It is this approach that Manchester City adopted, that Liverpool have adopted, that Chelsea adopted, and that Leicester are now adopting. Team first, assets second. Essentially, a model which enables growth in assets born out of the success of the team. It is that success which makes the assets sustainable. Loss of Champions League revenue is devastating for Tottenham (Statista), as would loss of European football in its entirety. But this loss has been allowed to happen through the inefficient prioritisation of assets over team. If you allow your defence to deteriorate to the extent it has through underinvestment, the natural consequence is that it will not be able to defend as effectively as a better class of defence would be able to. This has been evident with Liverpool this season. They have conceded more goals without their three first-choice central defenders. This has been Liverpool’s bad luck, and it has seen them fall down the table. The parallel in Tottenham is that Spurs have actually conceded more goals than Liverpool, despite having had a their “best” defenders available throughout the season. So it is not bad luck which is the issue.
Underinvestment in Tottenham’s first team squad has precipitated this similar decline. However while Liverpool strengthened their first team in the January transfer window with two additional defenders (Goal) and are likely to continue to have funds available to strengthen that area in the summer (should they need to, as obviously their first choice defenders will return – Liverpool), Tottenham are said to have real cash-flow problems impacting their budget (Football.London).
Why the difference?
The prioritisation of assets over team.
Liverpool have not yet constructed a mega-stadium at Stanley Park in replace of Anfield. Liverpool continue to invest in team over assets. Their loss of defenders this season has been unlucky, and its impact has been clear. Yet, if you consider the same team with Virgil Van Dijk and Joel Matip / Joe Gomez at its heart throughout the season, their fortunes would likely have been markedly different.
The consequence is that next season, Liverpool will be stronger. They will almost invariably strengthen in the summer (if they need to) and will likely achieve a top-four position, as well as a lengthy European run in either the Champions or Europa League. Tottenham, by contrast, may well have a side which may not contain any of the four superstar players mentioned earlier. They may well have no European football. If they replicate the Mourinho route in choosing a manager, they may be stuck with a manager ill-equipped to operate on a shoestring budget with a group of under-performing and under-capable disaffected players. They may well not be able to strengthen in the summer, not least because of the club’s financial situation, but also because to do so might necessitate the loss of Harry Kane, the biggest draw for any player wanting to come to Spurs (who isn’t a striker).
In short, without significant investment in the first team, Tottenham may not be able to stop the rot. The “successes” of the last six or seven years may become a positive footnote for future generations to read of. A better time when Tottenham enjoyed a brief resurgence under the ENIC stewardship, where they finished second in the premiership and in the Champions League.
But, on a positive note, we can remember that Tottenham are a big club. The assets tell us so.
As our future selves watch Eric Dier and Davinson Sanchez ‘Sunday league ball-watching’ as Teemo Pukki steals in at the back post to nod home an 88th-minute goal to put the gloss on a 3-1 victory for Norwich at Carrow Road, in the 34th game of the season, once again depriving Tottenham of any European football the following season, at least the Levy Paradox means we, the fans, can take solace from knowing the players will reflect on that loss in their wonderful training complex, before losing 0-2 to Chelsea at the beautiful Tottenham Hotspur Stadium the following weekend.
No chance of a trophy, but who needs them? No one, these days, so long as your assets tell everyone just how big a club you are.
Another great editorial from thespursweb
Have to admit, I thought it odd Levy committing to building a new stadium at the point he did. I think you’d only had CL football for a couple of seasons at that point?
I remember a few Spurs posters saying you’d financed the build very differently to how Arsenal has the Emirates, and how it wouldn’t affect transfer funds, but many doubted that at the time, and there’s been little evidence since to suggest we were wrong.
It’s a nice stadium, but, as your say, it seems very much a cart-before-the-horse scenario you have now.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
This is where Spurs are in a different position to us with Harry Kane. If you only needed two or three players to take you to the next level, I would say selling Kane could be for the greater good. As it stands, you'll need a keeper, RB, 2x CB's, CM and at least one CF to take you up to that next level.
exactly.
Spurs needed to sell Eriksen for a lot and properly invest that. Instead his contract was run down and didnt sign in the areas required and went 18 months doing fack all.
comment by Hezzman (U21558)
posted 2 hours, 1 minute ago
It is this approach that Manchester City adopted, that Liverpool have adopted, that Chelsea adopted, and that Leicester are now adopting. Team first, assets second. Essentially, a model which enables growth in assets born out of the success of the team. It is that success which makes the assets sustainable. Loss of Champions League revenue is devastating for Tottenham (Statista), as would loss of European football in its entirety. But this loss has been allowed to happen through the inefficient prioritisation of assets over team. If you allow your defence to deteriorate to the extent it has through underinvestment, the natural consequence is that it will not be able to defend as effectively as a better class of defence would be able to. This has been evident with Liverpool this season. They have conceded more goals without their three first-choice central defenders. This has been Liverpool’s bad luck, and it has seen them fall down the table. The parallel in Tottenham is that Spurs have actually conceded more goals than Liverpool, despite having had a their “best” defenders available throughout the season. So it is not bad luck which is the issue.
Underinvestment in Tottenham’s first team squad has precipitated this similar decline. However while Liverpool strengthened their first team in the January transfer window with two additional defenders (Goal) and are likely to continue to have funds available to strengthen that area in the summer (should they need to, as obviously their first choice defenders will return – Liverpool), Tottenham are said to have real cash-flow problems impacting their budget (Football.London).
Why the difference?
The prioritisation of assets over team.
Liverpool have not yet constructed a mega-stadium at Stanley Park in replace of Anfield. Liverpool continue to invest in team over assets. Their loss of defenders this season has been unlucky, and its impact has been clear. Yet, if you consider the same team with Virgil Van Dijk and Joel Matip / Joe Gomez at its heart throughout the season, their fortunes would likely have been markedly different.
The consequence is that next season, Liverpool will be stronger. They will almost invariably strengthen in the summer (if they need to) and will likely achieve a top-four position, as well as a lengthy European run in either the Champions or Europa League. Tottenham, by contrast, may well have a side which may not contain any of the four superstar players mentioned earlier. They may well have no European football. If they replicate the Mourinho route in choosing a manager, they may be stuck with a manager ill-equipped to operate on a shoestring budget with a group of under-performing and under-capable disaffected players. They may well not be able to strengthen in the summer, not least because of the club’s financial situation, but also because to do so might necessitate the loss of Harry Kane, the biggest draw for any player wanting to come to Spurs (who isn’t a striker).
In short, without significant investment in the first team, Tottenham may not be able to stop the rot. The “successes” of the last six or seven years may become a positive footnote for future generations to read of. A better time when Tottenham enjoyed a brief resurgence under the ENIC stewardship, where they finished second in the premiership and in the Champions League.
But, on a positive note, we can remember that Tottenham are a big club. The assets tell us so.
As our future selves watch Eric Dier and Davinson Sanchez ‘Sunday league ball-watching’ as Teemo Pukki steals in at the back post to nod home an 88th-minute goal to put the gloss on a 3-1 victory for Norwich at Carrow Road, in the 34th game of the season, once again depriving Tottenham of any European football the following season, at least the Levy Paradox means we, the fans, can take solace from knowing the players will reflect on that loss in their wonderful training complex, before losing 0-2 to Chelsea at the beautiful Tottenham Hotspur Stadium the following weekend.
No chance of a trophy, but who needs them? No one, these days, so long as your assets tell everyone just how big a club you are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some one send this Daniel and make him read it.
So in short, it's all Levy's fault.
If we spent net 150m we could challenge title
If we spent net 100m we could challenge top 4
Anything less and we are floating between 5th and 8th.
It's not exactly guaranteed, not even close that by spending tonnes of money Spurs would've won many major honors. It's not like you'd have ever out spent City, Chelsea or maybe even United and if you did make it to the top City would just blow another billion to regain their title.
The stadium was a better bet imo. Yes things haven't exactly gone brilliantly well since the move but it isn't necessarily because of the stadium, you appointed Mourinho and sacked Poch...
The Stadium was an absolute must. I really question any true supporter saying it wasn`t. And trying to outspend Man City and Chelsea would be a total nonsense, and the quickest way for the club to to bust.
I think the club have got the balance between new stadium and spending on players just about right. The only problem is most of the players purchased, some for very decent money, have not been very good.
The one thing you're failing to mention, Hezzman, despite your rather long-winded dissertation, is that whilst the training ground and stadium were being built, Poch was developing a squad that was capable of winning trophies. It's very easy to sit here post-Jose and say we didn't invest in the first team but the truth is that we were close, really close with the squad we had. When we did need investment in the squad a year or two later, the commitment to the stadium, one that absolutely had to happen to future proof the club, had already been made. At the point of the decision, we were flying.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but so is perspective. Let's judge how much investment is needed in this squad when we've managed to lift the confidence of the players out of the gutter that Jose had them firmly pressed in. It's only really fair to assess the squad once the new manager has lifted them all because, by and large, this very same squad has seen us punching above our financial weight by qualifying for the CL in four of the last six seasons. That's a true reflection of quality.
Then there's the recruitment we've already made which someone else mentioned earlier. As far as I'm concerned, we have invested a fair bit in recent years but we're not making the right decisions in the market. We bought Lo Celso when for similar money we could have got Fernandes. Over 60M on Ndombele. 30M Reggy. Bale - huge outlay in terms of wages. None of them, to a degree, have lived up to expectation. Prior to Ruben Dias joining City, our transfer record was more than theirs and even that one was close to the amount we paid for Ndombele. They've just got the recruitment bang on. As have Liverpool.
If you really drill down into the facts then you'll find that the money has been spent on players, just not the right players. We'll always get this wrong if we have a high turnover of managers.
Another recruitment issue is not selling at the right time. Most Liverpool fans were furious at the sale of Coutinho but look what they did with that money. Allison and VVD were the final piece in the jigsaw. We've had Kane, Son, Alli, Toby, Dier, Verts, Lloris and Eriksen stick around for a long, long time. Only Walker fits the mould of someone we sold for huge profit. We could have sold Dier to United for big bucks, same for Toby. Alli was worth a fortune a couple of years back and now they've all regressed. What's the phrase? Speculate to accumulate. We need to keep some but sell others to recruit again. The very best sides don't leave a squad for years to gather bacteria like we have. We should have been active sellers at the right time too.
Recruitment has been woeful and I think Levy is very much to blame for that as he has too much control in that regard.
comment by Ioavirgo (U10470)
posted 16 minutes ago
If we spent net 150m we could challenge title
If we spent net 100m we could challenge top 4
Anything less and we are floating between 5th and 8th.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as we do not pay more than £35-£40m on one player. Even then I would be worried. Pretty much every signing we have made north of £30m has either been average or flopped. Currently, Sanchez, Ndombele, GLC, Lamela, Sissoko are either not up to the task or have underwhelmed when given starts. Only GLC for me has the potential to become a really good signing but I am not very confident on that on his past performances but under a new manager who knows?
Our best signings in recent years have been Son, Toby, Dele(1st three years) Eriksen, PEH and Reg. Could maybe add Lucas to that list too. Rodon could be a bargin at £12m too. All under £30m. Players who were brought for low fees and showed they were hungry on the pitch to make an impact.
There is a whole list of players who have contracts expiring next summer across Europe who I would hope Levy/Hitchen are exploring. Deals like PEH and maybe even Sabitzer or Soumare of Lille. Much better players than Winks or Sissoko.
All very good points raised in this article and I agree with them all, but there is another, much more positive, way of looking at things.
With the right Manager, the next 5 years for us could look very bright. If Leicester can win the league/consistently finish in European places with their budget/base, we certainly can.
comment by SpursBoy101 (U21819)
posted 4 minutes ago
All very good points raised in this article and I agree with them all, but there is another, much more positive, way of looking at things.
With the right Manager, the next 5 years for us could look very bright. If Leicester can win the league/consistently finish in European places with their budget/base, we certainly can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the thing. The outlook feels bleak at this present moment but it doesn't take long for the sun to start shining again. A new manager coming in can change everything. Leicester were heading for the drop under Claude Puel and then suddenly Brendan comes in and it's all rosy.
We have to get recruitment right though. Leicester have got it right from root to branch. Owners, recruitment, manager, players. I think we need a return to the DOF model as I'm not sure what Steve Hitchen is actually doing to be honest. Has he got anything right yet?
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by SpursBoy101 (U21819)
posted 4 minutes ago
All very good points raised in this article and I agree with them all, but there is another, much more positive, way of looking at things.
With the right Manager, the next 5 years for us could look very bright. If Leicester can win the league/consistently finish in European places with their budget/base, we certainly can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the thing. The outlook feels bleak at this present moment but it doesn't take long for the sun to start shining again. A new manager coming in can change everything. Leicester were heading for the drop under Claude Puel and then suddenly Brendan comes in and it's all rosy.
We have to get recruitment right though. Leicester have got it right from root to branch. Owners, recruitment, manager, players. I think we need a return to the DOF model as I'm not sure what Steve Hitchen is actually doing to be honest. Has he got anything right yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitchen or whoever else will always be crippled by Levy demand of selling high and buying low.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
The Levy Paradox
Page 1 of 1
posted on 11/5/21
It is this approach that Manchester City adopted, that Liverpool have adopted, that Chelsea adopted, and that Leicester are now adopting. Team first, assets second. Essentially, a model which enables growth in assets born out of the success of the team. It is that success which makes the assets sustainable. Loss of Champions League revenue is devastating for Tottenham (Statista), as would loss of European football in its entirety. But this loss has been allowed to happen through the inefficient prioritisation of assets over team. If you allow your defence to deteriorate to the extent it has through underinvestment, the natural consequence is that it will not be able to defend as effectively as a better class of defence would be able to. This has been evident with Liverpool this season. They have conceded more goals without their three first-choice central defenders. This has been Liverpool’s bad luck, and it has seen them fall down the table. The parallel in Tottenham is that Spurs have actually conceded more goals than Liverpool, despite having had a their “best” defenders available throughout the season. So it is not bad luck which is the issue.
Underinvestment in Tottenham’s first team squad has precipitated this similar decline. However while Liverpool strengthened their first team in the January transfer window with two additional defenders (Goal) and are likely to continue to have funds available to strengthen that area in the summer (should they need to, as obviously their first choice defenders will return – Liverpool), Tottenham are said to have real cash-flow problems impacting their budget (Football.London).
Why the difference?
The prioritisation of assets over team.
Liverpool have not yet constructed a mega-stadium at Stanley Park in replace of Anfield. Liverpool continue to invest in team over assets. Their loss of defenders this season has been unlucky, and its impact has been clear. Yet, if you consider the same team with Virgil Van Dijk and Joel Matip / Joe Gomez at its heart throughout the season, their fortunes would likely have been markedly different.
The consequence is that next season, Liverpool will be stronger. They will almost invariably strengthen in the summer (if they need to) and will likely achieve a top-four position, as well as a lengthy European run in either the Champions or Europa League. Tottenham, by contrast, may well have a side which may not contain any of the four superstar players mentioned earlier. They may well have no European football. If they replicate the Mourinho route in choosing a manager, they may be stuck with a manager ill-equipped to operate on a shoestring budget with a group of under-performing and under-capable disaffected players. They may well not be able to strengthen in the summer, not least because of the club’s financial situation, but also because to do so might necessitate the loss of Harry Kane, the biggest draw for any player wanting to come to Spurs (who isn’t a striker).
In short, without significant investment in the first team, Tottenham may not be able to stop the rot. The “successes” of the last six or seven years may become a positive footnote for future generations to read of. A better time when Tottenham enjoyed a brief resurgence under the ENIC stewardship, where they finished second in the premiership and in the Champions League.
But, on a positive note, we can remember that Tottenham are a big club. The assets tell us so.
As our future selves watch Eric Dier and Davinson Sanchez ‘Sunday league ball-watching’ as Teemo Pukki steals in at the back post to nod home an 88th-minute goal to put the gloss on a 3-1 victory for Norwich at Carrow Road, in the 34th game of the season, once again depriving Tottenham of any European football the following season, at least the Levy Paradox means we, the fans, can take solace from knowing the players will reflect on that loss in their wonderful training complex, before losing 0-2 to Chelsea at the beautiful Tottenham Hotspur Stadium the following weekend.
No chance of a trophy, but who needs them? No one, these days, so long as your assets tell everyone just how big a club you are.
posted on 11/5/21
Another great editorial from thespursweb
posted on 11/5/21
Have to admit, I thought it odd Levy committing to building a new stadium at the point he did. I think you’d only had CL football for a couple of seasons at that point?
I remember a few Spurs posters saying you’d financed the build very differently to how Arsenal has the Emirates, and how it wouldn’t affect transfer funds, but many doubted that at the time, and there’s been little evidence since to suggest we were wrong.
It’s a nice stadium, but, as your say, it seems very much a cart-before-the-horse scenario you have now.
posted on 11/5/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/5/21
This is where Spurs are in a different position to us with Harry Kane. If you only needed two or three players to take you to the next level, I would say selling Kane could be for the greater good. As it stands, you'll need a keeper, RB, 2x CB's, CM and at least one CF to take you up to that next level.
exactly.
Spurs needed to sell Eriksen for a lot and properly invest that. Instead his contract was run down and didnt sign in the areas required and went 18 months doing fack all.
posted on 11/5/21
comment by Hezzman (U21558)
posted 2 hours, 1 minute ago
It is this approach that Manchester City adopted, that Liverpool have adopted, that Chelsea adopted, and that Leicester are now adopting. Team first, assets second. Essentially, a model which enables growth in assets born out of the success of the team. It is that success which makes the assets sustainable. Loss of Champions League revenue is devastating for Tottenham (Statista), as would loss of European football in its entirety. But this loss has been allowed to happen through the inefficient prioritisation of assets over team. If you allow your defence to deteriorate to the extent it has through underinvestment, the natural consequence is that it will not be able to defend as effectively as a better class of defence would be able to. This has been evident with Liverpool this season. They have conceded more goals without their three first-choice central defenders. This has been Liverpool’s bad luck, and it has seen them fall down the table. The parallel in Tottenham is that Spurs have actually conceded more goals than Liverpool, despite having had a their “best” defenders available throughout the season. So it is not bad luck which is the issue.
Underinvestment in Tottenham’s first team squad has precipitated this similar decline. However while Liverpool strengthened their first team in the January transfer window with two additional defenders (Goal) and are likely to continue to have funds available to strengthen that area in the summer (should they need to, as obviously their first choice defenders will return – Liverpool), Tottenham are said to have real cash-flow problems impacting their budget (Football.London).
Why the difference?
The prioritisation of assets over team.
Liverpool have not yet constructed a mega-stadium at Stanley Park in replace of Anfield. Liverpool continue to invest in team over assets. Their loss of defenders this season has been unlucky, and its impact has been clear. Yet, if you consider the same team with Virgil Van Dijk and Joel Matip / Joe Gomez at its heart throughout the season, their fortunes would likely have been markedly different.
The consequence is that next season, Liverpool will be stronger. They will almost invariably strengthen in the summer (if they need to) and will likely achieve a top-four position, as well as a lengthy European run in either the Champions or Europa League. Tottenham, by contrast, may well have a side which may not contain any of the four superstar players mentioned earlier. They may well have no European football. If they replicate the Mourinho route in choosing a manager, they may be stuck with a manager ill-equipped to operate on a shoestring budget with a group of under-performing and under-capable disaffected players. They may well not be able to strengthen in the summer, not least because of the club’s financial situation, but also because to do so might necessitate the loss of Harry Kane, the biggest draw for any player wanting to come to Spurs (who isn’t a striker).
In short, without significant investment in the first team, Tottenham may not be able to stop the rot. The “successes” of the last six or seven years may become a positive footnote for future generations to read of. A better time when Tottenham enjoyed a brief resurgence under the ENIC stewardship, where they finished second in the premiership and in the Champions League.
But, on a positive note, we can remember that Tottenham are a big club. The assets tell us so.
As our future selves watch Eric Dier and Davinson Sanchez ‘Sunday league ball-watching’ as Teemo Pukki steals in at the back post to nod home an 88th-minute goal to put the gloss on a 3-1 victory for Norwich at Carrow Road, in the 34th game of the season, once again depriving Tottenham of any European football the following season, at least the Levy Paradox means we, the fans, can take solace from knowing the players will reflect on that loss in their wonderful training complex, before losing 0-2 to Chelsea at the beautiful Tottenham Hotspur Stadium the following weekend.
No chance of a trophy, but who needs them? No one, these days, so long as your assets tell everyone just how big a club you are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some one send this Daniel and make him read it.
posted on 11/5/21
So in short, it's all Levy's fault.
posted on 11/5/21
If we spent net 150m we could challenge title
If we spent net 100m we could challenge top 4
Anything less and we are floating between 5th and 8th.
posted on 11/5/21
It's not exactly guaranteed, not even close that by spending tonnes of money Spurs would've won many major honors. It's not like you'd have ever out spent City, Chelsea or maybe even United and if you did make it to the top City would just blow another billion to regain their title.
The stadium was a better bet imo. Yes things haven't exactly gone brilliantly well since the move but it isn't necessarily because of the stadium, you appointed Mourinho and sacked Poch...
posted on 11/5/21
The Stadium was an absolute must. I really question any true supporter saying it wasn`t. And trying to outspend Man City and Chelsea would be a total nonsense, and the quickest way for the club to to bust.
I think the club have got the balance between new stadium and spending on players just about right. The only problem is most of the players purchased, some for very decent money, have not been very good.
posted on 11/5/21
The one thing you're failing to mention, Hezzman, despite your rather long-winded dissertation, is that whilst the training ground and stadium were being built, Poch was developing a squad that was capable of winning trophies. It's very easy to sit here post-Jose and say we didn't invest in the first team but the truth is that we were close, really close with the squad we had. When we did need investment in the squad a year or two later, the commitment to the stadium, one that absolutely had to happen to future proof the club, had already been made. At the point of the decision, we were flying.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but so is perspective. Let's judge how much investment is needed in this squad when we've managed to lift the confidence of the players out of the gutter that Jose had them firmly pressed in. It's only really fair to assess the squad once the new manager has lifted them all because, by and large, this very same squad has seen us punching above our financial weight by qualifying for the CL in four of the last six seasons. That's a true reflection of quality.
Then there's the recruitment we've already made which someone else mentioned earlier. As far as I'm concerned, we have invested a fair bit in recent years but we're not making the right decisions in the market. We bought Lo Celso when for similar money we could have got Fernandes. Over 60M on Ndombele. 30M Reggy. Bale - huge outlay in terms of wages. None of them, to a degree, have lived up to expectation. Prior to Ruben Dias joining City, our transfer record was more than theirs and even that one was close to the amount we paid for Ndombele. They've just got the recruitment bang on. As have Liverpool.
If you really drill down into the facts then you'll find that the money has been spent on players, just not the right players. We'll always get this wrong if we have a high turnover of managers.
posted on 11/5/21
Another recruitment issue is not selling at the right time. Most Liverpool fans were furious at the sale of Coutinho but look what they did with that money. Allison and VVD were the final piece in the jigsaw. We've had Kane, Son, Alli, Toby, Dier, Verts, Lloris and Eriksen stick around for a long, long time. Only Walker fits the mould of someone we sold for huge profit. We could have sold Dier to United for big bucks, same for Toby. Alli was worth a fortune a couple of years back and now they've all regressed. What's the phrase? Speculate to accumulate. We need to keep some but sell others to recruit again. The very best sides don't leave a squad for years to gather bacteria like we have. We should have been active sellers at the right time too.
Recruitment has been woeful and I think Levy is very much to blame for that as he has too much control in that regard.
posted on 11/5/21
comment by Ioavirgo (U10470)
posted 16 minutes ago
If we spent net 150m we could challenge title
If we spent net 100m we could challenge top 4
Anything less and we are floating between 5th and 8th.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as we do not pay more than £35-£40m on one player. Even then I would be worried. Pretty much every signing we have made north of £30m has either been average or flopped. Currently, Sanchez, Ndombele, GLC, Lamela, Sissoko are either not up to the task or have underwhelmed when given starts. Only GLC for me has the potential to become a really good signing but I am not very confident on that on his past performances but under a new manager who knows?
Our best signings in recent years have been Son, Toby, Dele(1st three years) Eriksen, PEH and Reg. Could maybe add Lucas to that list too. Rodon could be a bargin at £12m too. All under £30m. Players who were brought for low fees and showed they were hungry on the pitch to make an impact.
There is a whole list of players who have contracts expiring next summer across Europe who I would hope Levy/Hitchen are exploring. Deals like PEH and maybe even Sabitzer or Soumare of Lille. Much better players than Winks or Sissoko.
posted on 11/5/21
All very good points raised in this article and I agree with them all, but there is another, much more positive, way of looking at things.
With the right Manager, the next 5 years for us could look very bright. If Leicester can win the league/consistently finish in European places with their budget/base, we certainly can.
posted on 11/5/21
comment by SpursBoy101 (U21819)
posted 4 minutes ago
All very good points raised in this article and I agree with them all, but there is another, much more positive, way of looking at things.
With the right Manager, the next 5 years for us could look very bright. If Leicester can win the league/consistently finish in European places with their budget/base, we certainly can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the thing. The outlook feels bleak at this present moment but it doesn't take long for the sun to start shining again. A new manager coming in can change everything. Leicester were heading for the drop under Claude Puel and then suddenly Brendan comes in and it's all rosy.
We have to get recruitment right though. Leicester have got it right from root to branch. Owners, recruitment, manager, players. I think we need a return to the DOF model as I'm not sure what Steve Hitchen is actually doing to be honest. Has he got anything right yet?
posted on 11/5/21
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by SpursBoy101 (U21819)
posted 4 minutes ago
All very good points raised in this article and I agree with them all, but there is another, much more positive, way of looking at things.
With the right Manager, the next 5 years for us could look very bright. If Leicester can win the league/consistently finish in European places with their budget/base, we certainly can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the thing. The outlook feels bleak at this present moment but it doesn't take long for the sun to start shining again. A new manager coming in can change everything. Leicester were heading for the drop under Claude Puel and then suddenly Brendan comes in and it's all rosy.
We have to get recruitment right though. Leicester have got it right from root to branch. Owners, recruitment, manager, players. I think we need a return to the DOF model as I'm not sure what Steve Hitchen is actually doing to be honest. Has he got anything right yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitchen or whoever else will always be crippled by Levy demand of selling high and buying low.
Page 1 of 1