• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Levy's Plan

Baleforce said:
If the past isn’t relevant, what exactly is Levy being judged as a failure against?
Click to expand...
The past isn't irrelevant, but top 4 as a goal wasn't relevant before 99.
billyiddo said:
Why is top half finishes any more palatable/less arbitary than top 4?
Click to expand...
Because why top 4? We know why and as I keep saying that's only relevant post 99. If we are going to talk about the past, then let's use the indicators that were valued and relevant back then. Top half was valued, top 2 was valued top 4? Nope.
 
Bishop said:
The past isn't irrelevant, but top 4 as a goal wasn't relevant before 99.

Because why top 4? We know why and as I keep saying that's only relevant post 99. If we are going to talk about the past, then let's use the indicators that were valued and relevant back then. Top half was valued, top 2 was valued top 4? Nope.
Click to expand...

Top 2 data from being in the top league would be interesting, probably not since the 60s had we off my head??
 
Bishop said:
The past isn't irrelevant, but top 4 as a goal wasn't relevant before 99.

Because why top 4? We know why and as I keep saying that's only relevant post 99. If we are going to talk about the past, then let's use the indicators that were valued and relevant back then. Top half was valued, top 2 was valued top 4? Nope.
Click to expand...

Top half was valued but finishing higher within that and therefore being better wasn't? Not sure i see the logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
billyiddo said:
Top half was valued but finishing higher within that and therefore being better wasn't? Not sure i see the logic.
Click to expand...
Finishing as high up the table was the aim. But if someone were to separate out finishing places, top 4 would not have been where they drew the line. Top 3 might have been the line but more likely it would have been top 2 or top half period.
 
DTA said:
So did I. Haha I think we are both wrong then. Here are our top four finishes before Levy

  • 1921–22: 2nd
  • 1933–34: 3rd
  • 1950–51: 1st (Champions)
  • 1951–52: 2nd
  • 1956–57: 2nd
  • 1959–60: 3rd
  • 1960–61: 1st (Champions - The Double)
  • 1962–63: 2nd
  • 1970–71: 3rd
  • 1984–85: 3rd
  • 1986–87: 3rd
  • 1989–90: 3rd [1, 2, 3, 6]
And here they in the levy era

  • 2009–10: 4th
  • 2011–12: 4th
  • 2015–16: 3rd
  • 2016–17: 2nd
  • 2017–18: 3rd
  • 2018–19: 4th
  • 2021–22: 4th [1, 2]

So not quite as good as thought, but still massively impressive considering the different time frames
Click to expand...
Either you or your choice of LLM has hallucinated and missed some top 4 finishes from the 50s, 60s and 80s.

We had 16 top 4 finishes in the 50 years before Levy and 7 in the 25 years of Levy so Levy’s top 4 finishes record was pretty much identical (a teeny bit worse) whilst his trophy record was a third of the 50 years preceding him.
 
Last edited:
Bishop said:
The past isn't irrelevant, but top 4 as a goal wasn't relevant before 99.

Because why top 4? We know why and as I keep saying that's only relevant post 99. If we are going to talk about the past, then let's use the indicators that were valued and relevant back then. Top half was valued, top 2 was valued top 4? Nope.
Click to expand...

So what goals were?
 
Bishop said:
Winning the league and winning an FA Cup. There was no CL for 4th so it wasn't a stated goal.
Click to expand...

Winning the league, good shout.

But the FA Cup doesn't track, as since the CL it's been worthless, it is as irrelevant now as you say top 4 was previously. It doesn't have a European Cup place and the prize money is a rounding error.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Either you or your choice of LLM has hallucinated and missed some top 4 finishes from the 50s, 60s and 80s.

We had 16 top 4 finishes in the 50 years before Levy and 7 in the 25 years of Levy so Levy’s top 4 finishes record was pretty much identical (a teeny bit worse) whilst his trophy record was a third of the 50 years preceding him.
Click to expand...
Yeah it was Gemini which Top finishes did it miss?
 
Levy wasn't poor, could easily have hocked his equity stake to match what the owners are putting in today (a third of 200 mil or what the owners have put in recently).

Daniel Levy earned an estimated £46.5 million in total salary and bonuses over his final decade managing Tottenham Hotspur. If his severance pay is included, his final decade earnings approach nearly £53.2 million. [1, 2, 3]
​
Salary Breakdown and Details​
​
​
  • Comparison: His annual compensation package regularly positions him as the highest-paid club executive and director in the Premier League, frequently outpacing the combined payrolls of entire departments or opposing club directors. Financial records from his final full periods showed he earned more than the entire Tottenham Hotspur Women's team players and staff combined (£3.73m).
He was fired and received a severance pay of about 6.6 mil - so he was clearly sacked. Can't help but think that how well he paid himself would have factored into the main owner's decision.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Top 2 data from being in the top league would be interesting, probably not since the 60s had we off my head??
Click to expand...

I can only really remember one season where we threw the towel in on how high we wanted to finish in the league. We obviously got a trophy because of it.

The glass ceiling line is now 5th to be fair because of the UEFA coefficients. When you get 5th, you get access to the CL monies.

What I'd be interested in is how our recent history could have been different. With current UEFA coefficients, Spurs had 6 seasons in this millennium where they finished 5th and would have been competing in the CL on today's rules. They have had 7 seasons where they finished 2nd to 4th and got CL anyway.

So think about the impact of that. Because we would have been in the CL 50% of the time (on today's rules) then we would have probably not finished 6th-8th so much in another 6 or 7 seasons. It would have been slightly higher because of the access to more revenues and therefore better players, especially before the stadium opened.

I know it is all conjecture but in some ways I have found the CL glass ceiling so frustrating.
 
metalgear said:
Levy wasn't poor, could easily have hocked his equity stake to match what the owners are putting in today (a third of 200 mil or what the owners have put in recently).

Daniel Levy earned an estimated £46.5 million in total salary and bonuses over his final decade managing Tottenham Hotspur. If his severance pay is included, his final decade earnings approach nearly £53.2 million. [1, 2, 3]
​
Salary Breakdown and Details​
​
​
  • Comparison:His annual compensation package regularly positions him as the highest-paid club executive and director in the Premier League, frequently outpacing the combined payrolls of entire departments or opposing club directors. Financial records from his final full periods showed he earned more than the entire Tottenham Hotspur Women's team players and staff combined (£3.73m).
He was fired and received a severance pay of about 6.6 mil - so he was clearly sacked. Can't help but think that how well he paid himself would have factored into the main owner's decision.
Click to expand...
The only top paid person at Spurs under Levy’s tenure was Levy himself.
 
Baleforce said:
Winning the league, good shout.

But the FA Cup doesn't track, as since the CL it's been worthless, it is as irrelevant now as you say top 4 was previously. It doesn't have a European Cup place and the prize money is a rounding error.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Yes again only since 99. Before 99 the FA Cup just about still had it's prestige.

You can't compare what win ing the FA Cup in say 1977 meant to what winning it in 2007 meant. Totally different contexts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back