’s the other events that could yet be the real game changer.

I was intrigued with Chelsea’s plans, after failing to find a site and a difficult site to redevelop I still wonder what the impact of 3 years at Wembley would have on the team and their ability to get 60k? Mitigated by the fact it would have been a complete gift from the owner?

I have friends who are united fans, their take is that it's now a brickhole that can only be fixed with a bulldozer.

My original question was in response to the intimation that a club could build a new stadium (on land they already have) just by selling the naming rights and getting a bit of a mortgage in advance, no need for a load of cash up front, and certainly no need to take money away from the club's transfer budget. My question was, in that case, why wouldn't clubs such as United and Liverpool, take the "free" stadium upgrade to make more money in future?

 

[Raziel]

I think our standing when Poch was sacked was way higher for potential managers than it is now.

Back then, we still looked like a club that was about to take the leap, but there was an argument to be made that the manager had run his course, and the squad just needed a new voice to get them back to where they are.

I think the last 2 years have shown the football world exactly what problems we have, exactly the restraints we face, and it has shown some pretty poor decision making on the football side. I am pretty sure a lot of top candidates are deciding this isn't the place to build their career.

Nobody cares mate, lets see

- Manage at a club that has a high profile, in the top league in world football and get paid millions a year to manage a team with a front line of Kane, Son, Bale
- Stay in some third rate league to "build my career"

Ole, Lampard, Arteta and Mason (if he was offered) are/were not ready and likely none of them will come out with career enhanced, but you don't turn it down.

If you are worried you can't make Spurs a top 4 contender, you are absolutely not the right man for the job ..

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I have friends who are united fans, their take is that it's now a brickhole that can only be fixed with a bulldozer.

My original question was in response to the intimation that a club could build a new stadium (on land they already have) just by selling the naming rights and getting a bit of a mortgage in advance, no need for a load of cash up front, and certainly no need to take money away from the club's transfer budget. My question was, in that case, why wouldn't clubs such as United and Liverpool, take the "free" stadium upgrade to make more money in future?

Old Trafford is a running joke in the stadium world
As a colleague called it ... it’s just old now
And Anfield is also known for cramming too many seats in such a small space

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

1. Because they don’t have the demand (West Ham’s ultra low ticket prices are testament to what happens when a club without the fanbase build (or in their case inherit) a big stadium. Most PL clubs don’t really actually need a much bigger stadium, nor do they have the corporate demand that helps pay for it.

2. Finding a site/planning permission. Stadiums sit on big pieces of land, it is difficult to find and acquire those close to good transport links. Such projects tend to need CPOs which are often difficult and time consuming to get.

3. Cost. If we look at our project in its entirety it is thought to have cost £1.2 billion. If you looked to finance that and capitalize that whole amount over 25 years then even at the incredibly low average interest rate of 2.66% then that is £66m a year of repayments. THFC met around 40% of the stadium costs through profit made by the football club’s operations. Most clubs do not operate at profit levels that would allow this and for many clubs diverting transfer funds to pay for their new stadium as we did would likely lead to relegation and then vastly reduced funds. For us it instead led to reduced trophies and going from a CL club back to a Europa League club for a period of a (currently) unknown length of time.

2. So fair play for us sticking it out for so long to buy the land and obtain the CPOs and convince the council the transport links were good and organise a riot (joke) to push the whole thing forward despite years of headwinds.

3. Nice to see you have looked into the finances.
I doubt the overall cost is 1.2bn. But hey even if it is I wouldn't be paying your £66m in interest a year, probably £32m?
We have continually paid towards the stadium from its inception years back and we've ended up with £637m financed at 2.66% over average of 23year terms. That's £17m a year. A shirt sponsor will more than cover it.
We ran at net spends due to the stadium, that was clear, still bought and sold players, still got to semis and finals (Inc the biggest one).
As soon as the refinancing was done we spent £130m and £100m, our final costs were known, Levy (because of the type of bloke he is) feels secure and so opens the taps.

If it doesn't lead to trophies it's never enough?

'A better signing here or there, a little more backing'?

We performed above our pay grade, so something wasn't too bad? But that should have been the manager? (Who the club employed)
When something is brick...it's the chairman. When something is good... it's the manager. Such binary analysis.

 

[MKSpur]

I have friends who are united fans, their take is that it's now a brickhole that can only be fixed with a bulldozer.

My original question was in response to the intimation that a club could build a new stadium (on land they already have) just by selling the naming rights and getting a bit of a mortgage in advance, no need for a load of cash up front, and certainly no need to take money away from the club's transfer budget. My question was, in that case, why wouldn't clubs such as United and Liverpool, take the "free" stadium upgrade to make more money in future?

Ah, I was making a case for why they wouldn’t do it, let alone how they would fund it!

Both those teams, if they rebuilt on their sacred sites would struggle to find somewhere else to play too.

If I’m honest if it had been a case of just getting a more comfortable seat and better facilities, a 10-20% uplift in capacity / increased revenue like those clubs can aim for I’d probably rather have stayed at WHL.

I think what clouds the current feeling, certainly my own anyway is that where we were just before we left was possibly close to what we hoped to get to by moving. We had top players, retained them from being tempted away by bigger clubs and were competing favourably within the top 4. It was probably unsustainable, but sometimes I find myself associating the stadium build with the loss of transfer investment over that period, losing some home advantage by playing at Wembley (noting a downturn in the fan experience too) and a current malaise with not seeing an instant return to those levels by attracting an ‘elite manager’ and a reasonable investment in players.

I’m sure the added revenues will make our future competitiveness with the richer teams much more sustainable, we are just coming from an expectancy that we are playing catch-up to get back where it felt like we were, before we even feel like we’ve gained anything.

It’s like the manager Merry go round, much easier to get patience when expectations are lower than the previous incumbent.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I think our standing when Poch was sacked was way higher for potential managers than it is now.

Back then, we still looked like a club that was about to take the leap, but there was an argument to be made that the manager had run his course, and the squad just needed a new voice to get them back to where they are.

I think the last 2 years have shown the football world exactly what problems we have, exactly the restraints we face, and it has shown some pretty poor decision making on the football side. I am pretty sure a lot of top candidates are deciding this isn't the place to build their career.

Jose has taken us to this position, without covid (and that affects every club) we'd be fine and dandy giving budgets and support to a new man. This is what post completion of the stadium was meant to look like sans covid?
Bad footballing decision? Appointing Jose? Probably (and I wouldn't of) but if we were looking to be winners and Jose claimed he'd reformed himself over 11 months I can see the logic of the match-up.

 

[Raziel]

Ah, I was making a case for why they wouldn’t do it, let alone how they would fund it!

Both those teams, if they rebuilt on their sacred sites would struggle to find somewhere else to play too.

If I’m honest if it had been a case of just getting a more comfortable seat and better facilities, a 10-20% uplift in capacity / increased revenue like those clubs can aim for I’d probably rather have stayed at WHL.

I think what clouds the current feeling, certainly my own anyway is that where we were just before we left was possibly close to what we hoped to get to by moving. We had top players, retained them from being tempted away by bigger clubs and were competing favourably within the top 4. It was probably unsustainable, but sometimes I find myself associating the stadium build with the loss of transfer investment over that period, losing some home advantage by playing at Wembley (noting a downturn in the fan experience too) and a current malaise with not seeing an instant return to those levels by attracting an ‘elite manager’ and a reasonable investment in players.

I’m sure the added revenues will make our future competitiveness with the richer teams much more sustainable, we are just coming from an expectancy that we are playing catch-up to get back where it felt like we were, before we even feel like we’ve gained anything.

It’s like the manager Merry go round, much easier to get patience when expectations are lower than the previous incumbent.

so agree with the emotional sentiment, but

- For Spurs, it was not a 10-20% uplift in revenue
- In 2016 our matchday income was £45M, United's was £112M (Pool was ~£74M)
- In the few months the the new stadium operated at full capacity we had the highest matchday income in the league

We have massively increased our revenue stream and in the long run that will absolutely be worth the short term collateral damage.

 

[Baleforce]

Ah, I was making a case for why they wouldn’t do it, let alone how they would fund it!

Both those teams, if they rebuilt on their sacred sites would struggle to find somewhere else to play too.

If I’m honest if it had been a case of just getting a more comfortable seat and better facilities, a 10-20% uplift in capacity / increased revenue like those clubs can aim for I’d probably rather have stayed at WHL.

I think what clouds the current feeling, certainly my own anyway is that where we were just before we left was possibly close to what we hoped to get to by moving. We had top players, retained them from being tempted away by bigger clubs and were competing favourably within the top 4. It was probably unsustainable, but sometimes I find myself associating the stadium build with the loss of transfer investment over that period, losing some home advantage by playing at Wembley (noting a downturn in the fan experience too) and a current malaise with not seeing an instant return to those levels by attracting an ‘elite manager’ and a reasonable investment in players.

I’m sure the added revenues will make our future competitiveness with the richer teams much more sustainable, we are just coming from an expectancy that we are playing catch-up to get back where it felt like we were, before we even feel like we’ve gained anything.

It’s like the manager Merry go round, much easier to get patience when expectations are lower than the previous incumbent.

They wouldn't have to leave the city, had Wembley not been so close and available I'm sure we would have shared the Emirates for a while. These things always come down to money.

 

[Baleforce]

so agree with the emotional sentiment, but

- For Spurs, it was not a 10-20% uplift in revenue
- In 2016 our matchday income was £45M, United's was £112M (Pool was ~£74M)
- In the few months the the new stadium operated at full capacity we had the highest matchday income in the league

We have massively increased our revenue stream and in the long run that will absolutely be worth the short term collateral damage.

yep, the old adage doesn't work for football, 2 birds in the bush are worth way more than 1 bird in the hand

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Sorry, I don't want to seem like I'm ragging on you.

For me, without any facts I can't draw conclusions, without conclusions, I can have no concerns. In time we'll find out some of what happened, we'll get some facts and can work from there.

Personally, I think it's obvious what happened too ( ), we've already given the job to Rodgers, it was done within hours of sacking Jose.

Do we have a showdown at the King Power on the last day....winner takes all including the manager?

 

[Diamond Lights]

Don't understand the Everton comparison?

people say ENIC have improved us from where we were in the 90s. My point is thanks to the money in the PL, most teams have seen a huge lift due to financial resources of the League itself as opposed to ENIC solely carrying us forward.

Southampton, Everton, West Ham all spent a large portion of those years in the PL and earning money that's transformed their clubs or got them new stadiums now or on the horizon.

To suggest we would still be some lowly Tottenham team toiling away in 15th is a diversionary tactic failing to look at the changes that have come across club football thanks to the Premier League.

 

[DubSpur]

people say ENIC have improved us from where we were in the 90s. My point is thanks to the money in the PL, most teams have seen a huge lift due to financial resources of the League itself as opposed to ENIC solely carrying us forward.

Southampton, Everton, West Ham all spent a large portion of those years in the PL and earning money that's transformed their clubs or got them new stadiums now or on the horizon.

To suggest we would still be some lowly Tottenham team toiling away in 15th is a diversionary tactic failing to look at the changes that have come across club football thanks to the Premier League.

You really think we are on the same footing as Everton, Southampton and fudging West Ham who don't even own their own stadium, an athletics one at that??? I give up

 

[BrainOfLevy]

You'll do this loop a thousand times mate.

A couple of things to add.
The ESL thing. As the ESL train pulled in Levy had no choice to accept a place on board. Anyone who says they would have refused is being disingenuous at best. BUT with the long game WE are playing we are actually better off in the current set up (as are Chelsea/City but for different reasons) as we are growing our financial power up and above most teams organically and sustainably.

Also supporters (if they can be bothered) might want to look at what was happening at the club off the field at the time of the no incoming transfer windows. Poch was 400% right that we needed to refresh the squad and Levy would agree (most of us could see that) BUT at that time all that could be offered was sell to buy due to unplanned circumstances. You can drill down into the specifics and there have been many believable reasons why Eriksen Toby might have not gone and some less believable reasons why Rose couldn't of gone.
Levy is obviously a risk averse guy, the Ndombele Lo Celso etc should have happened the summer before, but couldn't due to risk and circumstance.

But because 'circumstance' doesn't have a face that you can put on a dart board, it's hard to accept.

Its a shame as if everything went as scheduled Poch would have evolved the team as and when he wanted and would probably still be here. (Worth thinking about @BrainOfLevy)

Don't be surprised if this summer is a struggle as well, covid was (obviously) never planned for and certainly has no end date that Levy believes in (sensibly). As I say he's risk averse. Uncertainty is kryptonite to that kind of guy.

This is fair. I am just assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that Poch was emotionally invested enough in the project that we could have said to him 'we know the rebuild needs to happen, just give us a couple of years to get through this tough period, and then we'll be set to really fire'. Surely we could have said that, promised him he was our guy, even through the tough period to come, and he would have taken it, such was his determination to make this work?

My concern is, what seemed to happen is that results slipped, Levy said 'results weren't where they needed to be' and banked on Jose getting a tune out of the squad that Poch couldn't. It was just a bad decision, no two ways about it. It didn't work. So while I'm appreciative of circumstance, I come back to the idea that if it was just a tough period we needed to get through before really firing, I'm pretty sure Poch would have been game. And if Levy understood what made Poch successful, he would have taken the opportunity to give him what he needed when he could, but also showed the same level of backing that he did when he joined in 2014.

It seemed like Levy genuinely lost confidence in him as the right man, and I think that was a massive error, compounded by the Jose experiment which he either also wasn't willing to see through, or just made the wrong decision again - depending on your perspective. It seemed like Levy thought the problem was Poch, and the squad was good, rather than the problem was that it had all gone stale, and we needed to refresh. He diagnosed it wrong.

I also worry that Poch was clearly annoyed in 2019, like he knew he wasn't going to get the backing for his plan. Which suggests to me ENIC didn't want to go for it. I am certain that if it really was 'we're gonna have a tough 2 years while we get into the stadium, but then we're really going for it' then Poch wouldn't have been so annoyed. He would have got it. Especially since it seemed we were lining up the likes of GLC and Bergwijn anyway. But he was annoyed, and I think in that annoyance is the same reason we don't seem to be linked with a genuinely top managerial candidate now either. I don't think ENIC are really going to go for it, regardless of circumstance.

 

[Finney Is Back]

View attachment 11760
this game
We weren’t fatigued
We were up against a Side who were managed better
And Walker was on the bench too with Davies
That month Chelsea lost two games due to what conte described as tiredness but he cracked on and they won the league
We won every game that month apart form the semi

We were up against a team who had a squad that enabled them bring on Hazard, Costa and Fabregas as substitutes.

 

[MKSpur]

so agree with the emotional sentiment, but

- For Spurs, it was not a 10-20% uplift in revenue
- In 2016 our matchday income was £45M, United's was £112M (Pool was ~£74M)
- In the few months the the new stadium operated at full capacity we had the highest matchday income in the league

We have massively increased our revenue stream and in the long run that will absolutely be worth the short term collateral damage.

No I was arguing 10-20 % would be what Liverpool or United would get, hence not as an attractive proposition as ours. I think I latched on to a particular aspect of a post regarding why these clubs didn’t do the same, rather than debating the merits of our project.

I agree the uplift in revenue, especially with multi use / NFL tie in is a game changer.

It’s just going to take a little longer to realise, what with the regression from the squad we had under Poch, his sacking and now Mourinho plus the improvement being made in a couple of clubs this season.

as the famous old saying goes, form is temporary, revenue is permanent

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

We have massively increased our revenue stream and in the long run that will absolutely be worth the short term collateral damage.

And this is the thing. It's largely been glorious and entertaining thru the whole bloody thing.

But just without a bloody trophy!

And ironically the man supposed to deliver us a trophy was the worst bit

 

[Diamond Lights]

Is all modern football a business = yes
Does Levy run Spurs as a business first = yes
Does he do "the bare minimum" = no

Within your budget does not equal on the cheap

- We need a CB badly, the last three quality CBs in the PL (VVD, Maquire, Dias) all went for over £80M (plus incentives, agent fees, etc.), we cannot fudging afford that, we may not like to accept that as fans, but we can't.

The on the cheap is easily disproven

- The money spent on training facilities and stadium is way over what even a satisfactory build would be. Levy could easily have delivered a stadium for half the price, easily could have left out the area regeneration stuff, list goes on ..

Don't agree with his decisions = your call, don't agree with our transfer policy = same, don't think they are best for the club = same

but the tired narrative of "he doesn't give a brick", same as Glazers/Kroenke? do we have no fudging screens on our stadium and seats that can't be sold because the fudging roof has leaked for years? is the directors sucking huge dividends out of the club yearly, did the club sit on insane interest rates for years (for loan to buy club)? that mate is don't give a fudge

This thread is amazing, Everton are now better run than us? their best season in how many years and they are still below us in our worst season in how long? they have a "plan" for a stadium, fudging brilliant.

Don't recall anyone saying Everton are better run than us? I said, money has changed football, people look at ENIC and compare to a time when money hadn't influenced football as if to say we would be in that position now, today, if ENIC weren't around. It's a false narrative.

Also, on the stadium and training centre... they're Levy's assets (along with Joe Lewis). It's literally in his benefit to have value in his assets, it literally makes your value increase.

If you own your house, it's worth 300k, knock it down, rebuild for 200k but then it's worth is now 700k... you're worth more than before. Your assets, your values, have now increased. Why would he not want a training ground and stadium that increases his net worth?

 

[MKSpur]

yep, the old adage doesn't work for football, 2 birds in the bush are worth way more than 1 bird in the hand

I thought it was one in the bush was worth two in the hand?

 

[SpurMeUp]

Everton are doing it (via owner investment).
Abramovich shelved his plans after the UK refused to give him residency (after allowing him to go along on his merry way for years).
Both Liverpool and Man Utd concluded that remodeling their existing grounds is far more cost efficient than a new stadium (as Barcelona and Real Madrid have also done).

I think what we and Arsenal did was monumental (especially us as our stadium site overlapped our old one). It was just a shame that the costs of the stadium spiraled and forced the club to divert money from football operations.

Time will tell whether we missed out on an opportunity to become one of the truly big clubs or that opportunity will present itself again. I hope it is the latter.

We wouldn't have been part of the Super League conversation had we been in old WHL. The stadium itself elevates Spurs into 'one of the truly big clubs'. It's not just an identity thing putting Spurs on the map however, it is the financial reality of it too. Making circa £5m a match from the stadium seems like a decent return? The equivalent of one extra stellar player per year? That doesn't factor in other events and the profits from them.

Well done Levy. How can you not credit him?

There is a point about Levy not always being bold and committal. I think it is a fair point. But we're in a good place and have not gambled. Would you want us to? Unlike pool and RM we're not as overextended as they are now. No doubt we have serious challenges as Levy would have expected an extra £100m or more from the stadium over the last year.

What I don't understand is how any sensible Spurs fan can't see that DL has put their team in a fantastic position. Not investing for 5 minutes where you could crash and burn, but a permanent elevation of our club. All credit to him, and shame on those who can't see the wood for the trees.

What as the stat: Tottenham didn't get into the top 6 in the decade before ENIC, and have 13 times in the following two decades.

All for a critique of Levy and identifying his weaknesses and areas to improve, but his tenure is very hard to argue against. Your arguments just don't stack up. I think people just want to winge post-Covid. Frustrations are heightened, and the end of the elevation and blip with Poch and Mourinho is frustrating. But progress is never going to be linear, there will be steps forward and backwards, but overall we are on the right trajectory. Let's hope fans don't jeopardise that.