I'm almost certain we've gone over this before, but hey, I enjoy the discussion and you present your points well.
I can understand the criticism you aim at Lewis more, based on the wish for more investment. I find it difficult to judge that personal choice and I see that as disconnected from questions about how well Levy is running the club.
Levy owns around 30% of ENIC, with Lewis owning the rest. I see no realistic way of Levy investing his own money without Lewis doing the same proportionally to ownership share. Not saying he otherwise would have, but to me that particular criticism of Levy doesn't sit right.
Likewise, mate - always happy to have a pleasant discussion.
I don't criticise Levy alone for that - I used to, but I remember someone (might even have been you, mate) making that point a while back, and I felt it was a good one. When I highlight how their ownership model holds us back and cripples us in many ways, I refer to either Levy & Lewis or ENIC in general. At least, I try to.
I criticise Levy individually for not caring a single jot for the club's sporting goals, which I feel is fair given how his entire schtick for 20 years has been semi-competently investing the club's own money into risk-free infrastructure over on-field improvement.
They did buy (most of) the club, with their own money. In hindsight it's a great investment that seems like just printing money with little risk. That ignores the possibility of us doing quite a bit worse on the pitch. You mentioned trophies, but you didn't mention that we damn near got relegated during previous owners.
It's a lot easier to say there's no risk when it's not your own money.
It is absolutely printing money - not with little risk, *no* risk.
ENIC spent about 15m to buy us - maybe up to 45m if you could all the other share buyouts beyond their initial purchase.
That is all they have spent on us in 20 years. And with the explosion of revenues, exposure and income of English football in the twenty years from 2001 to 2021, they would have been guaranteed at a minimum a 200% return on their investment, even if we had been *relegated* - no way would we ever have been worth *less* than the pittance they paid for us. That has nothing to do with them, everything to do with the absolute skyrocketing value of being in the Premier League.
That is zero risk.
Investment in infrastructure has perhaps been the financially best decision, but I also think it's been the best decision for us as a club. Easier to say low risk when it's not your money and if ignoring potential bad outcomes. See Valencia.
Risk to the club from infrastructure projects not working out? Maybe, but no skin off Levy/Lewis's nose - they could still sell us for a 200% profit even if our stadium was an unfinished concrete husk like Valencia's. And, additionally, why would we have ended up in that position? The club's own money was used to build a stadium and training ground - if both had gone (even further) into cost overruns, all that would have happened is the club would have cut spending on players even further and ploughed that into infrastructure.
In all cases, the risk to Levy/Lewis is precisely zero - their total exposure to Spurs is just 45m, a fraction of Lewis' ill-gotten gains. They could sell us for 2x that today, in the next hour if they wanted to. It's all pure profit, most of it not due to them but due to the explosion in value of the PL as a whole.
Again, we are talking risk to the club versus risk to ENIC. There is no risk to ENIC, and never will be, because their total exposure to us is 45m - a miniscule fraction of Joe Lewis' ill-gotten gains.
