• 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

Daniel Levy - Chairman

billyiddo said:
You can value both, in fact I'd say it's vital that you value both as an owner of a football club.
Click to expand...
Turnover I think yes. Profit - I'm not so sure. Note that I do get that we have been an unusual case over the last 5 years or so due to the huge outlay on our infrastructure projects.

I would certainly be guarded against our CEO being rewarded with bonuses based on profit as that can be at direct odds with trophies, i.e. the CEO wanting to show an £80 million profit to land a large bonus and the manager wanting 2 new £40 million players.

Increased turnover (something that Levy has grown very well at Spurs these past few years - although a a fair amount of that is off the back of the manager cementing us in the CL 3 or 4 years ahead of schedule) should definitely be rewarded I think.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Turnover I think yes. Profit - I'm not so sure. Note that I do get that we have been an unusual case over the last 5 years or so due to the huge outlay on our infrastructure projects.

I would certainly be guarded against our CEO being rewarded with bonuses based on profit as that can be at direct odds with trophies, i.e. the CEO wanting to show an £80 million profit to land a large bonus and the manager wanting 2 new £40 million players.

Increased turnover (something that Levy has grown very well at Spurs these past few years - although a a fair amount of that is off the back of the manager cementing us in the CL 3 or 4 years ahead of schedule) should definitely be rewarded I think.
Click to expand...
And the manager that was backed with £400m of players in that time from the chairman
 
Finney Is Back said:
I guess if that is what Lewis is judging him on then fair enough. Wouldn't it be lovely though to have owners that want to win things instead of their primary objective being to maximise their own investment?
Click to expand...
Lewis doesn’t judge him
Every single senior person I’ve spoken to at the club says Lewis has zero involvement in the club and doesn’t care too
He is basically a share holder... a majority one on paper but for him that’s all it is. And one who despite the negativity in some circles hasn’t taken a dividend and literally hasn’t interfered
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Lewis doesn’t judge him
Every single senior person I’ve spoken to at the club says Lewis has zero involvement in the club and doesn’t care too
He is basically a share holder... a majority one on paper but for him that’s all it is. And one who despite the negativity in some circles hasn’t taken a dividend and literally hasn’t interfered
Click to expand...
So Levy completely determines his own pay? Dangerous!
 
Finney Is Back said:
Turnover I think yes. Profit - I'm not so sure. Note that I do get that we have been an unusual case over the last 5 years or so due to the huge outlay on our infrastructure projects.

I would certainly be guarded against our CEO being rewarded with bonuses based on profit as that can be at direct odds with trophies, i.e. the CEO wanting to show an £80 million profit to land a large bonus and the manager wanting 2 new £40 million players.

Increased turnover (something that Levy has grown very well at Spurs these past few years - although a a fair amount of that is off the back of the manager cementing us in the CL 3 or 4 years ahead of schedule) should definitely be rewarded I think.
Click to expand...

Fair points, however i think whichever way you want to look at it the football club as a business is in good health and on the pitch we have been out performing teams which have higher investment for a long time now so again hard to argue that the man at the top doesn't deserve his high wages.
 
scaramanga said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withholding_tax
Click to expand...
I wish the government good luck in obtaining withholding tax from the numerous bookmaking companies that operate from a huge variety of offshore havens (and I genuinely mean that as the World would be a far better place with reasonably equal taxation globally for corporations).

Government: "We're going to apply a withholding tax to all bookmakers based offshore offering services in the UK"
Bet365: "Talk to our lawyers for 5 years and in the mean time we're going to move our back office from Stoke to Poland and decimate employment in your shiny new Brexit won Conservative Constituency".
 
Finney Is Back said:
I with the government good luck in obtaining withholding tax from the numerous bookmaking companies that operate from a huge variety of offshore havens (and I genuinely mean that as the World would be a far better place with reasonably equal taxation globally corporations).

Government: "We're going to apply a withholding tax to all bookmakers based offshore offering services in the UK"
Bet365: "Talk to our lawyers for 5 years and in the mean time we're going to move our back office from Stoke to Poland and decimate employment in your shiny new Brexit won Conservative Constituency".
Click to expand...

it’s all noise from them
It’s like when the clown shoe started bleating about footballers pay forgetting he wrote a book on tax avoidance...
 
Bedfordspurs said:
It’s a fact though
Everything else in an opinion
But you can’t have we grew because of Poch without adding that he also spent a LOT of money that was given to him by his chairman/CEO...
Click to expand...
Yes he did indeed get a reasonable amount of money to spend (I think it was as high as the 7th or 8th most in England) Of course he also had to generate a lot of that income himself through sales (I don't think we disputed much other than whether we were 15th or 17th highest in terms of net spend depending on whether we decided to include clubs now in the Championship or stick only to current PL clubs).
 
Finney Is Back said:
Turnover I think yes. Profit - I'm not so sure. Note that I do get that we have been an unusual case over the last 5 years or so due to the huge outlay on our infrastructure projects.

I would certainly be guarded against our CEO being rewarded with bonuses based on profit as that can be at direct odds with trophies, i.e. the CEO wanting to show an £80 million profit to land a large bonus and the manager wanting 2 new £40 million players.

Increased turnover (something that Levy has grown very well at Spurs these past few years - although a a fair amount of that is off the back of the manager cementing us in the CL 3 or 4 years ahead of schedule) should definitely be rewarded I think.
Click to expand...
That's not particularly goal-congruent either. He could increase turnover massively by offering loads of top players a lot of money. That would quickly run us into the ground though.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I wish the government good luck in obtaining withholding tax from the numerous bookmaking companies that operate from a huge variety of offshore havens (and I genuinely mean that as the World would be a far better place with reasonably equal taxation globally for corporations).

Government: "We're going to apply a withholding tax to all bookmakers based offshore offering services in the UK"
Bet365: "Talk to our lawyers for 5 years and in the mean time we're going to move our back office from Stoke to Poland and decimate employment in your shiny new Brexit won Conservative Constituency".
Click to expand...
I don't think the govt should do anything like this, it's bad both for business and for the overall tax take.

But gambling is licensed in the UK so they can apply whatever rules they want to them.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Yes he did indeed get a reasonable amount of money to spend (I think it was as high as the 7th or 8th most in England) Of course he also had to generate a lot of that income himself through sales (I don't think we disputed much other than whether we were 15th or 17th highest in terms of net spend depending on whether we decided to include clubs now in the Championship or stick only to current PL clubs).
Click to expand...
No my dispute on sales was he lost a LOT of money on players he brought that we then sold
That always seemed to get ignored
And we made most of our money shifting youth team players he didn’t want or need. That was a BIG contributor to the net spend charts
 
scaramanga said:
I don't think the govt should do anything like this, it's bad both for business and for the overall tax take.

But gambling is licensed in the UK so they can apply whatever rules they want to them.
Click to expand...
They could introduce a betting Levy as a percentage of all bets taken. However that tax would just be passed onto the customer or at the very least just priced into the book.
I guess the government could indeed introduce a new law stating that gambling companies have to pay a license fee to operate, of course this would have to apply to all betting companies (including the lottery providers). As this would drive some of the smaller operators out of the UK I would imagine that the bigger boys would probably not mind paying this too much.
 
scaramanga said:
Big names sell shirts and attract sponsors.

They also mean short term on the field success - see Leeds, Portsmouth, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure they sell that many shirts really (unless we signed Messi or Ronaldo). Again, other than perhaps those two I'm not sure that any attract sponsors. On pitch success attracts sponsors.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I'm not sure they sell that many shirts really (unless we signed Messi or Ronaldo). Again, other than perhaps those two I'm not sure that any attract sponsors. On pitch success attracts sponsors.
Click to expand...
And although we have some special shirt sale deal with Nike they never ever cover the cost of the purchase
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back