Levy - the truth

comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
Another couple of years and you could have thrown in a relegation pre Levy.

You lot have never had it so good.

Best period to be a Spurs supporter was late 50s, early 60s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to tell this generation they've never had it so good with one league cup in 20 years while harking back to the older years when only you were alive and telling us how great it was then, doesn't really work does it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now ain't THAT the truth

I never ever bring up the 1950 squad which contain Spurs legends Bill Nicholson, Alf Ramsey, Ron Burgess, Ted Ditchburn, Len Duquemin .... that won the second and first divisions in successive seasons.

Levy is the worst owner I can remember this club having. Others made huge errors for sure, but they learnt from them.

Supporting Spurs under Levy is like being that Greek god that was punished for cheating death by having to roll a rock up a hill and when he was nearly at the top it would roll down again and he would have to start all over.

Levy stripped all ambition to win things out of the club, we are a London event destination - not a football club.

Blokes a grade A priiick - but some on here love the mediocrity so he gets away with it

comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 3 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
Another couple of years and you could have thrown in a relegation pre Levy.

You lot have never had it so good.

Best period to be a Spurs supporter was late 50s, early 60s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to tell this generation they've never had it so good with one league cup in 20 years while harking back to the older years when only you were alive and telling us how great it was then, doesn't really work does it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now ain't THAT the truth

I never ever bring up the 1950 squad which contain Spurs legends Bill Nicholson, Alf Ramsey, Ron Burgess, Ted Ditchburn, Len Duquemin .... that won the second and first divisions in successive seasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Teams that lived up to “To dare is to do” yet under Levy our fans now say “To dare is to dear” - he has killed the club

Sillypusses!

comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 8 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 59 minutes ago
I'm amazed you've not tried to replace Kane.

Probably means you're lining up Toney in January you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The objective voice folks. Anyone still backing Levy should listen to this because even those with no stake in the game are gobsmacked how we operate. It’s an absolute scandal and those of you still backing Levy are genuinely part of the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So only those that are ante Levy have a voice then? Gotcha.

Just for the record, part of what problem? If supporting your owners, who to my knowledge have not committed any crimes, and are just trying to run the club proper in the era of the financially doped is a problem. Then I think it is you that has a problem.

comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 8 hours, 40 minutes ago
And in response to Dev, he makes some good points. Levy has not been all bad. He’s done a very good job of running the business and operating a football club in the black. Problem is, that’s where his skill set lets us down. It’s all he’s good at. His ‘win’ is to climb the table spending the least amount of money. That’s the game he plays. He’s not in it for the success as we see it. He’s in it for the financial win. That’s what makes him tick so even if we got an investor on board, he wouldn’t relax and spend more. That’s not who he is. The game isn’t winning monopoly. It’s getting as far as you can without spending much money.

Also it’s worth pointing out that the footballing landscape is changing fast with US owners. The sensible spender is a relic, a dinosaur. What was once a valuable skill set in this league is fast becoming obsolete. He was unambitious 5-10 years ago. You imagine what he’ll be like 5-10 years from now when inflation really blows the game up. He’s already having to be clever in the market. It’s completely unsustainable for an ambitious club. We WILL drop down the league if we don’t start spending more money. History teaches us that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What a load of tosh. History doesn't teach us that at all. All history teaches us, is that spend beyond your means don't last very long. Are you suggesting Spurs spend on Chelsea levels for example, whilst still having to make payments on the stadium. You cannot have both that's why Chelsea are still playing in a decrepit old stadium. Spurs will grow over the next decade. Chelsea will stagnate, and probably be in serious financial trouble by the end of the decade.

comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 9 hours, 9 minutes ago
And in response to Dev, he makes some good points. Levy has not been all bad. He’s done a very good job of running the business and operating a football club in the black. Problem is, that’s where his skill set lets us down. It’s all he’s good at. His ‘win’ is to climb the table spending the least amount of money. That’s the game he plays. He’s not in it for the success as we see it. He’s in it for the financial win. That’s what makes him tick so even if we got an investor on board, he wouldn’t relax and spend more. That’s not who he is. The game isn’t winning monopoly. It’s getting as far as you can without spending much money.

Also it’s worth pointing out that the footballing landscape is changing fast with US owners. The sensible spender is a relic, a dinosaur. What was once a valuable skill set in this league is fast becoming obsolete. He was unambitious 5-10 years ago. You imagine what he’ll be like 5-10 years from now when inflation really blows the game up. He’s already having to be clever in the market. It’s completely unsustainable for an ambitious club. We WILL drop down the league if we don’t start spending more money. History teaches us that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a difference between running a club sustainably and being in something for financial gain.

The argument that he's not interest in success, only profits is false as success = profit.

As for sustainable running of clubs being "a relic" this lays bare your ill considered idea of club ownership.

Where are all these clubs spending 100s if millions beyond their financial means.

Chelsea and City did it when the rules were lapse and developed their clubs into financial powerhouses. City are now sustainable having doped themselves to the top.

United Liverpool Arsenal all spend money they earn. Big wealthy clubs who can afford to spend big.

Spurs also spend big.

How we go about spending that money is a different matter and there is a much evidence to show that we have wasted a lot and the way we get deals done makes our life harder.

You seem to want a Todd Boehly approach to ownership and see that as some new way of owning a club. It isn't. They got the club under value leaving them room to spend wildly. They have rolled the dice massively and are banking on success. Failure to get that success could ruin them. Their fans should be genuinely worried about the fall out of a failure to achieve UCL this season.
I would not want our owners to be playing such a risky game with our club.

So long as we spend what we earn and seek to maximise earnings and investment, then we cannot ask the owners to do more than that, financially. We can demand they put the best structures in place to ensure we give ourselves the best chance of success and that is probably where we have failed in recent years, unable to develop an identity and an ethos that is driven towards success at all levels of the club. City are a great example of how this can be achieved. Our owners have not done this and its been a mess and this is where the strongest criticism should lie...not the fact they havent gambled the clubs future by spending 1bn in 12 months.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 9 hours, 9 minutes ago
And in response to Dev, he makes some good points. Levy has not been all bad. He’s done a very good job of running the business and operating a football club in the black. Problem is, that’s where his skill set lets us down. It’s all he’s good at. His ‘win’ is to climb the table spending the least amount of money. That’s the game he plays. He’s not in it for the success as we see it. He’s in it for the financial win. That’s what makes him tick so even if we got an investor on board, he wouldn’t relax and spend more. That’s not who he is. The game isn’t winning monopoly. It’s getting as far as you can without spending much money.

Also it’s worth pointing out that the footballing landscape is changing fast with US owners. The sensible spender is a relic, a dinosaur. What was once a valuable skill set in this league is fast becoming obsolete. He was unambitious 5-10 years ago. You imagine what he’ll be like 5-10 years from now when inflation really blows the game up. He’s already having to be clever in the market. It’s completely unsustainable for an ambitious club. We WILL drop down the league if we don’t start spending more money. History teaches us that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a difference between running a club sustainably and being in something for financial gain.

The argument that he's not interest in success, only profits is false as success = profit.

As for sustainable running of clubs being "a relic" this lays bare your ill considered idea of club ownership.

Where are all these clubs spending 100s if millions beyond their financial means.

Chelsea and City did it when the rules were lapse and developed their clubs into financial powerhouses. City are now sustainable having doped themselves to the top.

United Liverpool Arsenal all spend money they earn. Big wealthy clubs who can afford to spend big.

Spurs also spend big.

How we go about spending that money is a different matter and there is a much evidence to show that we have wasted a lot and the way we get deals done makes our life harder.

You seem to want a Todd Boehly approach to ownership and see that as some new way of owning a club. It isn't. They got the club under value leaving them room to spend wildly. They have rolled the dice massively and are banking on success. Failure to get that success could ruin them. Their fans should be genuinely worried about the fall out of a failure to achieve UCL this season.
I would not want our owners to be playing such a risky game with our club.

So long as we spend what we earn and seek to maximise earnings and investment, then we cannot ask the owners to do more than that, financially. We can demand they put the best structures in place to ensure we give ourselves the best chance of success and that is probably where we have failed in recent years, unable to develop an identity and an ethos that is driven towards success at all levels of the club. City are a great example of how this can be achieved. Our owners have not done this and its been a mess and this is where the strongest criticism should lie...not the fact they havent gambled the clubs future by spending 1bn in 12 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy can make profits without success on the pitch, that is a problem.

Spurs spend way below their financial means, that is another problem.

These owners are not delivering success on the pitch, and should fack off out of Spurs.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 9 hours, 9 minutes ago
And in response to Dev, he makes some good points. Levy has not been all bad. He’s done a very good job of running the business and operating a football club in the black. Problem is, that’s where his skill set lets us down. It’s all he’s good at. His ‘win’ is to climb the table spending the least amount of money. That’s the game he plays. He’s not in it for the success as we see it. He’s in it for the financial win. That’s what makes him tick so even if we got an investor on board, he wouldn’t relax and spend more. That’s not who he is. The game isn’t winning monopoly. It’s getting as far as you can without spending much money.

Also it’s worth pointing out that the footballing landscape is changing fast with US owners. The sensible spender is a relic, a dinosaur. What was once a valuable skill set in this league is fast becoming obsolete. He was unambitious 5-10 years ago. You imagine what he’ll be like 5-10 years from now when inflation really blows the game up. He’s already having to be clever in the market. It’s completely unsustainable for an ambitious club. We WILL drop down the league if we don’t start spending more money. History teaches us that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a difference between running a club sustainably and being in something for financial gain.

The argument that he's not interest in success, only profits is false as success = profit.

As for sustainable running of clubs being "a relic" this lays bare your ill considered idea of club ownership.

Where are all these clubs spending 100s if millions beyond their financial means.

Chelsea and City did it when the rules were lapse and developed their clubs into financial powerhouses. City are now sustainable having doped themselves to the top.

United Liverpool Arsenal all spend money they earn. Big wealthy clubs who can afford to spend big.

Spurs also spend big.

How we go about spending that money is a different matter and there is a much evidence to show that we have wasted a lot and the way we get deals done makes our life harder.

You seem to want a Todd Boehly approach to ownership and see that as some new way of owning a club. It isn't. They got the club under value leaving them room to spend wildly. They have rolled the dice massively and are banking on success. Failure to get that success could ruin them. Their fans should be genuinely worried about the fall out of a failure to achieve UCL this season.
I would not want our owners to be playing such a risky game with our club.

So long as we spend what we earn and seek to maximise earnings and investment, then we cannot ask the owners to do more than that, financially. We can demand they put the best structures in place to ensure we give ourselves the best chance of success and that is probably where we have failed in recent years, unable to develop an identity and an ethos that is driven towards success at all levels of the club. City are a great example of how this can be achieved. Our owners have not done this and its been a mess and this is where the strongest criticism should lie...not the fact they havent gambled the clubs future by spending 1bn in 12 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea's policy is a major gamble. I totally get that and I agree that I definitely wouldn't want that at our club. The problem is though that, unlike most of the top six, we tend to wait until the balance sheet says we can spend before actually going for it. Arsenal, for example, after many seasons without CL football, shouldn't have the kind of revenue that's seeing them spend so big in the transfer market, but they are. Success on the pitch should breed ambition in the board room. They finished 2nd last year, qualified for the CL and absolutely went for it in the transfer window. We don't yet know how many of those signings will work out but the intent is there. When we finished 2nd I don't think we signed anyone. That's the headline. You CANNOT, or rarely gain any level of success without gambling a little with possible future earnings. That's what the -400m FFP 3-5 year allowance is there for. It's a short term safety net to encourage ambition. I don't think we've spent a penny of ENIC's money to even go into the red, aside from the supposed inject of funds that wasn't used up when Conte came in.

And Billy is right. ENIC's focus financially is away from the pitch. They're making profits in events, not football management. I have my doubts that the revenue gained from hosting NFL and music acts goes back into the club. He will operate them all as separate entities. Revenue streams from NFL will go back into improving the NFL experience. Music acts money will go back into improving that experience and so on. The stadium was supposed to be a game-changer and whilst I understand inflation has changed all that, prior to the stadium being built we were the 6th highest spenders and we're still in that bracket. In fact we're probably lower now because other clubs are catching up. Newcastle will overtake us and we're now competing with Brentford and Brighton. Tottenham Hotspur, competing with those two. Welcome to Daniel Levy's ownership model.

comment by ●Billy The Spur● LEVY OUT- ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 3 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 9 hours, 9 minutes ago
And in response to Dev, he makes some good points. Levy has not been all bad. He’s done a very good job of running the business and operating a football club in the black. Problem is, that’s where his skill set lets us down. It’s all he’s good at. His ‘win’ is to climb the table spending the least amount of money. That’s the game he plays. He’s not in it for the success as we see it. He’s in it for the financial win. That’s what makes him tick so even if we got an investor on board, he wouldn’t relax and spend more. That’s not who he is. The game isn’t winning monopoly. It’s getting as far as you can without spending much money.

Also it’s worth pointing out that the footballing landscape is changing fast with US owners. The sensible spender is a relic, a dinosaur. What was once a valuable skill set in this league is fast becoming obsolete. He was unambitious 5-10 years ago. You imagine what he’ll be like 5-10 years from now when inflation really blows the game up. He’s already having to be clever in the market. It’s completely unsustainable for an ambitious club. We WILL drop down the league if we don’t start spending more money. History teaches us that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a difference between running a club sustainably and being in something for financial gain.

The argument that he's not interest in success, only profits is false as success = profit.

As for sustainable running of clubs being "a relic" this lays bare your ill considered idea of club ownership.

Where are all these clubs spending 100s if millions beyond their financial means.

Chelsea and City did it when the rules were lapse and developed their clubs into financial powerhouses. City are now sustainable having doped themselves to the top.

United Liverpool Arsenal all spend money they earn. Big wealthy clubs who can afford to spend big.

Spurs also spend big.

How we go about spending that money is a different matter and there is a much evidence to show that we have wasted a lot and the way we get deals done makes our life harder.

You seem to want a Todd Boehly approach to ownership and see that as some new way of owning a club. It isn't. They got the club under value leaving them room to spend wildly. They have rolled the dice massively and are banking on success. Failure to get that success could ruin them. Their fans should be genuinely worried about the fall out of a failure to achieve UCL this season.
I would not want our owners to be playing such a risky game with our club.

So long as we spend what we earn and seek to maximise earnings and investment, then we cannot ask the owners to do more than that, financially. We can demand they put the best structures in place to ensure we give ourselves the best chance of success and that is probably where we have failed in recent years, unable to develop an identity and an ethos that is driven towards success at all levels of the club. City are a great example of how this can be achieved. Our owners have not done this and its been a mess and this is where the strongest criticism should lie...not the fact they havent gambled the clubs future by spending 1bn in 12 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy can make profits without success on the pitch, that is a problem.

Spurs spend way below their financial means, that is another problem.

These owners are not delivering success on the pitch, and should fack off out of Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is precisely the problem.

Spurs were recently registered as one of the most profitable sporting clubs on earth. This is because of the way the club is run financially. Levy and ENIC have engineered a situation where the THFC brand generates profits via the football club and also via the stadium as an events & entertainment destination.

This does not however translate to footballing success on the pitch, and it never will, because they don’t need it to. All Levy has to do is maintain the current status quo at the club, while generating additional revenue via the stadium, and their end game is sorted - big profits, relatively low outlay. And for the fans it means mediocrity for generations to come. Any fan that thinks THFC will become a serious or successful club under ENIC is deluded. They couldn’t do it when they had a peak team under Poch, they let that slip, and now they have stadium revenue there is no motivation to be too ambitious elsewhere.