• 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:
Dunno, saw someone respond to your post and assumed it was a correction.

Readjusted using the Deloitte numbers from 99/00 (Levy took over in 2000)


Manchester United 127 to 711
Chelsea 76 to 513
Arsenal 62 to 445
Leeds United 57 to ???
Tottenham Hotspur 48 to 521
Liverpool 46 to 604
Saudi Sportswashing Machine 45 to ???

Seems to me then we've improved at a better rate than Arsenal, Man United and Chelsea, most likely Leeds and Saudi Sportswashing Machine too but i don't have their current numbers to hand. Liverpool grown better off the pitch than us and City of course.

Factor in the same circumstances as my previous post and it shows good growth off the field in relation to the best clubs in the league and not just something that was destined to happen regardless. Funny how 2 of those clubs at a similar level to us when Levy took over went through multiple relegations in the time since
Click to expand...
Like I said all along..... 5th biggest to 5th biggest (I'm using latest Deloitte figures instead of the anomaly when our previous brilliant manager took us all the way to the CL final on a shoestring). Though I do appreciate that our number will be somewhere between the two figures in a 'normal' season with income from fans back in the stadium but with us having no income from CL football.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Like I said all along..... 5th biggest to 5th biggest (I'm using latest Deloitte figures instead of the anomaly when our previous brilliant manager took us all the way to the CL final on a shoestring). Though I do appreciate that our number will be somewhere between the two figures in a 'normal' season with income from fans back in the stadium but with us having no income from CL football.
Click to expand...

Yes as you keep saying and ignoring all context. You sound like one of those people defending Mourinho because he took over a team in 14th and had us finish 6th.

Without context numbers mean nothing.

We've grown at a better rate than most the teams around us when he took over and that's despite them having the advantage of 10 plus years CL football and building their brands when PL was being beamed in to every living room on the planet all whilst building a stadium that is going to set us up for the next 10-20 years +

Oh but we were 5th richest then and 5th richest now so nothings changed
 
Finney Is Back said:
At present we’re down what?.... £45 million or so on that front? (assuming we could’ve taken a sensible and fair (yet still huge) £15m a season deal for the new stadium instead of the £25m a season that it is rumoured Levy was demanding. We could’ve covered over 10% of Levy’s stadium overspend already. We also no longer go into negotiations as a CL club. I think Daniel’s negotiating on the stadium has hurt us quite considerably financially, it wouldn’t surprise me if the deal we end up doing is for less money than we could’ve achieved 2 or 3 years back.

Put another way that £45 million would’ve been enough to purchase The CB that our manager wanted, maybe that CB would’ve been no better than our existing ones anyway or maybe armed with him we might’ve avoided dropping some of those 20 points we’ve thrown away from winning positions and be right in the top 4?

We may well end up doing a £20m a season 10 year deal and people will laud Levy for doing a great job, ignoring the fact that the 3 or 4 years of no deal makes it anything but.
Click to expand...
The reason is obvious why he was holding back on the naming deal?

A pandemic has halted any progress on that pathway.
 
Bishop said:
I'm not advocating for spending like City or Chelsea. I'm fine with spending what we generate, yet even within those confines we set ourselves a lower limit than everyone else. Our wages to turnover ratio is lower than every other clubs that's a decision that was made out of choice. Our choice, so again please let's not plead poverty when we are the ones deciding to our ceiling lower than others.

My issue with Levy though is not the amount spent on transfers or the wage level restrictions. My complaints are of a practical nature, his inability to understand the bigger picture. His inability to prioritise the squads development over feeling like he got one over in a negotiation. The man is the opposite of decisive, one day he might realise prolonging negotiations until the very last day of the transfer window to save a million here or there actually costs us more in the long term. Or selling a player for a fee he deems unacceptable is better than keeping that player for an additional year and paying them more in wages than the difference between the fees he was offered and what he thinks is right.

The man needs to be moved as far away from the football side as possible.
Click to expand...
'Unable to see the bigger picture'?

He'd slap you for that one.
 
I think the Jose, erm, period (debacle?) has shown that when it comes to the crunch, Levy/ENIC are mostly chancers when it comes to football ambition beyond actually just making Europe/Top 4.

There have been all kinds of times to prove that mantra wrong but this Jose period says it all in a way few can now argue against.

If for some reason you believed there were mitigating factors as to why Jose failed so miserably in the last year at both Man Utd and Chelsea, why would you hire Jose and still act in the transfer market like you've still got Poch?:p

Before anyone says "but, but, pandemic" firstly: Jose walled that he couldn't function without a number 9 not long after Kane got injured on January 1st 2020 and you don't buy one.

Then, from a few accounts (including from at least one poster on here), some of last summer's buys only happened after the performance in the first league game vs Everton. So again, nothing really changing.

Oh well, at least we have a great stadium, even if we don't have owners who care equally about the football as they do about the Delloite league tables...
 
billyiddo said:
Yes as you keep saying and ignoring all context. You sound like one of those people defending Mourinho because he took over a team in 14th and had us finish 6th.

Without context numbers mean nothing.

We've grown at a better rate than most the teams around us when he took over and that's despite them having the advantage of 10 plus years CL football and building their brands when PL was being beamed in to every living room on the planet all whilst building a stadium that is going to set us up for the next 10-20 years +

Oh but we were 5th richest then and 5th richest now so nothings changed
Click to expand...
Or alternatively....

We've recently grown our revenue through becoming (but perhaps no longer sustaining) Champions League competitors, whereas a number of those clubs already had the elevated revenue from CL football back then so their relative growth of CL football -> CL football is not as great as our relative grown of no CL football -> CL football?

Our revenue growth is pretty much on direct par with the growth in the size of the PL broadcasting deal over the same period that ENIC have owned us. I agree that we do indeed have a superb stadium. We also have gone from being debt free to holding £835m of debt in that time.

One thing I will say is that ENIC haven't completely fudged us up like Ridsdale did at Leeds for example. I'm not sure owners should ever receive thanks for not fudging up a club? Maybe some of us operate at higher standards than others?
 
I think semantics aside most of the managerial appointments had a logic behind them, even the more unsuccessful ones had some high points (Ramos - cup, AVB record points total) before things went sour. Each appointment seemed to compensate for the perceived issues or limits of the predecessor.
The next move is a big one for Levy, he has to get the managerial appointment right and I think he has to pump some more money in from another source. Naming rights, NFL tie in, outside events were the injection that was supposed to make the austerity worth it but we now still find ourselves requiring an overhaul and very little faith that the manager is the one to over see it. If we don’t inject cash into the playing squad, including paying Mourinho off then I don’t see us reassuring Kane or anyone else we want to keep that we are going in the same direction as we were when they last signed contracts.
I saw Mourinho as a risky but understandable antidote to spark life into what was the dying embers of a remarkable period that that had started decline for us, however the vaccine hasn’t changed anything and possibly made us worse than the wait and see approach. It’s a huge decision and the only saving grace is qualifying for CL and showing an improved style of play would be seen as success rather than par for the next incumbent.
 
I actually think Levy has 'Levy'd' the naming rights deal in the same way he has a fair few transfers over the years.

Probably tried to be too smart and got outthought by some of the bigger brains in the US Sports Corporate markets.

I cannot see any other reason why before the pandemic we didn't have one signed up, especially given the delays to the opening; But i'm all ears to hear alternatives from people closer to such industries...
 
glorygloryeze said:
I actually think Levy has 'Levy'd' the naming rights deal in the same way he has a fair few transfers over the years.

Probably tried to be too smart and got outthought by some of the bigger brains in the US Sports Corporate markets.

I cannot see any other reason why before the pandemic we didn't have one signed up, especially given the delays to the opening; But i'm all ears to hear alternatives from people closer to such industries...
Click to expand...
It’s why he brought in the smart guy form the US
 
Bedfordspurs said:
It’s why he brought in the smart guy form the US
Click to expand...
Maybe he should have acted a bit quicker and realised he wasn't able to get the deal he thinks we are worth and brought him in 3 years earlier. No matter the deal that is achieved you have ro wonder if it was worth the 2 year+ wait and reduction in the relative attraction and profile of the club. [emoji848]
 
MKSpur said:
I think semantics aside most of the managerial appointments had a logic behind them, even the more unsuccessful ones had some high points (Ramos - cup, AVB record points total) before things went sour. Each appointment seemed to compensate for the perceived issues or limits of the predecessor.
The next move is a big one for Levy, he has to get the managerial appointment right and I think he has to pump some more money in from another source. Naming rights, NFL tie in, outside events were the injection that was supposed to make the austerity worth it but we now still find ourselves requiring an overhaul and very little faith that the manager is the one to over see it. If we don’t inject cash into the playing squad, including paying Mourinho off then I don’t see us reassuring Kane or anyone else we want to keep that we are going in the same direction as we were when they last signed contracts.
I saw Mourinho as a risky but understandable antidote to spark life into what was the dying embers of a remarkable period that that had started decline for us, however the vaccine hasn’t changed anything and possibly made us worse than the wait and see approach. It’s a huge decision and the only saving grace is qualifying for CL and showing an improved style of play would be seen as success rather than par for the next incumbent.
Click to expand...

Mourinho made sense IF Levy/ENIC were goling to actually change how they approached things in terms of spending/transfers.

Don't get me wrong, i know money has been spent under Jose, but when the crunch was here BEFORE the pandemic in January 2020 after Kane's injury a CF/number 9 was not broght in, even though the manager/coach said publically he basically couldn't function without one.

Now, that brings into play another discussion about the quality of the coaching ability etc, but the situation was what is was and it wasn't like Jose was any different to his previous MO in letting this be known.

Levy/ENIC didn't get this for Jose...so what was the point of hiring him in the first place if you weren't going to change in terms of buying a significant and needed reinforcement in January for the manager?

So, all in all, the hiring of Jose was just a haphazard gamble to just get through things after things went haywire in the final days under Poch.
 
Last edited:
I remember reading many moons ago somewhere on the Spurssphere that at board level patience with how Levy operates was wearing thin and that eventually he's be 'shuffled across' to work on very big corporate property projects which "wouldn't allow him time to continue the same level of involvement on the football side of things."
I think the gist was the big contract given to Jose given his history would likely be the last straw....i wonder...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back